FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 688, 13 December 1909, Page 3

FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

Sir,—With respect 'to the former tenure, you cannot'drive home too hard the fallacy that the latter system should iu the long, run beneiit a nation. It is the most flagrant mis-state-ment that the people in a country whero the freehold system prevails are poor and depressed. Ireland,-with its tenantry, is an ob-ject-lesson within the Empire of t!)e result of leasehold system—it is simply other landlords ruling instead of the Crown, I venture to say and to assert that the most irksome landlord of-the', two would he an extravagant, promise-breaking Government, always , ready to roraluc and "bleed" their tenants for tho sako of an ever-amounting debt 6f the Crown. The man who owns the soil he. tills or grazes, be lie farmer, squatter, or squire, will in tho ions

run .show a' better produce more, 1 Tireservo and improve its currying capacity, and generally conduct his affairs on nioro prudent and economic lines than a tenant, and "if that is a fact, the grand result of. the exertions of a nation of freeholders will far eclipse that of nation of leaseholders.' ' Leasehold, with [C.O.P. is right, for it leads to freehold; and helps tho inan with little or no capital. Another aspect of the danger tp a nation turning its land into Crown lands, and that, is ,tho legal standing, of a nation of leaseholders. By international lav and custom, private'property, by land ami sea is respected. In case of defeat in war, what would happen to a nation of leaseholders in case of defeat? In plain, business-like terms, they would get lair notice to quit the new ruler's land.— I am, etc., ' CAUOLTJS. [This letter has been condensed.] ■