THE LAND CAMPAIGN. LARGE MASS MEETING AT CHRISTCHURCH.

Evening Post, Volume LXVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1904, Page 2

THE LAND CAMPAIGN. LARGE MASS MEETING AT CHRISTCHURCH.

THE PASSING OF THE FREEHOLD. A STRONG PROTEST. [DT TKI.KGHATU — I»UESS ASSOCIATION. I CIIRISTCHUKCH, 28th January. A nuiN» meeting was held in the Canterbury Hull for tho purpose of protesting against the passing of tho freehold from the Stato. Tha meeting wus the lii&b o£ a berics to bo conducted in tho country by tho Land Nationalisation Party. There whs a very largo attendance, and ,the chair \va& occupied by Mr. W. Ensoin. ilr. T. E. Taylor, M.H.R., was tho firc>t speaker. Ho was received with prolonged applause. Ho said that there was no question which was more an Imperial one than the land question. The true principle which should undcrlto the land policy of tho colony was, the payment by tho user for, tho right lo4xclusively enjoy the beneGts of any portion of the earth's surface No man resisted the right of tho Stato to tnko mvuy a portion of his land by. means of a land-tax, and the moment this was admitted it wus obvious that tho right to absolute ownership of tho land hivd never been conceded by any State. He quoted Herbert Spencer in support of the theory of land nationalisation, and traced the genesis of the theory back to the Jows, who had a. cancellation of title every forty-nino years. The principle of communistic holdings history showed to have been common in barbarian countries and in civilised lands. The Romans wcio really tho originators of tho lands for settlement, policy and the advances to -settlers scheme. Some of tho communistic settlements of the world had been successful and others had not, but everywhere there had been always the came striving after a settlement of the land question on the lines of allowing the people to participate in tho benefits of holding it.' Mr. Tuylor touched briefly upon the feudal system, -which, he said, had done more to help forward land nationalisation than any other abuse. Coming to New Zealand, the speaker said that there was probably not a man in tho hall who would not have done the same as the early pioneers in tho matter of land aggregation, but he was concerned not with that, but with what ought to be dono now. He quoted the case of the Fluxbourne Estate, which in the early sixties was »old at 5s an acre, and which was now valued for Government resumption at £5 per acre. The increase in this value, was mainly duo to the incroaso of population i>nd not to anything which had been done by tho occupiers. This increment should como back to tho people who were responsible for it. For the last ten years the colony had been buying bush land for settlement, and at the same time selling tho freehold of our remaining Crown lands. It was tho maddest land policy that wn« ever initiated. It was not a land settlement policy, but a specimen of national insanity. He had heard it said that tho worst cultivated fnrms in Canterbury were leaseholds. This was unadulterated iioiisen.su. A Icn&ehold was not synonymous with rnrelussitess. It might bo because tho leaseholders wero not given security of tenure and tho right to demand valuation for improvements. There was a crowing demand for the froehold, "but so long as there wero twenty men in the House who held tho same views as himself and the others on the platform they would never get it. If the leaseholders wanted to break their leases let them do so, but the Grown tenants conld not expect to buy tho freehold of their holdings on tho basis of the original rental. If they wishod this they must go into the open' market. Mr. H. G. Ell, M.H.R., said tho agitation was loss one from tho Crown tenants than from tho political party not in power. He moved, "That this meeting protest against the public sale of Crown lands in any mannor'or by any method as being opposed to the best interests of tljo colony, and not in accord .with 1 tho principles of tho Liberal Party as laid down by the late Mr. John Ballancc." It would, ho suid, be most injurious to tho colony to allow Crown tenants to acquire the freehold on tho baaw of tho original purchase. Ho quoted tho case of Cheviot, whoro the unimproved value of the estate had increased by £88,dt)0 since the Government acquiring it, and not one penny of land tax was paid upon this amouut. The cry for tho freehold wus dlio to the advanced vuluc of tho leaseholds, of which the tenants were anxious to tako advantage. Tho increased value of tho land belonged to the community, and it was for this reason that the land nationalisation party demanded that no more land should be sold. Ho quoted figures to show how this unearned' increment was observable in tho large cities. The belief that tho Government had ceased soiling land at under £2 an aero was quite wrong, for last week's Gazette showed that tons of thousands of acres wero being offered at under 15s» an acre, Mr. W. \V. Tanner, M.H.R., seconded .tho motion. Ho epako brieily to this subject, stating thut as a member of tho House ho regarded, himself as one of the trustees of the colony. Ho would lend his earnest support to any movement to prevent tho alienation of tho public lands. During tho lust twolve years over a million pounds' worth of Crown lund hud been sold for cash, and tho process wus going on us merrily as ever. If this continued there would, boforo the pre&out goueratiou passed away, be no Crown lands left to cavil over. Tho remody lay in the hands of the people, who should make- the lund question a crucial test for candidates ut tho general election. The policy which wus now being followed wus not tho policy enunciated by the lute John Bullance. (Hear, hear.) Tho question was a hugo one, and the present stato of things, by which tho freehold wus being insidiously disposed of, was not a credit to any Liberal Government. Mr. G. Laurenson, M.H.R., .said great profits had been made by tho freeholders. This did no 6 matter a jot. What did maticr wus the continued sale of Crown lands for cash. * Tho land question was one which transcended all party. Evon tho newspapers sank their differences to supEort it. Tho land question was going to c the burning question throughout Anglo-Saxondom, and it would nevor bo settled until it was settled on a moral bueis. Tho demand of fho Fanners' Union that Crown tenants should bo allowed to purchaso the freehold of their sections at tho original valuations waH j a wicked one. If the colony could dl«- i poso of its nuturul reserves why not its j educational and municipal reserves also? It -was an impudent untruth to say that the holders of leaseholds were demanding tho freehold. It was money-lenders who were asking for it. During tho year ending 3lst March lost the colony had sold Crown lauds with tho right of purchase for cash and under tho Icaso-in-porpetuity system to tho extent of 213,000 acres at an average price of 12s O\A, per acre. During the sumo period the State had repurchased 152,000 acres at an average price of £3 13s sd. It was madder than tho mudnesi of tho "Jubilee Plunger." Tho land monopoly -was crushing tho people into the towns, and the land j hunger, instead of being appeased, was growing more and more pronounced. The campaign which was being opened was only a. preliminary one. Tho principal centres of the South Island were to bo '.visited, at ouoa and tli«n the North

Kland, and next year it was/ hoped to organise, a campaign that would reach every vilUigo mid hamlet in New Zealand. Mr. G. Fowlds, M.11.R., said that times had been too good in Now Zealund for people to lake much interest in tho quoijiion of land reform. .Ho dealt at bomo length with the economic position of the colony, and said that although much excellent reformative legislation had been passed' during- recent years, thia was not wholly responsible for tho prosperity of the colony. Ho was of opinion that oven the class which was supposed to reap benefit from a social injustice, really reaped tho exact reverse. Thero wero other things than land tenure to bo considered. The biggeNt Tory in iho land would admit that land monopoly was a mistake, but- ho would not udmil tlißt lund monopoly existed. A monopoly in land was equivalent to a charter to the holder of tho land. Tho -advocates of tho freohold wero inconsistent, for if it was wrong for tho Stale to lease its land, it was equally wrong for a private individual to do the same. If tho Stato tenants wero to bo allowed to acquire the freehold of their holdings, then privato tenants should have a similar privilege ; bub if this wero suggested there would at onco be a terrible outcry from the very people who wero now advocating the freehold system. As a matter of fact, the leaseholders woro, much better off than if they hold the freehold. The land of a country was the property of the people, and the Slate had no moro right to dispose of a seqtion of it without tho right of taxation thim they bad to dispose of a portion of tho heavens. All publio expenditure went to creating «. land value, and it was only reasonable that the State should step in and participalo in tho value thus created. Ho quoted from a Parliamentary return to show that the number of families directly interested in tho holding of land in New Zealand wn's not more than 60,000 or 70,000— that was to say, that fewer than half the families in tho colony wero interested. Air. Fowlds spoke at some length on the return, to show that the increased valuo of land during tho last ten years, duo to tho energy of tho people, had been divided amongst tho minority. Tho money was practically a gift to tho landowners of the colony. It amounted to a pension to landowners, who, on their part, protested against tho giving of pensions, as being calculated to pauperise the people It was either right or wrong that people should tako this unearned increment. If it was right, the colony must jnst grin and bear it ; if it was wrong, the country must rise- in. its might ana sweep it away. In any evont, the community must participato in the money so earned. It should bo mado unprofitable to hold land in an unproductive state. Mr. G. W. Russell suggested that tho motion should be amended by the addition "That nil leases in perpetuity granted'in futiiro should be subjected to periodical revaluations, nnd that all leases in perpetuity should bo subjected to tho land-tax." In speaking to his amendment ho said it was not tho Farmers' Union of which the country had to bo afraid, but tho Ministry. It was the Premier who was responsible for tbo sale of tho remnant of the colony's Crown lands. Tho motion was carriod by acclamation, nnd without any dissent. Mr. Russell's suggestion was then moved as a second resolution und carried unanimously.