THE LAND OCCUPATION QUESTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2019, 2 March 1907, Page 1

THE LAND OCCUPATION QUESTION.

CFarmers’ Weekly.) The decline of British Agriculture has been of a sufficiently serious character to attract the attention ol the British Board of Agriculture. From an article published in the latest journal issued by the Board, we gather that one of the most prominent features of thd census returns for the past' 50‘years has been the reduction iii tlie number of persons returned as engaged in agriculture ill Great Britain, ' li. was never more apparent, however, than in the figures for 1901, when a decline of about 20 per cent, in the number of agricultural labourers during the preceding decade was indicated. The questions involved in this continued depopulation of the rural districts of Great Britain have aroused so much general interest that the Board of Agriculture has been at some considerable pains to elicit the views of its agricultural correspondents, with regard to tlie present movement of the agricultural population and the causes which affect it. From the replies furnished by no fewer than —4B correspondents, it would appear that since 1901 a further reduction has taken place in the number of men employed on farms, and that temporary, or migratory labor has decreased .in even greater jiroportion than permanent labor. Prior to 18/0 there was in many country districts a superfluity of labor, and a considerable portion of the agricultural laborers returned as such in the census were only in partial employment. The elimination of these represented, therefore, a less serious withdrawal of labor from tlie land tlian the loss of an equal number at the present time, when employment all the year round is more general. In the seventies agriculture was still prosperous in Great Britain, but from 1879 onwards tlie farmers of tlie Homo Land have been struggling with adversity, and that adversity is to a certain extent responsible for t-lie withdrawal of labor from tlie country to the towns.

WHY THEY LEAVE THE LAND. The causes which have led up to this condition of things are many. Prior to the passing of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 the farm laborer was able to place liis children at work with the farmer, while they were still of school age, and thus the family wage was increased by the earnings of such children. Juvenile labor, however, is now so restricted under tlie operation of that Act that it is no longer possible for tlie father to swell his'income by the'earnings of such of his children as are under twelve years of age. He is, consequently, restricted, to his own earnings of, say, twelve or fourteen shillings per week. More often than not his homo is as unsatisfactory as his remuneration, and the knowledge that he may better his position by either going to the town where he can obtain much better housing accommodation, or by emigrating, is a strong incentive to him to leave the country. Apart from these consider.’ lions, however, there 'is a lack of incentive to remain on the land, the farm laborer's position offering no reasonable prospect of advancement in life and little or no scope for ambition. At best hecan only rise to the position of horsekeeper or shepherd, or perhaps farm b-a'iifr. There, the outlook closes down, with but small hope of increased wages. Olio of two things consequently happens: The laborer either declines to settle down for life in i - calling which cioes not prove Mill cient possibilities of advancement to an independent position, or else he emigrates to the colonies, where his energies may find wider scope, and where the road to independence and a competencv is broader and more easy of access. And the enquiries made all go to show that the colonies get the pick of these men. Another, and possibly more powerful cause of the withdrawal of agricultural labor from the country districts, is found in the fact that between 1881 and 1901 over 2,000.000 acres of arable land in Great Britain went out ot cultivation, and were laid down in grass. This, the Board of Agriculture estimates, probably threw out of work from 60,000 to 80 000 laborers during the 20-year ueriod Labor-saving machinery has also played its part ill eliminating the agricultural laborer and m reducing the demand ior labor oil the farm Another operating cause is the difficulty of securing land and working it on a payable basis. THE LESSON FOR NEW ZEALAND On this latter point .the Board of Agriculture speaks with no uncertain sound. “Advancement to the man

who lives by the land means in tlio end the occupation of the ownership of land for himsolf, and tho presence or absence of a reasonable prospect of attaining this goal must no doubt affect' the willingness of young and ontorprrsing men to porsevero in farm ,1-ork.” Tho small holdings which have been tried in various parts of tlie country have not, it seonis, proved too successful, although thoro are said to bo nearly a quarter of a million holdings of from live to fifty acres in Great Britain. It is claimed by many of the Board’s correspondents that the demand for small holdings is in excess of tiio supply, and that the difficulties in the way of providing such holdings arc increased by tho cost of equipment. “The difficulty,” one report says, “is not in obtaining land, but in the cost of putting up tho requisite buildings,” or in another phrase, “tho essential difficulty is the cost, of erecting buildings meeting tho modern requirements of sanitary authorities and the prospect of insufficient return 'in fclio shape of rent.” At tho same time fact remains that thoro is, oil tho part of the men who leave England for the colonies a welldefined desire to possess their “own bit of land.” or, in other words, to obtain a freehold of their own. It is this that takes them from homo and friends to a strango country, and which makes settlement desirable to them in countries across the seas. THE FREEHOLD WANTED.

AVe in New Zealand are intimately concerned in this aspect of the question. AA’itli proposals before the country which are practicalte locking the country against settlement, so far as the freehold is concerned, how can we expect to attract “tho hone and sinew” of Great Britain, so necessary to the development of our resources to this country? It may ho taken for 'ranted that most, if not all, of such immigrants are men of little or no capital, and, without Government assistance, it is impossible for them to get upon the land and secure the tenure they desire. To say that, because the Government of New Zealand, while reserving its own land from sale, is forcing the larger landholders to sell their surplus or “excess” estates, and that therefore more Toehold is being made available is idiculous. 11l any sales of such land that may ho made, capital must nlay its part: the mail at present holding hind will he able to secure moro, up to the statutory limit, and tho man of more limited means must either ’ccont tho leasehold conditions pronosed by the Government or go olsovhere in search of land. Both Canada mil Queensland are. metaphorically speaking, hurling their broad acres, and the pick of their land, at the '•cads of intending immigrants in their desire to secure settlement, vhile we propose conditions which .ire found unacceptable to the tenint farmers of Great Britain, even vlion they are offered land in full tilth, for our second and third class 'anils, which have still to he cleared md brought under cultivation. THE ONLA r SOUND POLICY. There can he only one sound policy or New Zealand at the present tincture of its political affairs —the •etention of the freehold and the ibandonment of the absurdly impracticable endowment theories which aro being thrust upon tho country. Sver.v Crown tenant ought to have die right of purchase, whether he is •anting Crown lands proper, or land •osumed for closer settlement purposes. The State accounts are kept n such a curiously involved fashion that it is almost impossible to adduce figures in proof of the statement; but in very many quarters it is coming to be an accepted fact that our land for settlement policy is not a financial success. Over and over again attempts have been made in Parliament to secure returns-which would place the solvency of our Lands for Settlement Funds' beyond question ; but Ministers-havo invariably delayed the publication of such returns, and thus none have been forthcoming so far. This strengthens the belief hold by many that the leasehold conditions are not proving as remunerative to the States as the freehold. The State, it must he remembered, hears the additional burden of such loans as arc required for the purchase. of lands, the tenant only paying a little more than the interest by way of rent. A large working capital is therefore necessary for the business; whereas, if the State sold tho land to the tenant, instead of leasing it, much larger quantities of land could he resumed and made available for settlement under payable conditions. This is an aspect of the question not often considered, liecau.se it does not fit in with the ideas of the Land Nationalism's, who are at the back of the Land Bill but it is one which must attract a good deal of attention in the near future, and one which we propose to refer to again on a future occasion.