apart from these, the details of the measure appear to me susceptible of much improvement, and I cannot doubt that the Minister will gladly receive suggestions made in that direction. Every member who has gone over the Bill will no doubt refer particularly to those details which he regards as of more or less importance from his point of view. I propose selecting a few on which I hold a very definite opinion; and I shall here indicate, without any further elaboration than is necessary to make my meaning clear, the direction which I think amendments upon them should take. Look at clause 4-"The Governor shall have power to make regulations." And here follow fourteen subsections of rules and regulations, each one of which is equivalent to an Act of Parliament, and not one of which should have force or effect until it has the sanction of this House. An autocracy could claim no larger powers than are here sought for by a professedly democratic Government. Orders in Council of all kinds are liable to abuse, and are abused. This, however, is the largest order I have yet come across, and I hardly think a majority in this House will be prepared to honour it. It is true that all such rules and regulations are to be laid before this House within fourteen days after the commencement of the session,- which is very much like locking the stable-door after the steed is stolen. For example: this House will be prorogued, I presume, early in September. Towards the end of that month a series of these rules and regulations may be issued, and they can work their wicked will unchallenged for nine months. It will never do. I wonder that the Minister ever proposed such a thing. Another important point-indeed, it is hardly a point, for as far as I can see it runs largely throughout the whole Bill, and becomes a system-may be referred to under clauses 30 and 31. It is a system of inspection; and such a system is absolutely necessary where people are gathered together, or have to work together in crowds or in considerable numbers. I do not say it may not be necessary to a certain extent in the country, but the system shadowed forth in these clauses-the appointment of Rangers and Inspectors-a monstrous regiment of officials-seems to me not only offensive but uncalled - for. I shall defer to the opinion of members who should know country life better than I do; but I should suppose that the peeping and prying of these officials would worry the lives out of decent settlers, who, so long as their neighbours have no cause of complaint, should be largely left to work in their own way and after their own plans. Unless good reason is shown to the contrary, I shall be found opposing all needless interference

of Carlyle-came to be regarded as a rule and a sort of gospel, tenants of land were content, and possession of farms went from father to son with about as much regularity as their ownership in the same line of descent. I do not refer to this remnant of the feudal system as an ideal to be restored; but there was a soul of good in it, and if our fathers and our grandfathers lived under it—if they were only tenants of the land they tilled-some of them in a small way enough and were well content to be sowhence, I ask, has come all at once this overweening love for freehold ? Do we not also hear constantly of how the people prefer town to country life? Statistics go to show approximately that 60 per cent. of our population live in the towns, and only the remaining 40 per cent. in the country - a fact which will not square, try it any way you please, with this ardent desire to own land. There are reasons for this state of things to which I may have occasion to refer further on; meantime, it goes to swell the proof that this craving for freehold land exists only in the imagination of gentlemen who, by hook or by crook, have obtained freeholds for themselves. They no doubt are fond of the freehold, they judge others by themselves, and they would fain justify their action to their own consciences: hence they have got up and sedulously propagated this figment, until, I dare say, they believe it. Sir, if these gentlemen had the courage of their opinions they could not fail to see that they are standing directly in the way of their practical application. It is an impossibility for our population to obtain sufficient land for settlement, either freehold or leasehold, so long as the Halls and the Russells, the Buchanans and the Rhodeses, with their kith-and-kin, monopolize ten, or twenty, or thirty thousand acres of the best of it. If they would vindicate the sincerity of their contention they should surrender these ill-gotten acres on easy terms, and give a chance to other men who are just as deserving as the best of them. We are all selfish I should not like to be the first man to cast a stone at my neighbour, but I cannot refrain from saying that this desire for ownership -the vulgar pride of being able to say, "This is mine," and "This is mine"-is a specially offensive development of selfishness. We come upon it in the towns as well as in the country. A citizen, for example, has a nice garden-plot, and he cultivates some fine shrubs and flowers. Instead of an open fence, through which the passer-by may enjoy the beauty of these shrubs and flowers, their owner erects a monstrosity of corrugated iron, which hides the view and makes his place look like a prison. "It is mine," he says; "a poor thing, but mine own," as Touchstone said. And men of this cha-with the cultivators of the soil. Clause 108 racter would wall in the blue sky if they could. But this is by the way. Apart, then, from the principle of the Bill, on which we do not agree, and the good intentions of the Minister of Lands-and I do not think that those most opposed to my honourable friend can question the goodness of his intentions or the singleness of his purpose in furthering land-settlement

fixes the amount of land which may be sold or leased in any one lot. The area-640 acres of first-class land and 2,000 acres of second-class land-will generally be considered as too large; but meantime let that pass. There are, however, other limitations required. Any one already holding this or any larger area of land should not be permitted to acquire more; and

as it is settlement, not speculation or mere an article of commerce it does seem very pennymoney-making, we seek to promote, it follows wise and pound-foolish to cut down our bush as that no financial or land company,-no com- we are doing simply to turn fine timber into ashes. pany of any kind, except it were on the prin- It appears to me that a survey should be made ciple of co-operative farming, should be per- of our forests, and that they should be subjected mitted hereafter to acquire land. I notice, by to a system of care and management; certain clause 185, that the area of pastoral runs is areas only should be open for settlement or for regulated not by extent of territory, but by license to cut the bush, and certain areas should capability of maintenance for sheep or cattle. be reserved and maintained as reserves. The subI have no doubt that will be found a suitable ject altogether is one deserving more attention arrangement; but the numbers fixed-20,000 than this House is disposed to give it. Another sheep or 4,000 head of cattle-mean a good deal very important point arises out of this Bill. I more in the way of profit-making than 640 acres have already spoken of the unwillingness of of agricultural land, and it appears to me there numbers of people to live in the country. What should be a fair proportion maintained between is the cause of it? To my thinking, much of it the two classes of land. Let me be clearly arises from the mode in which we have hitherto understood. There should always be enough settled the land-often planting houses as far of land, with industry and care, to insure com- away from one another as the boundaries of petence, and all the simple elegancies of life for the respective allotments would permit, as the farmer and the flockowner. We are seek- if the settlers meant to do each other bodily ing to establish homes, where families can grow harm. Hence isolation, and, occasionally, loneup rooted to the soil, and loving the piece of liness, from which the majority of people country which gives them shade and shelter-instinctively shrink. The human race is grea population of "hopeful yesterdays and con- garious; its members like the company of one fident to-morrows." There should be pecu- another: not necessarily in crowds, in which niary independence. If any profits more and individuals are sometimes as lonely as in a farther follow, good and well; but these are desert; but a sufficient number to afford scope not necessary, and hardly even desirable. Why, for the stimulus of conflicting opinions and the Sir, a pastoralist on the braes of Yarrow or exercise of neighbourly offices. And this, as Liddle, in Scotland, who can fold a couple of it appears to me, is the secret of the town's thousand ewes, "gimmers," and rams, is justly attraction over the country. The remedy is considered a man of substance. I should think obvious. Each area of the country about to be that five thousand fleeces annually in New settled should be mapped out upon a defined Zealand ought to satisfy any man's reasonable plan, having respect to its general configuration, desires for competence and comfort. Persons with the farms branching outward from a comlike Campbell and Company, who shear ninety mon centre, where the houses should be built in thousand sheep, or Mr. Moore, of Glenmark, close proximity, with little more perhaps than who follows close upon that number, not to a strip of garden between them, thus affording run over a list of Halls, and McLeans, and abundant neighbourliness, and having a school McKenzies, and Bells, and Russells, who top or hall where the village fathers could meet at the twenty thousand and thirty thousand sheep night to discuss public and social affairs, read -men of this class are a block and a barrier the newspapers, and generally take stock of what to the best interests of the country. Before was going on. Here also might be the dairy I leave this part of the Bill I wish to make factory and other co-operative mechanism. But a further remark. Clause 141 refuses the I have occupied sufficient time of the House, Crown grant to a cash purchaser of land until and make way for others. he has made certain improvements. I do not attach much importance to this point, but I can believe there may be many who would do so, and I think they have reason on their side. The man has paid his money and made his choice, and the State should regard his bargain as complete. This was a clause, I shall be told, in the early Land Acts of the Otago Provincial Council. That is a precedent, certainly, but not a justification, unless we are to assume that all wisdom centred in the Otago fathers, and that it must not die with them. They were a shrewd, worthy race; but the world moves on, and, if there is any objection to the clause, I will vote for its elimination. Part VII. deals with licenses for cutting timber. but does not touch what I think is the important point with reference to our forest-land. We are parting with it in a manner which, having regard to its powers of protection from extremes of temperature and its necessity in an equable distribution of the rainfall, I cannot characterize as other than reckless. Even as

Mr. McGUIRE. I must compliment the honourable member who has just spoken on the very able speech he has made this evening. I regret very much that the honourable member for Rangitikei thought it necessary to move this amendment, for the only effect of the amendment is a sheer waste of time. Now, I think this House ought to be satisfied with the waste of time that has taken place already. I thought that sufficient steam had been blown off during the debate which took place on the Financial Statement, that there would be no waste of time after that, and that members would be anxious to proceed with the business of the country. I was sorry to see in the other debate and also in this so many personalities: indeed, a great deal of the time of the House is taken up in personalities. Sir, no doubt you regret as much as I do to see members indulging in personalities, and I venture to predict that the country is really tired of the waste of time and the indulgence in this direction. I agree with the Minister of Lands

leader of the Opposition-namely, to do my
best at the proper time to amend the Bill in
the interest of bona fide settlers, to do away
with dummyism, and administer the lands in
the interest of the industrial classes. But I
say plainly and distinctly that I am altogether
opposed to the Government interfering with
cash land. I contend that when lands are
purchased for cash, and the price is paid in full,
that is an executed contract. The certificate
of title should be issued as soon as possible,
and be handed over to the purchaser.
point, and several other points, I will take my
stand. But the proper time for doing so, in
my opinion, is when the Bill is returned to this
House from the Waste Lands Committee. I
shall support the second reading of the Bill,
in order to allow it to be sent to the Waste
Lands Committee.

On this

that the land system in the past has not been satisfactory, because it has tended to the accumulation of large estates. Any system that will prevent that will be in the interests of New Zealand, and shall have my hearty support. With a thriving population rooted to the soil, contented and happy, when that takes place, New Zealand will be in a fair way of becoming a great nation. Now, the area of land in the hands of the Crown is growing beautifully less year by year; it is therefore necessary to dispose of the remainder of the land in the most prudent manner possible, in order that every small farm shall maintain a bona fide settler and his family. I will give the Government every credit for honestly attempting to do the best according to their lights in this all-important matter, and particularly the Minister of Lands, who, I believe, has only one object in view in this matter- namely, the Mr. BUCHANAN.-I should like to have an settlement of the people on the waste lands of opportunity of saying a few words as to the the Crown. I am pleased to see the honourable amendment now before the House. The Minisgentleman proposes to add a new clause, or ter of Lands said that he had been accused of rather to make an addition to the clause preventing the acquisition of the freehold, and with regard to the perpetual lease that the he went on to say that all he asked was that lease will not be for fifty years, but will be the settler should choose his own tenure, and for all time, and at a fixed rent, which will stated over and over again that he would be not rise or fall. Of course, this is a step that the last to refuse him his freehold. Now, Sir, ought to be taken with great caution and I do not like to hansardise as a rule, but I great care, because the Liberal party have have the authority of his colleague the Minister always contended about the unearned increof Education in justification of such a course. ment of the land, and this alteration will, He says it is very necessary to refer to the at all events, do away with that. However, I past utterances of honourable gentlemen in this think it is a step in the right direction. He House in order to show their inconsistency. also allows owners of these leaseholds to sell Let me put before the House what the Minister out their interests under certain conditions. of Lands said quite recently with regard to the With that also I am thoroughly in accord. I freehold-not at a public meeting; not at a think that this proposal in regard to the per- banquet, where excitement from various causes petual lease is all that could be desired, and may have run away with the honourable gentleis certainly an advance step in the right direc-man's judgment; but writing from his office tion. Seeing that the honourable gentleman to the Chamber of Commerce at Palmerston. in charge of the Bill is prepared to meet any This is what he wrote: " The history of the reasonable amendment, and has expressed a past clearly shows that, whenever the opporhope that honourable gentlemen will assist him tunity of acquiring the freehold has been in making the Land Bill a good, useful mea- afforded, settlement has not taken place: on sure, I think honourable members should the contrary, the land has been sold for specutake the honourable gentleman at his word, lative purposes.' and co-operate with him in trying to make the Bill, in the interests of the masses, a thoroughly good and useful measure in the true interest of the colony in general. He has also stated that honourable members should suggest improvements, and he would accept them with pleasure. I shall take advantage of the honourable gentleman's suggestion when the Bill returns from the Waste Lands Committee. I trust that the Government will see their way to advance money to their own tenants on the security of their improvements to the amount of 50 per cent. of such improvements, the money advance to bear interest at 6 per cent., but 1 per cent. of the 6 per cent. to provide a sinking fund. Moneys should be lent by the State in a similar way to all bona fide farmers. This would materially assist men without means, and help them to bring their lands quickly into profitable occupation, which, to my mind, would be a step in the right direction. Sir, I take the view of the

Mr. J. MCKENZIE.-Hear, hear.

Mr. BUCHANAN. -"Hear, hear." But I ask the honourable gentleman, why has settlement not taken place? Is it because an opportunity for acquiring the freehold has been given?

Mr. J. MCKENZIE.--Because you and men like you have swallowed it up.

Mr. ROLLESTON.-Sir, that is an expression which ought not be used. I think the honourable member should be called upon to withdraw it.

Mr. SPEAKER. I can scarcely rule the language as disorderly, although I think it is of a character not desirable.

Mr. BUCHANAN.-The honourable gentleman said, because I swallowed up all the land. Mr. J. MCKENZIE.-I did not say you individually.

Mr. BUCHANAN.-I think the honourable gentleman said so. Well, all I have to say is that I have been elected and re-elected as a

title as soon as possible. Now let me say a few words as to the Land Bill itself. If the honourable gentleman were, as he has already stated, so favourable to the acquisition of the freehold by settlers of this colony as he pretends to be, would he not by every means endeavour to give them the same opportunity and the same terms as to payment as he does to those who have land under the perpetual lease? But what do we find? We find in clause 32 that the option given is this: that land may, at the option of the applicant, be purchased for cash, or be selected for occupation with right of purchase, or on perpetual lease. Now, option, as regards occupation with right of purchase, means 5 per cent. rental, while under the perrental is reduced to 4 per cent. If the honourable gentleman was honest as to what he asserted in this House, he would put both systems under the same rate of interest; but he stands convicted of belying his words by his actions, like his chief the Premier. Then, again, he says that cash sales always result in a large number of transfers to large owners. Now, in the Financial Statement we had an assertion by the Premier to this effect: that the holders of small areas of land can always afford to pay a higher rent for the land than those who hold in large blocks. If that is so, why all this pretence of hedging round to prevent the large holder from swallowing up the small one? If the assertion in the Financial Statement has any truth in it, then it follows at once that the owner of a small allotment of land could always be trusted to hold on to it, because it is more valuable to him than it could possibly be to the large owner. Then, there is another assertion by the Premier, that of all sorts of dangers the worst is the tendency to resort to money-lenders, and for this reason the settlers should not be allowed to borrow. I do detest the un-English tendency of the Government and a section of the House to treat the settlers as if they were tenderfoots-a term used by Americans to describe new chums and people who are supposed to be unable to look after themselves. Why should the aspersion be cast on the settlers of this country that they are not as well able to conduct their own business and to hold their own as any other class of the community? I for my part consider it is a slur to which the settlers of the country should not be subjected; that they are an honour to the country, and can challenge comparison with the settlers of any other country under the sun. Then, the question is asked whether private owners are prepared to give the freehold in the same way as we ask the Government to do so. It must be obvious to any honourable gentleman of common-sense that the conditions are not parallel at all. To begin with, the freehold is frequently given by the private owner on certain terms. In the early history of Canterbury landsettlement, as my honourable friend the member for Ellesmere will be able to remember, many of the settlers in Canterbury acquired the land by taking a lease with a right of purchase at any time within a term of years. And I may

member of this House several times, and I will not give way to the honourable gentleman for one moment if he assumes that the electors who sent me here are not every whit as intelligent as those who sent him to this House. Surely they may be fairly left to judge as to whether I do justice to the settlers or not-as to whether I swallow up all the land. And here, before I go further, I should like to refer to a remark of the honourable member for Dunedin City (Mr. W. Hutchison) with regard to the honourable member for Hawke's Bay. He accused the honourable gentleman of acquiring his land in a manner not favourable to morality, and he went on to make some further remarks in the same strain. Now, Sir, I think language like that was very unworthy of the honour-petual lease without right of purchase the able gentleman. What has been the history of the honourable member for Hawke's Bay? His history has been this: that he has been elected again and again to a seat in this House; and, if I mistake not, at the last general election he was returned by a larger majority than any other honourable member who holds a seat in this House. Need I say anything further in defence of the honourable gentleman? I think it is not necessary for me to say anything at all, seeing the quarter from which the accusation came. As to the Premier, and the assertions he made last night,-that he was not inimical to the freehold; that he had never advocated withholding the freehold from settlers, there is not the slightest necessity that I should say one word, after the ample proof which member after member has given from the honourable gentleman's own mouth of the disingenuousness and entire dishonesty, from a political point of view, of what he asserted last night. There is, however, one point, which has not been brought before the House by any previous speaker, which I should like to mention. There are honourable members in this House, no doubt, who recollect the famous Bill which was circulated throughout the colony, but which, I believe, was not introduced in this House, of which the honourable gentleman was joint author with Sir Robert Stout. The name of it was the Land Acquisition Bill, and its provisions were that on a petition from a certain number of settlers in any part of the colony the Government would be empowered to take the land in any estate up to a certain acreage, paying therefor a price to be settled in the usual way by the Public Works Act. I would ask whether the Premier has in any way altered his real opinion since that time. His utterances during the recess would show that he has not altered his opinion in any way, and that he would bar every settler in the colony from his freehold if he dared. Now, as to the Minister of Lands, we all know his great admiration for Sir Robert Stout. We know he has been a very apt pupil of that gentleman in the past, and I do not think I am stating what is incorrect when I assert that the honourable gentleman holds the same opinion as Sir Robert Stout on this question: that is to say, he would like to see every settler in the colony deprived of his freehold