The Evening Star TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3429, 17 February 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1874

Our morning contemporary the ‘ Guardian' favorj its readers with an article ridiculing the advocates of treating the land of a country as national property. We cannot say that we consider his cause at all strengthened by the tone he adopts. Some may think it witty to compare those advocates to “ mountebanks and posturemakers,” but we confess to such dulness of imagination as not to be able to discover the similarity; and, even assuming the likeness, we do not see why he himself may not be included in the list. If our contemporary merely means to prove, with the late Mr Mill, that the time has not arrived when such arrangements are possible, we quite agree with him. But that has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the theory. It does not appear to us that in the present state of public opinion absolute free trade is possible, nor absolute civil and religious liberty. Yet the fact that men have not reached that perfect knowledge or that perfect self-command necessary to according to another the liberty they assert for themselves, only proves that they have much to learn : not that liberty is a mistake. We believe that free trade is necessary to national prosperity, and to peace; and true liberty to growth in knowledge, religion, and morality; but it is more than probable many generations will pass before the majority of men accept those theories as true. Neither have we the slightest hesitation in saying we believe, theoretically, that parting with the fee simple of land by the State is a national error and an injustice to posterity* although in the present state of public opinion we see no immediate i emedy. Our contemporary reasons in a circle : first he assumes that English law sanctions holding landed property; and next, that it is right because the law makes it so. It cannot be supposed that any reform whatever can take place before that which is wrong is understood. Laws not only guide the relationships of men with each other, but create them; they not only establish ownership of property, but educate men in their ideas of it. The soundest reasoners, years before Mill whs born, devoted their attention to the subject. Paley, who tried hard to reconcile men to things as they were, arrived at the conclusion that the real foundation of property in land is “Tho law of the laud,” and all who dispassionately examine the subject will agree with him. Because it is law, and has been law for centuries, may be a very good reason for retaining it as an institution in a country in which it is established, rather than by sudden or violent changes to cause a disruption in all the interests that have grown out of it. But to plead that as a reason why it should become part of the usage of a country in which men have to enter into new relationships is absurd. Precisely

similar arguments were used to justify West Indian slavery, and precisely similar reasoning will be employed for the continuation oi Queensland and Fijian slavery, should it be allowed to become interwoven with the every-day life of the people. Our contemporary sees nothing wrong in establishing what he terms “ free trade in land,” by abolishing entails, primogeniture, and settlements. He even goes further, and condemns the creation of a “ landowning caste.” This is at any rate a curious “ posture ” to assume by one who laughs at “ posture makers.” If words mean anything, it concedes the whole question, for it is the creation of a “land-owning caste ” that the “ posture makers and mountebanks” condemn. It is very singular that in the face of facts the position is so tenaciously held that absolute property in land is essential to its occupation and utilization. In Great Britain tenants at will are found willing to pay from twenty to fifty shillings an acre for the use of land, and to invest large capital in its cultivation. In town and city property, some of the most beautiful residences and valuable trading establishments are constructed under building leases. So high are the rentals of these properties that were they in the hands of the State, and administered with ordinary care, not only would there be no national debt, nor a penny of taxation, but there would be ample revenue to educate every child, and a vast surplus to invest in national reproductive improvements. Yet all this is spent in support of an unproductive class, whose influence and example have tended much to causing wrong to be thought right and right to be wrong. In this Colony weare progressingin the same direction, although it could be demonstrated that so far from the system conducing to settlement, it is a barrier to it ; for under proper security for reasonable tenure, and valuation for improvements at the close of the lease, it would be much more economical to pay rent for the use of land, than to buy it first and enter upon its cultivation with cramped capital. Every man that buys land at a pound an acre pays two shillings an acre in interest of money. The late Dr Evans, a man of enlarged ideas and comprehensive knowledge, computed that in Victoria that rental on occupied land would render taxation unnecessary. The main argument against the system is that representative Governments could not collect the rents, and experience gives a coloring to the objection. That is to say, the mode of collection hitherto adopted has been found defective, although there has been no difficulty in Otago. The real question is—ls that hitherto adopted the only method possible ; and if not, might not another succeed 1