The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1833. THE LAND QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1113, 26 June 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1833. THE LAND QUESTION.

The Hayhurst v. his tenants cases have resulted, as was anticipated and devoutly wished for, in the complete discomfeiture of the plaintiff, and there is scarcely in the district a man who is not glad of it. The sympathy was altogether on the side of the defendants, and justly so, because more vexatious proceeedings it would be difficulty to conceive. Hitherto Mr. John Hayhurst has been looked upon as an excellent landlord, and it was believed that he had nothing to do with the proceedings under review until his son swore in the Court that they had been taken under direction from him. It was with much regret we heard this. Mr Hayhurst was a man for whom we entertained sincere respect. We looked upon him as incapable of doing anything which was not just and fair, and so impressed were we with this opinion that we find a difficulty now iu believing that he would have" allowed the cases to go the length they did had lie been at home. However, it does not matter much who it was that originated the idea of instituting these proceedings. Neither are we much concerned in the dispute between Mr Hayhurst and his tenants further than the public question which it involves. Mr Hayhurst's tenants and those who sympathise with them may possibly now realise why Ireland is so discontented. There was in these proceedings just a mild taste of Irish landlordism, the difference being that in Irelnnd the tenants would not have sufficient means to bear tli.! cost of a lawsuit, whilst here they were well able to take care of themselves, and did so successfully. Another way in which the conditions of things are different here and in Ireland is that in the latter country the tenant would luive no leas". In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no leases are given in Ireland, and the tenant is therefore always at the mercy of the landlord. It vths shown during the hearing of the ense, in wh'eh Messrs Matthews and Trezise were d-fendan's, that their farm was in far better condition and far more valuable now than when they took possession of it.i Thoy

have expended money and labor on improving it, with the result that its increased value excited the cupidity of their landlord. Had they been in Ireland they would have no lease, and their landlord would have rais3d their rent year after year as the farm increased in value. In this way all the fruits of their industry would find its way into their landlord's pocket, and when hard times came and they could not pay their rent they would be served with an ejectment notice, and thrown out homeless and penniless on the wayside. And when there is scarcely a farmer in the country whose tenure of his land depends on the will of his landlord, and who is not rented up to the last farthing that he can pay, how could the country be rich or prosperous ? If, for instance, the tenure of every farm in ?outh Canterbury depended on the whims, fancies and caprices of a few men who perhaps lived in England and knew nothing and cared leis about the wants of the district, would the people be as energetic and as prosperous as they aro ? We think not. If they had to scrape together to pay their rent every halfyear, not one penuy of which would be spent in the district, very few dairy factories, or linseed factoriei, or grain stores or anything else would be started. We may congratulate ourselves on having a different system, and on knowing very little about landlord harshness, and it ought to be our aim to do our utmost to prevent the possibility of this colony being cursed by ouch a state of things. Of course where most of the land is fn small freehold farms, as in this district, there is little danger of it, but yet it is possible. Within a yeir or two we have seen more than one property falling into the hands of the mortgagees, and it is not impossible that more may go yet. So long as land is purchasable tho rich will put their wealth in it, because it is always the safest investment, and it is therefore liable to fall into their bands. There is no cure for this but the one, that is land nationalisation, Under such a system landlordism in the sense we understand it would be impossible, for no one could hold property in land. All the land would be vested in the Crotvn ; the Government of the day would be the landlord, and the rent would be what would be sufficient to bear the expenses of the State. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and we hope we shall live to see it.