"BUST 'EM UP."

NZ Truth, Issue 64, 8 September 1906, Page 1

"BUST 'EM UP."

The Government's proposal to stop all further sales of Crown lands and force the hands of the greater landowners, by what Mr McNab calls the £50,000 law, to either cultivate to the best advantage their possessions, or sell to others who will, is meeting

with plenty of Opposition from the

anti-progress party. The majority of the Australian big dailies consider the proposal as entirely Utopian, and raise that White whiskered old bogey ''driving away English capital." After the experience each of the three eastern , States of Australia has had m land matters— the . busted boom m Victoria, the pastoral leasehold swindle m Queensland, and the present scandals m New South Wales, it seems to us that the Australian dai-, lies, whatever they might think of the New Zealand Government's land policy, should for sheer shame sake, ! refrain from criticising it. It must j be admitted that our lands policy is j as yet far from perfect, but compar- | ed with what has happened m. <the neighboring continent, we have every reason to oongratulate ourselves,. more v particularly as the area oft' arable land is limited, and this colony m its younger days was peo-J plied with some of the hungriest 'land ; sharks that ever coveted green pastures and broad acres. - Had it not; been for a vigorous isCnd policy— a. policy that ' rfecpgnised --p.pt. the ; --sacred' k^bpm%y?'^ rigtits of the people to produce-^New Zealand might have been .to-day a glorified sheep run— owned, by a few bloated aristocrats, like the original six "great families" , of West Australia,

who would resent the arrival of the

new-comer and look askance upon-any and every measure of reform. John Ballance and Jock McKenzie altered that. They realised that New Zealand soil could support more than a few gilded squatters, and it was left to Mr Seddon to continue the policy of closer settlement which they inaugurated. By the buying up of certain big estates and cutting them up into small holdings', and the disposal of some millions of Crown lands, Neither m freehold or lease-in-perpe-tuity, the prosperity of the colony has been maintained and the popula-

tiori increased. But within the last five years there has been a block. The area of land under cultivation

has not increased year by year as itshould. . With our extensive sea, coast, the fertility of our soil, and ttie regularity of our seasons, rt Is a crying shame that so many million, acres should be devoted to raising sheep— and not raising them to anything* Hke the best advantage. It may bemore profitable for the individual to* let a limited number of -flocks browseon virgin pastures, but it is infinitely more profitable to the State if; treble the number are supported ofi< the same lands after suitable cultivation. It means the difference -between a competence for many r and a colossal' fortune for one.

II New Zealand is to continue to* prosper it is imperative that her population must increase, and this cannot possibly be accomplished unless the means of supporting thatdxtra population is placed m the people's hands. We have been too, apt m the past to judge our prosperity by the price of wool, mutton, aides, tallow and flax m the London market, forgetful of the fact that prices really mean very little improvement m the condition of the fporker, and gives very little more «abor, if any, than would be required 4 p raise the same products for a depressed market. It is the big land>wners who benefit most by an m Jated market. This fact w*as amply demonstrated some five years ago m Queensland on the big cattle runs. Tor years the squatters had been imassing fortunes out of the herds "ruining on their Urge estates. They^ employed very little labor— no more tllan was necessary to' round up and dfive the surplus beasts to market. ■Then came the big drought, and to jsive their herds the squatters were fyrced to employ men cutting mulga *id pear for fodder. They all survived the drought, although the cost 361 the extra labor reduced their profits considerably, but never for years iad labpr been m such demand, or line worker so well off. Had these PRe stations been cut up into smaller holdings, all this surplus labor wonld have been ronuired every year, jand the output of beef been twice as great. The land-owner is always content to. /ret rich by the easiest (means, and it is only, by so limiting

the extent of the holding that to. make a decent living at all he must work it to its best advantage, that the land will ever be made to yield its true value.'' So long as there is a good market for wool and mutton m London, so long will the squatter continue to export the total product of his land and leave the landless worker to starve. The prosperity of a - country must lie, not m the enormous individual* wealth of a few citizens, but m the number of its citizens and the moderate wealth of them all.

It has frequently been asserted by members of the Opposition and opponents of the Government policy of small holdings, that the curse of 'landlordism cannot possibly reach New Zealand, as the arable land is> already so. well, divided. Comparisons are drawn -between the extent of land .holdings here and m Great Britain. There has been no official return made for the last 30 years to show how the land of Great Britain isheld,, but recently a very careuil an r alysis of the Blue Books , was made by Mr John Bateman, . and he published the result of, his labors m a. /book entitled ''Great Landowners." The following table is taken from his (work and show^s how the -lands of England, and Wjiles are held : , ,

:- : ' ■''..■'.■:■■:■- '.-\. ■--,"• {_ '■■■ .^W,\..- ; --;»Apres. . ■ ' ■'- 400-Peerk- sfit'P.eeresseii I .."; 5, 729,979* . 1,288' Other Great liandowners- : 8,497,fi99.' 2,529 >' Squires" ... L.,4,319,271^ 9,585 " Greater Yeomen " ...« 4,782,627? 24,412 "Lesser Yeomen" ...4,144,272.; 217,049 "' Small Proprietors " ... .3,981,806> 1703,289 Cottagers ... ... 161,1483 14,459 Public Bodies ... .....1,443,548!. Waste Land ... ... 1,524,624* £ .'• . ■ ■ ■ ■ . TotaLArea ...34,524i974-

It will thus -be seen thai; 1688 persons own nearly one half -of the land T , awhile the other half is divided up* between 971,323 owners. The pro-» portion if taken for the whole of the' United Kingdom is even more striking. Out of a total area of 77,000, 000 acres Mr Bateman-'s figures show' that 2500 persons own no less than* 40,426,900 acres, or more than half.; ■of the whole. This is, a most appalr ■ling state of affairs, but it only em--iphasises the fact, that as great 'wealth and the most abject poverty •are always found together, so' does ■extensive landlordism m a country - ■mean extreme misery for the people. ?So extreme indeed that Mr Dillon, the Nationalist member for East Mayo, speaking at Armagh; last week, j isaid that unless the landlords would-, /grant some'^melioration to the struggling masses, who were willing to* till the soil for bare bread, he would^ ; advise giving some of them a dose of [the "odd medicine," which means a. Isellyful of swan shotrsome moonlight' night. It is estimated that m the whole of- the United Kingdom there are not more than from 1,000, 000 to 1,250,000 people holding-land m them own right. We do not for a moment rsuppjpse that New Zealand could ever :be landlord-ridden to such an extent fas that, or that the young. New-Zea--lander will ever be forced, for his--own protection, to give up shooting (the festive rabbit, or the wily duclc •as his Sunday recreation and take to: .potting squatters. Bat the curse of-., the landlord is upon us all the same. There are at the present time thousands upon thousands of acres- of fine,, rich land, particularly m the Hawke's •Bay district and m Canterbury,, that' might carry a population equal to that of the whole colony -if it w-ere only given over to cultivation instead of being merely the home of. a few sheep, or preserved as shooting grounds for the English tourist.

We have no returns at hand* which will give us figures' that will compare m particular with those we have quoted relating to Great Britain, but there are certain valuation figures to hand which, if not exactly suitable m making a comparison, are distinctly interesting as showing how large a proportion (m improved value X, of our land is held by a mere handful of people. For instance, of hold-, ings valued up to £500 there are no less m this colony than 48,943, the improved value of their total property being £.12,754,518. There are only 4i. holdings of from £100,000 and upwards m value, and the total value of these is £7,871,058. Holdings from £50,000 and upwards number 153 and total m improved value £15,514,022. Thus it will be seen that 44 persons own land to the value of that owned by about 27.000

small holders, Ami that 153, ovvners ,own one and a ' quarter :atr great; art; area as 48,9.43 ;<#nefe; The totj^l ,un- .. xrdprbved vairie of the colony's lands is £i20;981,59?[. Of th^isv^ people iliold £7,871,055 ,t>r -about:- one-sevenr' teenth.

For the -purpose-of illus£rationy.let v ' •us suppose that the 48,993 smalL hol.ders are making a living from their: land. To do .so they mus,t employ labor, and it is reasonable to pre* isume that at least half of them have a family. At the very lowest estim-. ate these 48,943 small holders would have 97,886 persons dependent upon them, or a total of 254,829 souls existing upon the land they held. this with the population that is supported by the 153 persons .- who. hold one and a quarter times as much land ? If each of. these landowners employed ,100 persons a.bout 'his estate the total would only be 15,300 souls. It will therefore be seen that if these 153 big estates were cut up, they would support an additional population of 239,529 ! It stands to reason also that if the acreage held by these 153 landlords is to support nearly a quarter of a million people the output will have to be materially increased. Whether this extra output is consumed locally or sent to the home' and foreigfe markets, matters not, It is- wealth that tells: whether it be consumed at home or abroad, the greater the- wealth produced the greater the prosperity of the State. Want of proper production means a big loss annually to theState. The Government cannot lie., expected to build and maintain railways, 'roads and bridges, to develop unoccupied lands, if those lands are I not going to yield the fulness of their [fertility .>.

Speaking at a meeting of the Farmers' Union recently the president, Mr J. G. Wilson, said that m the dairy industry alone £1,000,000 was lost annually through a want of proper culling of the qows. The same ' thing applies to -every branch of agriculture—the land is not made to yield its.true value. This applies m a lesser degree to small holdings, principally because of the ignorance of the . farmer, but the main evil is m the big estates, where no effort is made to induce greater production. Mr McNab has promised that the next ten years will see more small holdings taken up than have been put under .cultivation during the past ten years. ••If this caa be accomplished, we may -confidently look forward to a population of over two millions by the end of 1916. And there is no reason why ■it should not be accomplished. The ■land hunger . can easily be appeased, if the Government -will only adhere to the policy it has laid down and without fear or- favor •*' bust up the big estates."