Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1907. SECOND "EDITION." EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8761, 12 March 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1907. SECOND "EDITION." EDITORIAL NOTES

The discussion which took place on Saturday at the meeting of Marton branch of the Farmers’ Union on the question of the limitation of private estates was most interesting. On the general’proposition that it is not to the advantage of the country that land should be held in overlargo areas every one is agreed, but there are several points on which differences of opinion are sure to rise and before coming to a definite conclusion we require answers to two or three questions : - What area of land is too largo to bo held by one man, and can this area be satisfactorily detoermind by law-? Is it a fact that the aggregation of largo estates is going on at present ? Dees the Land Bill provide a satisfactory method of limiting estates? Should the’ Farmers’ Union bring forward an alternative scheme ?

In answering the first question wo at onco realise that it is impossible to define what area of land is too large to be held by one man. Land differs in quality so much that without injustice it is hopeless to assign a limit which shall cause large estates of valuable land to be broken up and leave untouched those enormous areas of poor land which must be held in extensive holdings to bo worked profitably. The present Ministry soon realised this difficulty, and altered the Land Bill so as to make the limitation apply to valuo and not to area. Even then they shrank from applying the value test

to town properties, although the experience of many towns in the colony proves that progress is retarded when the available sites are in the hands of few owners. It is clear then that the term over-large estate is very indefinite. - We may place the limit at £15, 000, but there is no more reason for choosing this figure than ±'14,000 or £16,000. If the law is to deal with the matter directly there should be some very apparent line of demarcation, and no such line exists.

The second question goes to the root of tho whole matter. If overgrown estates are' diminishing in number the need for legislation either does not exist at all or limitation proposals are needed only to hasten a process which is going on in the natural course. It merely requires a reference to the facts to get evidence on this subject. Un-_ fortunately the. Year Book in its statistics of;tho number of holdings does not separate tho freehold holdings from the Grown leases, and therefore it appears thaHhe number

of large holdings has not dikninished very greatly. As there are, however, only 43 holdings in the country Of oyer 10,000 acres* and as 885 Croy?n tenants hold lij million acres of pastoral runs it seems probable that the great number of largo holdings are not freehold, and tfie probability certainty When we note that the Whole extent of land held in areas of over 10,000 acres amounts to 17J million acres. It should also be noted that Government already owns 46 per cent, of the whole of the occupied land of the colony.' If separate statistics of the__ freehold holdings were produced there is nd doubt that it would become evident that the number of large freehold estates is diminishing under the influence of the graduated tax and the progress of settlement. The third question need not trouble us at present. It has often been discussed in these columns, and there appears to be no doubt that the passage of the present Bill would produce disastrous results.

The motion carried at the Marton meeting by a small majority was (that it should be left to the Executive to make such suggestions for alterations in the Land Bill as will meet With the general approval of the various branches. This practically requires the Executive of the Union to draw up a new Land Bill, as amendment to a Bill such as that now before the country is impossible unless, like the Irishman’s gun, it is to be the same gun after having a new stock, lock and barrel. Such a « step as this may therefore be considered as outside the region of practical politics. The proposal that the Union should give an official opinion on the question of limitation of estates is not so unreasonable. It is obvious that any satisfactory measure should work by slow and gradual means unless a great dislocation in the finances of the country is to be produced, and it is most important that we should know exactly where wo stand before rushing into some new scheme. An official statement from the Union as to the effect of already existing legislation for breaking up great estates would have considerable value. If the process is going on, as we firmly believe it is, surely and not very slowly, there is no need for any new proposals, and the Union should make it clear that it will oppose any such legislation. If, however, it appears that large estates are being built up and not being farmed to advantage it will remain for the Union, as an expert body acquainted with the land and its management, to formulate a policy acceptable to its members with the object of putting a check on the growth of abnormally large estates.