The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1882.

Temuka Leader, Issue 982, 25 July 1882, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1882.

On last Friday night a Land Bill which embodies the most liberal principle that was ever introduced into any senate in the world passed its second reading in the New Zealand House ot Repiesentatives. That principle is contained in the provision for leasing instead of selling the Crown lands of the Colony. This measure has had a curious effect on the House, It has converted Minisrerialists into Oppositionists, and Oppositionists into Ministerialists. We are glad of this. We were afraid that party feelings had so far blinded the majority of members to the interests of the Colony that they would oppose anything that would be introduced by th«ir opponents, but we are glad to find we were mistaken. The measure, however, has been introduced to© late in the day. If this principle had been adopted when the Colony was first founded it would hare make it the happiest, the most contented, and the most prosperous in the world, but it cannot yield the some results now that the best part of the land has been sold. < But it may lead to great things eventually. It may make future generations, if not the present one, realise the fact that the land ought not to have been alienated from the Crown

Let us suppose for a "moment that all tb« land in the colony belonged to the Crown, and that all our settlers were leaseholders paying rents to the Government, what would be the result ? It would be that we would hare no taxes to pay, that we would have no public debt, and that the Colony would be twice as populous as it is at present. A great many men who have never been able to accumulate sufficient to buy land would have been able to take it up under the leasehold system had it been established from the beginning, and the colony would hare been more thickly populated than it is at present. The rents which would accrue from leaseholds would defray the expenses of Government, and there would be no necessity for taxation. But wc may be told, as indeed it is argued by some who are opposed to the leasing principle, that the natural ambition of every man is to acquire a piece of land which he can call his own—land that no power on earth can take from him—and that unless the colony affords him an opportunity of gratifying this laudable desire he will go to some other country that will. Could not such security be given to him under the leasing system as would enable him to look upon the land as his own ? Could not a lease be given to him that could be terminated only when he failed to pay his rent, aud would not this be as good as a freehold ? Under the present law a man who cannot meet his engagements with his creditors must part with his freehold, and is thrown on the world just as j badly off as if he had been ejected for arrears of rents. The State could afford to be a lenient landlord. It would not need to extract the last penny from itstenants as private individuals do ; because it would have no necessity for more than would be sufficient to defray the expenses of governing the colony, and that distributed over all the land in the colony would not amount to as much as a great many pay for interest on money they have borrowed on their properties. In fact tenants would be their own landlords, because they would have the election of their legislators in their own hands, and as representatives as well as electors would be tenant*' they would be bound by ties of mutual interest, and there would be a complete absence of the jealousy and hatred which disparity of social position creates under existing circumstances. Some say that the leasehold system will not be taken advantage of because the desire of the people is to acquire freehold. The pastoral leases at present in existence, and the fact that their owners are looked upon with feelings of envy, shows how absurd this argument is. We believe it is the first truly liberal step that has been taken to have the land properly settled upon, provided the tenants are dealt with as liberally as they ought to be. So far as we can gather from the debate tho size of the farms are to be limited to 640 acres. For convenience, even though it may not be altogether correct, we will take that as our standard, and try to draw a comparison between the leasehold and the freehold systems. Let us suppose now that there are two men on two farms of 640 acres each, side by side. The value of the land is £5 per acre, | which amounts altogether to £3200. One of them has half the cost price in leady cash which he pays down, and mortgages the land for the other half at 8 per cent. Be has not a penny to work his farm, with but must go on the credit system, giving some grain merchant a lien over his ccop. He cannot move without paying interest and commission and the money lenders and their victims know what, till at the end of the year every penny he has made by his hard work is swallowed up. We remember a case which came before the Court in Timaru some time ago in which commissi: ns, legal expenses, and mteresc, etc., made up a greater sum than the amount originally borrowed—and we have no doubt there are many such cases —and the result was that the unfortunate victim had to file, like a great many more, and forfeit the money he had sunk in his farm as well as the fruits of his labor. On the other side of the fence is the man who took up the 640 acres leasehold, but before we go further, the terms of his lease ought to be settled. In our opinion a Crown tenant's lease should be interminable so long as he paid his rent, and that rent should not be higher than five per cent on the value of his property. That would be 5s per acre for his land, and if every acre of land in the colony were held by crown tenants it would not be found necessary to have the rents so high. He takes up the 640 acres on these terms, and has, like big neighbor,

£I6OO capital, more than enough to work it profitably for the first twelve months. He has nothing to do with mortgages, liens, etc., all he makes is his own, He can sell his produce at the dearest market, and buy what he wants at the cheapest, and has nothing to do but hand over to Government at the end'of the year £l6O, or £32 more than his neighbor pays as interest on the money he borrowed, without taking into consideration the money paid for liens, commission, etc. We have placed the rent of the tenant twice as high as it would be had all settlers on land been Crown tenants, but even so wc think that he will be a far. more independent man, and much better off than his neighbor who has to pay the shape of interest. The State is a better landlord than the money-lender, and if the leases were made terminable only when the tenant has failed to pay rent we cannot see why he could not feel as if he held ?. freehold. We congratulate Mr Rolleston'on having introduced this system. A great many men who could uever buy land will now be able to take it up under the leasehold system, and consequently we teel certain it will result in more extensive set'tlmeLt of the land.