The Evening Star TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3858, 6 July 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1875.

It required no extraordinary foresight to predict that sooner or later, would have to amend its land laws. The struggle in that Colony, as in every other where pastoral and agricultural pursuits clash, has been to prevent capitalists monopolising land to the hindrance of settlement upon it. Scheme .after \sls been, tried, but in dvery case capital has beat legislatiojf' It is vain to decree that a man shalFnot purchase'more a certain sirea, for when he obtains his CroWn grant, all control over the disposal of the land by the State ceases,, and the owner is free to sell it to any man who will offer him an inducement to part with it. There seems something very anomalous in our ideas in regard to the terms on which society allows the utilisation of land. The njoneers of settlement, the pastoral tenants, are always allowed to use ft* for grazing purposes on more favorable terms than agriculturists for farming. So far as they are concerned, they are permitted to hold it on Ipase, at an almost nominal annual rental. They are not required to lay out a heavy amount of capital perhaps the full amount of their available means—prior to occupying fifty or one hundred square miles for pastoral purposes. A rental of a few pence per acre paid to the State gives them the right to place their thousands of sheep and cattle upon the run ; they --are not required to lay anything out on improvements; theyhave a pre-emptive right to a square mile of country, and should any portion of their leasehold be required for other purposes, handsome compensation is guaranteed. Nor in Otago is this privilege of leasing land confined to the squatters. Coal mines, gold mines, stone quarries, sections for industrial purposes can be held on lease : the only exception is land suitable for agriculture, which must be bought or at least be paid for before a plough can belput into the ground. It is true thA in Otago agricultural leases can be'granted for small areas, not enough for a family to

earn porridge upon ; but even in that case the rent paid forms part of the price of the fee simple of the land, which after a given number of years of occupation and payment of rent, becomes the absolute property of -the leaseholders. Why sjiould agricultural land be treated differently from pastoral ] We are quite aware of the apparent difficulties of'the Crown becoming landlord of the landed estate of the country. The chief objection is the political aspect of the matter. It is maintained that the State would not be able to collect the rents—an argument that is refuted by experience in regard to pastoral and other tenants. Next, it is affirmed that the State being landlord,, any Executive would be in a position to command immense political influence over the agricultural tenants. This, we suppose, is an argument drawn from the consequences of the tenant-at-will system of England, which can have no weight where leases, with defined compensation for improvements, are held. For our own parts, we see many advantages to be realised from a system of leasing land for agricultural purposes. In speaking of settlement on the land, we are too apt to think only of theman whoprovides capitalforfarming, and to forget that his profit and comfort and settlement form only part of the objects to be obtained. So far as he is concerned, he usually contrives to make himself pretty comfortable. He builds a house which gives him room for his family, and we have no doubt many of this class, notwithstanding the rough experience of Colonial life, are better lodged and enjoy more of the necessaries and even superfluities of life than they could have earned, or ever had, at Home. But how are their laborers housed] We know well, as matters stand just now in relation to labor, they must be fed, and daintily fed too, or they will seek work elsewhere. Butthe country cannotbe considered settled until laborers have their cottages, and have families with them in hamlets or villages. No wonder that men congregate in cities and feel unwilling to accept work up the country, for it is no exaggeration to say that on many farms the cattle are provided with better and more comfortable lodgings than the farm servants. Even near large estates, where work is constant for a number of laborers, a few tents may be seen inhabited by families huddled together in' a manner which renders domestic purity hardly possible. The women and children, not fearing publicity, are clad in worn-out or ragged attire j dogs, pigs, and poultry prowl about, and filthy nuisances, tending to degradation of feeling, abound. Were the Colonial estate in Government hands, all these obstacles to settlement, under good management, might be removed, much to public advantage. We know the theory will not meet acceptance with many classes. A certain caste of politicians would be ready to condemn the State assuming the part of a landlord, and arranging for building cottages for its tenants. They would deluge the public journals with letters showing how much better private enterprise would effect the object. But it must be remembered private enterprise has had its chance, and has not even commenced the necessary work excepting in very rare instances. In Victoria a contemporary's correspondent reports what was long since written, that capitalists are reducing the country to a wilderness by buying up the land for pastoral purposes. It has been proposed to do so here by Sir F. D. Bell, although his present proposal modestly relates but to non-agricultural country. Our present system hap failed to secure settlement, in the truHT sense of the word. It has settled the squatter and the farmer, and unsettled the laborer. A leasing system well carried out would secure all that can be effected, beside providing a revenue that, through the improved value of the land, would be constantly increasing.