The Magic of Property.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 962, 20 July 1881, Page 1 (Supplement)

The Magic of Property.

By E. A. Mackechnie, Esq. [We purpose transferring to our columns, from time to time, a series of papers addressed to the Auckland Star, as above]. Few persons can glance over the literature of the last two years without being struck with the constant recurrence of one subject—the position, the unhappy, the unfortunate position —of the working classes in England. Attention has been drawn to it in a variety of ways. It appears in books, magazines, phamplets, newspapers, and is placed under every degree of light and shade by writers of varied information and accomplishments. The subject is still written on and discussed, for the evil to be removed has not as yet been touched by the legislature. It will be found that most writers, however they may treat the subject in other respects, agree in this, that the laws relating to land are at the bottom of the mischief; that those laws are so framed as to preclude the working man—toil as he may throughout his entire existence, his three scoie years and ten —from obtaining, or oven hoping to obtain a house of his own. It has been publicly and emphatically said, by scores of men competent to form a correct opinion, that the Ehglish are a homeless people. They have no home of their own, ng dwelling that they can render more comfortable and embellish during their leisure hours, no land that thay can cultivate and render more productive, and feel that in doing so they are improving their own property. Now, it is to this subject that I would ask your attention to-night, for it affects your well-being, the well-being of your families, and the well-being of the community in which you live, in no inconsiderable degree. Much that I shall say will of course not be new to persons accustomed to devote a short time to reading the books and periodicals of the day; but to yourselves who have less leisure for such studies, I woyld fain hope the greater portion of my'paper will be heard for the first time. Sir George Grey, in one of his public speeches, is reported to have called the working men here “ serfs but he could not (assuming he w’as correctly rdported) have intended the statement to apply to their present S.. condition, for they are as free as most people. He must have referred to what they will inevitably become if no alteration is made in the law, which enables a holder of land to tie it up for many generations. A similar expression, curiously enough, is usod by Mr. John Bright, in speaking of the suffering and helpless population of England. “ They are bound to the land,” he says, “ by-a tie, more that of serfdom, than one of ownership and of independent enjoyment and possession.” That this is the right construction to be put upon Sir George Grey’s expression, if he used it at all, seems clear. It is made the more so by his late utterances at the Thames, Coromandel, and at the Theatre here, when he referred to peasant proprietors of the land. This, Sir George did very briefly, owing, I presume, to more important topics claiming his immediate ; but, to my mind, he said sufficient to show that if he used the word “ serf ” he spoke of the future and not of the present. Having said so much in explanation of a word that has provoked much comment, I shall briefly place before you a picture of the English law, relating to land and the result of its working, In order to contrast it with another picture, showing the law prevailing in many of the States on the continent of Europe, and the effect it has had upon the inhabitants of those countries. The condition of an old country like England, however, cannot and does not represent the position of a young Colony like this. But England’s history enables us to trace the action and effect of her land laws upon the welfare of her people, in the same way as we can follow a slow but fatal disease in a living body. If wc are wise we may gain a serviceable lesson from her experience, and by taking a warning in time, avoid what may otherwise lead to the destruction of a people’s life. You will thus see my object to-night is not to touch upon the important questions relating to the dealings with public lands here by the Government of the Colony; but to show you, as ► clearly as I can, the remarkable influence the ownership of property has upon the well-being and happiness of mankind. I shall refer, therefore, to the laws relating to land, so far only

as may be necessary for that purpose, and as illustrating the subject I have in hand. But before entering upon the subject I would ask you to understand distinctly that it is inadvisable to interfere with the requisition of wealth of any kind by any class in the community. To do so necessarily destroys one ot the most powerful inducements to energy, industry, and intelligence. When people tell you that wealthy men should not be -allowed to acquire more than a fixed quantity of land, or that the land should be taken from the rich owner and divided amongst those who had none, or that a certain quantity of land should be granted to everyone by the State, you may rest assured they either deceive themselves or wish to deceive those they are adressing. The community of property has frequently been attempted, but experience of its inconvenience soon compelled mankind to abandon the attempt. Every one who has nothing is ready to divide with his neighbour. If any of you have a pound; and I have only a shilling, you realize at once how ready I am to divide, to receive your ten shillings and hand you over my sixpence. That is the plain statement of equality, though it is disguised in many ways, and in a flood of words. But your ‘ perfect equality ’ man is never content —he is always for dividing —for he never acquires anything himself, and squanders (if he can) what the hardworking, thrifty man earns and saves. If you work out the idea in your own mindg, you will find that ‘ perfect equality ’ is entirely in favour of the do-nothing man, acd that if the practice of dividing were continued for any length of time it would reduce society to the most extreme indigence, and and instead of preventing want and beggary in a few, would render it unavoidable to the whole community. All this has been made manifest very frequently, and the wild theories I have referred to have been shown to be fallacious and unworkable. To refute them constantly would be an endless and idle task, requiring more than a life time to accomplish. There is but one way of independance, and that is to earn what you require by labour, self-denial, and economy. I do not suppose for a moment that all this is entirely unknown to .you, but I state it so that I myself may not be misunderstood in what further I may say. In France, Switzerland, Norway Germany, Belgium, the Channel Islands, and in the United States of America, the land is, as a rule, the property of those who cultivate it. In these and other countries, where land laws similar to our own do not exist, the owners of the soil are rapidly increasing in numbers. England is the only great country where the owners of the soil are constantly diminishing ; she stands alone, pre-eminent in this unenviable singularity. The why and the wherefore, as stated by those who have devoted much time and attention to the subject, I shall endeavour now to make plain to you. It is this. Our laws prevent a subdivision or sale of the property on the death of the owner by allowing him to make deeds and wills, which for many years after his death prevent the land from being sold. The laws of other countries either force or allow a subdivision and sale. That is the difference. One system is said to spread destitution and misery broadcast among a hopeless and helpless population ; the other to produce, for the many, much independence, contentment, and happiness. Now I wish to make the mode of dealing with a large landed estate, generally adopted in England, as clear to you as possible. I want you to understand it because undoubtedly it is one of the great questions of the day affecting all English speaking people, because it appears to me a matter of great importance to the future welfare of the inhabitants of the Colony and because it rests in a good measure with yourselves whether the law shall remain as it is, or be altered. You doubtless observed in yestesday’s papers that a Bill would be introduced by the Premier to prevent the tying up of lands ; but as its provisions may not be sufficiently full for the purpose, or it may not pass, I still think it well to point out to you what can be done under the present law, so that you may be in a position to understand the question should it have further to be considered. I will ask you then to suppose that I am a young man possessed of a large landed estate, unincumbered. I can, of course, do what I like with it—give it away, sell it, or divide it, and if I run into debt my creditors can, by process of law, have it seized and sold. But sup-

pose with this unincumbered estate I intend to marry. The friends of my intended wife then insist upon a settlement, not only for her sake, but for the sake of any children of the marriage. Now let me tell you the nature of a settlement. It is a deed by which j I hand over my property to another | (s.ay to the Chairman) with directions to pay a certain sum out of the rentals ' to my wife during her life, and the rest of the rentals to myself during .my life. The Chairman holds my pro - I perty on these terms, or trusts as they are called, and he is himself called a trustee. You see my wife and self have a life Interest in the rentals or profits of the land. What becomes of the rest of the estate ? The deed of settlement goes on to provide that after my death the estate shall be held in trust for my first and other sons, one after another, and their sons. Now as soon as I die my eldest surviving son occupies my position. He has a life estate only, for the deed gives the estate on his death to his children — my grandchildren. This is brought about by a resettlement whenever necessary. Thus the land is always tied up generation after generation, and cannot be sold. If my family is a large one I also saddle the estate with payments to my younger sons to start them in life, and to my daughters for their support (all this is out of the rentals) what the land can be made to yield, but the land itself cannot be touched.