THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1882. THE LAND BILL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2584, 19 July 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1882. THE LAND BILL.

Veby little wonder can bo felt that a " ire fight ” has occurred over this Bill, for th reason, in the first place, that a totally ne’e principle is enunciated in it, and, in th second, that, there is a decided vagueness u the manner in which it is drawn out. Hov far the leasing clauses are to bo made appli cable has been puzzling the brainn of all wh< have studied the measure, and yet on thii mainly depends the importance of the pro' posal. The general principle that the people’s land °iß for the people is capable of two constructions. If the people themselves prefer the freehold tenurg.it is evident that to force a leasehold tenure down their throats is not to study their real interests. But, on the other hand, if the principle were only to bo applied to the case of the goldfields and a few other .places, then the argument is narrowed down, and the whole question assumes a totally different aspect. We feel somewhat surprised that no one has as yet endeavored to pin Mr. Bolleston down to some statement as to the extent to which the Government propose to use the clauses of the Bill bearing on the leasehold tenure. Apparently members prefer to discuss the general principle, and to pass over this vital consideration. Mr Balleaton has declared indeed that the principle is not to be generally used, but that, after all, is a comparative phrase. If the leasehold proposals arc intended for anything like universal application, there seems to our mind but little doubt but that the opponents of the measure hava_ very much the best of the battle. The desire to obtain property belonging to a man himself is an instinct in the human mind, and is one that cannot bo stifled with impunity. If men cannot obtain a freehold in one country they will simply go to another one where they can. Take the oaee of a tenant farmer in England. Is it not the idea that be can purchase land for himself, and be able to hand it down to hie children, that generally induces him to sever his ties in the old country and begin life in a new colony ? Suppose it once got abroad that no land was purchasable in New Zealand—how many men of capital would come out here ? And, after all, capital is as much wanted in a new country as in an old one. The argument that in towns people are perfectly satisfied with a leasehold tenure is not at all to the point. Town property stands altogether on a different basis from country property. Tradesmen Lave no intention of ultimately settling down over or near their shops. Their -business is the moans by which they hone to acquire wealth which is to bo afterwards expended in the purchase of those acres which are to pass from the father to the son. The limited area in towns absolutely precludes a general hope that freehold there can be obtained by everybody. In colonial towns the various town sections often remain in the hands of the original purchasers, and the value of them increases so rapidly that they are little likely to wish to part with them. Then again, ns Sir John Hall remarked, the Crown tenantry would never caste in their endeavours to convert their leaseholds into freeholds, and, if that attempt were hopeless, they would work their land out as rapidly as posssible and try for fresh fields aud pastures new. As to Mr. Pyke’s argument respecting the tenure in India, that 16,000,000 was raised annually by the rent of lands, that too is not at all to the point, because the people engaged iu agriculture there .cannot for a moment be compared, as regards their utility or sympathies, with European farmers. The idea of possessing a freehold is not innate with them, and it is absurd to talk of the British agriculturist taking a leaf out of the book of the Indian peasantry. If, however, the leasehold clauses are to be only of partial application, we can well imagine that the idea might work out satis factorily. In cases where it is manifestly undesirable that the possession of the land should become individualised, than there is a peculiar fitness in allowing the land to be cultivated as highly as circumitauces allow. The argument that tenants may work out their lands, does not, of course, cease ; but it is overbalanced by the fact that it is next door to impossible to let the freehold pass out of the hands of the country. We allude, of coarse, more especially to the goldfields, where it is pocsible that auriferous deposits may be discovered at any time, and where it would be almost a national calamity, if, iu such a case, all facilities for working them were not open to the miner It stands to reason that a provision by wbioh the country can regain possession and allow t- use deposits to be properly worked out, at the same time effecting a satisfactory arrangement with the cultivator, would be most desirable. Agaiu in the csss of educational and other reserves where it was originally intended that the unearned increment should be for the benefit of the institutions for which they were created—in such cases, too, the clauses we are referring to, would be most handy. And we might go still further and assert that, iu a few instances leaseholds, might be resorted to, as giving elasticity to our general sj stem of laud tenure.

Still oar last paragraph by no means outweighs the overwhelming arguments against the general application of the leasehold tenure, which have been brought forward by Sir John Hall, Mr Weston, and others. Mr Pyke may pooh-pooh, as sentimental, the Graying after a freehold tenure, but the scorn of that gentleman is not at all likely to turn the course of nature. If wo mistake not, Mr Pyke has never been looked upon as what may ha termed a model settler. He has been out here a number of years, and hao never shown any inclination of permanently driving in his tent pegs. Ha has been a description of political and social Bedouin, and it is no wonder he cannot sy mpathiso with the craving after a settled abode that Baizes upon most other men. "A life that is wild and free ” has always been much more to his taste than “Home, sweet home.” No doubt he has abilities, but in his way ho is a doctrinaire, as is every nan who shuts his eyes to the deeper sentiments of human nature.

•The course of the debate on the Land Bill will be watched with the greatest interest by the public. There io evidently the strongest feeling in the House against the leasehold clauses, and although the Bill may' pass into Committee, we shall feel mnoh surprised if these same clauses are not whittled down to a very surprising extent. And before the debate is much older wa trust to see Government forced to make a declaration as to the exact extent to which they propose to apply the much canvassed clauses.