THE PASSING OF THE FREEHOLD.

King Country Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 29, 10 May 1907, Page 3

THE PASSING OF THE FREEHOLD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The goal which we do net doubt our legislators have in view is, of course, th::t " approximately-com-plete adjustment" of the individual to the environment which precedes the dawn of that ever-vanishing era of happiness which one thinks will some day cast its golden radiance on the nations of this egregious earth, but which flies in terror from the pitiless and insane cruelty of our social and legal codes, of which either a strict observance or a hardy defiance seems so strangely fraught with sorrow. We all agree that only by the steadfast pursuit of righteousness can we hope to hasten the progress of evolution, but in the application of the test of righteousness to our social and economic sj'stems, much difference of opinion arises. There is, for instance, a division of opinion between the people of New Zealand, at the present time, in regard to the tenure of land. One party holding that sections, parcels, or blocks of land, should be bought and sold in the open market, or held entirely from sale by its owner, at pleasure, just like any common merchandise; whilst others contend that land, being the State's chief asset, should be owned only by the State, and that no one of its members should have the power of alienating any, even the smallest portion of it. Adherents of the first principle will tell you they are in favour of a freehold tenure, while the remainder, who, at present, seem to be in a minority, believe that the national peace and prosperity, and both the present and future happiness of the State, are closely associated with, and, in fact, amongst other things are absolutely dependent on, a system of State-owned leaseholds. It is only natural that the mind is predisposed in favour of a tenure which has existed for centuries. Originally, in .England, large grants of land were held by the Barons in trust for the King, and in return they maintained a body of retainers on the land, and rendered the King service in time of war. In course of time, under changing conditions, demands for service ceased, the retainers were no longer required, and the decendanis of the original tenants of the King assumed the rights and privileges, and became the actual owners of thousands of acres of the best parts of the Kingdom. To-day, if one of the hereditary owners of these estates was asked to return to the country, that which his family had held for so long, and for the. enjoyment of which nothing had been given in return, he would probably be speechless with astonishment and indignation. Yet I have read that one, Blackstone, a reputed authority on English law, says that the owners of the estates, so acquired, could not produce a legal title to the territory they occupy. When the bias of selfinterest, and the sentiment inspired by the sanction of generations are eliminated, the case for the freehold seems to weaken badly. Self-interest is, nevertheless, a plea which must be patiently heard, though many people believe that the farmers of to-day would reap benefit under State leases, so far in excess of the profits they naturally desire to make by ownership, that they would almost blush to remember the day when they clamoured so loudly for the old-fashioned, discredited freehold. I had not the pleasure of hearing the address delivered recently by Mr Bell, but I notice that Mr Bell and his supporters made a stand for the freehold principle. Whilst assuming that they all believed in the pure morality of the principle, one thinks there are yet some grave reasons for doubting its righteousness, either immediate or remote. While no reasonable person believes that equality is either possible or desirable, there are many who think that at least all able-bodied men should assist, each in his own capacity, in the production of wealth. Few people will deny that a monopoly of the sources of wealth, by private individuals, or companies of individuals, are responsible for a large proportion of the poverty, misery, vice and crime which exist in the world tc-day. Therefore, many people believe that since all wealth is ultimately derived from the land, its private ownership constitutes an unjust and dangerous monopoly, inimical to any nation's economic welfare. Every civilized country on earth permits the private ownership of land, and in every country the struggle for existence is still fierce and intense, and for nine-tenths of humanity, life is robbed of nine-tenths of its pleasures. The unhappiness of the masses re-act upon those above them, so that all suffer, either directly or indirectly, through the evils of the system. While the production of wealth is enormous, and could easily be trebled, millions live in poverty, sickness and want. A great Austrian sociologist has computed that if the 5,000,000 able-bodied men in Austria, out of its population of 22,000,000, worked two hours a day for about two months in the year, there would be an abundance of both the necessaries and luxuries of life for all. It would, therefore, seem to be a factor in that con-y dition of happiness to which I have referred, that all who could, should do a certain amount of work. Now, private ownership of land relieves the owners, in course of time, of this necessity. For so soon as the land becomes sufficiently valuable, they lease it to a tenant, and live, in idleness, sometimes in an unrefined pursuit of pleasure, on the labour of another. Again, the population of a country increases, but the amount of land does not increase. Its value rises, and still further enriches its owners. Did space permit, we might pile Pelion on Ossa in demonstrating the inherent injustice of any systerii of private manipulation of the public wealth. France is sometimes quoted as the paradise of the peasant proprietor, but the truth is that only onetenth of French soil is held by small farmers ; of these, more than half are shackled by mortgages, while their condition is little better than that of the Hindoo Ryot, and there is a strong tendency towards concentration. It is admitted that private accumulation of land is a national'danger, hence many people think this sufficient to

condemn the principle, especially as none can predict what the value of land will ultimately be. No one knows better th;,n mysell" the severity of the lot oi tho pioneers, but how many of _thi. ni seek the cause uf their hordships and dis bilities ? Had this country never sold an acre of its land, town or country, the State income at five per cent, on the unimproved value would now amount to £6,500,000, and of this magnificent endowment quite £5,000,000 would be available each year for keeping in touch with advancing settlement, by metalled roads, railway and telegraph facilities, instead of passing into the hands of private individuals. It is surely folly to attempt to cure an evil by perpetuating an old one, and many think that the time is not far distant when the people, with no injustice to any concerned, will take back their own. The days of self-aggrandisement, c f individual enterprise, of competition in trade, have marked a bloody page in the world's history, but they are surely passing away. They have done their work, and it were time we let them go. The dawn of a new day is slowly breaking. Let us, then, hasten to bury, with such decency as we may, the grim skeletons of the past, and trusting to that "Unknown Power behind the Universe" which draws man always upwards, await, with ■tranquil faces, the higher destiny which the future surely has in store. —

I am, etc., W.T.M. Whangamomona, 2/5/07.