THE LAND BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8251, 4 October 1906, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

DISCUSSED BY THE FARMERS 1 UNION. A special meeting of tbe Masterton brunoh of the New Zealand Farmers' Union was held, yesterday afternoon, to consider the Land Bill now before Paxliament. Mr W. Perry occupied the chair, and there were also present—Messrs J. Cross, F. Maunsell, E. Meredith, C. IS. Cockburn llood, D. McGregor, jnr., W. Miller, N. Fowler, U. Rayner, G. Maunsell, J. Judd, J. Bourke, A. Mutrie, J. Colway, D. McKenzie, H. Falloon, T. T. HHlhs, J. Welch, W. 11. Beutham, H. Morriaun, J. O.McKillop. The Chairman briefly outlined the Bill. He snid that one of the proposals in the Bill was to stop the sale of Crown lands and give them as education, charitable aid, etc. Another proposal was to do away with the 999 years' lease, and substitute a 66 years' lease with a renewal clause. At the end of the 66 years the property was leased again, loaded with the improvements. He read the Bill to mean that if the Government valuer valued the property when tbe lease was up, and found that the value of the property bad not increased since the owner topk it up, the lessee went out without any recompense. Another clause was the limiting of any holder to 50,000 acres unimproved land, and to 1,000 acres of first-class land. It was also proposed that any one land owner could not have more than 1,000 acres of first-class laud in his own name. This clause, he thought, seriously effected the people of New Zealand. Personally, he thought a strong protest should be en tered again it tbe Bill, which he considered unsuitable in every way. The Bill did not trouble the large farmer, but it was the small farmer that it would hit the hardest.

Mr Meredith condemned the Bill geaerally. The speaker then went on to show the difficulties under which the early settlers of the Wairarapa obtained land and the trouble thpy had taken to fertilise the soil. When he first passed through the Wairarapa there were only 12 settlers holding land from the natives on lease. The result of these settlers obta'ning the land was that the Government represented to the Imperial authorities that no more native land was available as the settlers were already in possession of the native lands. The Imperial Government at unce passed an Act preventing the settlers making any land transactions direct with the natives under a penalty of £SOO. At that time there were scarcely any improvements on Ihe land, bat those 12 holdings quoted above developed in 1904-5 (the latest return he had available) into nearly 2,000 holdings, made up as follow:Masterton County, 827 holdings; South Wairarapa County, 568 holdings; Fe'atheraton County, 54b holdings. Now the settlers who were responsible for cultivating the soil in the Wairaraoa into a fertile state would have their holdings made insecure by the Land Bill. "It was a monstrous injustice," added Mr Meredith. To show how the early New Zealand settlers had worked to fertilise the soil he would compare the area under grass in New Zealand with each of the Australian States, keeping in mind that in the early days New Zealand was not so plentifully endowed by nature with grass as the Australian States. The comparison was as follows: — Queensland, 34,679 acres; New South Wales, 467,739 aores; Victoria, 207,896 acres; South Australia, 205,010 aores; Tasmania, 314,422 aores; West Australia, 11,132 aores; and New Zealand, 13,620,178 acres. He added that business men generally condemned the Bill, and he thought that the banks would no longor advance money where there would be no longer any security. Be moved: — "That while :t would be most injurious and a gross breach of faith to interfere with or in any way compromise existing land titles, it is manifestly inconsistent that owners and occupiers of highly-improved and large productive freetiold estates that are contributing largely to the revenue of the country, should be liable to be disturbed or be restricted in dealing with their land in the faoe of such a vast extent of native land remuiuing idle anc 5 unproductive. This branch of the Farmers' Union enters its emphatic protest against legislation in the direction indicated by the Land Bill now before Parliament." Mr'Mutrie seconded the motion.

Mr Baetham said that after studying the Bill he had come to the conclusion that it was a very dangerous measure. He had written to a friend in Uawke's Bay asking him for au opinion ou the Bill; The reply he bad received was that his friend was beginning to think that "New Zoaiand would be a gratzd country to live out of," . "We all recognise," said Mr Beetham, "that it is a good thiug to settle tbo country, but these arbitrary methods of taking the land are objectionable and, 1 maintain, injurious."

Mr J. Colway, sneaking from the small land-owners' point of view, thought the Bill had one good point about it, that is, that it aimed at restricting persons from holding large blocks of laud. Mr Cockbum-Hood said that he agreed with the resolution. He considered that the Bill was the most far-reacbiGg ever introduced in any part of the British Empire, and* it was impossible to foresee the result of it. He thought it very unfair that a man oould buy aa much land as he pleased in the towns, but he must not hold mure than 1,000 acres in the oountry. He considered that every facility should be given to capital to go into the country, and make it suitable for small settlements. The Bill proposed to classify land into first class, second class and third class land, but how were those classes to be determined, asked the speaker. In his mind, before the Bill was passed, the land in the colony should be classified so that eaoh settler would know how his land would be treated. He would support the resolution simply as a protest against the injury the Bill would dc the farmers and business people of tbe colony. The motion was then put to the

meeting and carried unanimously

. The following resolutions were also passed:—"lhat it was not right for the Government to bring in a measure embodyine such entirely new principles, especially in regard to limitation of property, and attempting to pass it into law before the oountry has had an opportunity of considering it; that, the branch does not agree to the proposals to stop the sale of all Crown lands, so that no further freehold ouuld be obtained from the State; that the branch was not satisfied with the proposals in relation to the lease-in-perpetuity; that the brunch was against the Bill.