LAND TENURES, ANCIENT AND MODERN. Auckland, June 20.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 380, 26 June 1889, Page 3

LAND TENURES, ANCIENT AND MODERN. Auckland, June 20.

Itt sipite of the irioleraent weather, there was a good attendance at the meeting of the 1 Anti-Poverty Society, at Cook-street Hall last night' to hear the Rev. Mr Gulliver's address on' " Land - Tenures, 1 Ancientand Modern,',' In begihriirig hia address, the lecturer said thac the comparative mbthod of study ha,d revolutionised thought, and thus got fresh light on a ( subject by looking at it under other conditions. The land question might be better understood by- studying other systems of land tenure. The one in the Bible - was familiar, but that having "been already spoken of, he would pass on to the Roman system of land tenures. The lecturer gave a brief account of the foundation and progress of Rome, with special reference to the question of land. After dwelling on the principal features of Koman polity, he pointed out that the land was of two kinds — the private land, held as private property in small estates and cultivated or worked by the owners, and very rarely let out to tenantß ; secondly, the public land, or land acquired by conquest, which was for the most part assigned bo tenants at will on the payment of a certain proportion of the yearly produce to the state. This tenancy was rarely terminated except for very good reasons, hence the tenants came to look upon the land as their own. These estates were in a great many cases acquired by very wealthy people, who gradually enlarged their properties to the detriment of their pooror neighbours. This became aggravated as time went on, and reformers arose who sought to alleviate the evil. The first' was Spurius Cassius in the early part of the fifth century B.C. ; but in spite of his high character, position, and the equity of his proposed reform, he was crushed by the storm of opposition evoked by what he proposed, ' paying the penalty of death on a pretended accusation. His reform died with him. One hundred and thirty years later, Licinius — one of the Tribunes— again took up the question, and after ten years of opposition, carried through his proposal to limit the amount of public land held by an individual to about 333 acres, as well as the right of pasturage. He also directed 'that the cultivation ' oi the land should be carried 'out by free labourers to a cortain extent instead of by slaves. The reforms of Licinius were soon allowed to fall into disuse, and the old process of estate-building went on until the year 133 8.C., when Tiberius Gracchus, a man of High aims and noble character, undertook to alleviate the evils of t poverty and degradation which he saw resulted from what was going on. He proposed the enforcing of the Jaws of Licinius with certain alterations — two sons of a father being allowed a certain amount of the public land in addition to that possessed by the father. ' Compensation was to be given for buildings on a fair valuation, but all public land beyond the specified amount was ruthlessly confiscated with the intention of its being re-assigned to other poorer men. No compensation being given for the land thus taken, the proposition of Gracchus raised terrible opposition, culminating in an outbreak which caused his death. His brother Caius. Gracchus following in his footsteps ,met the same fate eleven year? later. Thus fell two, of the noblest of the Romans. After their time' the public land was rapidly wasted Until before .the end of the first century after"Chrisfc there remained in Italy nob one single acre, all being in the hands of private persons and worked by gangs of slaves who were in many instances '• a » terror to . tho districts. 'Thus. '''Rome -lost, by selfishness and land - grabbing the great public estate which had "once" been hers. Feudalism was. the^ next system " of land tenure to be, studied. Under it, land which' vested in. one" individual waV byhim assigned to others on the fulfilment df "certain duties. Land held "out and out " was termed "allodial." In England the feudal system was, if not introduced, at' least established on a firm basis by William the Conqueror. Under it the, whole land of England was vested in the king, and everyone held of him either immediately or else mediately by what was called sub-infeudation, each tenant doing homage for his fief. The tenures were of a threefold nature, viz. : Knight's tenure, tenuTe in free socage, ( and tenure in villeinage. Each of these tenures demanded from the tenant the fulfilment of certain duties^ often ot a very "onerous nature.. In Rome they saw a great nation losing as the years went on her grand publjq estate, until at last what had been hers was in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, whilst the majority of the Roman citizens were landless, and she, as a nation, beggared and ruined, fell an easy prey to the invading hordes that destroyed her. In England they started with a magnificent public estate, but, like Rome, a considerable portion of it was alienated. Let them learn the lesson, and say ere it be too late, this alienation must stop. For the errors of the past it may be hard to suggest a remedy, but for the future they could at" least take care that better counsels prevailed. " Evolution," and not " revolution," must be their watchword, and the remedy was aland taxi (Applause.) Mr Gulliver concluded by pointing out that it was the duty of all good citizens to guard the public estato, and hand it to posterity undiminished. Dv Bakewell gave his experience of the working of a land tax in the West Indies. Mr ' F. Cherry, while agreeing with the theory, considered it impracticable, as when people held land from the State they would send men to Parliament co convert it into freehold. The discussion was kept up by Messrs Kelly, JPlatt, Cowley, Purdie, and Greenwood. A vote of thanks was accorded to the lecturer at the conclusion of the meeting on the motion of Mr Boul.

A rocenb issue of the "Southland Daily News " contains an accoant of a meeting of citizens (held at Invercargill) in the Home Rule' movement and the reception of the "Irish delegates. Amongst those present' were Messrs Feldwick, J. G. Ward, and John McKenzie, three members of the House of Representatives. They were all favourable to Home Rule, and would assist in welcoming the delegates. Mr John McKenzie stated he had beenborn in a, country 'where the" people had been driven out by landlords', and one of hia earliest recollections ' was that of seeing a lot of people — men, women, and children — huddled together in; a cemetery in the Highlands. ,He asked his father why they were', there, and was told they, had been evicted out of a neighbouring glen^ and had no other { place on earth to goto. They were not allowed to- camp on the' public road,, and : so had to take refuge among the grave's.' The scene" made such an impression on' him*that he had never forgotten it, and he had every sympathy with the Home Rule cause in Ireland, arid those -who were fighting for it. " ' John L.' Sullivan has at last made amatch for 2,000 dollars and the championship 'of the world. His opponents ttie plucky Jake Kilrain, whom I think the big Yankee will find a hard nut to crack. !