OUR LAND LAWS: WHAT SHOULD BE THEIR BASIS?

Evening Star, Issue 4039, 5 February 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

OUR LAND LAWS: WHAT SHOULD BE THEIR BASIS?

By C. W. Purnell. ( Concluded .) Opinion as t© the proper mode of dealing with the public estate has made immense progress in the Australian Colonies lately. Few persons, if any, now dare to contend that freeholds of excessive size are useful to the State. On the contrary, their mischievousness is admitted ; but those who are interested in their maintenance argue that, while it might be desirable to abolish such holdings, insuperable difficulties stand in the way of doing so. This change of opinion is manifested by the different treatment now accorded to the “ State leasing ” theory in Victoria to what it received when first propounded in that Colony three or four years ago. Its pioneer advocates were scoffed at as dreamy philanthropists and ignorant radicals, but the idea has grown and grown in public favor until it has at length been embraced by many of the leading men of the Colony, and when an amending Land Bill came before the Legislative Assembly last June or July, the principle, modifed so as to make it applicable to those, lands only which still remained the property of the State, was fairly put to issue before the

Assembly, and while it did not meet with sufficient acceptance to enable it to be carried into law, it nevertheless found a respectable following. In our own House of Representatives likewise the matter has been mooted, and the State leasing theory is undoubtedly gaining adherents in New Zealand, Every man, indeed, who desires to see the land applied to its proper use and fairly distributed amongst the com-, immity must sympathise with these efforts, even if he fears they are not capable of effecting their end. In my first treatise I urged certain objections to the project, nor have I since read j or heard anything calculated to refute the views there expressed. Certainly, however, I could only wish “God speed” to those who, by a different road, are seeking the same goal as myself; but let me observe that none of the essential objections to the nationalisation of the land would touch an Agrarian Law. The latter would not, as it is alleged the system of State leasing would do, organise an army of officials and lodge a dangerous weight of power in the hands of the Government; it would not create a State tenantry which might bring political pressure to bear upon the Legislature to release it from its just obligations; nor would it thwart that love of landed proprietorship for which our race has displayed so strong a predilection. Under an Agrarian Law, the Government would have no more to do with the ownership of the soil than it has now, nor would the tenure of the farmer become insecure or of less duration. Whatever political difficulties it might present would be in the effectuation of the change; that accomplished, the ensuing social reforms would work themselves out noise lessly and imperceptibly. The project of nationalising the land is deficient in this respect: it leaves wealth just as powerful as before. The possession of vast tracts of land gives the owner social and political influence, even though he be unfitted to wield either. Now, one part of the problem to strip wealth, pure and simple, of this usurped power, in order that it may be placed in abler and.more patriotic hands. Unless the land reformers of Victoria and New Zealand can show that the problem will be solved by means of the nationalisation ( , l ftn d, they fail in their purpose. Would not the leaseholder of 50 or 100,000 acres of land exercise practiI cally as much influence over the go- ; I vernment of the country as if he were a freeholder, and would a mere change of tenure lead him to use that influence ' unselfishly? It is folly to suppose so. These men would be placed in circum- ■ stances of such enormous temptation i to use their position for their personal ■ aggrandisement at the expense of the , State, that they would require the ; virtueofangels to resist it. This was the i vice which underlaid the agrarian lawsof * Rome and kept the State in turmoil for i oenturus, until finally the wealthy con- . ver tod their State leaseholds into freeholds, a seething mass of pauperism ■ gathered in the city of Rome, and the i, ® m pi re fell through its own corruption. The one cogent argument which the land leasers can adduce is that, under their proposed system, the Government might derive a large direct revenue from the land in perpetuity; whereas, if the soil be alienated in fee simple, it will get none. That, however, does . noc embrace all the conditions required.

The results of the agrarian legislation of France and Germany show that large estates may be brokeh up by other methods than defining the acreage possessible by individuals. In those countries, however, the legislator had ancient land tenures and national customs to work upon which do not exist here. New Zealand suffers from a peculiar disease, which requires a peculiar remedy. The remedy, too, must be quick and thorough in its operation. One advantage of an Agrarian Law is that it would be a strictly Conservative measure. Small freeholders are the most Conservative of men. Radicalism is bom in great towns. It is engendered from poverty and suffering and ignorance by the oppression of misused wealth, and should find no place in a young country. The political mind of New Zealand, unfortunately, lacks the tonic of that frequent grappling with great questions of foreign policy by which the mother countiy is invigorated, and is become debilitated and corrupt by Mammon worship. The day will doubtless arrive when the Colony, having acquired strength enough to bear her share of the national burthens, will likewise be able to participate in the national councils. In the meanwhile, she is not chained to the most ignoble of pursuits. Self-condemned thereto she may be, but glorious social works lie before her people’s hands, which i performed zealously and aright, might ultimately make New Zealand the brightest star in the constellation of the British Empire.