ALIENATION OF LAND,

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 848, 15 April 1871, Page 2

ALIENATION OF LAND,

[to the editor.]

Sir- The following extract from an article in a Southern paper appears to have some bearing upon the question recently discussed by you of paying for public works by land : — "la the Westminster Review for October there is a very able article on ' The Land Question in England,' which many of our rabid land reformers would do well to consult before they insist on forcing their dogmas upon other people. We do not expect its teaching will be generally acceptable. To many of them it would be a new revelation, and to many more would speak with an uncertain sound. It would be something new to them to be told that, in a well-orga-nised community, no Government would alienate the land, and that, in every instance of alienation, a monopoly in -a greater or less extent is conceded." The writer says : — " 'It will be found, if we examine the subject more closely, that our notions of private property in land are altogether peculiar. The alienation of the public territory to individual pro- , prietors is a modern innovation. The bare idea of alienation is repugnant to three fourths of the human race. To the American Indian, North and South, to the New Zealander, the South Sea Islander, the aborigines of Africa and Australia, the idea is altogether incomprehensible. To their unsophisticated natures the land appears to be as necessary to their existence as the air they breathe. The idea of its absolute, permanent alienation never entered their minds, as they cannot conceive the existence of the tribe or nation apart from the soil. Individual ownership of the soil is as repugnant to the civslised mind as to the savage — to the semi-barbarous nationalities of the West a3 to the luxurious civilisation, of the East.' Then follows a review of the land systems of various countries, and remarks upon them illustrative of the fact that the practice of alienating confers the right of withholding land from useful occupation, tends to retard settlement, and diminishes production. The reviewer points out that in England, out of 77^ millions of acres of land, only 45£ millions are under cultivation or in permanent grass, the remaining 32 millions are lying waste, though fully one-half is capable of cultivation. He maintains that with the aid of 150,000 able-bodied poor, now able to earn their bread, those 16 millions of acres might be made to produce sufficient food to render importation unnecessary. We are not prepared to say that we coincide with all the conclusions arrived at If ever the principles advocated become generally received, it will be after long and searching discussion. They are not new, and it is one sign that they are gradually gaining ground that they are at last openly proclaimed in so influential a journal as the Westminster Beview. But they differ so widely from the ideas which have grown up with us that it is not likely they will have many supporters ; and our main reason for drawing attention to them is, if possible, to show to our zealous land reformers that their patchwork may, after all, be as open to censure as the system they are prepared so unhesitatingly to alter. Of three propositions, the following is commended as the simplest and best : — ' There is, however, a simpler and more efficient plan than any of these. Let the Crown resume possession of the whole cf the agricultural and unreclaimed land in the kingdom, and compensate the owners at so many years' purchase at the present rents. Let it retain possession of the land and leose it, in blocks of from ten to two hundred acres in extent, the leases to be for a period of thjxty years. At the expiration of that period, let the land be valued, and if it has increased in

value in the interval, whether owing to the enterprise of the tenant or to other causes beyond his control, let him have his lease renewed for another period of thirty years, conditionally on his paying in addition to the old rent, one-half the value that has accrued since the commencement of his tenure. This plan, we think, would meet all the requirements. The cultivator would have what is so necessary to him, security of tenure, and ample encouragement afforded him to affect all necessary improvements ; the man" of small capital would have an opportunity of acquiring^ holdjjng suited to his means; while the landlord (i.e., the State) and tenant would each receive his fair proportion of the value that might accrue to the land during occupa tion.'" I am, &c, Caution.