The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1964. LAND SYSTEMS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1696, 31 August 1904, Page 57

The N.Z. Mail PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1964. LAND SYSTEMS

There is no doubt the country is being educated upon various aspects of the land question, in a way that is cal ciliated to improve its intelligence and knowledge of the subject. The appointment of a. Royal Commission is further calculated to increase and solidify that knowledge. The very fact that the Government has seen fit to give the House an opportunity of discussing the various aspects of the land question, is evidence that there is a demand throughout the country for a revision of the different systems of land tenure and ©specially of the conditions under which leases-in-perpetuity are occupied. The experience of nearly every country in the world goes to show that wherever rural lands are held in small areas, occupied and worked by a peasant proprietary, the productiveness of the soil is increased, and that commercially and financially the country’s stability is unassailable. In the case of France, for instance, the Revolution swept away the landlord system, by which the peasantry were oppressed, and the people were latterly enabled to purchase such areas as they were able to' work to advantage. In this way France became the best cultivated country that the world knows. We do not believe that in this country the adoption or that portion of the land law of France* is necessary, whereby a proprietor is compelled on his demise to divide his freehold equally among his children. It will, however, bo admitted that in a country such as ours, the necessity for the limitation of freehold is essential, if w© are to prevent the aggregation of large estates. which in many parts of the colony have been a hindrance to development and expansion. In all countries the agricultural interest is certainly the largest, and it becomes necessary to discover the best system under wliioh land can he held as well to the advantage of the cultivator as to the productiveness and prosperity of the country itself. Under British Government in India great reforms have been effected in land administration. In ancient times India’s lands were held from the chiefs. There was much rack-renting and oppression, and in famine times the rent not being abated, occupiers struggled on with the barest pittances from their industry. All that has now been changed. Under the settlements made by British rule the rents do not exceed from four to eight per cent, of the value of the produce. This is called “land revenue,” and a cultivator’s farm in India is as good as a freehold, being subject to nt. condition save that of paying the land revenue, the proprietor having full liberty to sell, to transfer and to mortgage. The land has an average annual income, mid its .selling value is reckoned at so many years of such income. Thus freehold is the tenure under which the lands of the vast Indian Empire are cultivated. In China and Japan as in other Oriental countries, the principal item of the state receipts is the land revenue, and it is obtained from landowners, who may be described as peasant proprietors. It is not necessary, however, to go to eastern countries for lessons in land administration. We have the experience of Great Britain to guide us in avoiding landlordism. Tlie British Government has just determined to relieve Ireland from the incubus of landlordism, and it will establish such a system of land settlement whereby even the substitution of state for individual landlordism will he avoided. In Ireland a farmer, who was formerly a tenant under his landlord, is now inspired to become tiie proprietor of his own farm, by right of purchase from the State. If we go to America we find that in the United States the freehold system is thoroughly established. The practically unlimited area of agricultural country in the United States has led to a large influx of the rural population of Europe, and the advantage of the American system is everywhere admitted. In Canada

the freehold of a section of land is offered freo of cost to suitable emigrants and the same .system is in vogue in one or two of the Australian states. We notice that in the Victorian Legislative assembly the other day, when the ‘“Closer Settlement Bill” was under debate, the general trend of opinion was that if estates were fo be purchased for closer settlement, they ought to he resold in smaller areas. State landlordism, and individual landlordism were, in the opinion of some of the speakers, not in keeping with the democratic spirit of the present age. It was further pointed out that if these lands re-acquired by the State for closer settlement were let at long periods, the State would have no opportunity of taxing the unearned increment; and although this might be an advantage to the present leaseholders in New Zealand. the majority of them, we believe, arc prepared to sacrifice that.adventsin order to procure the right of purchase, and in its exercise, make their holdings their own.

There is much to be said on tlie subsidiary questions of the constitution of landboards, the restrictions placed upon Crown tenants with respect to cropping, and the residential conditions, now in operation. Wo have no doubt the Royal Commission will endeavour to discover the real opinion of the country upon these points; a.nd whether or not. the option is given to the Crown tenants of New Zealand to acquire the freehold of their farms as the result of the Commission's investigations and report to Parliament, we are satisfied that tlie agitation for the right of purchase will not. be abated, and that ultimately, in the interests of tlie tenants, of the Crown and of the country, that . r.i will he conceded.