THE LEASING OF THE PUBLIC LANDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1601, 29 July 1882, Page 13

THE LEASING OF THE PUBLIC LANDS.

TO TUB BDITOB.

Bin,— lt is pleasing to sco that reason and justice in the minds of our public men &ro asserting their supremacy ovor narrow-minded views, founded on custom and prejudice, in regard to the alienation of the public estate ; and that, despite alarmists liko Mr J Aitken Connell, who aro opposed to all changes in dealing with tho public landß which do not accord with old ideas and customs, the Government have proposed to a large extent the adoption of the leasing system. But, according to Mr Connell, they are wrong in having done so— the opinions of many of the greatest thinkem of the a?e on the land question not being, in his view, of equal value to the Colony as thoso of farmers and land agents, and »o the right to buy and Bell land is not to be interfered with except at the risk of national ruin. As a question of common sense and fact, it cannot be denied that the right of labour to the uso of land is at least equal to that of capital ; but selling the land naturally tends to deprivo the labourer of his common right to its use, and forces him by an ever-increasing necessity, a 9 the money value of land rises, into a position of servitude to others, and compels him to give an undue share of his earnings in supp >rt of tho Government. By such a sydtcm a class of persons of no use whatever t'> society is called into existence and fostered, and as the result—

" Many pine in want, That few may know the caros and woes of sloth I " And so it haa come to pass that in England a sum of money, as rent for the use of land, is said to be given that amounts annually to a sum more than double that of the national revenue. Nor does it seem possible to provent tho social evils arising from such a laud system by & lund tax or other ingenious dorices, except by methods which would unjustly affect the rights of capital and tho freedom of the owner, and injure the small an well as the large landowner; and an they are both in tho same boat, they may reasonably be expected to i*ull together to prevent any interference with their liberty to do as they like with their own, or to make th-ni subject to any conditions that would hare the effect of reducing the capital value of their lands. And why should they not do bo ? If the land is sold on the strength of the presumption that its alienation from the State is the best way of bringing it into use for the public interest, by what rule of reason can any interference with or impost upon its uso be justified more than with any other commodity ? No ; if we continue to sell the land, wo must be satisQod to drift into whatever social condition the course we adopt may lead us. The assertion thak capitalists will not come here to look for land, and that there will be less demand for it if it can only be had on lease, is incapable of proof ; and-all cro*klngs to the contrary— it may be well expected thai if homes can be made, and the land bo profitably occupied, it will continue to bo in demand. The success of the agricultural-lease system on the goldflelds is ample proof of this. But then the settlers havo not been satisfied to continue to be leaseholders. No ; why should they, with liberty to buy the freehold for £1 or 80s an acre, and the prospect of being able soon to sell it for £0 or £7 an acre after its fertility should be wholly exhausted. Accordingly some of them have utilued their holdings in this way. In this way, too, it appears that in Australia, through the instrumentality of a class of nomad settlers, extensive tracts of land have pa'sod into the hands of the largo landholders. These facts are worth considering in their relation to one of the stock argu1 ments urged against the leasing system— viz., that a person could not be expocted to have as much interest in improving his loiwehold as he would if the land were his own. But; it is evident if a leaseholder should choose to vie up his land, the result to him would be just this : that, first, if he desired to part with his holding, ho would get little or nothing tor it, as it is only the value in use of the land that would Bell in a leaso ; and, secondly, if he could not sell ifc, he might thus have rendered himself incapable of continuing to pay the rent, and would perhaps be ruined. As to tho value of the security to be given for the rights of property in a leasehold under tho Government, it is safe to say that it is likely to be quito as good as, if not hotter than, what the freoholder may expect in the future, judging by the tendency of public opinion, and tho ii,'ht of events now taking place in Ireland. And I cannot but think that the Government are introducing a wise provision in proposing to adopt the leasing system. The freehold at one time meant something more than the satisfaction of the sentiment of ownership. Is meant exemption from service to the Crown, and from the onerous and uncertain conditions attending the occupation of land —hence its value. But now, under a Government in which all have a voice, the general conviction of right and sense of interost in the perpetuation of a land system founded upon the principles of common rights in land, and in the development of its resources, and so to the well being of the Crown tonauta, will afford a better guarantee for justice to them than if they should be allow* d to buy tho land and depend on tho forbearanco of the Government. In the only Colony occupied by Europeans whero State ownership i 3 practically enforced- B»tavia— the system is said to work well both for tho Govornmont and the settlers on the soil. This is attoated to by the eminent naturalist, A. R. Wallace, who lived in the country, in his work on tl The Malay Archipelago." And what have its opponents to offer in answer to this ? Nothing but the forco of custom, and groundless fears, and. fallacious ideas of tho value of the institution of private .property in land. — I am, &c,

Dunstan, July 10th.