OUR LAND LAWS: WHAT SHOULD BE THEIR BASIS?

Evening Star, Issue 4027, 22 January 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

OUR LAND LAWS: WHAT SHOULD BE THEIR BASIS?

By C. W. Puknell. ( Continued.) Let us observe now the change which occurred in the distribution of the popution during three years between 1871 and 18y 4. When the census of 1871 was taken, there were 256,393 Europeans settled in the Colony, of whom 103,785 resided in towns—an astonish ing proportion, truly. The census of 1871 was made in March of that year, and gave a total European population of 299,514’ while the inhabitants of the towns (allowing 5,000 for the suburbs of Dunedin) numbered 139,223. Otherwise out of a total, increase of 43,121 souls, 35,438 was due to the augmented urban population! that is a fact which cannot be gainsaid ; nor is there anything exceptional in the period to account for it. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of our blindly repeating here the follies which have placed a heavy and painful burden upon the shoulders of the Mother Country. Look at the condition of Victoria! Its urban population is 424.993, and its rural 355,369. Will any political economist assert that such a state of affairs is a healthy one ? If these things occur in the green tree, what will happen in the dry? The question which the large landowners are bound to answer satisfactorily is this—Upon what plea do you claim to monopolise to your personal use these enormous tracts of territory ? It has been proved that the monopoly is injurious to the public weal, since its ultimate tendency is to force masses ot people into cities, thereby stripping them of their independence, and reducing many to pauperism, and a larger number to semi-pauperism ; that it violates the original principles upon which the land belonging to a com-

i rnunity was parcelled out and placed under the cure of individuals ; that the lords of these o tales canu <t base their titles upon eminent public services; and the only aigumeut left is tlie profitable utilisation of the soil. Every inhabitant of New Zealand is able to judge for himself as to the tenability of that plea. He need not pore over musty books, or grope amongst columns of bristling figures, to ascertain whether the proprietor of 10,000 acres or the proprietor of 200 tills the soil most carefully. The fact is notorious that the returns from the large estates are proportionately far smaller than from those of limited area. Did no other impediment exist, the enormous amount of capital that would be required to put one of these vast domains under close cultivation- would be an effective bar to their being used in that manner. They are managed on quite a different system. The object kept in view is to reduce the quantity of human labor employed to a minimum, and to produce the greatest possible return from the capital at the owner’s command. Hence, a rough and ready style of farming, if farming it can be called, is adopted, and since the reaving of sheep and cattle meets these requirements best, it is chosen in preference to agriculture, even though the soil be of arable quality. The small cultivator, on the contrary, is obliged to make the most of his plot; he applies infinitely more hand labor to his fields than the lord of many acres does; while he bestows upon his little domain an affectionate care which seems ridiculous to the wealthy runholder, who regards his huge estate as a mere money-making machine, and “works” it accordingly. The waste of the resources of the soil entailed by large holdings comes home to the mind impressively by comparing the yield of produce per acre attained by the market gardener with the results achieved by the proprietor of a 50,000acre freehold. The official report of the proceedings taken under the Victorian Land Act during the year 1874 likewise illustrates, but less forcibly, the wane of economy which these vast estates engender. It states that “ the withdrawal from pastoral occupation of 3,500,000 acres of the best land remaining in the Colony has had little influence in decreasing the number tof stock held by the pastoral licensees, and therefore has not materially injured that interest, but has increased the stock held by farmers to the value of £3,000,000. Thus, by the transference of 3,500,000 acres of land from the hands of squatters to these of small farmers an immediate net gain of nearly £3,000,000 has resulted to the State. If the land had been placed under tillage, the gain would probably have been much larger. These figures, however, only prove what every candid and practical breeder would acknowledge, that, where the land is of fair quality, the small farmer will rear a larger number of stock to the acre than the runholder is accustomed to raise. Of course, there is poor and rugged country unfit to be cut up into small farms, and considerable avf-as of which must needs be occupied by the shepherd, but that must be dealt with separately. We want shepherds, but not Shepherd Kings, in the Colony. The argument of impracticability must be met. Persons, who admit the desirability of an Agrarian Law, nevertheless shake their beads and say, “ Ob, it is impracticable.” Now, when a new political idea which, if put into practice, would produce important and useful consequences, is propounded to the British public, the public usually responds, “It is impracticable,” That objection disposed of, a second is urged. “It would be mischievous if carried into effect,” which likewise disappearing before the blows of reason the dangerous novelty is tried, and no more is heard of the objectors. The sole argument that has been urged in support of the plea that the proposal for an Agrarian Law is impracticable is, that it would be impossible to overcome the power of the great landowners, who would resist the passage of such a law to the uttermost. That is a singularly cogent argument on my side. If a small body of men has acquired suoiu empire in the country that it is able to , stifle a measure calculated to produce•, beneficial consequences to the eommu-. idty at large, it is time that its influence . was reduced to reasonable proportions* Let it be remembered, too, that the ! possessors of this influence are not the . Aristocracy of the country, hut aPlutocracy. It is not intellect*, nor--1 earning, nor patriotism, which, rules*, but Brute - Wealth. I acknowledge that among the large landholders educated gentlemen may be found, to whom the latter remarks will not apply, although the main argument is just as cogent in their case as in that of their social inferiors ; but they are gradually being supplanted by that objectionable class of rich parvenus already described. But however bold a front they might show, I apprehend that, when it came to the push, these gentlemen would give way, if only to save themselves from worse evils. It is part of their policy to cast the stigma of impracticability upon every proposal which threatens their dominion .over the public estate; and their command of" the Press enables them to do so with ©fleet. Not half a dozen journals- in the Colony ax'e free to discuss the land question with a single eye to the public interest. Still in this, as in other matters, the truth will ultimately pre*vail. {To be continued.)