THE COLONIST. NELSON,TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1858.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 104, 19 October 1858, Page 2

THE COLONIST. NELSON,TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1858.

Some short time ago, the Auckland papers iuformed us that the G oveknoe, or the Government, contemplated not only purchasing a large r tract of land .from-the natives at the Bay of Islands, hut also to- buy out the European settlers, in order to lay out a new province.' As we have not heard that the project has been begun, we think we cannot, employ ourselves better than by devoting a column to the consideration of the subject, and in doing so, we shall avail ourselves of the able production of the pen of Mr. Newman, Professor of Political Economy. He says, "The principle, that all lands belong to the Crown or State, or are invested for the benefit of the people, has,, from very early periods, been clearly upheld and submitted to in practice. Formerly, the State or Crown could not alienate them ; neither could it appropriate them to its private use; and there is no denying that the" illegal alienation of the lands of the. Crown by sales or gifts, is a scandalous blot in English history. Against this practice Parliament at various intervals protested, and even effected assumption, But after the wholesale distribution of the : chtirch lands among the aristocracy, Parliaments have been dumb '; and from that time to this, the alienation of the Crown lands has been going on, until the whole taxation of the country has been shifted from the land to the shoulders of the trade and industry of the country, the landlords having from time to time passed laws exempting themselves from all those feudal services in requital for which thay held their lands. Thus the old feudal theory gradually became overturned, and the commercial idea of land being something to be bought and sold in the madcet, readily found admission into the English mind." The consequence of this change of things, is that landlords now claim a right to their estates as if no one else had a right in them ; and we find them, both Irish and Scotch, ejecting the human occupants because they, find, or have been persuaded by the perversion of the term political economy, that sheep are more profitable than human beings! Now, political economy is, strictly spealdng, the science of. Wealth. It does not (as has been erroneously represented) confound itself with Governmental politics—it does not" undertake to define what things are, and what are not private property. But it assumes, judging from the practical results, that political law justifies the landlord in ejecting what he considers surplus population from off his estate! It consequently follows that the. rules of mere economy are no sufficient guide to the conduct of a moral being, thus shewing the distinction between politics -and morals, as the Church contends for as between morality and religion. Admitting then that as economists we have.no right to ask whether land is orissnot private property, yet, as moralists and politicians, we may entertain a doubt whether a landlord ever could have morally, or ever ought to have legally, a greater right over his estate than the King or Queen had to whom his ancestors originally, did suit and service for them. It is a curious fact, that land was not regarded as private property by the law in former times; neither is it to this day treated by the law on the same footing as other species of property. And yet we have no doubt that those who cry out the loudest, " Leges Anglicce nolumus mutare," would be the first to protest against enforcing their own creed. And whatever landlords may say, and I Acis of Parliament may enact, there are other persons who have rights in the land besides him who gets the rent of it. Land is not only a surface that pays rent, but a surface to live upon; and the law ought to have cared, and ought still to care, for those who are born upon that surface, and who need the use of it for the means of existence, as much as for those who have inherited it or bought a title to its productions. Now, no one will contend that such a: state of things has not brought about'a manifold amount of injustice, and to all reflecting minds may suggest some political measures by which such a state of things may be corrected, but which" it is not our province to initiate, did we feel competent to the task, and happily we have not arrived at that stage of our existence as a State at which the anomalies above referred to begin to shew themselves. We shall feel more than satisfied if anything which we can offer to the consideration of our fellow-colonists may have sufficient weight with them to bear in mind the truth of the axiom that-"prevention is better than cure," and we hope that our paper may,find its way to his Excellency's, Council room. In. spealdng of our Colonial possessions, the same author .observes:—-" The colonies of Great Britain are eminently essential as fields for the emigration of her so-called surplus population, and very justly remarks that colonies are not specially important; for commerce to any extent may be had with foreign and even uncongenial nations. And if the same language, religion, moral tone and even political system (erroneous though it may be) prevail as in the mother country, emigration is comparatively an easy thing. Now the colonies of England are of two very different kinds. Those only are fit for immigrants which have a climate suited to our bodily constitution, such as the Americas, Southern Africa, and the Australian colonies. Our tro-: pical colonies, which arepeopled by men offoreigu blood and language, are more properly called dependencies. To these capital may migrate* but no large numbers of our population. In the former, the great problem not yet solved is, who is to have <the disposal of Colonial Lands, and how it is to be done ? We do not pretend to see our way clearly through this difficult subject, but we may allude to the practice and opihiona

prevalent on it, and hope that they may yeY be >■ in time to gain the consideration of our Legislature. Upon this subject our author observes, "England formerly granted away by favor large tracts of land in her American colonies"; these, together with the Crown and Clergy reserves, as in Canada, remained in their wild state until time and circumstances should render them,fair fields for speculation." Although better and more equitable methods have been introduced, still great dissatisfaction prevails in all the colonies by the difficulties-which still interpose in the way of newly-arrived emigrants settling on the land. As to sales by auction, it is a de* lusion to pretend that an auction yields the best price that can be got (admitting that the land shoulcLbe sold); it can do nothing but cover afraud. The latest colonial doctrine seems to be '" that the land ought to be at the disposal of the purely local influence; hut in England it is contended that the colonial land is the heritage of the whole English people, and not the private right of that portion of them which happens already to have emigrated. An ingenious theorywas started some years since by Mr. E. G. Wakefield, and which is characterised by .his name, and was attempted to be carried out under his'superintendence by the late New Zealand Company. He pointed out that tHe settlers were embarrassed by too much land, in consequence of which no one would willingly serve for hire, since all wished to be freeholders. To obviate this he suggested that the land ought to be sold at & sufficient high price, and the money employed to send out laborers to the colony: such laborers being unable to purchase land at first, would work for hire on the farms of others until they became rioh enough to pur--' chase some for themselves. Thus a' constant stream of emigration would be.kept up. Mr. Wakefield, contrary to the fact of the failure of his scheme (of which hej has had ocular proof), contends that his scheme has not failed/for that it has not been, aa he asserts, really tried. That remark is true, but it is equally true that he has not so explained his views as to make them practicable. He proposed that the land should be sold at a sufficient high price—that is, sufficient to bring out laborers, and at the same time to keep a proper balance between proprietors and hired workmen; in other words, between labor and capital. But, as it must strike the most casual observer, he presents no mode or calculation as to what price will be sufficient to accomplish that object; nor hasMr # Wakefield explained what tribunal could be trusted to solve so delicate a problem as the " Sufficient Price" As regards emigration, there is no doubt that on the whole it is attended with decided advantage to the welfare of the emigrant. Its benefit to the mother country is, however, not so manifest. ' To some new countries the loss of population and capital, from the absence of deeply rooted local attachment to the soil, may become extremely embarrasßing. The "English people, particularly her rural population, are too deeply attached to their native localities to abandon them without strong reasons j and when they do so under the pressure of extreme, want and privations, generally carry with them all their resentment and angry feelings towards that portion of the new colonißts - who belong to that class, from whom they say and in too many cases with too much truth, all their miseries and sufferings at home originated. And so long as freedom and internal peace are preserved, no more than a - surplus of her population will emigrate. Well, then, having arrived at.the point of the actual existence of colonies, the author proceeds to discuss the subject of Colonial Revenue, and - observes—" Wherever a general system of land rent could be introduced, no tax appears more simple, more just, or more unfailing. Free nations must pay the penalty of their freedom. Their Governments cannot afford to defy public opinion, and therefore cannot afford to make enemies without necessity. The consequence is ihat they will not originate work for a distant object, unless driven on by a powerful pressure from without. Still one might hdpe that in the regulations for new colonies (or settlements within them), some kind of foresight might have been, and still may be, exercised to save them from falling into the same wastefulness and hand-to-mouth policy as has been the "practice hitherto in all the colonies. The colonial lands are avowedly a State possession' 7 . To ' grant them away to individuals for favor is at length repudiated, except as regards retired naval and military officers; but to sell them is thought to be a master stroke of modern statesmanship—that is, to sell for the sole-benefit of one generation what ought to be a perpetual source of revenue for future generations. This^ to say the least of it, is strange economy—almost equal in wisdom to the boy who killed his goose to get all the eggs at once. Our practice of selling land alienates it to individuals for ever, and, for an insignificant sum paid down, the permanent heritage of the country. How much wiser are individuals even ia providing for their grand-children. The holder of town lands, when he grants a build* ing lease, secures that at the end of the lease the land, with all appurtenances to boot, shall reverMo and beepjoe the property of his heirs j and to this most unreasonable demand, builders innumerable are found to agree with perfect readiness. Yet the State which calls, itself; mother-country exercises less foresight for the future welfare of her colonies; If, instead of selling the fee simple of the land, the Government were to grant it on leases for a given term, which would leave no just ground of com- - plaint, and afford ample time to justify and repay any expences which the most speculative or sanguine capitalist might feel desirous to indulge in—whether as regarded profit on capital, or the enjoyment of luxuries," or gratification of taste —nobody would hjwe any ju«t cause of

complaint. During the early periods in which there may. be an abundance of land kr the hands of the State, the Government revenue upon it could only be taken by an average. This mode of raising a revenue, we are aware, can only be carried out at the^first outset of a new colony, or the formation of new settlements in them, such as that contemplated at the Bay of Islands. The proposition, however, independent of the soundness of the principle, presents a much, more honest plan than to receive the fee simple in a single sum paid down, by which we defraud Posterity of its lawful inheritance, and get little real permanent benefit for ourselves. We fear we have extended our exposition to more than ordinary length, but we think it is a subject well deserving the consideration of our legislators, while there is yet a field for its introduction.