THE LAND QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXI, Issue 15451, 1 November 1910, Page 9

THE LAND QUESTION.

BOTH SIDES DEBATED. A DUEL AT SHANNON. [From Ova Correspondent.] SHANNON, October 31. At the request of a. number of farmers in tho Shannon district, two of the lending debaters on the land question, Messrs G. Lauren son, member for Lyttelton, and Air J. C. Cooper, of Pnbiatua, mot in a platform duel at Shannon to-night before a very large audience, tho former to advance tho leasehold view, the latter tho freehold view. Air F. M. Venn, o. member of the local County Council, who was elected chairman,, commented on the gratifyingly large audience and expressed appreciation of tho presence at much inconvenience of two such able speakers. THE LEASEHOLD VIEW. Mr Laurenson prefaced his speech with an appreciation of the platform system of settling lnrge public questions, and deprecated the cry against the alleged town Socialist. It was an absurdity, lie said, to term a man a Socialist because ho held that a certain portion of the national land should not be sold, but maintained for public purposes. Tho first Liberal Administration had been termed the “ seven devils of Socialism,” yet whom had it included? John Bullnnce, Irishman, John M’KenBio, Scotsman, and Richard Seddon, Englishman, three men ot the type that had lifted the British people into the most prominent position in tho world, and these men had initiated a period of progress unprecedented in tho history of the dominion. Land reform, Air' Laurenson continued, was a question that appealed to the small farmer, because it affected not the small man, but the lug owner. The Old Country, with all its evils of landlordism, was a purely freehold country, and its state of land monopoly must not be reproduced in New Zealand. Air Laurenson quoted numerous Home authorities in favour of the leasehold, and supplemented them bv tho opinions of Sir Hurry Atkinson, the Hon ML Rolleston. Sir Julius Vogel. Sir Robert Stout, and others. Of the 128.000 landholders in Now Zealand, 5500 persons owned practically half the land values, or half the landowners owned only- onotwonlietli of the land values. To follow the. course proscribed by the large owner would multiply these inconsistencies, and the best remedy applicable to provide land for future general ions was to apply the graduated tax. (Applause.) lie pleaded with New Zealanders to reserve inalienable Hie remnant of Crown land ior educational and other purposes. Nobody v.ould propose to compel a borough Council, Harbour Board or Education Board to sell its weiTCs. vet the erv was continually raised that the State should sell its reserves. It was a. fallacy. Mr Laurenson said, to hold that a man would not improve a leasehold, and equally -so to say that the Crown tenant wanted the lreehokl. There were 26,000 tenants, and the la rue landowners ceuhl induce onlv oD> of them to petition for the freehold. Behind the scenes was the big .man pulling the strings. Hie Rai.git.kei countv had a capital value of ton. millions and a third, a population ol 7738, and an area of 545,280 acres, yet twelve families, or fourteen individuals, held in the county land valued at £530,000. and covering 137,000 acres. Mr Laurenson concluded his speech by moving—That in tho opinion of this meeting the time has now arrived when the Government of the country Hioulu cease to sell any more of the national estate.” THE FREEHOLD VIEW.

Mr Cooper introduced his speech with a doleful picture of the small settler working against hardships in the hush and creating, after innumerable naraships. an improved value for which lie was promptly taxed under the head 01 unimproved value. '1 he leaseholder, ho said, would not improve Ins land as much ns the freeholder, because lie never got credit for improvements. The skill of the freeholder hnd improved the stock and created the value oi New Zealand mutton and lamb on the Horae market. On the other hand the leaseholder set out to impoverish the land in an endeavour to got as much as possible out of it before the lease was up. Ho believed in endowments, Mr Cooper continued,, if they were town endowments, for the growth of .surrounding values enormously increased tlie town values. Th * 'armors would increase the value and linduce population in the cities. The people in the cities were merely carriers and waiters on the one great industry on the land, and the city itself counted for little, for the brains of the farmers produced the wealth. If the land of England was held by a freehold peasantry, the same as in Denmark or Belgium, New Zealand would find very little market tor its produce in that direction. Ho was not opposed to limitation. Mr Cooper continued, and it was not impossible, as Mr Laurenson had said. While New Zealand must continue to huv up large estates, it could provide against aggregation. a.s in Denmark, bv preventing a selector from taking up other land. Aggregation had not taken place in New Zealand, and the manly spirit of the people was due to the absence of landlordism. A few generations of State landlordism, however, would produce a toadyism which even now was noticeable. The rural population of the Old Country was practically ex-

tincfc, and tlio trend was not, to go on tin) land to build ni> a sturdy peasantry. In Near Zealand they must give tlio freehold. The only effective system of settling the land was for the. State to borrow the money, buy the land and allow the tenants to buy the freehold and so liquidate the debt. (Applause.) Mr Laurenson, in reply, said that the best improved block of laud in Canterbury was Cheviot, peopled by as manly and independent a yeomanry as there was in New Zealand, and every man a Crown tenant, who would snap his linger at the freehold. Fur how many generations would the freehold be available in New Zealand at Mr Cooper’s rate? If was an outrage on New Zealand to quote Denmark and Belgium, where the women had to work in a manner that would be degrading to New Zealanders, and where even now they were clamouring for the single tax. Mr Laurensnn’s motion was declared carried on a show of hands. After the usual vote of thanks, three cheers were given for Mr Laurenson.