A Golden Jubilee.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7871, 5 August 1911, Page 19

A Golden Jubilee.

The New Zealand Goldfields: Their Beneficent Influence. By P . /. O'Regan. Tho pooplo of Otago have recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of gold in that province, and, ajjpropriately enough, advantage has boon taken of the occasion adequately to appraise tho value e of tho gold-mining industry to this country. I propose, however, to draw the reader’s attention to a few facts of which too little has been said, although they are, of all others, the most important—the connection between the discovery of gold and tho progress of colonial freedom. Our Early History. Although white men different nationalities had visited New Zealand since tho earliest years of tho nineteenth century, and a goodly number of British subjects had settled in the North after tii© arrival of the ilev. Samuel Mursden in ISM, it was not until 1810 that our history as a British colony really commenced. In January of that year the first colonists arrived .at Port Nicholson under the auspices-of tho New Zealand Land Company. Very soon afterwards Captain Hobson. R.N., our first Governor, arrived at Auckland, New Zealand, was proclaimed a British colony, aim in the following month tho Treaty of Waitangi was signed. X’nor to the landing of tho settlers at Fort Nicholson there were not above ono thousand whites in this country, ami of those fully half were located at tho Bay of Islands and its immediate environs. Thereafter settlements were soon formed at Now Plymouth, Nelson, Otago, and Canterbury, and the progress of colonisation wont .steadily on. Settlement did not, however, proceed with the rapidity originally anticipated. Tho irregularity and haste on tho part of tho company in seizing land to which it had no proper title soon provoked .the hostility of the natives, ana occurrences like the AVairnu Massacre and Hoke’s War, though they may seem small things ,-at this distance of time, were ominous of evil to tho few whites then scattered over primeval wilds, -while ou the other side of the world they did much to check tho flow of immigration. Tlio tactics of the company, moreover, soon provoked fierce divisions among the settlers themselves, and tho company may be said to have waged incessant political warfare with tho first throo Governors —Hobson, D’itzroy, and Grey. All this had the natural effect of retarding sottlemont. The Wakefield Scheme. From time to time wo a great deal nowadays about the services to this country of the New Zealand Land Company in general, and of Mr Edward Gibbon Wakefield in particular. Whk it must he admitted that the company did a great deal of good, and that no impartial critic can ignore Mr Wakefield's place in the history of_ this country, it would be exceedingly incorrect to place tho company on a plane higher than, say, the Brjtish East India Company, or to pjace Mr Wakefield above tho many, eminent adventurers associated with that historic association. Both concerns included men of standing and public spirit, whoso ambitions were a curious compound of patriotism and of self-interest. Both were alike primarily money-making adventures, and, though both have earned a place in history as having incidentally done something to extend civilisation, they did many things of which tho less said the better. In order to realise tho truth of this, lot us examine the land proposals of the company—the special creation, as they wore, of Mr Edward Gibbon Wakefield. That gentleman had spent ’some years in the United States, and in his book, entitled "A View of Colonisation,” published in 1819, lie tells us that ho was jtruck by the absence there of a permanent labouring class, in consequence whereof its complement—an independent leisured class—was also wanting. From the point of view of tho author this constituted a positive evil, and "the art of colonisation,’’ according to Wakefield, lay in taking timely steps to prevent the development of such a social system in ’lie waste, plpces of the British Empire. Ho traced the independence of the worker in America to the cheapness and plenitude of land. Capitalists, according to him, require an abundant "labour supply,’’ cheap and amenable for industrial purposes. He argues that this /requisite is available in Britain, where there is little room and many people, but not in. the colonies, where there is ample room and few people. Then he asks (page 322), “How can tho scarcity of labour be prevented without slavery?’’ For, as he truly says, “slavery is a question of labour, which is the original purchase price •of all things." Then, after sketching the history of slavery, . Mr Wakefield traces tho scarcity of labour in now countries to its source in tho cheapness of land, and he adds; "Slave labour is, on the whole, much 'more 'costly than the labour of hired freemen” (page 324). He then expands bis great plan of colonisation; "If the colony could depend for labour upon nothing but tho increase of. the people by births on the spot, it would be requisite to make tho sufficient price of land high enough to keep wages down to an 0)4 Country rate, and to prevent most labourers from ever becoming landlords” (page 370). There wo have it! Mr Wakefield thoroughly understood the basic importance of tho land question! He know that cheap land meant freedom for the multitude—the' very thing he desired to make impossible,—and he was determined to placo their heritage out of their reach bv fixing its price beyond their means! They were not to ho called slaves, but "hired freemen,” who wore •forbidden access to land! I should sav that Dir Wakefield was to bo congratulated on tho candour with which he orpounded his iniquitous "art.” Rut it is duo to him to say that he appreciated the importance of the land question and its bearing on tho labour question better than do many official leaders of labour in this more enlightened ago. How the “Art” Worked. " z

It is thus no exaggeration to say that New Zealand, as a colony, was conceived in landlordism. The primary object of the Now Zealand Land Company was to "acquire” lands from the natives. and re-sell thorn to Europeans at prices which at once enabled the company to make money and to exclude the mere labourer from getting a farm. The company’s settlers wore to he drawn from all ranks of English and Scotch society—for it is interesting to note that Mr Wakefield disapproved of the immigration of Irishmen on account of their exceeding “turbulence”! Sufficient of the wealthier classes were to be included to ensure the purchase from the company of the land acquired from the natives, and thcro were to be enough of the common or garden variety of mankind to provide what Mr Wakefield euphemistically termed "a plentiful labour supply’’ at Old Country rates! Though this precious scheme of colonisation is to-day well-nigh forgotten, it achieved a large measure of success, and it would be an easy task to trace the existence of land ' monopoly in this country to-day to ‘the footing the evil obtained at . the very birth of our national existence. The system did not. however, work ns smoothly as Mr Wakefield and his coadjutors anticipated, for it was not easy after all to reproduce artificially the land system of Britain with its wage slavery by fixing a fictitious price for land surrounded by other unappropriated land. lienee arose political contentions between the settlers, the majority ; ,pf whom .objected to the company’s high-handed pretensions. Much of the best land was soon appropriated, howsver, and, notwithstanding what may

he said in prais© of Mr Wakefield s work, it is not his fault that wo are not today a land oi sheep “kings" and serfs. The Discovery of Gold, More reasons than one have combined to save us from tho fat© that vas planned for us. Certainly not tho least important factor in checking tho seiusn spirit born of tho Wakefield scheme vjas played by the discovery of gold, Ihe goldfields brought about a new and unlookcd for ordJr of things, and threcreated an atmosphere decidedly unfavourable to any scheme of popular enslavement. Rich alluvial deposits oi gold were found first in California, then in Australia, and later in New Zealand. In each case tho effect was to induce a largo and sudden flow of population from every civilised land, and in many cases territory thcretoioru the least promising, was rapidly reclaimed from the wilderness. Much has been said and written in praise of those pioneers who were clad in Crimean shirts and moleskins, and those whq still remember them justly extol,, their splendid qualities. But ’they were not really different from other men, except in this—that they wero really free. What made them freemen? What of tho goldfields land laws? Tho history of these is interesting, for they were tho product, not or learned jurists, like our Pollocks and Diccys, who aro at pains to impress us with the sanctity of private property land, but of rude unlettered men wuo, lor the first time in their existence, were brought into direct contact with generous Nature. The goldfields regulations of California wero applied in practice by common consent before they had received legislative sanction. They were copied anil followed in Australia before Parliaments had thought about tile question, and when gold was discovered here in 1856 they were applied in Collingwood and administered _by Mr James Mackay before any legislation was enacted, or before a Warden or Magistrate was appointed to administer them. They form tho basis of our mining legislation to-day. Their underhung principle is that of common ownership of land. First, the area appropriated to tho use of each miner was limited in proportion to the presumed richness of the ground, and, secondly, failure to utilise a "claim” made it liable to occupation by somebody else. I have before me as I write tho copy of a Victorian digger’s license, issued ip 1853, which empowers- tho holder to work a claim 12 feet square! Here is the real reason for tho freedom and independence-which so strongly characterised tho miner in the early days, and which has not quite deserted him even yet. Ho was free because he was not robbed of his right to apply his labour to land. In tills connection Henry George, who was himself among the thousands who sought their fortune on tho Californian goldfields, writes ("Progress and Poverty,” Book V„ chapter ii.): “There is no mystery as to tho cause which so suddenly and so largely raised wages in California in 1819, and in Australia in 1852. It was tho discovery of tho placer mines in unappropriated land to which labour was tree that raised tho wages of cooks in San Francisco restaurants to 500 dollars a month, and left ships to rot in tho harbour without officers -or crew until their owners would consent to pay rates that in any other part of the’globe seemed fabulous. HaJ these mines been on appropriated land, or had they been immediately’ monopolised so tliat rent could have arisen, it would have been land values that would have leaped upward, not wages.” Again, in Book VI., chapter v., of Die same work, Mr George writes; “Thus, no one was allowed to forestall or lock up natural resources Labour was acknowledged as the creator of wealth, was given a free field and secured its reward. The device could not have assured complete equality of rights under the conditions that in most countries prevail; but under the conditions that there and then existed—a sparse population, an unexplored country, and an occupation in its nature a lottery, it secured substantial justice. One man might strike an enormously rich deposit, and others might vainly prospect for years, but all had an equal chance. No ono was allowed to play the dog in tho manger with the bounty of tho Creator. The essential idea of the mining regulations was to prevent forestalling and monopoly.” AVhat Mr George has written of California is equally true of Australia and of New Zealand. AVian gold was first announced in ’Otago, for instance, the sheepowners deliberately attempted to conceal tho fact from their shearers as long as possible. ' AVhy ? Not because of the existence of an Arbitration Act, but because if tho men heard of tho discovery they would drop tho shears for the pick and tin dish. Yes, the’miners were free, because they insisted on land being free. That tho landowners who had got a footing in tho pre-goldfields days disliked the minora as a class is a notorious fact. They disliked the mining population because it formed a living menace to monopoly pf every kind, but above all to monopoly of land. These gentlemen, like Mr Edward, Gibbnu jVakefield, were wise in their generation —they hated the sacred principle of human equality of which the condition precedent is tho recognition of the equal right of every man to land, and accordingly they tried—and to an extent they have succeeded—to deprive the mass of their fellow-moil of that equality of opportunity without which freedom is an utter impossibility. Conclusion,

It is an interesting fact that, in spite of the contempt with which Mr Wakefield’s plan of colonisation would be received to-day, the ideal—if I may call it an ideal—for' which ho strove has been realised in this twentieth century, and in Now Zealand! His ideal was to make' land too dear for the working man to acquire. Yet without any deliberately concocted plan, that is the condition in this country to-day. -“Go on the land, young man!” says the purveyor of commonplace claptrap. Where is the land? The man in search of a section must either trust to the uncertainty of the ballot or pay; a price for a farm which will place him in the power of the mortgagee for half his lifetime. Mr Massey told us some time ago an interesting story of the youth who commenced life as a "cow-spanker,” but who is today a prosperous dairy farmer. But M’ Massey, as usual, forgot one important fact with which the pretty story should bo qualified—land was not -C7O an acre when that cow-spanker got his farm. If it were ho would have cowspanked for a long lime before ho could have earned the price of an acre! Another fact: The few pioneer miners who aro still with us aro wont to look back on the palmy days of tho goldfields as if they had gone forever, just as the ancients looked back with vain regret to tho Golden Age. It is a ponular error, however, to think that the goldfields yielded fabulous wealth. In reality the wealth won from Mother Earth in the form of gold is but triflinv by comparison with the wealth that grows annually on the backs of sheep, or that which is comprised in the flesh or hides of cattle. The gold appears to the popular mind to have been more prodnotive, because the more equitable .distribution of wealth made everyono prosperous without gorging anyone. The prosperous days of tho goldfields have not passed away for ever. They can he revived and even excelled by giving even partial recognition to the great princiPhjs to which the mining populations adhered everywhere, and under which human liberty blossomed as it never did before. Then will end for all time the social curse of land aggregation. Then will honest men no longer work three ,ve ?k , to P a y cent while land worth hundreds per acre is held idle by speculating syndicates. It looks a huge task to undermine the unholy city of land monopoly, but it is easv once the masses appreciate its baneful influence and the efficacy of taxation. The goldfields have afforded us an inspiring example, for they gave practical apnli cation to. a principle which has never quite been lost sight of and which will one day be the permanent and settled policy of ©very well-ordered community.