The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1884. OUR LAND LAWS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1139, 14 February 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1884. OUR LAND LAWS.

In a recent issue we directed attention to Sir F. D, Bell’s letter, which asserted that owing to our laud laws being subject to frequent alteration men of capital had an objection to come to this colony. Sir F. D. Bell instanced the case of the pastoral leaseholders, who are subject to ejection from their holdings at 12 months’ notice without receiving any compensation for any improvements they may have made, and pointed out that this provision had the effect of turning the attention of a great many desirable men away from New Zealand. We agreed with him, and expressed 4 hope that this provision, which in reality is nothing more nor less than a dead letter, should be expunged from the pastoral leases, and a more substantial tenure of their holdings given to squatters. If this were done we do not think many could complain of our land laws, for they have always been framed in the interests of landowners. Sir Dillou Bell’s complaint about frequent alterations in our land laws is on a par with Major Atkinson’s memorable words, spoken in 1877, when he said that what the colony wanted was “ political rest.” It is probable that what the Agent-General wants now is that there shall be no other change made in our land laws, and that everything shall remain as it is. This is about the most Conservative idea we have yet heard promulgated in New Zealand, and we feel sure that it will have very little weight. Garland laws are at present pretty liberal, and more liberal they are bound to become ; and notwithstanding the Agent-General’s letter, we do not believe that they are such as to prevent any reasonable man from investing his capital in real estate in New Zealand. In the first place, there is not the slightest difficulty in the way of any man acquiring a freehold. The newspapers are full of advertisements offering properties for sale on easy terms, and the Government have any amount of good agricultural land on their hands to dispose of. There then is a most substantial tenure of land to be got in any district of New Zealand, and as there is no land tax in force, we cannot see how it is possible that any man could hesitate to come to a country in which the conditions are so favorable. It is very easy to buy land from the Government. If there is none offering for sale, the intending purchaser has only to select a piece of land which Las not hitherto been alienated, fill in an application form, lodge it at the Land Office, and, if he can raise the money to pay for it at the rate of about £2 per acre, his trouble is at an end. If this does not suit him he can get land on deferred payment, which means that he will get time to pay the money. In some instances he gets ten, and in others fifteen, years to pay the amount of the purchase money, and if that is not liberal treatment we do not understand what liberality is. Then there is the lind within the goldfields, which can be had at a yearly rental of 2s 6d per acre, and land on lease with a perpetual right to re lease, all of them capable of being converted into freeholds. And then there'is the homestead system of Auckland and Westland, under which any man can select from 50 to 76 acres free. If these laws are calculated to keep people away from the colony it would be difficult to frame an Act to suit such as stay away. Every kind of land tenure iofiered. The man who wants a freehold can have it, the small capitalist is offered the chance of securing a freehold by the

deferred payment system, while under the leasehold system it can he secured at a very low rental and with a right to perpetual renewal. It appears to ue, therefore, that if the objectionable provision with regard to pastoral leases were expunged there is nothing in our land laws which ought to keep any one from coming to this colony, and that a great deal of what Sir Dillon Bell said was bunkum. The greatest fault to be found with our land lows is that we have such a variety of laws that they are calculated to confuse anyone attempting to understand them. We should, therefore like to see them simplified. We should like to see an Act passed that would put an end to any further alienation of the public estate. Whatever may be said about land-< nationalisation, there is one thing upon which every one might agree, and that is that no more laud should be sold. This would suit the laud owners, the lawyers, the merchants and the laborers, because the rent that would accrue from leasing the land would go a great wny towards paying the taxes. As an argument against this some people hold that the withdrawal of Government land from sale would greatly increase th« price of the freehold land now in the possession of private individuals. This appears to us in favor of selling no more land, Anything that increases the value of property ought to be encouraged, but we doubt it very much. The Government of England have no land for sale, but the freehold land is lessening instead of increating in value, because investors find that if they pay more than a certain price for it it will not yield reasonable interest on their money. The same thing would occur in new Zealand. Purchasers of Freehold land would take care that they would not give more for it than would yield interest on their invested cpitsl. This argument, therefore, is groundless, for whether it would have the effect they say it would or not, it would not make one bit of difference. Wa sincerely trust a law will be passed next session affirming the principle that no more land ought to be sold, and that the unsold estate of the colony will be regarded as national property.