RIVAL LAND POLICIES.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1890, 27 October 1913, Page 6

RIVAL LAND POLICIES.

The land problem Is evidently going to occupy a great deal of public attention in Great Britain for somo time to come. It seems to be a pity that this matter should have been forced to the front while the Homo Itule question and" tho reform of tho Constitution are still unsettled; but Me. Lloyd-George has seen fit to start out on his land campaign, and a group of Unionists have drawn tip and. published a farreaching agricultural policy, which, in the opinion of The.Times, is the only one before the public which' attempts to deal comprehensively with the whole problem. The Labour Party has also put forward a land programme, and it is almost certain that before many years havo gone by some very important changes iii tho British land system will tako place. Methods of holding and cultivating land which, broadly speaking, may have mot the needs of the country two hundred, or even one hundred years ago, are not necessarily suitable to the circumstances of the day. Indeed, it would be surprising if reforms were not needed. Of course, changes havo been made from time to.time in agricultural policy, but they have not lcept pace with tho enormous alterations that have occurred in the social and industrial life of the nation, and there is at present a widespread feeling that the time has como i for radical alterations in tho existing land system of Great Britain.

Mr. Lloyd-George's speeches oon- | tain such a large element of votecatching appeal and' rhetorical generalisation that it is not easy to pick out from them tho essential elements of a clearly-dcfined pro- : gramme. s There is no lack of vigour in his attack on tho existing state of things, but it is a pity that he should endeavour to place before the public an overdrawn and distorted picture.' He declares that tho first essential stop is to assume complete control of the monopoly in land, and to place it under State directioii. In , contrast to this method of reform; tho Unionist group declare that their party stands "for State aid and encouragement of private enterprise as opposed to tho Radical principle of State control and land nationalisation." The Government _ programme proposes that Commissioners shall be appointed with power to deal with rents, causes of dispossession, afforestation, the building of cottages for farm labourers, and to help them to get land at a fair price. All parties agree as to the desirableness of repopulating the country districts, of inaugurating improved methods in agriculture, of securing for the labourer a decent house with a piece oE land, and giving him a cliancc of becoming a small holder;_ but there is great difference of opinion regarding tho best .means of attaining these objects. It is far more difficult to carry cut a drastic policy of land reform in a country _ like Britain with its ancient traditions concerning the relations between landlord and tenant, its great vested interests, and its large population, than i u a young nation like New Zealand, which has had the advantage of making a fresh start with some knowledge of the causes of the evils which have arisen in older lands.

Judging b.v the information at present available, the Unionist schcme is a more coinpreliens.ivn and practical one than that which has been outlined by MR. Lloyd-George. It states that b t v i a more general adaption of intoufiivfl methods of

cultivation agriculture will bo enabled to afford employment io at least half a million more men than at present. It advocates the extension of the Trade Board Act to agricultural districts where wages are lowest, and the adoption of the colony system and co-operative methods for small holders. The Unionist programme also' favours the provision of land near villages for every deserving inhabitant; the extension of facilities for land purchase; the readjustment of\taxation in the interests of agriculture; the strengthening and development of the Board of Agriculture, and the raising of its income from £158,000 to about £1,000,000; and the reorganisation of markets. In stating the arguments in favour of these proposals, the writers of the memorandum make some interesting pronouncements. In regard io the suggestion for the adjustment ot. wages, they state that this is no way in conflict with the historic Tory doctrines which were laid down at time of the passing of the Factories Act? 'The principle of Toryism," they declare, "is not that frcedoni of contract cannot be interfered with under any circumstances, but that it should not be interfered with unless the policy of allowing such freedom has failed to produce desirable results from the point of view of the State." The goal aimed at is to check the drift to the cities and emigration to other countries by making the lot of the farm labourer more attractive; and also to jput the land to the best possible use. - To do this it is proposed that the labourer, besides receiving more wages, should have an opportunity of securing an interest in the land, and that the facilities for agricultural education should be increased. The promoters of the Unionist scheme contend that its adoption would result in almost doubling the efficiency of the' farmer and the labourer,_ and the. memorandum concludes with the prediction' that "if this were done, and the undue burdon of rating taken off agriculture, the output of that industry would be increased to an enormous extent; the drain of our citizens from land to towns would be vastly diminished; a greater number 'of people would make their homes on the soil; and the State would regain an element of stability which, has been lost to it for many years.*' The scheme is certainly a most important and far-reaching one, and. whether it is adopted in its entirety or not, it is almost certain the present generation .will sec a vast alteration, almost,amounting to a revolution. in the whole land system of the Mother Country.