RYOTWARRY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5658, 19 May 1879, Page 3

RYOTWARRY.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Bib, — Te Whuiti appears from the newspaper reports to have asked the Government a simple, straightforward question “ What terms do they offer the Maoris in exchange for the European settlement of the Waimate Plains ?” Without discussing the replies and rejoinders that might be made as to their haying been already “ confiscated,” and that confiscation waived for fifteen years, &c., &c., it is surely an important and simple fact that this is the great question between English and Maori all over the North Island.

The Maori has land to spare, and has ho objection to part with it if he can do ao advantageously, and with' safety. The first named condition is the main one with most private individuals ; the second, that which weighs with the chiefs and thinking men, and especially with Tawhiao and Rewi. I submit for the consideration of the public that the introduction of Ryotwarry, permanent lease system, would meet the difficulties of the question, and would do away with what may be called the international yexed question for eve.

If tbe Maori was assured of the regular payment of a rent for his land for ever, more land would be offered us than Englishmen could cultivate for ten years to come, andif theßnglishman was assured of the unchanging permanence of his title and the charge on his land there would be no lack of tenants on a Crown estate. But the lovers of freehold object, and say they will accept no other title. The Government object, and view with jealousy any plan which is not their own, and redounds to their political credit. The land rings object, for their profits arising from overreaching first the Maori and then their own countrymen would cease. These last I must be content to accept as irreconoileable foes; they wish to monopolise in the hands of a few rich men or rich companies the purchase gad sale of Maori Tgnd. I wish that such monopolies should be impossible, and that all profits should be clearly and frankly known, and be carried to the benefit not a few hole and corner individuals, but of the whole of two races. If these monopolists can throw dust in the eyes of tho people and prevent their understanding the very simple plan I put forward they will do so.

Of the Government I only ask an unprejudiced audience. If after a patient heating they approve, the scheme becomes their own, and theirs the credit for all future time, for I am a nobody and desire nothing. To the loveys of freehold and the public in general I reply by stating some of the advantages of Ryotwarry and meeting the difficulties. I’he advantages offered by Ryotwarry. are that it would open Maori land to Europeans without the cost of purchase and without delay, and that it would create virtually a largo Crown land property, from which the nation would eventually reap au annual income of half a million a year—thus relieving; the public of taxation to this amount.

To apply it to a distinct case: The opening offered by Eyotwarry to a small capitalist, and its beneficial results both to him and the nation, are large and manifest. It offers him a property without the cost of purchase. Suppose an immigrant to arrive with £IOOO of capital. Under present circumstances he will probably sink the whole sum in .the purchase of that which an Englishir-u loves well, if not too wisely—a freehold—say, of 500 acres at £2 an acre. He then has either to retr-'n his new capital, the land, unused, while by manual labor he earns more money to spend upon it, or else he must borrow. If with borrowed capital he fences and stocks it, the success or failure of his whole emigration venture depends on the state of the first season and the markets. If they favor him he succeeds ; if not, he is mined. Under the permanent lease system no such perilous gambling surrounds him. Having selected, say, the same 500 lores, he receives a lease, pays the first year’s rem,, «ay of £SO, at 2s. an acre, and the land becomes liis irrevocably. From that day it becomes without purchase his own landed estate, to mortgage, to sell, or to leave to his children, while £950 of his capital is still in his hands for its improvement. With this £950 he fences and stocks a part, pays next year's rent without feeling it, makes waste acres productive, and becomes a valuable settler, a benefactor to the nation, himself a prosperous unit in the general progress of the community. Is such a proposal not worth at least consideration ? Is there any other scheme that the man of small or moderate capita! would prefer? If it be objected that under such a system an estate might be lost through non-payment of the rent, I answer that this is a theoretical and hot a real or practical danger. The reason of this answer will be found in the fact that under Eyotwarry the desire of tho landlord is to retain and not to oust his tenants, to establish their prosperity and the permanence of his own rent roll, and not to seek temporary profits by pressing or rack-renting. In pursuance of this principle the course pursued when rents fall in arrear is to attach that which will least affect the solvency of the tenant, least be felt by him. Hence for the recovery of say £SO from 500 acres the property of the tenant might be held liable in the following order : —lst. That which is perishable, viz., the crops. 2nd. That which is costing food, viz., the cattle. 3rd. Furniture. 4th. Agricultural machinery. sth. House. 6th. Laud. ; But the fact is that it would never come to this point, for the owner of the right to transfer a perpetual lease title to 500 acres which he has been improving by fencing and breaking up would never find it difficult to borrow the amount of many a year’s rent on the security of it, or at the worst he sells it, and the owner of a freehold could do no more. Although there is nothing to prevent the aggregation of many properties in one man’s hands, and he who wins may have, the tendency of Eyotwarry is to create many small farms of from 50 to 500 acres.

There are 10,000 square miles that might be thus treated. Every purchase and sale of lands by the Government reduces this area.

Is the present opportunity for creating so magnificent a national property to he thrown away ? Is the land to he allowed to pass through the hands of monopolists, or will the people, Maori and English, retain it for ever as public property ? ■ Shall a few largo estates be formed, or 10,000 small farms ? Shall this dangerous sore be kept open by petty undignified, dishonest, and distrusted negotiations with the Maoris, or shall the question be frankly settled and laid aside for ever by the adoption of the Eyotwarry system throughout all lauds that may in future pass from Maori to British occupation ? As the Maoris are willing to give the suggestion a favorable hearing, is it wise of the Government and the English public to refuse to entertain the subject ? If there is so simple a way of satisfying both races, is it right or sane to rush upon a war of races in preference ?—I am, &o , E. 0. G. Thomas, H.M. Indian Civil Service.