THE LAND BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14386, 31 May 1907, Page 9

THE LAND BILL.

fflE FARMERS' UNION CASE. OPINIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES. In his presidential address to the North Canterbury Farmers' Union Conference yesterday, Mr D. Jones, made reference to tho Land Bill. Mr Jones said that exception was taken in eomo places to the Union's discussion of matters connected with poUtics. There ivae a great fear in the minds of sorao people lost the farmer should embark on something political. He should support those wno opposed the discussion pf political matters, if politics never Umclied the farmers. (Applause.) Wherever they turned, politics were touching them—(Hear, hear) —and if they had eat still and allowed somo of the people who sat in Parliament to pass legislation that had been proposed in recent years, they would have been in a sorry way. They had never argued that theirs was not a political organisation, but ho believed that they had been successful in avoiding the formation of a political party. (Applause.) The editor of the " Lyttelton Times " accused them of being raiders, and said that they were given to using very strong language, but they could not dive the editor of the " Lyttelton Times " many points in that direction. They oonsidered that they had every right to touch all political matters. The "Lyttelton Times" was trying to make the country believo that they could not take up a non-party attitude, and in the mind of its editor no doubt bucli a thing was impossible. He did not like to seo men standing for principle and not for party, but from the outset their only thought in connection with the land tenure had been for the betterment of the country. They opposed tho Bill that was brought down by the Government, but if the same Bill had been introduced by the loader of the Opposition they would still havo opposed it. They believed that it was in the best interests of tho farmers to oppose that Bill, but it was strange that tho farmers should have to bear the brunt of the opposition. They were told when the Bill was- brought down that the country was to bo flooded by Government supporters anxious . to convince the people of tho .value of tho proposals, and to tell them what the proposals meant. A lew of the Government supporters, notable among. them Mr Laurenson, had had the courage of their convictions, and had gone out to explain the Bill to the people, but where were tho others? Those who refused to appear before their constituents and discuss tho Bill were, he maintained, unfit to sit in Parliament. The Land Bill was. not on all fours with other Bills. It had' been sprung on tli© country without the people having \say on tho matter: it was a Bill of the Ministry and not of the people. Ilierefore if it was to be foisted on the country members must exnlain it, and those who failed to do their duty were, in IIL3 opinion, almost criminal. He was proud to belong to a Union that had opposed the Bill to the extent it had done. Perhaps the attitude of members of the House was in keeping with that of the Ministers. The Ministers were in the biggest funk they had over been in, and they knew from Ins writing that tho editor of the Lyttelton Times Jr was also in a funk , over the Bill. Ministers scarcely knew where they were in the matter. At New Plymouth Dr Findlay accepted an amendment that there must bo great modifications in the Bill before it coidd be accepted. Mr Hall-Jones, speaking Bt i\ maru ' 6aid t3lat the Ministry would be pleased to. consider anv su"--Eestions on tho Bill. Mr Carroll said that between tho extremes of tho Bill and the Opposition some workable ba&is '' "'ust be found. Mr M'Nab said that the Bill, must bo carried every lino or the Government would go down in less than the twinkling of an eye. He brought down the Bill and 'then told the people that he was going -through the country to study the land question. (Laughter.) Ho had always thought that tho educational arocess preceded the action that was to result from it, but the Minister had inverted tho order. He found now that the Bill did not fit in with tho views <tf*the country so well as he had anticipated, [n his tour of the North Island he had learnt somo big lessons. He had realised the difficulties of the settlers there, and had said that they must be given freedom from rent for somo years. Mr M'Nab's speech in introducing his measure had been simply a fireworks display, and the speaker said that after , having heard the speech. After hearing what the Minister said about throwing land on the market, ho began to think that they would have to strike out of their hymn-books that old, familiar hymn, "Here We Suffer Grief and Pain." (Laughter.) When they looked Into the Bill and were able to understand the mind of the Minister, they could honestly say that there was no necessity for the Bill. The Minister assured them that the Bill was to cheapen land. In his opinion the area of land that was going to bo thrown on the market by Mr M'Nab's scheme waa practically in the air. 'He could not j>os6ibly deal with more than £1,500,000 in ten years, which was only £150,000 a year. He said that they must cut down the land for settlements expenditure to £500,000 a year. Those two .amounts made only £b'so,ooo a"year for land' settlement. That was really £IOO,OOO less than the expenditure at present. As a matter of fact, the excess value would not come on the market yet, probably not for eight years. Where then was tho immense area of land to be thrown on tho market, which, according to Mr M'Nab, would cheapen tho price of -land? Mr Seddon increased the expenditure for land for settlement from £ooo,ooo to £750,000. Mr M'Nab said that it was not safe to expend, more than £500,000 a year. Under the provisions of the Bill, he could only put on the market every year land to the t value of £IOO,OOO. That would be tho most retrograde step that the colony Jiad ever taken in that respect. (Applause.) The farmers would have been not caring for their own interests if they liad taken any other action than that they had taken. They had put forward their opinions but they recognised that other people also had their ionvictions on the matter. They hoped ihat tho others would enter th© held and make their views plain. (Applause.) At- the afternoon session Mr G. W. Leadley (Ashburton) was given leave to move a motion of which he had given notice. He moved—" That this conference of farmers representing all parts of North Canterbury desire to place on record their emphatic protest that, in the interests of tho colony, no legislation relating to the disposal of the unsold Crown lands will be satisfactory unless it clearly provides for the ultimate securing of the freehold in all oases where the hind under close settlement conditions, and all fanners are urged to do their utmost to secure the legalising of this principle." Ho said that tho motion was a copy of oao that would be discussed by tho South Island Conference next day. The question was of vital interest. It was tho burning question of tho day. There could be hardly two opinions as to the importance of the question, and ho hoped it would be looked at free from party bias and party colour of any kind. He had endeavoured to disabuse his mind of all party feeling. They were Irying to lose sight of tho tact that Ibey were politicians and to realise that they were dealing with the interests t>i tho colony. It was the interests of j the New Zealand that was to be, and \ not- the interests of any party, that they , had to deal with. Ho denied that tho 1 Union knew anything about Mr Mastey's appearance at Cheviot. They knew absolutely nothing about it. In dealing with, tho land Question, they]

wero not allied to any party. He was Sorry that tho "Lyttelton Times" had not been able to accept their statement in that respect. It was not pleasant,lie continued, referring to tiio " Lyttelton Time*)," to read articles headed "The Raiders" and "The Spoilers of tho People" in tho public newspapers. Ho did not want to say anything unpleasant about any gentleman or any newspaper or any section of the public; but this ho would say, but those whet assailed members of the Union with such titles as " Spoilers of the People" and "Land Raiders.", and so forth, should be very careful. People who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. Ho had a lively recollection o! what happened thirty years ago in the Ashburton County, when a certain firm came down from Nelson and practically mopped up the whole country-side- in. tho district close to whore ho now lived. He could let some very striking light on. the question of land monopoly if ho chose. Ho could tell instances of the firm of which he was speaking obtaining options upon that land. Tho first settlers paid" as hi'di as £7 an acre for the lnnd, for virgin land, in tussock, and thirty years afterwards, not Liter than two months ago, in fact, that very land, with all the improvemnts, sold for £6 12b Cd. Men who Went on to tne land of tne monopolists .and landgrabbers of that day sank all their earnings, and wont out bankrupt, and some of them wero drawing the old ago pensions to-aay People who accused the members of tho Farmers' Union of being land monopolists and raiders ought to be very careful, because there were somo people who had good memories, and who could pay them in their own coin. The farmers expected to havo opposition on that question; hut they expected to havo fair opposition. They did not expect that their utterances would bo allowed to go "forth unchallenged, but they did hope that men would try to treat them fairly and in a dignified manner. The chairman had referred to tho attitude of ono of tha members of Parliament who was taking a prominent position in opposition, to the Union's views. They knew where to find Mr Laurenson. They recognised in him a man who had the courage of lus convictions. They did not expect Mr Laurenson to bo on their «ide. But they wero prepared to believo that he was honest and sincere in his opposition to their view of the question ; and they asked that the man who assailed them should treat them as he himself wished to bo treated, as men who had the best interests of tho community at heart, and us men who wero honest in their convictions. >He did not think that the meeting was called upon to go into all tho varied proposals of the Land Bill at that juncture. In bringing up the motion, they were actuated by a belief that they were acting in the best interests of tho colony. They claimed that the people who went upon the land miould have the option of tho freehold. They contended that the land policy with wluch they tried to furnish the Government was broad, liberal and progressive, and up-to-date and practical. Thoy believed that the man who desired to go-upon tho land was the best judge p-f to what would suit him best. "A sm.il' capitalist would naturally want the leasehold. They said let him have the leasehold. If a man wished to pay off by instalments, he should be allowed to do that. If he had sufficient money, ho should bo allowed to tender the full cash value and become the absolute owner of the land. He said that it would pay tho community to havo a contented, happy and prosperous community on tho land. At present there was net a man in tho country who felt at ease in his own mind with regard to the future. The trend of things in the Old Land was in the direction of freehold. The Irish question was never settled until the Government stepped in and bought tho land and allowed the people to get the land for themselves. The Land Reform Association in England was for tho freehold. Thoy had to deal with the question in the interests of their boys. In the interests of his own boys, whom ho wanted to occupy his land after him, he said that there should bo absolute security of tenure. Under tho Land Bill, there would be no security of tenure. When once tho thin edge of the wedge was introduced, no one knew where it would end.

Mr W. Hall (Hororata), who seconded the motion, said that the supporters of the Land Bill claimed that it was an honest attempt to settle the people on the land, but he was inclined to characterise it as a- not very honest attempt to take away thei land from the people, .with settlement as a very secondary consideration. If the Government wanted to secure land for settlement it could get land from th© large holders, sell it to those who wanted land in small quantities, and so proeuro money to be spent in acquiring more land for settlement. They were told that if the Government bought- land and sold it it would- bo .acquired by speculators and eventually mopped up again into large estates; but the State could easily stop that under existing legislation, without the passing of the Land Bill. The only reason that the Government had for putting forward the Bill was to pleaso those who declared that there should be no freehold. It was only a sop to the land nationaliset's, and they took it in that way. Mr Laurenson, Mr Fowlds and other nationalisers in the House complained that th-e landowners were making big profits. At the present time they were making a, bit of a profit, but there were many times when it was quite tho reverse with them. The nationalisers advocated the confiscation of their littie profit or the increase of tho land tax until all the land, was taxed away from the owners. As a step to the confiscation of tho land they should oppose tho increased tax.

Mr G. Sheat (Dnnsandel) said that the land was l no good without the people, or tho people without the land. Ho opposed the Bill because it was a. Socialist Bill. Ho was a Liberal, and the Bill was not a Liberal measure. It was stated, that the -exports of the colony were increasing very largely, and the exports wero the wealth of the people. If the. freeholder improved his land so that it produced three lambs where formerly it had produced only two under State leaeehold conditions, tho colony gained one lamb. That lamb was sold for £1 of British capital, and the wealth of tho colony was increased by that £l. It was in the interest of the State to advance the freehold and to give it to every leaseholder. Mr Sheat drew pictures of the neglected leasehold and the well-kept freehold, and went on te Eay that as the aon of one of tho first settlers he was a freeholder, becauso he had seen the iniquity of landlordism. The leasehold tenure, was. only a (step-ping-stone to i the freehold, a means of putting tho landless* eventually on their own freeholds, and. it would ill become' them to disparage the leasehold tenure. But where- there was the earth hunger that they claimed to have in the colony the landless should be given the chance of using the stepping-stone to the freehold. Aggregation of large estates was the bogey raised against the freehold, but there was nothing in. it. As a. boy in Nelson ho remembered a family of " land-grabbers," of whom it was prophesied that thoy would become owners of a very large area. On a recent visit he had found no trace of that family. There was a feeling that if re-aggregation was: permitted, all the land would get into tho hands of a few monopolists, but the graduated tax would not permit anyone to hold a very large area unless he could bring" it all under cultivation. It was a retrograde step for a Liberal Government to propose to confiscate large areas of land. If tho people wero asked at the ballot-box their opinion on the Bill, they would say that they did not want it. Tho Government ap-

I parently thought _ that a« Mr Seddon had become, notorious for his one man one vote and female franchise measures, so the present Government would gain notoriety through the Land Bill. If they went to the country they would probably find themselves back .numbers. He would not caro if their opponents would only give them tho credit of what they actually had to nay, and would report them fully. When the Land Bill question was first introduced into the North Canterbury Executive, he said that the largo landowners were entitled to find the sinews of war, seeing that theirs were the first interests assailed. But the Bill did not stop there. It was the edge, a thick edg-e of tho wedge of Socialism, and it would be only a step to land nationalisation. After that utterance he wa-s taken to task by the editor of tho "Lyttelton Times," who said that he had not been among the opponents of Mr Rolleston's Land Bill. 'Why, the present Bill was enough to call up the shade of Mr Rollcston. The speaker would not honour . Mr Rolleston's memory as ho did if he> had ever brought forward such a Bill. He called on the editor of the "Lyttelton Times;" to t-riin hi-js sails and look ahead to the- disastrous, rocks on which they would strike if they once tampered with the freehold of tho colony. The Union, ho maintained, had thoroughly explained its position. It desired tho freehold in order to, make more producers, to bring more revenue to the coffers of the State, and to make New Zealand a great nation, able to realise its destiny, which was to become the Britain of the South.

Mr J. C. Cooper (Wellington) 6aid that ono thing that was dangled before the colony was the endowment proposal, which wae expected by the Government to capture whatever support they got. At present tho question of the cost of Government in the colony waa troubling not only the farmers who had a direct interest in the. con nicy, but many others. There was a demand for increased education, old age pension, charitable assistance, and all these had to be paid for. Tt hurt people to have to contribute to thorn, and peopla who- were told Nhat they nrast pay for everything they received wore economic. The principle of the Bill was to say "we'll give you lots, of things yon want and not ask you, but the -other fellow, to pay." The. .government of the country was costly, but the " Lyttelton Times " would, eay, of course, that it must be costly, and therefor© there must be endowments in order that the cost of government might not press hardly on the people in. times: of depression. It was argued that lands bought at £2 per acre in Canterbury were now worth £4O, and

tho State was losing the difference of £3B, There were still lands available for settlement. In Taranaki land fifty milea from a railway and classed as fair to good could bo taken up at 10s, 15s, c*r £1 per «cre. Bloclcs l of that land had been placed; on the market in the last two or three years, and it had not all been, taken up, becauso settlers war© net game to t-aeklo the hardships involved'. The position was similar to that of the Canterbury Plains. •In ten or fifteen years that TaraaiaM land would be worth £lO per acre. There was no unearned increment there at first, but tho settler had to put- it there. He had. to pay for improvements and to sacrifice the best yeans of his life. Ho had to build up the land, ana then people came along and! wanted to take from him the_ result of all his work. As for taxation, they must pay for thingsi if they wanted them. it. had been argued that the State should own the unearned increment and thus get over the taxation trouble, but the unearned increment was made by the farmer's science and skill. If that was to be confiscated the farmers would' osaso to employ their science and skill. If the colony was all leasehold tho £7,000,000 now required to ca.rry on the country could never be raised. The kind, was paying a share of taxation for other people. The worse the position of th© farmer th© .more- difficult it would bo for people to pay their share of taxation. Aggregation lrad been mentioned, but he thought it was abundiantly clear that there could be no 'aggregation. Two or three large estates had recently been cut up in. Canterbury by syndicates, which had. mad© .a good thing out of them. Till© holders had> sold in the full knowledge of the capacity of the land, yet the syndicates had resold at a great advance to small farmers, who couldi pay a big price, as) small areas gave better results than largo. Tho distribution) of th© land would follow a natural law, and where small holdings were needed they would be found. In his own district, land euitable for dairying had been cut up very freely, but there had been an aggregation of small estates that wero fit oiily for sheep country. The Bill was the greatest menace that there could be to tho democracy. It was pandering to tho Socialists, and, more than that, it was offering them a price for their support. If the country had come to a stage when a price could be put upon votes, democracy was a thing of the past. The Union was fighting for the continuance of democracy for the whole country, and not only for the farmer.

Mr O. P. Clothier (Waikari) said that there was a feeling that a good deal of the work done by tho Union was the outcome of opposition to the Gov-

eminent. That was nob tlie case. There wore men in connection with the executive* who were out and out Government supporters, but they could not agree with the Government on the land question. It was not necessary that they should sit still on that account. It would bo si sorry thing if, because they belonged to the Union, they could not express their opinions on t-lio matter, .ft was a very serious matter to the formers, who were affected by the. Bill more than any other class of the community. The Government was a good Government, and he agreed with ia groat deal that it had done. He was a Liberal, and believed in what was for the good of the country. There was something of a town v. country question, in connection with the Bill. The city -workers favoured the Bill, because it'did not affect them, and the farmers opposed it. The city people should not oppose the farmens, who know befit what suited them. Tho great difficulty would be the town v. country issue. The Landless townspeople could outvote the farmers; and it was just a question, if the-Bill went to the country, whether the landless would not carry a vote in favour of tho Bill. Ho did not agreo with Mr M'Nab as to landlordism, for his experience was that private owners allowed leases with the right of purchase. Tho Minister himself let a considerable portion of his nroperty on leaso with right of purchase. He believed that a tenant who had paid 50 per cent of the value should be freed from cropping restrictions. The proposal to let leaseholders pay up to 90 per cent was practically giving: the freehold, and it might just as well be given. He agreed with limitation in some ways, but if tho farmer was to bo limited, people in other professions must also be limited. The city man must bo limited in his striving to mount tho ladder of success. The farmer was to be stopped at a point on that ladder, and the successful business man allowed to go on. The city man seemed to have a Jacob's ladder reaching right from earth to heaven, but the farmer had a stumpy littlo ladder, with, nothing at the top of it. Tho largo industries which supported one or two men. in luxury should bo cut up and made to support a hundred. Private syndicates were doing almost as much as the Government in settling the land. If there was a land hunger, should not the Government sell land and use the proceeds to buy more. The greatest question was that of the optional tenure. If the Bill provided for it, the Government would have no difficulty in maintaining great power. The optional tenure must be allowed for.

Mr W. T. Lill (Aehburton) said that the freehold was the best tenure for tho people and the country. He lift Homo because he could see no chance of holding an aero of land. Mr M'Nab said that land would go up in price, but at Home ib had gone down 300 per cent. If Mr M'Nab had been a married man, having a baby born, ho would have known how to nurse it, bub being a bachelor, he was going to kill it before it got its teeth. It was said that the farmers were wealthy, but he would ask how many of them had got an overdraft at the Dank. (A voice: Some can't get that.) Ho had worked under both tenures, and as a leaseholder he had almost been pestered to death. He lived by a pieeo of Government country and a neighbour, a Government tenant, said to him one day, "1 haven't half the chance that that other fellow has. I don't keep whisky in my house." He believed that the freehold was the best tenure for the State. Tho State taxed the-' freeholder, and did what it wished with him. He had not added an acre to his place in fourteen years, but he was taxed three hundred times as much now as when ho began. He used to say that New Zealand .was the best country in the world, but ho did not. think so now.

Tho president said that he desired to add a little to his previous speech. Tho limitation proposals would put no land on the market. In 1905 913 men went on to Crown lands with the option of the freehold. If that option was taken away, a largo number of those men would come into competition with those who were now asking for tho freehold. Mr M'Nab would bring thousands into I competition for land. There was one thing that he liked in the Bill, tho proposal to give lease-in-perpetuity tenants the right to acquire the freehold. The Government now admitted the justice of that, but it had previously said that it daxe not give tenants tho light, because the money to buy their lands had been borrowed from moneylenders in London on condition that the lands were not parted with. The proposal wias immoral then, but not now, and they agreed that the lease-uir-psrpetuity tenant now had a l-ight to the freehold. The conditions, however, that were attached' to his acqxiiring it were of a kind that one would bare expected from the Sultan of Turkey. H© must surrender his lease, and after the Government valuer had v,aluedl the improvement® h© could cornpet© for the land at public auction. For all they knew there would be a G'overnnient dummy in the background when tho land wae put up. No man would want the. freehold on the terms provided. They were going to allow the tenant to crop when he liked, but they had still got hold of him, for when his lease ran cut his place would be revalued, and if the valuer said that he had injured it by excessive cropping they could keep his improvements and the money which he had paid on his holding. Who would take up land under such conditions? Some of tho papers 'ridiculed the Union's suggestion that the £50,000 limit would produce a financial upheaval and said that it wae afraid: to state the names of the experts who had given an opinion on the matter. For obvious reasons they di.d not wish their .names eta ted. Tho upheaval wonld follow the passage of the Bill. A mam whose property was heavily mortgaged, and whose mortgages fell due next year, had been informed by the solicitors! through whom lie obtained his mortgages that they had been instructed to withdraw all their trust monevs from the colony if the Bill was •carried. Mr M'Nab said that private svndioates could buy land and deal with" it, but the Government could not. If he was the Minister, and bad to make such a confession, ho would get out of office. Tho Government could not • buy because it was afraid to offend the Socialist Party.

All tho legislation that the colony nceiled was on the Statute Beak now, for the Government cevdd buy «aiy estate. and settle it. They must 'realise that they wore getting to the. cud of their tether and could not go on. financing as they had done. They must allow the option of tho freehold in order to get cash to CiUTy en. with. Tho motion was declared, carried unanimously, «nd i.t wa,s agreed that a copy fchoukl be sent to tho Southland Conference.

In connection with tho discussion of the Wellington Farmers' Union Conference on the Bill, the local secretary has received the following telegram from tho colonial secretary of the Union:—" Ilesolution carried Wellington Provincial Conference 2G to 6 ' That this conference, while considering tho Government land proposals crudo and unworkable, is not opposed to tho principle of limitation of areas under some equitable system.' .During the discussion strong expressions vrero made use of against the Bill with its present limitations. ' Times ' report m misleading. The meeting unreservedly accepted the explanation a.s to tho attitude the executive had taken up." Messrs Cooper and Clothier addressed a public meeting at Loeston on Tuesday evening on the Land .Bill. There was a good attendance, and Mr W. M'Millan occupied the. chair. After both speakers had ventilated their opinions, the following motion was carried:—'"'That no Land Bill can bo satisfactory that does not contain the option of the freehold." TO THB EDITOR. Sir,—ln view of the largo amount of interest taken in tho land question, kindly allow me space to «ir a few opinions. Tho first and most plausible of the land arguments used by tho Single Taxers and Socialists is that tha land belongs to the people; therefore the Government has no. right to part with the freehold to private individuals either in large or small quantities. This leads me to ask in tho first place to whom does the land belong? In tho case of Now Zealand, a handful of early colonists, aided by a few Imperial troops, won it for us by conquest. This being the case, is it not open to any nation or conquering host, who think they are strong enough to displace us, and able to hold the country, to come along and become the owners? And it is jue-t possible that, whilst Single Taxers and Socialists are squabbling among themselves as to what tenure wo are to hold our lands under, how much taxation we are to pay, and while they are talking about their "natural rights," the Japanese- or the Germans, who are not so squeamish, will eome along eome fine morning and settle the question for us, by appi'opriating tho rights, both " natural" and unnatural. Again, if the Government ha. 3 no right to grant us the freehold ifc ha-; no more right to grant us the leasehold. In both cases, the land gets into the hands of a. comparatively small section of the community, and for the term-of the lease, at all events, the "people" have no voice in the matter. Single Taxens and Socialists, to bo logical, should only grant the us& of the. land from week to week, or at most from year to year. But even they have a glimmering that such conditions would bring about chaos, and so in Mr M'Nab's famous Land JBill a sixty-six yeara' lease is proposed. In tho history of the world thero have been all sorts of tenures, and there still are. But the most progressive races have all adopted the freehold, recognising that land is never so well "nationalised" as when it is in tho hands of those whose interest it is to mako the beet of it.

It is a curious fact that, where- any nation lias nationalised the land, it luis oither gone under altogether or l>ecomo stagnant. In our Indian Empire the Government has always been the nominal landlord, and, although the Government cannot he called corrupt, still the massea of the people are sunk in the most abject poverty. Amongst the Maoris communism ' has been brought to greater perfection than perhaps amongst any other people, but I do not think their mode of life - will appeal to many of our own race unless it bo the loafer and the chronically tired individuals wlkk haunt the street corners of our cities. A great many semi-religious societies have started out'with communism as their basis, but

in every case, they have been failures. Most of us remember the "New Aus-; tralia. " venture a few years ago. It" private ownership of land is such a huge evil, and is against the intentions of the Creator, as the Socialists are <so fond of telling us, wo might ex-, pect those nations' who have adoptedi this form of tenure to be suffering from a withering blight. But is this' the case with England or France, America' or Australia, where freehold is the chief tenure? I think most people will agree that the exact opposite obtains. When England wishes to pacify Ireland! she buys land from the landlords and gives the freehold to the people. _ A i«W weeks ago', moreover,, it was intimated 1 that the Czar was going to give the freehold to tho Russian people to try, and quieten his unhappy Bubjeota. Another strong argument brought .forward by Socialists is that the iinim- . proved value of the land, or what the theorists are pleased to call " unearned increment," is wholly created by tho presence of the people in the country,-. and by public conveniences such, as roads and railways. They argue, there-' fore, that tho ''unimproved value"! belongs to the people. Like most earors, this has a small substratum of truth. It is not denied that, when, population begins to press on the land, and when roads and railways are constructed adjacent to land, the tendency is for tho land to rise in value. But _?o far as this argument is true, it appliea to every commodity as well as to laud. Is it not the presence of the people in the country that gives value to aaiy article? Of what use would th^ drapers' "wonderful bargains" be without the people to buy them. How would the Jew who lends his money at " shent per shent" get it unless thero were borrowers? And do these people not! live on the necessities of the people as much as the worst landlord that ever flourished? But the presence of tha people in the country is far from explaining the whole of the "unimproved value." ' If a local body borrows money,' as every local body does, to make road*, and bridges and other conveniences,' and then levies a rate to pay for tha loan, which every local body does, what) share 'have'the "people" in such an enterprise ? In one province a few yeai* ago the settlers bought out a dairy concern, and have since largely increased the number of creameries throughout the which has had the effect! of largely increasing the unimproved value of land. In what way have; tha bricklayers and carpenters, the tailorfl and hatters, the drapers and shopkeepers of the cities contributed to this increase.—! am, etc., COLONIST,. ; Southbridge, May 29.