LAND TENURE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8502, 3 August 1907, Page 5

LAND TENURE.

LEASEHOLD v. FREEHOLD. LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE. There was an attendance of about three hundred people at the Town Hall, last evening, to hear the debate between Messrs J. C. Cooper and J. Yarr on the question of land tenure. Mr Yarr spoke in favour of the leasehold, and Mr Cooper advocated the freehold. The r.hair was occupied by the Mayor (Mr J. M. Coradine), who briefly introduced the speakers, and read the conditions governing the debate. MR YARR. Mr Yarr was the first speaker. At the outset he thanked the audience for their attendance, and Mr Cooper for accepting his (Mr Yarr's) challenge to debate the matter. In taking up the debate the speaker said that he recognised that he was meeting a man who had travelled the length and breadth of New Zealand speaking in the interests of the freehold, while he, himself, had never previously been on the platform to advocate the leasehold. He said that the land question was one of the most important questions of the day, not only to New Zealand but to any country in the world. In -England, Ireland and Scotland he contended that the freehold had been the means of driving the people from the country into the towns, and often the inhabitants had to seek homes in a foreign country simply because all the land in the Old Country was held as freehold by wealthy Dukes and Lords. This was the state of affairs in the British Isles, and such would be the case in New Zealand if the freehold got a larger footing than it had. He instanced the large areas held as freehold in the Canterbury and Wairarapa districts. The freehold, he contended, was the root of all kinds of "jobbery." When the system of State leasehold was first introduced into New Zealand by the late Mr John Ballance it was said that it would be a failure and the country would be the home of rabbits, but who could deny that the leasehold system of land tenure had not beer, a success. No greater proof could be adduced in support of this fact than that the State tenants now wanted to buy the freehold of their holdings at the original value. This the tenant had no right to; no more right, in fact, than a country postmaster had to buy the post office after managing it for some years. He went on to say that socialistic legislation was comi:ig very much to the front now. The post offices and railways belonged to the people. This was socialistic legislation, and why should not the land of the colony, from which the Government derived the largest revenue, be held by the people through the State. Roughly speaking there had been 27,000,000 acres of land sold in New Zealand, and he ventured to say that if that land had been leased, instead of sold, the Government would have been, able to take off the Customs duty from the necessaries of life to-day. He instanced the position in Masterton where they had the Trust lands vested in a body of trustees. This land was let solely on the leasehold tenure, and who could deny that the town had not benefited by this leasehold. The schools had been assisted by the Trustees, ahd smart youths had received scholarships to assist them in their education. He asked them what they would think if it was proposed to sell the lands belonging to the Masterton Trust Lands Trustees. Yet some people would advocate the sale of the Government lands, and would loudly dissent against the sale of the Trust lands of Masterton. He considered that 66 years was too long a term for a State lease. His opinion was that the State lands should be let in the same manner that a private landowner lets his land. It would be said that it was the natural desire of a Britisher to possess the freehold, but he would say that it was also the desire of a Britisher to get as much land and as much of everything else as he could. Mr Yarr concluded his remarks amidst applause. MR COOPER. Mr Cooper then addressed the meeting. He expressed pleasure at being able to address such a large meeting on the land question. He wouldccompliment:t t: Mr Yarr on his maiden effort in favour of the leasehold, hut would say that Mr Yarr had not gone deep enough into the question, and had "missed the 'bus" on several points. One of these points was tha*; we were coming to the end of the waste lands of the colony, and the only way of providing land for the people in the future was by means of the Lands for Settlement Act. He asked how was Masterton going to continue prosperous if the Lands for Settlement Act were not brought into operation on the large estates around the town. The only satisfactory tenure*in New Zealand was to give a man the right to purchase his holding on the deferred payment system. He condemned the position of Crown tenants on the grounds of the crushing rates of interest they had to pay for money raised on their property. "It is a mistake to put the best lands of the colony out on the leasehold tenure," said Mr Cooper. A man who held the lease of his land was not inclined to put as much work into it or get such good results out of it as the man who owned his holding. It must be borne in mind that up to the present we were farming virgin land in the colony. That land was coming to an end, and work was now wanted to keep up the fertility of the land. The freeholder was the man who was keeping his land in a fertile state. The land had to be fed like a human being in order to get the best results from it. It was for this reason that the Government were introducing scientific methods of land cultivation. It was well known that the standard of farming was much higher now than it was some years ago, and more food was being produced at a cheaper rate to feed the masses of the people in the world. There was still some mil-

lions of acres of native lands in the .colony and these were practically going to waste. Some of the land was being leased, but it would not be as productive as it would be if it were sold. There was no doubt that it was the freeholder who was responsible for the fifteen and a half million pounds' worth of exports sent out from New Zealand annually. It might be said that the freehold led to the aggregation of estates, but he would deny that. Reference to the New Zealand Year Book would show the large increase that had been made in freehold holdings and the decrease in the number of large estates during the past decade of years. A fair test of the growth of the "small man" was the large increase in small flocks and the decrease in the large flocks. Turning to the Year Book again it would be found that the number of flocks of under 500 sheep in the colony had increased from 6,000 in 1886 to 11,000 in 1905, and during the same period the number of flocks of between 500 and 1,000 sheep in New Zealand had increased by 1,931. The dairy herds in the colony had also largely increased during the last twenty years. This all tended to show that the "small man" was gradually squeezing out the "big man." He expressed himself as being in favour of limitation of estates to prevent the "Merchant Prince" from acquiring large areas of land for deer parks, etc., as was the case in England. Turning to the experiences of foreign countries in the matter of land tenure he instanced the case of France, where the population had doubled since the Revolution when the freehold tenure was introduced. Belgium, with an area of 11,000 square miles, was another freehold country, and it was not only able to feed it's 7,000,000 people but also to export produce to England. In Denmark and Germany, where the freehold tenure was in vogue, similar conditions prevailed. Now he asked the audience to look at the countries where the leasehold tenure prevailed. The first'country was Russia, where the State owned practically all the land and those present knew the state of affairs existing among the peasants. He also cited India, where periodical famines existed, and land nationalisation was an established fact. There was no such thing as the freehold so long as the State had the power of taxation, but freehold, as we know it, was existing in all the food-producing countries of the world, and it is these countries that are feeding the leasehold countries. The freehold tenure had built up such countries as the United States and Canada, and the Australian States, where leasehold was once in vogue, are nowgeing in for the freehold tenure. It was because they were discontented with the leasehold system existing at Home that the early settlers left the British Isles and came to New Zealand and carved for themselves a home out of the wilderness. In his concluding remarks the speaker said that he considered that all would agree with him that the freehold tenure was the best for New Zealand. It was only under that tenure that the best results could be got nut of the land. It was also that tenure that would encourage emigrants aid build up a nation. "Let there be sottled in New Zealand," concluded Mr Cooper, "a sturdy population of farmers to defend this country against its enemies when the time comes." Mr Cooper was loudly applauded on resuming his seat. MR YARR IN REPLY. Mr Yarr, in reply, said that they had just listened to a speech from an avowed advocate of the freehold, and if that speech contained ail that was to be said in favour of the freehold, he was now stronger in his convictions with regard to the leasehold. Mr Cooper's argument that the large estates had been decreased during the past twenty years just suited the speaker, because it showed that the leasehold, had been responsible for breaking up estates. Mr Cooper had also pictured Denmark as a very prosperous country because of the freehold. The speaker would remind Mr Cooper that it was only the other day in Denmark that the ship carpenters went on strike for an increase in their wages from 5d to 6d per hour. With regard to Mr Cooper's argument that the leaseholder did not farm his land as well as the freeholder, he would like to say that the landlords were generally very careful to see that their land when leased was well farmed. If a leaseholder did not put good work into his farm he had very little chance of ever becoming the owner of it. In conclusion Mr Yarr said that he was doubtful from Mr Cooper's remarks whether the latter was a freeholder or a leasheolder, and he considered that Mr Cooper had not during his speech raised a solid argument in favour of the freehold. AN EXPLANATION. Mr Cooper rose to make a personal explanation. He said that what Mr Yarr understood by the leasehold, viz., 999 years' lease, was in the speaker's opinion really the freehold, with a mortgage on it. The meeting concluded with votes of thanks to the speakers, and the chairman.