UNKNOWN

Evening Star, Issue 8267, 12 July 1890, Page 2 (Supplement)

UNKNOWN

At the recent meetiDg of the Green Island Literary Association Mr A. Lee Smith delivered the following address :

I apprehend that in view of an early dissolution of Parliament attention is being p"'''"y generally directed towards the questions which niusi. then come forward for public discussion, and that this accounts for your having asked me to give an address on one that will certainly have much prominence—that is, the settlement of the State lands. Ido not claim that I have muoh competence to deal with this subject, because I freely admit that I have not given the same lengthy consideration to it that I have to some other social problems. But I have for some time recognised that there is a great ohange going on in the circumstances of our industrial organisation, which, among other results, will certainly have that of giving point to the close connection there is between the labor question and the settlement of the Crcwn lands. It is clear to me that the time is fast approaching when stress of circumstances will drive home the conviction that in agricultural pursuits must be found the real relief for the over-crowded labor of towns. There has long been the unwelcojne evidence that a large surplus exists, which it generally much in excess of the openings for employment which displacements and extended requirements offer. But when the various unions now being formed became a federated whole, ready means will thus be furnished for pretty accurately gauging thia surpluß and the quautity of manufacturing and general service labor that can be absorbed.

Wheuthis position has been arrivedat.and the fact that what may be termed the point «.•!' labor saturation has been attained, then will it be more easily recognised what are the true poßitious and prospects of the surplus, and then also will arise the land question in an aspect that as yet we have had no experience of. One of the most certain results of unionism, in so far as regards its bearing upon the relations between employer and will be more fixedness of employment. As the unions will afford better opportunities for ascertaining the position and prospects of the several industries within their affiliation, extremes in respect of wages, hours of labor, etc., will become lessened, and thus inducement to change employment will in great measure he removed. Ihere will also be the welding influence which ageneral subscription to codes of rules, regulations, and monetary necessities will certainly possess. In this way there will come about a solidarity of interest that •will have the effect of more distinctly marking off any excess supply of labor there may be. The industrial possibilities of the towns being thus better defined, attention must, I think, be more closely given to the settlement of the land, which appears to me the only natural outlet for this excess. The iaud question is, therefore, being hurried forward by this great unionist movement, and those who are giving social matters consideration must embrace it as an important factor in forming their conclusions. I propose to confine my remarks to-night to this one branch of the subject Whether land should be held as

private or State property. I leave out of consideration the various methods That kave been adopted for disposing of laud under the several Acts that have been passed, looking upon these as being subsidiary iu importance to the primary proposition I have put forward. Sir Robert Stout has long advocated the nationalisation of laud, and apparently with a foresight and persistence that is about to find justification in a large accession of supporters within the next few months. With strong democratic sympathies he has recognised what must iw the ultimate outcome of the wholesale Allegation of our land. It in only by reading history and studying Kuropeanexampleswith a mind naturally bent in this direction that a full appreciation of the evils which have resulted from landlordism can be realised. Without endorsing the dictum of lious",eau, who, in one of 'his works, says " That the first man who eacloied a piece of land, and said ' This is mine ' was a usurper, who founded civil society, and brought counties* calamities ou mankind," I nevertheless think that, however necessa.-y private ownership became during the period of transition from tribal to family life, the time has arrived when social science will teach how the J public estate eau be held for the | benefit of all, without the difficulties | which no doubt would have occurred at an earlier stage. I am quite aware that it may be answered Why cannot land be sold in •small areas to bona fide settlers, and they l he restricted as to its accumulation for all ; time'.' The reply to this is twofold. In the sirst place you thereby perpetually alienate a.ll the prospective rights, privileges, and o>enefits that in the future might accrue by ihe operation of causeß entirely outside the .iction of the individual owner. The history ■of railway and municipal improvement undertakings afford signal proof of the losß that may occur to :is in this way. The liritish people have i>eenput*to fabulous cost in acquiring repossession of land that has bflen necessary for public works. We have had instances of the same character in a Bmaller degree ia our own country. In the second place, by parting with the fee simple of land you .create a class which, by the nature of the case, ia an unconscious enemy of the democratic Bpirit. It is obcerved in all countries that absolute ownership of the soil has a tendency to render the mind more stationary and opposed to reform than does the possession of any other kind of property. If this be so, it must surely be undesirable to foster the growth of such an order. The occupancy of land in direct relationship with the State as the .Absolute and universal owner would remove ■this objection by identifying the interests of j.ll in the preservation For the common good jif such benefits as might follow From general, aa apart from individual, causes of increased value. The views J. am now wiving may be s»id by some of you to be a contradiction of my previously-expressed opinions on individualism, in that State viWnerehip of land somewhat implies a kind ..of co-operative land holding, I think Jhis would be a falae conclusion to •draw, because it is clear that the same opportunities for individual exertion would iv> afforded under a State tenancy as under an absolute ownership, provided there was the same security for obtaining the full reward of men's personal efforts, which, of oourße, a State eontrol must provide for. The cultivation of land ia one thing—jt is an aetjve state; the holding of it with a view to a speculative purpose ia another—it is a passive state. Men work and improve land aous the more nor less energetically because they expect (or otherwise) an fncreaaeJ value by means of extraneous causes. Again tfc may be said that the laud hunger is a senticicnt that is ingrained in the British mind, and that without its being satisfied in the form of absolute ownership, sattlement of the land will b* retarded. There ia some justification for this, but an examination of the cause will, I believe, go to show that on its removal the effect will in time disappear, I twink the chief reason for the growth of this sentiment is to bo found in the history of land tenure in the old countries of Europe, where the conditions have been such as to naturally impress men's minds with the conviction tfcst ownership and security of tenure were inseparably linked together. The confiscations, usurpations, and violences which hare characterised the parcelling out of the land of Britain, and the subsequent relations of landlord and tenant, were quite sufficient to imbue the latter with a traditional regard for the only position on land that promised security. Given a position that would ensure freedom from capricious disturbance, and inequality of tenure on a secure basis, I belieye that the settlement of land would not BuSer through the non satisfaction of the sentiment referred to. Sir Charles Dilke, in his recent work • Problems of Greater Britain/ has alluded is> the fact that as yet there has been no atmeral movement of opinion in the colonies fntfavor of land nationalisation. Thejw is 30 doubt this is true, but the re*3oa ia lastly accounted for, I think. In tha first place there Jim been as yet no pressure of population raw resources. Secondly, until recent times British legislation has Jbeen rather oi a destructive than a con-

structive character. Reforms of abuses and removal of disabilities have formed agood portion of what has been done, and present expediency baa been tlie preponderating influence in the shaping of new measures. From the time of Walpole, who never let considerations of remote advantages sway his treatment of the matter in hand with a view to immediate results, down to Lord Melbourne, who, in answer to remonstrances against delay in required reforms, used to say : " Can't you let it alone ; it is all right for the present," the general concern was for thn immediate consequences. There ia, however, in these times a dispoiition to examine political questions with more regard to ultimate effects. As this tendency develops—and it is apparently doing so rapidly —we may expect to see land nationalisation occupy the prominence which Sir Charles Dilko expresses surprise at not finding now ; and if we would avert the evils referred to, the sooner the better. I think there is no more interesting or appropriate study for obtaining an appreciation of this question than the past history of the Irish land difficulties. It presents one long record of antagonism between an alien class and their dependants, who were looked upon as so many pieces of living mechanism for extracting the last farthing out of the soil over and above the necessities for a bare existence. It is no wonder some of these people became exasperated in spirit and hrutalised in habit. I do not suppose that any close analogy will ever exist between the worst position we could ever arrive at here and the past and present state of Irish landlordism ; but sooner on later on the present lines there will be a large landlord class. There are quantities of land being now virtually transferred from the position of mortgaged securi ties to that of direct absentee ownership. Further, from the experience wa have had of the devices resorted to for controlling land, I do not see how it will be possible to avoid the risk of its being accumulated. By some means " durumyism " in one form or another will always bo possible on freehold, where the probabilities of future increased value make it worth while. The aim should be to discourage, and even prevent, the creation of monopolies in every form. Of these, none is so detrimental to the public interest as that of land. In Britain we find it continually in the way of beneficial measures of reform. The Local Government Act passed last session is an example, where the landed interest prevented any more concessions being given than were necessary to secure the continued alliance of the Unionist Liberals. Having now dealt with what I think will be the advantages to be derived from nationalisation, I will endeavor to meet the objections of those who assert that the management of a large public estate would be wasteful and extravagant. So far as I can see, there is no reason to suppose that any other administrative qualities would be required than are already displayed in the management of many public concerns, which in most cases is admittedly well performed. With all the fields of enterprise in the way of new methods of cultivation, cropping, etc , leit to the spirit of the occupier, there would be no discouragement of individual effort, nor any need to rely upon Government for a stimulus to industrial progression. The management of land, in so far as the functions pertaining to ownership are concerned, involves the possession of such directing and controlling capacity only as is requisite in the case of those services I have referred to. Once the system under which the various description. 1 ! of land should be let were decided upon, the duties in respect of its management would be very much u matter of routine. The functions of Government being continually extended, in conformity with the prevailing spirit of giving an equality of opportunity so far ax possible. There are projects put forward by some in favor of State interference with certain social relations that I think would in the end prove detrimental to the general interest, but I do not think so in this case. We already see the railways, telegraphs, pott office, insurance departments, etc., are being State-directed, and although in the case of the railways there is some reason for complaint, I nevertheless think the evils we know of are not so great as would be those certain to follow from private management. Some years ago the project was mooted of taking over the British railways system, as was done in the case of the telegraphs. This was not carried out, and in that instance I am not quite sure that it would have resulted beneficially, inasmuch as the community there are protected from monopoly by the stronc competition existing. Were combinations to remove this safeguard. Parliament would no doubt step in and abolish them. The circumstances of the railways here are quite different, and there can be no doubt that with all their faults their State administration is of general advantage. I think there can be no countervailing objections that can weigh with any force against the manifold benefits to be secured by land nationalisation. The alienation of the public estate in the rapid and wholesale way it has been carried on in the past, if continued, will leave us in a similar position to that of a bank without a reserve fund ; it will bestow on a few, without adequate consideration, a demand draft on a large portion of the country's future wealth ; will raise up dissensions and difficulties in many forms; and for these reasons I think it is of paramount importance that our next Parliament should be oomposed of men who will for onoe and ever legislate in favor of land nationalisation.