TENURE OF LAND.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2939, 17 July 1878, Page 3

TENURE OF LAND.

The disposition of the land varies so much in different communities, according

to the circumstances of quantity, and of density of population, that it may be of interest to consider what our condition in these respects will be in the future, and

what course will probably be adopted under a pure democracy, where universal suffrage gives an overwhelming majority to the industrial class, and where secular education disposes the mind of this class to pass over any other consideration than the greatest benefits 1o their own body. It may almost be assumed under these conditions, that there will then be a disposition on the part of the State to resume possession of large holdings, in order to distribute them among the greater number. Over the greater part of Asia, from;the earliest historic times, land as a ■ tule remained in possession of the State, which parcelled it out in a variety of ways «a tax, or rent, being paid to the State for its uae. It is true that the State was often represented by some chieftain, or hereditary ruler, but the principle remained the same. The land of the greater part of India, and of the whole of afr Dutch Indies, is now held on the i^ure of a rental; paid to the State. In Ifcnssia we find a transitional state between this condition add individual absolute property in iand; the commune, or village proprietary. This condition is not unWdk'tt in India. It corresponds to the state of things existing among the Polynesian race, and Which we have among us inith© Maori bwtiship of land. In Russia j the commune had become almost extinguished as regards its land, by the single proprietors who were owners both of serfs and land, and exacted a he<avy rental, or part' of the produce, for the land cultirated for themselves by the serfs. With ■ the freedom of the serfs by the present Czar, the commune, i.e., each village community, became re-possessed of its land absolutely, in the proportion of from five to twenty acres to each family. This land did not become the property of the individual, but of the whole village,,and its distribution varied with the changing circumstances of the community; the number of the family, and the presence or absence of the head of the family de- : termining its distribution. This state of landed, property haa its traces generally in Europe, in the common rights of- England, and the tillage rights in forests and pa&tures in Germany, and. Scandinavia. Bussian writers and Russians generally advocate strongly this system, representing it to be the natural and most beneficent mode of distribution of national property. In Western Europe, conquest and t' 3 feudal system tcc!c the place of tribal property, the Rom<r system of indivi dual - property giving tlte model which was the base on which rested the modern civilisation. The large concessions of land to individuals under the feudal system which gave the title to most lands of modern Europe were usually burdened with the conditions of furnishing armed men, sums of money on special occasions, and with the support of the Church. Even ecclesiastical lands were not free from these contributions. The transmission of land to the eldest son is to be traced .to this military condition of the tenure. A further development may be found in later unconditional grants of land, the Church, however, still taking its tithe. In'new Colonies the boundless areas anc^ sparsity of people' .naturally caused the occupation of the soil to be regarded as beneficial, and its ownership to be trans- , ferred by the State to individuals or to corporations for a small consideration. It will be seen that no uniform mode of the distribution of land has existed, but some - Governments have by legislation provided for the greatest possible extension of the soil among the people. Russia has done' this on the village proprietary plan— France by absolute distribution in the family on the death of the owner' The garden culture, the economy, the wealth, and conservative feeling of the French peasant are the result of this divided ownership of the soil. The Russian Monjik clings to his communal land and hut with a tenacity begot of the soil, to which may be compared the love of the Highlander' for his glen and clan, of the old Irishman for his sept.—Dunedin Morning Herald.