REFORM IN THE LAND TENURE

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1033, 12 August 1879, Page 2 (Supplement)

REFORM IN THE LAND TENURE

TO THE EDITOR. OF THE NEW ZEALAND AGKICCLTCKIST. Sir.,—l observe an article in your ablyconducted agricultural monthly of the Sth July on the "Channel Islands Laud Tenure," in which the writer states that we require the adoption of a similar land system to place us in the first ranks as cultivators of the soil and producers of its wealth. I may say, sir, that I agree with your contributor, but I go further with respect to the tenure of land than he does. I would infer that lie lias simply placed the Channel Islands laud tenure before us a warning to prevent us fiom falling into the errors of the English, Scottish, and Irish systems, which undoubtedly enslave and degrade the great bulk of their tenant farmers and agricultural laborers, because the land is held on a system of entail and primogeniture which efl'ectuallv precludes the possibility of the above classes becoming freeholders. The consequences of this situation have become of serious moment to the British consumer, as may be learned from the following facts Scarcely two years ago the English mar!:> ts paid the foreign exporter L 2,500,000 for eggs alone, while for poultry, butter, fruit, vegetables, and meat, a great many more millions are being paid annually. For sugar manufactured from the beet, the enormous sum of L(i, IJG3,yMS l JG3,yMS is paid yearly to continental producers. The whole of the above sums could be saved to the country if her land tenure were placed on free-trade principles, that is if the systems which I have ailuded to in the first portion of my letter were abolished and land made a jnarketabje article on such a liberal system as would enable the tenant tanner and agricultural laborer to till their own land. The advance I would suggest on the system described by your contributor is as follows :—lt is well-known that we have in this Colony a thrifty and industrious class of shepherds, who stand in the same relation to the pastoral proprietor as the agricultural laborer does to the fanner. Our chief source of thriving freehold cultivators are derived from the intelligent farm laborers, who, after a few years of service, become their own masters and employers of labor, owing to their own thrift and the opportunities they have of acquiring the possession of property. Why, jiiay I ask, is this liberality shown to him" only and not to the other, who is equally entitled to the indulgence of the State ? You are of course aware, Mr. Editor, that there are many millions of acres qf gppd pastoral land in New Zealand, and that out of this amount hundreds of acres are thoroughly waste lands to those who hold them, under their pastoral leases. Why does not the Legislature open some portion of these lands for pastoral settlement .to enable the thrifty shepherds to retain the profits which are to be acquired in his own sphere of labor, where he may make a free home for himself and his family, and assist in laying a sound foundation for the pastoral future of the Colony? That such an ownership of landed estate would be profitable to the State no one can deny, as it embraces the loyal settlement of the wildernesses of the Colony on the one hand, while on the other it of necessity induces education for its own protection besides adding most materially to the development of trade. The argument, sir, is this : If we form a sound basis, the superstructure will also be sound, and it is proved in the example of the Channel Island Land Tenure versus that of the United Kingdom. To avoid falling into the last-mentioned position requires the earnest effort of every liberal man iu the Colony.—l am, &c., Liberal.