Correspondence

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 126, 21 April 1892, Page 3

Correspondence

The Duty of the Land to Support its People. to the editor of the stah. Sir,— The duty of the land to support its people has been so long successfully eyaded by the great land-holders as to be now ignored altogether by them, and any attempt to put that principle into practice iv any more than the most trifling form, at once rouses them to active hostility and brings forth the wailing cry that they are being dealt unjustly by, else how is it that so many laud-owmug politicians while strenuously contending for freehold tenure as against nationalizing of the land, at the same time complain co bitterly when any of its burden is laid upon its possessors. But, lest they be ignorant of how greatly they are excused from the liabilities landowners originally were made to bear, and how much the burden has been shifted from their shoulders and placed upon the landless and tho poor, it may be instructive to them to show what the land imposed with in the past, and that it has always been an acknowledged principle m the British constitution, of which nation we form part, that the land supports its people, which means that it make proyision certain and infallible for the poor, as the rich can take care of themselves. Long before the Norman conquest, we find that the lauds were all charged with tithes, of which by law aud practice the poor received one third, and gave them also a large part of the rents of the lands belonging to the Monastones so that iv those days care was laken that tho land supported the people. When "William of Normauby conquered the country and took possession of the lands, He distributed the land to his followers in various ways, but from all he exacted a tribute or service of somo sort. With regard to some he retained the right to draw large amounts of money from them. "When the landholder died he demanded a year's rent of the whole of the estate from the heir if he was of age ; if the heir was not he took possession of the estate until the former became of age. then made the heir marry whom he pleased or forbade him to marry any other person, or made him pay the worth of a considerable part of the estate m the eyent of his disobeying him. The revenue which the King derived from this cource was, together with certain estates which hejahvays kept id tvs own hands, the fund out of wliifjh •all the expense of himself, his household, and the governing and defending the realm was paid. Besides this the great holders of estates WRie compelled to come forth in arms and to bring with them a certain numbers of followers armed, clad, and supported by them to defend, whenever it was necessary, the Kiug aud country. These were the conditions on which they held their estates. So sprung up that sturdy yeomanry whose attachment to their soil and fidelity to the chiefs they fought under has contributed so much to the greatness of England. By this we see that the large landholders were compelled to keep up a population upon their lands and those who enjoyed the laud were the ones who were made to defend it and to reside upon it. But in the establishing of this feudal system and new distribution of the land, the Norman conqueror made no alteration as regarded the tithes, which Baron Guilbert describes as being divided thus : " one-third was takeu by the priest as his own : another third part was applied to the relief of the poor, and the other third part to tho building and repairing of tho church, " so that tho land was charged with all the expenses of keeping the King, tho Government and dofence of the country, the supporting of the church, and the providing for the poor. No taxes were laid upon the people and m this state the couutry remained until the Reformation, which caused great alterations. How those and subsequent ones have affected tli9 people and favoured the great landed estate holders shall be (with your permission) the subject of my next "letter. 1 atn, etc., S. Knight.