ANOTHER LAND PROPOSAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2079, 14 May 1907, Page 4

ANOTHER LAND PROPOSAL.

EQUAL SHARES FOF ALL THE CHILDREN.

At New Plymouth tho other day Mr. W. P. Massey, Loader of the Oj>position, revived an old proposal with which Mr. Coleman Phillips, of tho Wairarapa, has boon, closely identified for a score of years. Shortly, Mr. Massoy desires to see Now Zealand copying tho French law by which tho estate of a man is distributed, at his death, in equal shares,- among his children. Rocontly, Mr. Phillips gave liis opinions on this subject to an Evening Post reporter. Ho explained that ho had brought his ideas about family subdivision of land before all tho Premiers who had held oflico in New Zealand during tlio past twenty years, and had also communicated with Mr. Massey on this subject. “I am glad to see that this proposal has beon brought boforo the colony,” remarked Mr. Phillips, ’‘because in

my opinion it Will bo a way out of tho present ombroglio upon tho land question. Tho Hon. R. McNab’s jiroposals aro not understood, and will not bo understood by the people of this colony. Tho French system is simple, and will bo readily understood wlion I say that sinco 1793 landowners in Franco havo increased from 250,000 to 5,500,000. Tho principle of peasant proprietorship is that land is divided -compulsorily among the doccasod holder’s children, share and share aliko. “It may be that France has made tho mistake of too minute a subdivision; the complaint is that tho areas of land aro too small. In New Zealand we should not have this complaint for three generations or a hundred years, because the land here is in areas too large. Sir John McKenzio and the late Mr. Soddon, in my opinion, made the mistake of not taking tho French jirecodont into account. I sent both of them my Bill for compulsory subdivision on the French model, and had they followed my course of historic reading I don’t think they would ever have introduced tho Land for Settlements Act. By reducing matters to an Absurdity, we can see in tho Australian States how badly the Land for Settlements Act is working by the Government increasing tho price of land against itself. It would havo been much better had compulsory subdivision at death been placed on the Statute Book in place of compulsory subdivision during life. The price of land must rise against any purchasing body which goes into the market with half a million of money to buy. ,

“I have never proposed to divide any areas into sections below a hundred acres in Now Zealand. In that direction I should limit the French law. As to the case of bachelors holding a large area, say up to £50,000 or £IOO,OOO limit, that need not trouble the public. Areas so hold will j)rove safety brakes against the too intense subdivision which the iron law of compulsory subdivision at death brings on any nation. They will be the reserves for tho next generation to subdivide.

“Regarding freehold and leasehold tenures, history takes very slightly into consideration either cry. We cannot trust tho State with tho lands, neither can we trust the peoplo. Unlimited freehold moans the grasping of individuals; Stato ownership means the enslavement of a nation. It is absolutely necessary, as tile leaders of the great French revolution realised, to place the subdivision of the land apart from tho State and apart from the No harm can come from a mail’s children taking tho land at his death, and no better means can be found of subdividing the. territory of buiy peojilo. It was the law of Anglo-Saxons for six hundred years before the Norman conquest, and the great Pope Gregory (Hildebrand) has really brought all our troubles upon us by instituting feudal ownership, and tho law of primogeniture by which lands have accumulated as we find them in England, Ireland, and Scotland. It is the antithesis of the law of subdivision at death. It is something to prevent the right of one to inherit, and so to accumulate, that wo want in New Zealand. It is to curtail the power of capital that compulsory subdivision at death must come in. Directly Vanderbilt subdivided his money among his children his power to do immense evil was lessened. I greatly doubt whether the power of capital in trusts and business undertakings will not also be limited by any legislation instituting compulsory subdivision of a man’s money among his children, I once thought of allowing parents the right of retaining tlieir control over their children by limiting the subdivision to a certain number, but unfortunately the cost of living has so increased in New Zealand that families are being fi'mitjed—in ‘many cases there are only one or two children to inherit. Therefore compulsory subdivision must rule at death without limitation, except as to area. In the Australian continent I would limit this iron and admirable law to the water districts, not to desert lands, “In England this law has ruled for 1600 years in Kent, and is known as gavelkind. This is tho law which ruled the Germanic nations and tribes for centuries before tho AngloSaxon conquest of Britain.”