Hawke's Bay Herald, SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1887. PERPETUAL LEASING.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7636, 8 January 1887, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald, SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 1887. PERPETUAL LEASING.

Private ownership in land is comparatively quite a modern institution. Tho doctrine that tho land belongs at onco to everybody and nobody is older than history, and was an institution in India and China at a period immensely remote. In a modified senso those countries still afford examples of what some people mean by »"land nationalisation." In Europe up to a few, centuries ago tho idea that 'the land [vested by divine right in the chief ruler held full and undisputed sway.andall tenants held their properties direct from tho Crown. Tlio holders of land wore feudal lords, whoso occupation in some instances depended upon favor, but in tho majority of cases upon obligations to perform stated duties at difforont times, or to provido a certain proportion of tho cost of maintaining a military establishment. As time went on these duties and obligations camo to be repre-

sented by "a direct money payment to the 'Crown, answering to the : modern idea of rent; and later still by a tax which in England waa for a long period 4s in the £1 of capital value. Had the -valuations always been fairly mado this tax would' have represented a very heavy rent indeed, butinsteadof that,valuationforland tax purposes practically ceased to be made at all. The constant increase of the value of land, together with' au improved con-' dition of society which gave occupiers secure possession of their estates, thus brought into existence. an occupier's profit whose tendency was to grow larger with every increase in tho population. The interest in this profit naturally enough became subject to the ordinary laws of barter,, and the holders of land nominally taxed at 4s in the £1 were able .to let or to sell their rights. In other words, land which had originally been held subject to the payment of a rent to the Crown became the absolute property of the tenant, and subject only to a tax in most cases ridiculously low. Abuses of all kinds came into existence, and tlie land laws of Great Britain, which eyeD now are very discreditable to a country claiming to bo civilised,. were in earlier days absolutely barbaric. • This brief statement, which has been purposely worded so as to avoid debatable 'details, will be admitted to be correct both by those who "favor land nationalisation and by those who oppose it. • It therefore'suffices to say that at this day there are in existence two schools of land law reformers — that which would return to State ownership and a State r imposed rent, • and that which' recognises the need for rooting out ' abuses, but at the same time ' has a firm faith in the beneficial effect of • private ownership.; , In New Zealand, if the right of private ownership be allowed to be just, there are no land law abuses, as sucli, to trouble our politics. The possession of land carries with it no more, social or political advantage than does the possession of any other form of wealth. Indeed, one might go farther, and assort that as compared with the owner "of portable wealth, represented by, the purchasing power locked up in money, the landowner is very often at a disadvantage. The capitalist can transport his .wealth "whither he pleases, and can often use it, by availing himself of money market tactics, rather to the hurt of the community than to its advantage. With the landowner itis very different.- -The source of his profits, cannot be moved, and although he, may convert his interest into money and become a capitalist, he can only do so by'inducing some other person to become tied to the soil. Tlio land, too, if used at all (and in this colony people are not fools enough to hold land without using it), must be employed to tho ul-. timate benefit of the community by adding to its yearly production of . wealth. Further, in this colony there are none of the abuses connected with the laws of primogeniture and entail, and the sole point at issue between advocates and opponents of land nationalisation is whether private ownership does not involve, as an abstract principle, evils which would be rendered impossible by a system of Crown ownership and Crown tenants. , In the discussion of this question hysterical sentimentalism is out -of place. The filial decision must bo based upon strict ecp-. nomic grounds or beg worse than useless. Unfortunately, however, the land question is encumbered with a great deal of nonsense. With the exception of Henry George— who, ' although he bases his scheme upon . wholesale robbery, .. yet seems desirous of logically supporting his plans when he has " abruptly " got over the difficulty of dispossessing the present owners of land— there is hardly a land nationaliser who appears to be willing <o be bound by reasoning. The chief stock-in-trade of these gentry is something like this : — " The world, is in a very bad condition. Some men have much and some little — some an abundance while some suffer privation. In the large towns of Europe slums abound, and there are also fever dens' aud grinding capitalists. Therefore the land shbnld be nationalised." That is practically the creed' of the sentimental reformer, whose ' zeal (when he is honest, and- not a more adventurer seoking'to live upon dupes) is usually in inverse ratio to his knowledge and experience. Now every sensible man knows that there are great inequalities in the world, and that the condition of the European peoples is a sad one, but, while ■fully as humane in his desire to.see.these things bettered, he knows that the "therefore " of tho sentimentalist is a non seqidtin: The present Ministry appear to think that all human, evils can be,banished by nationalising the land, and are endeavoring,' though with not' much success, to push their scheme of ." perpetual leasing.^ Now, in what way could the success 6fthis scheme benefit the community ? Obviously only, in two possible ways— either by a general but. proportionate reduction of all rents, or by making all rents uniform. In regard, to the first method, a little consideration will show that it is impossible to carry it out without loss to the community. For, first, the land which the Government wish to lease perpetually would sell or it would not. If it would not.that.coiild only be because it had no market value, -or ''because thoro was no demand for it. - But in either of those cases it could not beleased, for no one will pay a rent for what is -worthless nor for what is desired by nobody, and therefore not in demand. It therefore follows that if land. can be leased by the. Governments it can also be sold, if not for prompt cash, ' on";- deferred' payments, and that it therefore has, a market value. The legitimate rental of any land is ' generally a sum equal to what' would be paid as interest . for .the loan of its equivalent in cash. There will W variations, but the statement is ' accurate enough for general purposes". . If the Government, as trustees for the colony of the lands to be dealt with, take a less rental than tlie market one, tho community as a" whole are plundered by mal-administration,-but if the market rental. is received the proportionate reduction of rents . which it is assumed would follow land nationalisation is proved to be a mere figment. Tlie oilier supposed benefit, low ami uniform rents, will not bear -a . moment's consideration.. The Crown lands vary in quality and accessibility, and therefore in valuo. Tho demand for fertile and accessible land is .greater than for that less favorably circumstanced, and for, the fertile and . accessible laud there will bo a greater or less demand as the qualities and positions vary. If all rents are to bo uniform the community must again lose, because the uniformity would have to be based hot upon the best qualities of land, in which case nono would rent tho inferior, but upon tho worst qualities. Then "again, who would decide what favorites among the applicants should have the best pieces ? Obviously it would never do to hold out a premium to corruption by leaving to a Government the power to dispense favors of this kind, and tho only other recourse is to fall back upon competition and to bid good-bye to the idea of uniform rents, We havo purposely left out of the discussion the question.of the fearful jobbery which a system of Crown ownership and Crown tenants would bring' about in a country liko this, with political parties in a chronic struggle for office and manhood suffrage as the arbiter between them. The supposed benefits alleged as likely to accrue from substituting Crown tenants for farmers owning their land have been fairly and calmly examined, with the result that the systom of perpetual leasing, advocated by fcho Ministry, is found to bo based upon economic fallacies, and could not be carried but except at great loss to the community.