The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5733, 14 August 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1879.

It is the fashion for Democrats, who assume the name of Liberals while on the hustings, to declaim loudly against the system of land tenure in New Zealand. The land for the people, and the people for the land, is the cry raised ; and the owners of many acres are held up to public scorn as men who have deprived the people of their birthright. With a view of inquiring into the truth of the allegation we have examined the land tax returns, and we find that there are no less than 87,000 separate and distinct landed properties in New Zealand, a fact which must be regarded as showing a very considerable subdivision of land among the 122.000 adult European males of the colony. The improved value of these 87.000 properties is estimated at close upon £100,000,000. Many of these properties, however, are held jointly by a number of owners, whose names do not appear, but whose share as sleeping partners in the business is shown by mortgages up to the value of £21,000,000, as well as by other debts covered by securities which have not been registered. Under the land tax in its present form all properties below £SOO in unimproved value are exempt from the tax, and this exemption, if no man held more than one property, would free 67,000 properties, or more than three-fourths of the property owners, from paying any land tax at all. Of course, a great many property owners, especially in the towns, hold more than one property; but the return from which we have quoted proves that in point of fact landed property in New Zealand has been subdivided until 100 out of every 140 grown-up men could be provided to-morrow with a section of land separately assessed under the land tax without any further subdivision being made, and without purchasing from the Crown; ‘

In round numbers, the improved value of all the property assessed under the land tax is £100,000,000. Inasmuch as the gross proceeds of the land tax are not expected to realise ’ quite £IOO,OOO, it follows that the tax will be paid on leas than £48,000,000 worth ot propeity—in other words, that the exemptions for improvements and for all landed property below £SOO in value, absolve from payment of land tax more than half the property which has been assessed by the land-tax valuers.

We have shown that landed property is already very much cut up and subdivided in New Zealand, and if further proof were needed, we might point to the fact that there were, in February last, 21,018 separate holdings of over an aero in extent, which is equal to one agricultural holding to every five and a half adult males. In order to show that the land held by the farmers and landowners in New Zealand is really as much, or more, subdivided than elsewhere, wo turn to the “Victorian Year-book for 1878,” and we find that there are in Victoria 45,000 holdings over an acre in extent, which is also equivalent to about one agricultural holding to every five and a half adult males. Land in New Zealand is therefore as evenly divided among the settlers as it is in Victoria, where the policy of bursting up large estates has been in full swing for the last ten years, and where the existing land laws were framed with the avowed object of being more .favorable to the small farmer than those 0 { any other country in the world. Wo have pointed out that the land tax returns show that landed property in New Zealand is cut up into very numerous sections, and that pastoral and agricultural holdings are quite as numerous in proportion to the population in Netv Zealand as they are in Victoria, which has been called the free selectors’ paradise. But we are also in a position to prove that the land tenure in New Zealand is on an infinitely sounder basis than that of Victoria. We believe that in the latter colony the whole of the system of land tenure is open to very gravo objections, and that it is exceedingly questionable how far the figures which we have quoted from Victorian returns can be fairly compared with New Zealand statistics. On the 31st of December, 1877, there were in Victoria eleven million acres held under fee simple ; hut there were also no less than eight million acres of selected land, the purchase of which had not been completed. It is evident that when more than a third of the whole area of land in private hands in a colony is held by men who are practically for the time being tenants of the Crown, a grave political danger is always imminent, if at any time circumstances should arise which should render the political assistance of this class of debtors a matter ot importance to the popular Government of the day. We do not hesitate to say that this danger has already presented itself in Victoria. In the Budget speech delivered by Mr, Gollard Smith, on the 29th of July last, we find that the total progress payments by the selectors show a falling off of £BI,OOO, the acting Treasurer himself says that the deficit of £137,000 “ is almost accounted for by the “ amount due from selectors, and from “diminished sales of land.” There is no intention expressed of enforcing the payment of the rents overdue, and we believe we are correct in stating that in many cases the progress payments of the selectors have been allowed to lapse. The number of holdings, returned under a system by which in exceptional circumstances the large body of email er land owners are propped up by the State allowing them to occupy and cultivate the land rent free, cannot bo fairly compared with the system existing in New Zealand at the present day, where no such indulgences can possibly be granted. If the Democrats of New Zealand, who are apparently desirous of imitating the example of Victoria in bursting up big estates, will but study the lesson inculcated by Victorian

experience, we believe that they will be forced to the conclusion that the experiment has been a failure, and that the New Zealand system of laud tenure, though by no means perfect, will bear favorable comparison with that of her Australian neighbors. An unscrupulous Ministry, dealing with a very large and powerful body of electors, all of whom were debtors, and many of whom might be defaulters to the State, would be at times of political excitement strongly tempted to act the part of the unjuso steward over again; and by declining to sue for the debts of the State (on the plea of a bad season, for instance), the Government of the day could bribe the electors, and control the result of a general election with the greatest ease. In conclusion, we desire to point out that acreage by itself is no reliable indication of wealth. In New Zealand thousands and thousands of acres of land are as hilly, and almost as barren and unsuitable for agriculture as the hills near Wellington. Arable land is, comparatively speaking, scarce, and in at least nine cases out of ten the holders of large tracts of land occupy a lot of pastoral mountain which, if it were not held in blocks of at least 20,000 or 30,000 acres as sheep runs, would hardly be worth having at a gift. Anyone desiring to test the truth of this assertion need only take a cruise round this colony in order to convince himself that if New Zealand farmers were forced to depend solely for a living upon the cultivation of land now in occupation, at least two-thirds of the country in private hands would at once be abandoned as worthless.