believe the worst thing we can do is to sell our lands. We should in this respect endeavour to retrace our steps in every possible way, and I think it is time we should give a warning from this Parliament that there is no more uncertain tenure at the present time than the freehold. That is the tenure which will be attacked in the future, and if a man wants to have a settled tenure he should go in for a lease subject to periodical valuation. I am told that in a short time we shall have a Bill-the Land for Settlements Bill-placed before us. I am told that this is an exceedingly good Bill: and I believe it is a good Bill. It is a Bill which I shall heartily support; but, if the lands proposed to be resumed under that Bill are to be dealt with in the same way as the lands dealt with in the Bill before us, I shall certainly not be able to support it. I think there is good reason why we should go on resuming lands. In the Old Country we see local bodies purchasing lands for the use of the community, and they are keeping lands for that purpose; but here we are purchasing land and selling it again. Surely we should have some reserves for the nation, as well as those towns which have reserved lands for the benefit of the municipality. It is exactly the same principle, and should be applied to the nation quite as much as to the municipalities. I do not wish to say anything further than simply to express my regret that no other way could have been adopted to obtain money to road these lands than in the proposal now before us. I think some other course should have been adopted.

The Hon. Mr. SHRIMSKI.-Sir, I cannot agree with what my honourable friend has just said in regard to the freehold holding. When the purchase of this estate first took place 1 rejoiced in it, because I thought it would be for the benefit of the people-that the purchase was made in order that people might be placed upon the land, and therefore this purchase would benefit the community as a whole. To the way in which the land has been cut up, and is to be disposed of, I take exception. I do not see why a Government should borrow money to buy such a large estate, and then resell it at a figure of 5 per cent. on the outlay. Such a course will reduce the whole of the property in the colony, and benefit nobody, although it may be, for the time being, in favour of the Government. Sir, the sale of this property in the way proposed I entirely object to. If the Government want to acquire property and I think they do require to do so they should be allowed to purchase land if it is required to promote the settlement of the colony. But, when that land is proposed to be sold, I think there should be some proof shown of the bona fides of the proposal. In this case, I think the reason given is not bona fide, and I, for one, entirely object to it; because, as I have said, what have we done that we should be punished by having to pay extra taxation to enable the Government to purchase this property for other people to settle upon at 5 per cent. rent? And who is going to settle

upon it? The very people we do not want to see there. And what will be the result hereafter? It will be this: that these people, when a change of Ministry takes place, will bring pressure to bear upon the incoming Ministry, and they will say, "We are paying too much for it"; and then Ministers, whoever they may be, for the purpose of catching votes will say, "We will consider your request and reduce the interest." The many will be taxed for the benefit of the few. I am perfectly satisfied that the interest on the purchase-money should be greater than the 5 per cent. the Government are proposing to charge for it; and so I say that the whole population will be taxed for the benefit of the few, who, I regret to say, are not the people I should like to see there, because the land is to be cut up into such large areas that it will not produce bonâ fide settlement. Under the circumstances, unless I hear something better in support of the measure than I have heard as yet, I shall vote against it, most certainly.

The Hon. Mr. STEVENS.-I have a remark or two to make, Sir, even upon the second reading. Most of the points already raised are of a Committee nature, which must always be the case in questions of this kind. I quite agree with my honourable friend that the subject has become wearisome; but the degree to which it has become wearisome hitherto is, I promise him, nothing to what it will be before he has done with it. My object in addressing the Council on the present occasion is to draw the attention of honourable members to a very important question with regard to the Cheviot purchase. The land was acquired under the Land Assessment Act for the protection of the revenue, and it is for the purpose of protecting the revenue and for no other purpose that such a purchase as that can be justified. On the valuations that were given, I have no doubt that the Government considered themselves quite justified in acquiring the property for the protection of the revenue; but I submit that if the principle of the Land Assessment Act-which has been in existence, so far as these provisions are concerned, ever since the year 1881-had been observed, my honourable friends would have sold the land to the highest bidder, in order to justify the action of the Government, and to satisfy the public at large that they had bought the property for the protection of the revenue, and for no other purpose, and bought it at a safe price. The valuations which were made, and upon which my honourable friend evidently relies, were made with a view of realising revenue, and not with a view of settlement. I submit to the honourable gentleman that it makes all the difference in the world if this is to be subject to enormous expenditure in roads, and even railway-making, as has been suggested; and when we are to have an army of surveyors cutting the whole place up into small pieces, or a very large portion of it, it is a very different thing indeed from protection of revenue, which the acquisition of this property is supposed to secure. I only want to call the atten

tion of the Council to this as a leading point: that if this sort of treatment, which is said to be "for the protection of the revenue," becomes a practice, anything more disastrous to the finances of the colony can hardly be conceived. If we are to make use of one Act for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the Land for Settlements Act, which has been passed with a limit of £50,000 a year-if we are going to enlarge it by a side-wind both as a matter of administration and of legislation, the condition of the country will presently become one of absolute terror. I do trust that my honourable friends, so long as they remain in office, will not repeat this experiment in this manner. They have provided themselves, through the medium of legislation, with power to take property for the purpose of settlement, and the Legislature has put a limit upon it, as I have said; but this is a very extensive increase on those powers, and one which, I venture to think, will prove of a highly-dangerous character. As far as the details of the Bill are concerned, I will not occupy more time than sufficient to call attention to one point. The whole of this property is to be taken at an upset price equal to 4 per cent., to include all the costs of surveys, roads, railways, and improvements. There is no provision, as far as I can see, for any change in the value of the property, or as to the inability of the property to return 4 per cent. after all this expenditure has been made.

The Hon. Mr. W. C. WALKER.-I only wish to say a few words, Sir. Apparently, from one side and another, objections are being raised to this Bill, and I desire, as far as I can, to give my opinion upon it. The Hon. Mr. Bolt represents the extreme opinion of the country on the land question. I do not think I am misrepresenting him when I say so; and to a very large extent I am with him. I believe that in dealing with the lands of this country we should remember the experience of the last fifty years, that we may be enabled to make a very much wiser land-law than we were able to do when we had no experience. While that honourable gentleman complained that this property is being dealt with on the lines of the present Land Act, I think he is not fair to the Minister of Lands, who is only able to do with the Crown lands what the Legislature gives him power to do. It is well known that the present Minister of Lands proposed to Parliament a measure for dealing with land which was on very much more radical lines than the recent Land Act; but why was the present Land Act passed? Why did he modify his original proposals? Simply because he found that Parliament was not prepared to go as far as he individually was; and therefore, as a practical man, he said, "I will get as much as I can, and use the present Land Act as well as I can." It is a Land Act which does not propose to go the length of extremists. It is like a mass of our English legislation, and also our colonial legislation, and I am glad to think the colonials also recognise common-sense in a great deal they do. It is of no use for gentle

men who hold extreme views to think they can get everything at once. They must educate the country and Parliament, and until they get Parliament educated up to the point to what are now called, or at any time may be called, extreme views, they must be content to wait and educate. It is therefore very unfair, I think, for the Hon. Mr. Bolt to blame this Bill because it is not framed from an extreme point of view. It is absolutely, as far as I read this Bill, a proposal to deal with this land very much as other Crown lands in the colony are being dealt with; and what more or less can a Minister propose to do, in all conscience! Then, the Hon. Mr. Shrimski seems to object to the whole of the transaction, or he would only have approved of it if the land had been disposed of for cash. Well, if it had been dealt with in that way at once, it might have resulted in a loss. I think the Hon. Mr. Stevens also complained that the Government were taking power to spend money on roads, and possibly on a railway. What would the honourable gentleman himself have done if he had the management of this property, and had to dispose of it to the best advantage?

The Hon. Mr. STEVENS.-I explained that the property had to be sold at once in order to justify the valuation.

The Hon. Mr. W. C. WALKER.--Exactly; that is what I say. You said you could justify the valuation by immediate sale, which must be a sacrifice. How are you to get people to take up small blocks? I cannot understand such arguments as are being brought to bear now on this question. I do not wish to say one word that is unfair, but I am quite sure that if the Hon. Mr. Stevens had the property under his control he would have done precisely the same as the Government is doing, and he would have endeavoured to render it available for occupation and purchase.

The Hon. Mr. STEVENS.-I am would have done nothing of the sort.

sure I

The Hon. Mr. W. C. WALKER.-Some individuals are so extraordinary in their actions and expressions that it is hardly possible to say what they might have done under all circumstances. I was rather rash in saying that the Hon. Mr. Stevens would have done anything at any particular moment in any particular way: therefore I withdraw my statement as to what I thought the Hon. Mr. Stevens would be likely to do. At the same time, I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that, after the Government had acquired the property for the protection of the revenue, they did the right thing by not disposing of the land immediately.

The Hon. Mr. BOWEN.-i should like to remark upon one expression which fell from the Hon. Mr. Stevens, who said that it would have been simply absurd for the Government to have attempted to sell the land, because they knew it would have been sold at a loss. If that is the case, the Government did not act according to law in the manner in which they dealt with the matter. I am not going to say whether they did or did not; but, if they held the view that it could only be sold at a sacrifice,

then they did not act according to law. And, unfortunately, I may say, both in the valuation of property for the Government taxes and for local rates, the clear meaning of the law is very often set aside, and people often do not challenge an over-valuation because they do not wish to run the risk of having their property taken from them. The Government may have other reasons for their action, because in this case the proprietors quite satisfied themselves that the selling-value did not amount to what the Government put upon it. At the same time, as the Government is only entitled to assess land at its selling-value, if this land was not saleable at once, it is quite clear that the Government did not act according to law. The selling-value was either put too high, or the Government did not buy and sell again to protect the revenue according to law. In fact, the Government used one Act in order to further a policy provided for by another. That is the feeling that most of us have. It may be right or wrong to buy private land for settlement purposes - that is, of course, a matter which may be fairly discussed; and the Land for Settlements Act was passed, as has been stated, limiting the amount to which the Government could go in that direction. I confess that I did at first think that one Act had been used for another, but since I have heard the evidence I believe the Government bona fide thought that the land was undervalued by the owners when they obtained a valuation of it. But I think they found out that the land was not saleable at the price given for it, and they determined to utilise the land under the Land for Settlements Act. The Bill which is brought in now is a modification of the settlement policy first enunciated. It is making the best of a bad bargain, for I think, as a revenue question, it is a bad bargain. I think by the time this land is done with it will cost the country infinitely more than anybody has dreamed yet. It will be a very expensive bargain to the country. In short, the land was bought perhaps originally for the purpose of protecting the revenue, but either that purpose was afterwards ignored, or it became evident that the assessment was above the selling-value of the land.

The Hon. Mr. McLEAN.-I presume, Sir, this Bill will be sent to the Waste Lands Committee, being a Bill dealing with waste lands. | I do not see why a small Bill, containing only a couple of clauses, should not have brought this purchase under the Land Act of the colony. However, I am not going to review, the clauses of the Bill, but I rise for the purpose of dealing with this purchase of the Cheviot Estate. In my opinion this purchase ought to sink twenty Governments. I have no hesitation in saying that. We have seen the daily telegrams in the papers stating that the' Minister had visited this purchase, and was satisfied that he had got a very desirable bar. gain. My opinion, S.r, is that the Government have been jockeyed into the purchase-that they met eleverer men than themselves, and they get jockeyed into the purchase. In their

endeavour to raise the valuation of properties all over New Zealand they were caught in a trap. The trustees, I venture to say, were much cleverer than the Government. They took good care to get the money paid down, and they would then take Treasury bills. These bills were never authorised for such a purpose. They were only to be issued for the purpose of redeeming the Imperial-guaranteed debentures, serving as a reserve in the hands of the colony in case of difficulties arising. I venture to say that if any Government are going on in this way with their financial affairs they can only run the colony into disaster. It will be a case of drift, drift, as we have seen the colony drifting before; and if many such transactions as this take place the colony will find itself in the same deplorable condition that it was in only a few years ago. I warn the Government to be careful of their finance. The finances of the other colonies have been handled in such a way that it has brought the different colonies into trouble. This colony has already had its experience of trouble, and I warn them not to get into the same trouble again. My honourable friend said it was the Land Assessment Act which authorised this purchase. But that Act says such land is to be valued at what it can be sold for for cash. Now, I venture to say this land could not have produced cash to return the purchase-money. The Government, for the sake of a paltry £200 a year of revenue, have run the risk of £260,000, besides innumerable expenses on unemployed, et cetera. There are mobs of unemployed now running up a bill the cost of which will never be known until & change of Government takes place, and then it may be ascertained, but never until then. I am quite satisfied that the Government will find that they have got enough on their hands, without meddling in transactions such as this. They would be the last persons in the world to try it again. They have not done with their troubles yet in connection with this estate. From what one can hear, there is a large portion of it without water-about thirty thousand acres, I believe. I understand they have Sir James Hector down there to look for artesian wells; and it is reported that they are going to get water from artesian wells on the tops of the hills. And, to save £200 a year, the Government have run the colony into a liability of £260,000, besides, probably, another £60,000 for road-making, surveying, and other works. I venture to say it would be difficult to find such another lot of clever trustees in the colony as the Cheviot trustees. They have played the sharpest trick on the Government that I have known any one play. Now with regard to my honourable friend Mr. Bolt. He comes forward as a land-nationaliser-that is the principle with him; but I should like to put that honourable gentleman into the Treasury to see how his nationalisation of land would work. He could not and the money to carry on with; there would be no end to his borrowing. The colony would borrow to such an extent that at last they would be unable to borrow any more;

for the land must be surveyed. We have

then they did not act according to law. And, unfortunately, I may say, both in the valuation of property for the Government taxes and for local rates, the clear meaning of the law is very often set aside, and people often do not challenge an over-valuation because they do not wish to run the risk of having their property taken from them. The Government may have other reasons for their action, because in this case the proprietors quite satisfied themselves that the selling-value did not amount to what the Government put upon it. At the same time, as the Government is only entitled | to assess land at its selling-value, if this land was not saleable at once, it is quite clear that the Government did not act according to law. The selling-value was either put too high, or the Government did not buy and sell again to protect the revenue according to law. In fact, the Government used one Act in order to further a policy provided for by another. That is the feeling that most of us have. It may be right or wrong to buy private land for settlement purposes - that is, of course, a matter which may be fairly discussed; and the Land for Settlements Act was passed, as has been stated, limiting the amount to which the Government could go in that direction. I confess that I did at first think that one Act had been used for another, but since I have heard the evidence I believe the Government bond fide thought that the land was undervalued by the owners when they obtained a valuation of it. But I think they found out that the land was not saleable at the price given for it, and they determined to utilise the land under the Land for Settlements Act. The Bill which is brought in now is a modification of the settlement policy first enunciated. It is making the best of a bad bargain, for I think, as a revenue question, it is a bad bargain. I think by the time this land is done with it will cost the country infinitely more than anybody has dreamed yet. It will be a very expensive bargain to the country. In short, the land was bought perhaps originally for the purpose of protecting the revenue, but either that purpose was afterwards ignored, or it became evident that the assessment was above the selling-value of the land.

The Hon. Mr. McLEAN.-I presume, Sir, this Bill will be sent to the Waste Lands Committee, being a Bill dealing with waste lands. I do not see why a small Bill, containing only a couple of clauses, should not have brought this purchase under the Land Act of the colony. However, I am not going to review the clauses of the Bill, but I rise for the purpose of dealing with this purchase of the Cheviot Estate. In my opinion this purchase ought to sink twenty Governments. I have no hesitation in saying that. We have seen the daily telegrams in the papers stating that the Minister had visited this purchase, and was satisfied that he had got a very desirable bargain. My opinion, Sir, is that the Government have been jockeyed into the purchase-that they met cleverer men than themselves, and they got jockeyed into the purchase. In their

endeavour to raise the valuation of properties all over New Zealand they were caught in a trap. The trustees, I venture to say, were much cleverer than the Government. They took good care to get the money paid down, and they would then take Treasury bills. These bills were never authorised for such a purpose. They were only to be issued for the purpose of redeeming the Imperial-guaranteed debentures, serving as a reserve in the hands of the colony in case of difficulties arising. I venture to say that if any Government are going on in this way with their financial affairs they can only run the colony into disaster. It will be a case of drift, drift, as we have seen the colony drifting before; and if many such transactions as this take place the colony will find itself in the same deplorable condition that it was in only a few years ago. I warn the Government to be careful of their finance. The finances of the other colonies have been handled in such a way that it has brought the different colonies into trouble. This colony has already had its experience of trouble, and I warn them not to get into the same trouble again. My honourable friend said it was the Land Assessment Act which authorised this purchase. But that Act says such land is to be valued at what it can be sold for for cash. Now, I venture to say this land could not have produced cash to return the purchase-money. The Government, for the sake of a paltry £200 a year of revenue, have run the risk of £260,000, besides innumerable expenses on unemployed, et cetera. There are mobs of unemployed now running up a bill the cost of which will never be known until a change of Government takes place, and then it may be ascertained, but never until then. I am quite satisfied that the Government will find that they have got enough on their hands, without meddling in transactions such as this. They would be the last persons in the world to try it again. They have not done with their troubles yet in connection with this estate. From what one can hear, there is a large portion of it without water-about thirty thousand acres, I believe. I understand they have Sir James Hector down there to look for artesian wells; and it is reported that they are going to get water from artesian wells on the tops of the hills. And, to save £200 a year, the Government have run the colony into a liability of £260,000, besides, probably, another £60,000 for road-making, surveying, and other works. I venture to say it would be difficult to find such another lot of clever trustees in the colony as the Cheviot trustees. They have played the sharpest trick on the Government that I have known any one play. Now with regard to my honourable friend Mr. Bolt. He comes forward as a land-nationaliser-that is the principle with him; but I should like to put that honourable gentleman into the Treasury to see how his nationalisation of land would work. He could not find the money to carry on with; there would be no end to his borrowing. The colony would borrow to such an extent that at last they would be unable to borrow any more;

for the land must be surveyed. We have