THE LAND QUESTION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 847, 12 July 1878, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

(to the editor of the dunstan times.) Sir,— Judging from the late action of the Government in raising the price of land under the deferred payment system to three pounds an acre, and ala . from the speeches of some of our representatives on the land question, opinion in the present House appears to be coming back to the long-sinee exploded notion of obtaining the Inchest price for the land as being the chief aim of a good land law, instead of that of settling the people on the land as speedily as possible, The argument made use of to justif this retrogression,. namely, that because some parties have made a profit out of speculations in land, therefore it is better for the Government to have this profit than private individuals, is not a sound one. No law

can be devised that will prevent speculation in land, and it would be much better to set earnestly about throwing open the Lind on the most liberal terms, than to waste time in attempting impossibilities. The only evil which Government and people have seriously to dread is the creation of large estates, the accumulation of the land into the hands of the few, and the consequent introduction of the landlord and tenant pauperizing system of England. Large estates cannot be altogether prevented, now at any rate ; nor is it desirable that they ahould be, but their number should be as restricted as possible.

If America had acted on this principle of obtaining the highest possible price for her lands,. she would not now have such a population and commerce to boast of ; but she has acted wisely in allowing her splendid lands to be obtained on such terms as has caused her to become the chief attraction for all the natious of Europe. Our laws, on the contrary, seemed framed for the purpose of discouraging settlement as much as possible, and if, by any chance a liberal clause gets inserted, it is speedily nullified by some stupid condition or restriction. For instance, when tho deterred payment system was first introduced a fixed price of so much per acre was set on the land, an' l the first applicant got it at that price ; but, because, under the absurd regulations in force, there happened in one or two instances to be many applicants for the same blocks at the same time, and that, as a result of the ballot, these blocks fell, through the means of dummies, into the hands nfjspeeulators it was sagely resolved, on tho strength of these one or two instances, to introduce a remedy which has proved worse than the alleged disease, it was intended to euro, that is, the auction system. It is true this was only to be resorted to in ease of there being more than one applicant for the same block. But, as the Government took care not to throw open the land too fast,{they thereby made sure of there being more tban'one applicant for any land that was worth having. The uncertainty of the ballot wac thus exchanged for the uncertainty of the auction system, simply because one or two disappointed applicants declared that they would have given a few shillings more per acre to have secured these blocks ; and the way that was taken to ensure that the applicant ’should get the block he wanted was that he should bo able to bid the highest tor it. Truly, this is a liberal land law with a vengeance ! Now, the idea commonly entertained of a good land law is, that it should allow the people to settle on the laud as rapidly as they desire, and on such terms as, whilst it shall exclude none, shall allow the greatest number possible to secure it ; and, at the same time, prevent as much as possible the accumulation of large quantities of land in the hands of the speculator. No system 1 seems to fulfil these conditions so fully as i free selection before survey and deferred i payments, as is proved by the experience of i tho other Australian Colonies. As for tho Canterbury system, whilst it encourages ■! speculation it in no way suits the needs of the people of Otago, and had it been in force here instead of the deferred payment system, not ono-tenth of the settlement would have taken place that we now r see around us. Of course, if Government has determined to have the highest price for the land it may succeed in its object ; but how will it justify such a chauge of policy to those whom it has seduced here with the cry of a liberal land law, or those whom it has deluded into remaining here under tho same pretence ? How is it going to satisfy those, who, but for the specious representations of emigration agents, might now have been comfortably settled in Canada, the States or Australia? Would so many have been induced to como hero to bear their share of the burden of a £24,000.000 loan had they not been led to believe that they could secure homes for themselves by industry and economy in a very few years ? And how many of them are likely to see their hopes realized, if they have to compete with the capitalist at auction, or pay down £4OO for a 200-acre block of indifferent land ?

As I am afraid I am trespassing too much on your space, I shall conclude.- Yours, etc., c.