The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1890. THE NEW ZEALAND TABLET ON THE LAND QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2027, 1 April 1890, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1890. THE NEW ZEALAND TABLET ON THE LAND QUESTION.

In all our experience we have not come across anything so extraordinary as the leading article published in last week’s New Zealand Tablet on Sir Robert Stout’s speech on the land question delivered recently in Oamaru. We should not have been in the least surprised by anything which the Tablet might say in condemnation of Sir Robert’s well known antagonism to granting aid to Catholic schools, Our contemporary is almost wholly consecrated to advocating aid for Catholic schools, and although its methods are extremely harmful to the cause which it has so long and consistently championed, still we cannot help _ sympathising with it. But though it has bean incidentally referred to, the subject of the Tablet’s article is not education. It deals with the land question, and professes to be unable to understand the theory of land nationalisation as advocated by Herbert Spencer, Henry Greorge, or bir Robert Stout. All we can say is that if it cannot understand it as put forward by these gentlemen it may as well give it up. Here is what the Tablet says:— “ We are only anxious to understand the terms and limitations of the worthy 1 knight’s views, and we can assure him and hia friends that we have not the least objection or difficulty in accepting his views if they be sound. But the point is : Whit does bir Robert mean 1 Take, for example, S the laud question on which his views, s whatever they really are, appear to be v ( stron Ph We cannot, however, unders.and what is hia precise meaning ! And would it not be unreasonable to expect men to accept and advocate views which are unintelligible to them ? We know, of course, he is strong about the nationalisation of the land, and so are hia leaders Herbert Spencer and Mr George. But their meaning is as obscure to us as is that of Sir Robert himself. It is to no purpose to tell us that nil the land of a nation should be heM in fee by the nation —that is, its Government —and that there should be tenure except by lease. Very well; what then ? Where is the authority or reason for limiting this to the nation, and not extending it to all the people of the universe ? On Sir Robert’s principle, one nation has no more right to the fee-simple of its land than all the other nations. Whence it follows that if Russia, for examp'e, should see her lands over-populated, she would, on Sir Robert’s principle, bo justified in coming here and forcing a portion of her people on our unoccupied lands. This would be Socia ism and Communism with a vengeance. Are Sir Robert Stout, Herbert Spencer, and Mr George prepared for this ? And yet such a conclusion is the logical outcome of their

principle of the nationalisation of the land. This won d put an cod to existing kingdoms, obliterate national boundaries, and establish only one nation all oyer the globe.”

> We do not hesitate to do the Tablet the justice of believing in its sincerity when it says it would accept land nationalisation if it could believe it sound. It has no connection with land monopolists, and consequently has no axe to grind in that direction. Admitting that we now ask it, Did ever a thorough-going humbug go to greater lengths in straining a point to upset the argument of an opponent, than it has done in the above extract. Put in simple language the Tablet argues that if the people of a nation claim that their land shall be utilised for the benefit of the whole of them instead of a few, then the people of the world may claim that the land of the world shall be utilised for their own benefit, and on that ground Russians may come here and say, “ we have a right here,” This argument is aa ingenious as it is disingenuous, but we cannot say that it is very creditable to the writer of it. What does land nationalisation mean P Do not these two words of themselves make the limitation which the Tablet cannot find anywhere. What does land nationalisation propose to do ? It proposes to reserve the land of a nation for the benefit of the people of a nation. Of course Russians hare a right to nationalise their own land, but the fact that we nationalise our land would give Russians no right over it, except a right which has been too frequently exercised, the right of conquest and and plunder. And then to “ obliterate national boundaries,” says the tablet, “would be Socialism and communism with a vengeance.” Heaven be praised! We really thought that communism meant ©very little community living within itself, but the Tablet says it means the whole world becoming one nation. It is a pity that educated men should be so reckless in their writings, Then Socialism we understood to mean that all industrial activities should be under State control and utilised for the benefit of the people as a whole, but the Tablet thinks it means obliteration of national boundaries. What the matter with the Tablet is it does not think. The recklessness of the statements made in the above extract shows it. So long as the arguments already adduced iu favor of land nationalisation remain incomprehensible to the Tablet, it is hopeless to try to open its eyes, hut a few facts may do no harm. Hot far from here a block of land was, not long ago, cut up into small sections, and sold on deferred payments as a village settlement, under the compulsory residence conditions. The village settlers built on the land, and lived on it, but no sooner did they pay the last instalment and acquire the freehold, than they began to sell. The intention was that these holdings should always remain as homes for working men, but before long the block will be one or two large farms. That is exactly the way the freehold tenure works. If the whole land of the colony were divided into small farms to-morrow it would develop into large and small holdings in one generation if the freehold tenure and the right to buy and sell were allowed to be exercised. Out of this buying and selling of land all the depression has arisen. Speculators rose the price of land beyond its producing value, and their dupes have suffered for it. It is the same thing that created the land boom in Victoria and ruined thousands, and it is the cause of a great deal of the poverty and misery from which people suffer all over the world. It the land were leased by the Crown to tenants none of these evils would be possible, while the rents from it would be sufficient to pay all our rates and taxes, maintain hospitals, and provide for widows and orphans. We are not sure that the money would not be so plentifulthatthe Tablet would get something for its schools. A native of Raratonga who recently visited Auckland was interviewed by a reporter and be said ‘‘ no one is hungry with us, and there is no servile class. Every man has a right to the produce ef the land he cultivates. Neither the chiefs nor the people can sell the land. Buying and selling land is a bad law —very bad law, (and striking the table with his fist) an extremely bad law —confusion indeed!” There, that man who has only just emerged from savage-dom understands what the Tablet cannot, and he says the result is “no one is hungry.” The poor is evidently not always with them there, for rogues, and sharpers, and speculators, and 10 per shent gentry are not so numerous there.