Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13926, 11 June 1907, Page 4

THE SUBDIVISION OF ESTATES. It is satisfactory to observe that the criticism which ive offered a few days ago upon tho figures , quoted by the Ministers of Lands and of Labour to .show that the aggregation of estates in tho colony h still progressing is admitted by the Lyttelton Times to be sound, at least to some extent. We hnd pointed out that the table of values of estates in 1902 and 1906, upon which the Ministers have relied in support of their contention, so far from substantiating the allegation that tho number and tho extent of very largo holdings aro increasing, really refuted it, and that the true conclusion to be drawn from tho figures was that there had been extensive subdivision of estates in the period covered by the tables, but that, as the valuations had been greatly raised by the Government officials, there liad been an increase in the values' of the properties. Our contemporary claims, however, that we have " ignored the fact that a mimuer of largo estates have boon acquired by the Government since 1902, reducing the average, size of those that remain, ami the further fact that several of the great land-owning families have cut up their properties in a fashion which does not amount to subdivision at all." Wo have not iguored these facts. Tho subdivision of large properties among members of the same family is certainly going on. It is, however, no new thing. A return that was presented to Parliament in 1905 showed that in the. course of several preceding years there had been a subdivision of estates with a view, it was suggested, to the evasion of the graduated land tax, and this process has certainly not been checked by the proposal for the limitation of tho area of land that may be held by owners already in possession. Hut such subdivisions of a family character as may be attributed to the provisions of the Government's Land Bill do not affect tho comparison between the number of largo estates that existed at the 31st March, 1902, and at the corresponding 'date in 1000, for they were all made subsequent to the period covered by the return which the Ministers have quoted. Tffey are mainly significant by reason of sujmosiion they convoy of the possible futility of the limitation proposals contained in Mr M'Nab's Bill. So far as the purchases of large e?tates that have been made by the Government sinc:i> ]!K)2 have affected tho comparison, it has really been to emphasise the point that a genuine subdivision of land is in progress. During tho four years the Government completed the acquisition of fifty-two estates, of an aggregate area (if .'536,462 acres at a total covt of £2,023,182,, Tlic.so included eleven pro-

perties for which n price whs paid that was in each case in excess of £'50,000. And, when these are eliminated from tho reckoning altogether and it still appears that- tlio number of persons holding land of an unimproved value of £1000 and under £5000 increased between I'M and 1906 by 4458, who wiU not-have participated in the subdivision of these fifty-two estates, it is fairlyevident that there must have boon within the period a very substantial amount of subdivision of a kind that does actually facilitate closer settlement. It is also worthy of remark— for it bears directly upon the suggestion that the Government has, by itsS land Requisition policy, brought about a diminution in the number of vory large estates—that (hiring tho whole time in which tho Land for Settlements Act has been in operation the State has only purchased one. estate of 50,000 acres or over. Tot, during the past ten years, the, number of holdings in exeese of 50,000 acres in the colony was decreased by twenty-two!