THE LAND QUESTION. (By A. W. Hogg, M.H.R.)

Evening Post, Volume LXVII, Issue LXVII, 30 January 1904, Page 14

THE LAND QUESTION. (By A. W. Hogg, M.H.R.)

XVIH. AGGREGATION OF HOLDINGS. Tho Hon. G. Shaw Lcfovro, who has written comprehensively on the land question in Great Britain, admits that tho existing conditions of laud ownership and tenancy continue to bo most unsatisfactory. Alluding to tho reformatory efforts of Parliament during the last quarter of n century, ho characterises tho multiplication of individual owneif]iips ; tho creation of systems of dual ownership between owner and occupier, the restriction of freedom of contract between landloid and tenant, tho conferring of inalienable rights on tenants, tho empowering of local authorities to purchase land or acquire- it compulsorily, and tho use of State credit for turning tenants into owners, as methods of a more or less tentativechuractor. He mentions that only two hundred years ago most of tho land in England and Wales was cultivated by its owners Tho gicat landowners Mere origi- ! nally very few in number. Around them were clustered numbers of small freeholders, who ,had. tho use for their cattlo and for securing turf, bracken, and gorse of tho manorial wastes and commons. Most of the freeholders were small men occupying 50 acie.s and under, and employing no labour except their families. A smaller number consisted of yeomen owning 50 to 200 acres each, , and employing servants. Tho commons were necessary for the support of tho small farmers. They, depended on them for fuel, litter for their pigs, and grass for their cows nntl donkeys. Since then, ho tells \is, " tho two classes of yeomen farmors 'nnd peasant proprietors have all but completely disappeared in every part of the country. .... Tho number of agricultuval labourers now owning their cottages and gardens is extremely small. Practically it may bo said of rural England as a wholo that Iho yeomen farmers the peasant proprietors, and Iho cottage freeholders and copy-holders have ceased to exist ; their lands and houses have been bought up and merged in adjoining lai'go estates, •which aro now cultivated wholly by tenant farmers holding generally on yearly tenancies, and by labourers who have no ]>ermancut interest in the soil or in their houses." An illustration of the freehold system is supplied in the evidence giveu before a Parliamntary Committee. In Westmoreland County, where small holdings survived for a long time, is a property of 25,000 acres. This estate was made up of the farms of 226 yeomen, who with their ancestors had cultivated their own lands for many generations. Instead of 226 owners of land there is now a single owner. The property has fallen into the hands of a successful manufacturer, and unless something decisive in tho way of land reform is initialed tho homes of these 226 families will continue the sole property of this majrnatc and his lineal descendants for generations to come. Almost parallel cases have occurred in New Zealand. Suoh is the power of gold ! Is nofc the hypoeutical nature of thb special pleadings* of the colonial land-shark quite apparent? What does ha say I "Thcio is no danger if you limit the freehold." Why not limit the freehold first? rtnmovo tho dancer, and then ask for the

withdrawal of restrictions. But the monopolist knows wo.l that this. Statute of Limitationa will not be passed, or if it ib its reign will be a brief one. A sturdy yeomanry is the bnckbono of a country. There aie n, mullitudo of icasons why closo settlement should be stimulated and tho enlargement of properties prevented. Bonedust and guano m.iy be good fertilisers, but human labour is thP be*>t feitiliser of nil. That alono will keep down noxious weeds, eradicate the rabbit nuisance, nnd get rid of orqhnrd and garden pests. Moie than that, it will make the land truly productive. The gold is in the quartz, the food nnd clothing in the soil, but manual labour la required to extract them. Listen to Mr. Rider Haggard, the novelist, On the subject of small holdings : — "It ha& been said of me that I am a smaU-hotdings man — that I want to cut up England into small holdings with himdrj' important limitations. Who would not be when he has found, as undoubtedly I have, of course with exceptions, that ■wherever small holdings exitd in England there is comparative ptosperity, great love of the soil, and a desire to cultivnto it, an increasing us compared to a diminishing population, a largo production of children, as compared, at any rate in many instances, to a *»malt production of children, and a considerable addition to the supply of local labour?" SHOULD CROWN LANDS BE LEASED? Sir Robert Stout, Chiof Justice, who since 1865 has been consistently advocating land reform, delivered an able speech in the Houso of Representatives in September, 1876. in favour of leasing Crown lands. This method of land udministuition, ho submitted, wjus supported by such political economists as Professor Cairnes, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Professor IWcett, Mr. MncdonelU and others. "If they were to conserve the land thoy at present possessed," ho ■aid, " and instead of selling it were simply to lease it, they would liavo so much revenue accruing from these lands that thoy would bo able to do away with nil kinds of taxation," Aft or pointing out that tho leasing system was adopted with municipal, educational, and other kinds of reserves and endowments, he thus replied to one of tho stock arguments of the champions of the freehold : — "Tho land law at present in force in this colony was defended ns right by tome, but lie thought it could not bo defended on good grounds. Ruskin had brought forward anothor argument in favour of selling the land, when ho said, 'You must create a love of country ; you must givo a man heart iti tUo work that he is doing. \ That writer, in ono of his works said that he would liko to see all men have stone houses for dwellings, in order that they might have a permanent interest in tho country. No doubt there would be members of this House who would adopt tho same line of argument, nnd say that tho only way to get land properly tilled would bo to givo a- man the freehold of it, because if ho know it was not his own ik would not bo his Intercut to improve it. There were two replies to that argument. First, that in the piiflt those ' men who had improved the nation, or who had fought for it when fighting was required, or who had improved its agriculture, were tenants, ana the best farming in the world had been carried on b}* tenants. That of itself was a sufficient reply to the argument that ' if yoU destroy the freehold system you will not have the peoplo tilling tho land as they ought to iio, or making fbrmanent homes for themselves. 1 Ah n.n axnmple, he might instance the Lothians of Scotland, whero tho finest farming in the world wns carried on, considering the unfavourable climate nnd tho other difficulties with which the people had to contend ; and yet he did not believe there wae one single freehold farm in nil that country. Tho same might be said of tho best-cultivated districts in both England and Ireland. So that, so far as this question of filling or improving the land, or of people forming permanent homes, was concerned, it could not be said that tenants would, not carry out these objects as well as landlords, or that they had not done so in the past. Honourable members must also recollect that under a system of State-leasing, instead of selling, it did not necessarily follow that a tenant should not have full compensation for nny improvement* ho might make. Ho could conceive and would bo ready to explain a system under which the tenant would have the fullest compensation for any improvements ha might make. Thnt system was already in force in one place at least in the colony. He could not imagine a more efllcient systam than that which wns now carried out by tho Municipality of Dunedin, which possessed landed endowments to tho value of from £150,000 to £200,000. Tho municipality so leased theso lands tl»at every permanent improvement made by a tenon t should be valued at tho end of his leane, and the incoming tenant must pay for these- improvements on the lands .being put up to auction, or the old tenant might v have his land back with the improvements added." Again, he "contended that it vms not fair for this colouy to expend its millions in order to incronse tho value of its lands, bo that tho whole profit orbing from them should go into tho hands of those who had a- monopoly of tho land." ETo also submitted that the desire of the emigrant was to get rid of tho evils of countries where landlordslived in affluence and - their tenants in poverty ; thnt a landlord clnss wns being created in Nexr Zealand ; that in Canterbury huge properties, improved by railway construction and capable of cultivation, raised only sheep insteead of maintaining families ; artd he predicted that " as aooii a« the agricultural land in the country was sold, there would be such a [and agitation as hud never taken place in tho past." There are many reasons advanced why Jand should only bo leased in the manner advocated by x Sir Robert Stout twen-ty-eight years ago. The importance of a permanent revenue, destined to materially increase, is undeniable. But are there no weightier considerations? What about ihe employment of labour and the extraction from the land of its best results? Will it bo denied that the whole science >f political economy is bound up in tho jstnblishmeht of a proper relationship tetween land, labour, and capital? Ite»gnising their extreme importance in tho production of wealth, and consequently be -well-being of the community, should wt land and capital be vested in the ontrol of tho State? Subject to necesnry but reasonable conditions, should iot the land of the State be plaoed at .he disposal of labour? Is this not essenvial to the acquisition of the l>est re.ults—the maximum production of capital? If .rent— which is simply capital— 1 used to employ labour and improve tho •and, who suffers? Will not the operaion be apt to stimulate increased productfon? ' Ifr'hbs^lready been admitted thnt there are seHdu's objections to the lease in perpetuity. It is contended that it gives the landholder an undue advantage, nnd is therefore unfair to the State. With land rising rapidly in value, fixity of rent is in unquestionable gain to the holder or occupier. But objeotors should not overook Ihi.t consideration : That, if the pro3ls go into the pocket of the occupier, Uiev an not enriching tho non-producing iandLoid. who, liko Solomon's lilies, neither toil nor spin. The good feature Of the lease in perpetuity is thnt it con«rv. s fur the Crown tenant the full benefit of his skill nnd toil j it ennb'es tho State to prevent agrarian depopulation ; qnd it renders the land revenue adequate and permanent. (To Le continued.)