The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1915. WAR AND THE LAND

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9096, 15 July 1915, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1915. WAR AND THE LAND

The war and its potentialities arocausing increased attention to be directed in the Mother Country to the evil of land monopoly. The question is being discussed by writers of moderate as well as advanced thought. In the London “Times,” in April last, appeared the second of a series of articles entitled “Labour for the Land,” which is not without significance for the “Britains beyond the seas.” The author is described as “a distinguished agricultural writer,” * and in some quarters it is conjectured that he is Mr A. D. Hall, F.R.S., a member of the Lands Development Commission set up, not before its time, ■ by Mr Lloyd George. Bo that as it may, ho has uttered a very outspoken warning to British land monopolists. Let us quote from his argument: “It is to be feared that if the farmers of the country adopt a policy of ‘ranching’ it will in the mam be acquiesced in by the landlords, who aro more likely to lower rents to make such a policy profitable tnan to embark upon the task cf instructing their tenants in bettor methods or replacing them by more enterprising successors. Nevertheless, ranching vsouid in the end result in something like a rural revolution; the people would not long tolerate the spectacle of men monopolising large tracts of land which they did not attempt to work except at a minimum level both in respect) to production of food and support of population. The demand for land that marked the small holdings agitation would be renewed in a wider form, for the end of the.war ia likely to let loose a great many young men who before were clerks. Shopmen, and the like, but who, having tasted of an outdoor life, will now demand access to the land. And the demand: will be so insistent that farmers who ranch and landlords who allow it will alike lose their land, for by the time the war ie over the country will have grown accustomed to a good many short cuts.” The foregoing statement well deserves to be put on record, both as having appeared in “The Thunderer” and as being from the pen of an admittedly authoritative writer. That the land monopolists—for it is they, not the farmers, who are really responsible—will he able to put off the day of reckoning is very unlikely. To do so would require of them a degree of self-sacrifice quite inconceivable. Meanwhile, the “rural revolution” is brewing. The men who have fought for their country will hot, when they return home, rest satisfied with things as they are. They will ask for fair play in the industrial field, and for a foothold on the soil of their country. The condition which the writer of “The Times” article pictures is already prevalent all over the Homeland—is, indeed, growing worse and worse year by year—and the people are more and more realising the iniquity of it. The terrible struggle now raging on the Continent of Europe is teaching the British people that it is not a good thing for their country to be dependent upon outside sources for 80 per cent, of its food supply. And they have to recognise that this alarming dependence upon external food supplies is growing greater and greater, not merely because the population is increasing, but also because more and more British land is going out of cultivation. Huge game preserves and big cattle ranches are steadily usurping the place of agriculture. Lord Lansdowne, for example, stated last year that there were 3,000,000 acres less under cultivation than thirty years ago; and another authority informs us that 4,500,000 acres have gone out of cultivation during the last twenty-five years. If the trade routes could not be kept open by the British Navy—if outside food supplies were cut off for even a few weeks—the huge population of the British Isles would be within measurable distance of actual famine. But there is a menace against which even a powerful navy cannot protect the people- Owing to the war the area in Europe under wheat will be greatly reduced, and a serious shortage in the supply next year is certain. It is .estimated that the world’s crop of wheat and rye is about 650,000,000 quarters, of which 350,000,000 are normally pro-' duoed by Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and Russia, and that the deficiency in next year’s crop will not be less than 100,000,000 quarters of bread corn, which means bread for about 133,000,000 persons. The inevitable consequence will be very high prices for bread in the Old Country, and that at a time when the purchasing power of the general public is lower than it has been for many years. Such startling facts as these must compel the people to ask whether the best use is being made of the land. Once they seriously ask that question, the truth will out; and the truth once out, the people will demand in no uncertain fashion that the land now so criminally misused, under-used, or altogether unused, shall be put to its fullest and best use—shall employ all the labour it can employ, and shall produce all the foodstuffs that it is capable of producing. For the truth is that, as stated by Sir William E. Cooper in “ England’s Fatal Land Policy,” the land of the United Kingdom is the most fertile in the world. It yields more wheat per acre than the land of any other country. Yet with such a soil the United - Kingdom employs only four persons to each 100

acres of cultivable land, as compared with 15 persons in Germany, 18 in Austria, and 19 in Italy ! Here, undoubtedly, he touches one of the sources of Germany’s great strength. In the United Kingdom, according to Sir William Cooper, jdiere are only 3,122,000 out of its 77,000,000 acres used for producing food for the people, and instead of the British Isles employing 6} millions of peasant labourers —which, with their families, would mean a corresponding rural population of 16 millions —little more than 2i millions are engaged in the agricultural industry! The lato Prince Kropotkin, in his “Fields, Factories, and Workshops,” contends that instead of 17 millions the United Kingdom could readily support 80 millions on home-grown food; while the Consultative Committee of the Board of Agriculture recently recommended that “under the existing circumstances (the war) agriculturists should do all in their power to secure that the supply of home-produced foodstuffs may be in excess of the normal,” and pointed out that on “clean land,” hy the aid of suitable artificial manure, good crops of wheat can ■be obtained year after year. The immense possibilities of increased production may be measured by the fact that—to say nothing of the millions of acres held idle for “sport”— twenty-two out of every hundred square miles of cultivable land, in Great Britain are at present Used for permanent pasture (“ranching”), and in England alone the proportion is said to be half the cultivable *area so used! Why is not this good land —the most fertile in the world—put to its best use in the production of food and the employment of men? The reason is not far to seek, and the stern logic of events must ere long force the people to search that reason out. It is because a mere handful of the population is permitted to monopolise the greater part of the land of the country, and is allowed to go tax free, ox nearly so, so long as the land is absolutely unused or put to only very inferior use. The population of the British Isles is 45 millions” as against New Zealand’s one million. The Unimproved (selling) land values of New Zealand amount to 212 millions sterling, whereas tho annual rental value of the land of the United Kingdom is estimated at from 300 to 400 millions sterling, representing an unimproved (selling) value of £6,000,000,000 to £B,OOO- - ! Yet—will it be believed?—the British land tax is actually less than our New Zealand land tax (itself ridiculously low—less than the tax burden on tobacco 1): and, like the area of •land in cultivation in the United Kingdom, the British land tax grows yeai alter year “smaller by degrees and beautifully less” I A cablegram, dated London. July 7th, tells us that “Lord Lansdowne, in the House of (land) Lords, stated that tho financial position gave cause for anxiety before the war, and it was now regarded with tho gravest attention.” But, in the Mother Country, as in New Zealand, the prescription given by Sir Joseph Ward before the December elections—a stiffly graduated land tax on large estates, coupled with a special supertax on idle lands—will meet all the needs of the case; will solve the grave financial difficulty; will open up the land to the brave fellows who are shedding their blood for “their” country ; and will solve the food problem and the cost of living problem (1) by greatly stimulating the production of foodstuffs, and (2) by causing a greater demand for labour, and thus raising wages. But, of course, Lord Lansdowne and the Tories at Home are, if possible, even more bitterly opposed to the land tax than our Tories here in New Zealand. Lloyd George' caijffot but see that the opportunity awaits him—aye, cries aloud for him. We look to see him. when Chancellor once more, avail himself of it, as Sir Joseph Ward undoubtedly will, when occasion again serves, avail himself of his very similar opportunity here in New Zealand.