THE LAND QUESTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 2

THE LAND QUESTION

VIEWS OF CORRESPONDENTS. (To tlio Editor “N.Z. Times.") 'Sir, I think it is time steps were taken to organise public meetings in support of rho main principles of the new Land Dili—the limitation oi area j and the reducing of the large holdings—and to strengthen the hands of the present Government in its bold attempt to lessen tho evils of the curse of laud monopoly. Unfortunately, tho bulk of the public are apathetic, and fail to realise hoir closely connected is their prosperity and well-being with the moans of easy access to tho uto of tho soil. So that, if it comes to a "dissolution of Parliament," they should be placed in a position to understand the momentous issues at slake, and at the polls wipe out the opposition engineered by that selfish ami inconsistent organisation known as the Farmers’ Union, which seems to exist mainly for the purpose of fighting tho battle of the land monopolist, This is tho body that is nlwayiy ating about the rights of every man to acquire the freehold, and yet, when ii was proposed, in one of its precious conferences, that tho tenants of private landlords should have the right to acquire the freehold the motion was ignominious!}' rejected. This is tho organisation that has free trade as one of tho principal planks in its platform, yet when under tho proposed reciprocity treaty with Australia, it was intended tc give an instalment of tho principle it so much admired, it was up in arms at once; it was only free trade for tho other fellow it wanted, it is very fond of denouncing Socialism, yet there is no more coddled and pampered industry in tho colony, with its special rates for its produce, free carriage of lime. State-paid inspectors to teach it to work, bounty paid on bnttor exported, etc. At the Feilding meeting in opposition to the Land Bill, tho opponents of the bill said it would cheapen and lower tho price of laud, by restricting tho number of buyers. This, to my mind, is one of the greatest points in its favour, ns it will give the man of limited means a chance to get on the land at a reasonable price, and kill the business of tho land speculator and jobber, who fatten on the needs of tho people. Tho high price of land in New Zealand is a scandal. Why should land -in a sparsely-populated, remote colony like New Zealand be about twice us dear na land wdthin thirty miles of tho world’s greatest mart, London? .1 trust that tho people of the colony will yet wipe the political floor with that selfish, greedy,■ inconsistent body known as tho Farmers.' Union.—X am, etc., E. RICE. Palmerston, September 29th. LAND LAW REFORM. (To the Editor "N.Z, Times.") Sir,—The Government's land proposals appear to be meeting with a good deal of adverse criticism, and vbe carmen,' Union is up in arms against them. lot wiien wo remember mat tho protests emanate from interested parties, a largo amount of that causae ciit.c.em is die-

armed. To my mind it seems that tho opposition lo the measure resembles the pioveibial tempeot in a tea pot. Tho position of the so-called fieeno,deis, that, no. one but themselves have any status in tue matter, is certainly unteaame, v. hen the fact is kept in view that, excluding the mortgagees, there are very few of this class of landholders in New Zealand. Besides, it must not be forgotten that the landless workers in town and country, who constitute the majority of our population, have an equal right to bo heard from regarding the framing of our land legislatiou. The intent of the Land Bill is evidently aimed at tho rapidly growing evils of land monopoly, and yet the most drastic provisions of the bill—the limitation of the area and the .£50,000 unimproved limit—are impotent to curb these since the restrictions can bo evaded by the "dummy" process the owners dividing the land among their relatives and working their estates as joint properties. While every honest land reformer will cordially endorse tho endowment clause in tho bill, yet tho student of this pressing land problem will observe that the Government has not as yet grasped the "crux” of the Land question, that the unimproved value of the land belongs to the community, and that a correct solution of this vital issue docs nbt consist in establishing tho Continental system of peasant proprietorship, which is tho most rapacious form of laud monopoly, but that it is only possible to place the land question upon a permanent basis by adopting a rational system of taxation tliat will assess all land according (o bare site value for the public benefit and also abolish all forms of restriction, and indirect taxation. Until this is dene tho ancient injustice' of land monopoly cannot bo rectified, and tho noble ideal of human fraternity bo realised. —I am, etc., AJAX. Tokomaru, September 30th. THE CHURCHES AND THE LAND , , BILL. . (To tho Editor "N.Z. Times.’’! Sir,—There is one item in the Land Act Amendment Bill which may in tho battle between freehold and leasehold, be overlooked. . It is this;—ln tho list of exemptions from the provisions of the .£50,000 value limit, there has been inserted, churches. In itself the exemption may seem harmless. To any student of, history and social progress it is, however, one fraught with great danger. A church trust (excepting, of course, those of very minor bodies), never dies, never parts with possessions once gained, never abrogates voluntarily any power whether spiritual or temporal. Its possessions tend to constantly increase. Under the provision nailed, it is quite conceivable that in the course of time tho bulk of the freehold in New Zealand would bo held by a few church trusts. Then only a revolution at the cost of untold misery could mend matters. Does any reader think this an exaggerated fear P Let him consult history. It will bo found that both l in England and on the Continent tho church had by centuries of accumulation ''become the greatest landlord in the realms. The Reformation in England was as much a social as a religious movement, the con-, fiscation of church lands a national necessity. So also on the Continent. No true democrat will ever consent to give to any church or other institution a power capable of unlimited abuse—abuse far greater than that which tho bill seeks to remove from the power of the individual. Of course there is no desire to be unfair to the churches. As a compromise, it might be arranged that the ,£50,C00 limit should not apply to the aggregation of church sections used-sole-ly for the purpose of church buildings, i.c. (and it would need specific definition) buildings for congregational worship. It is to be hoped that every member of Parliament with the least spark of democratic feeling or tho most casual acquaintance with the history of tho past will see that no rights of this character are conferred upon any religious body which he would deny to a private individual. The tyranny of a private landlord can be checked by law: that of a powerful church only by something akin to a social revolution.—l am, etc., DEMOCRAT. LAND BILL AND PROVISION FOE OLD AGE. (To tho Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir,—As one who has advocated for many years the limited freehold, I oner the Government my heartiest congratulation for its present Land Bill. The clause permitting the lease-in-perpetuity holders to pay 30 per cent, off the purchase money, ought to please the majority of the people, as it will give a great incentive to improvement, which will be beneficial to the whole community. The 10 per cent, of the purchase money held by. the State will enable tho

Government to stop the re-aggregation of large estates. The Government has acted wisely in reserving tho remainder of the unoccupied Crown /lands to endow a fund for old age and education. If tho present Land 13111 becomes law, which I hope it will, a great maty people will claim that New Zealand will be the first country to set. aside laud for the support of old ago. It has boon said that "there is nothing new under the sun,” and it seems there is a great deal of truth in this saying. I believe there is no Jawnow. but a similar law existed in some country in the world at some remote time. There was an old-age pension ,in Ireland long before the birth of Christ. In proof of this I will quote from ill Laurence Qinnell’e “Brebon Laws.” At page 111, subsection 3—“ The Ceilee and the Land Laws,” in describ— t the division of tho land, for the benefit of th« community, it suites that “part was allotted to tho king or chieftain, part to the Plaitlis (pronounced Flahs), ana other public ouicers, part to the Ceilee, or free clansmen, for their respective homesteads, part oalle' Cumhal (pro nounced Cooalj Senorba, was placed under the control of the king, or chieftain, for Ihe maintenance of the poor, bid, and incapable members of the clan, and part, called Fearan Fine (pronounced Finna). or tribes’ quarter, was retained as tho common land of tho whole clan, which every member of the clan was free and equally entitled ‘sub modo’ to use.” In the same chapter, at page 121, it “Of the smaller payments to which landholders were subject, some were certain, others contingent. One of , the certain payments was that made by all for tho support of the poor, the aged, orphans, and the like, belonging to the clan, in addition to the Cumhal Senorba, or old age inberitalico, which stood dedicated to their use.” These quotations show that there was an oid-age pension before it became law in New Zealand. At present New Zealand is in the van of all other countries in the world in advanced legisLfc.ion, and long may it continue so! —i am, etc..

A. O. CONSIDINB, Hartinborougb October Bth. a*