FREEHOLDERS THE BEST FARMERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 6

FREEHOLDERS THE BEST FARMERS.

The advocates of the leasehold as the exclusive form of land tenure seem to be imbued, with the idea that their policy is the only remedy for many of the social failures which are unfortunately inseparable from life. There is no doubt a number of leasehold members of Parliament are sincere in their beliefs, and while they may be in other directions using their efforts, more particularly in regard to the large centres of population,..in. making theconditions of life healthier, brighter and better for the less fortunate of their fellows; they are so far entitled to the respect that is due , to .earnest-minded men ; but, unfortunately, /several of them insist on dogmatising without any real knowledge of the subject, ; They say that the State has no right to alienate land or to- allow it to become the property oZ individual occupiers, but that it should be held for the benefit of the people. The question is "Who are the people?'' Are they not the majority of- the settlers .of New Zealand. , At the present time land nationalises are in the minority, and also are only a particular and temporary class with views that may change round at any time. According to an, English authority, the land nationalises do not even believe in majority ownership, and the writer points out that if land belongs, to everybody, it' follows that the so-called land of this Dominion belongs to the human race at large, and so our .members of Parliament can have no excuse for disposing of it without obtaining the complete consent of the whole collective owners. The same authority says that when the ■ Romans under the Roman Empire did anything arbitrary, they showed a warrant signed by Caesar, which business was often unjust, but was usually consistent. In Great Britain during the recent political campaign, the Right Hon. Mr Balfour stated that he had always been one of those who hadi urgently desired to see, and yet hoped to see, the ownership of agricultural land distributed in an incomparably greater number of hands than it now is, and at Birmingham he adopted a system of small-ownership as the main feature in the Unionist, policy, as opposed to the policy of perpetual tenancy and land nationalisation of the Liberal Government. One has only to turn to Germany and France to see how beneficial the freehold tenure has proved to the small farmer. In Germany at the present time seven-eighths of the land is freehold, and is occupied by the owners. In France, again, we are told that there are five hundred thousand! individual owners of land with an average acreage of 75 acres, and five million owners with an average acreage of U acres. In Denmark 92 per cent, of the land is owned by the cultivator.*, about two-thirds of the land being divided into farms of from 25 to> 200 acres. These instances are given by way of showing how successful an optional tenure of land is in other countries. It is unfortunate for this Dominion that the towns and cities .'sre becoming largely the controllers of the destinies of the country, and it ir, chiefly in the larper centres of population where the votes for and against a movement are cast most heavily, and as we have, already stated it is in the towns where the leaseholders will find the greatest amount of support, and in their coming leasehold campaign it is in the towns that they are

sure to direct their greatest efforts towards carrying conviction. And yet if a straight oat issue betweep the optional tenure and a purely leasehold tenure was submitted to town electorates, the policy to apply -to small town sections as well as to larger areas, it is safe to say that in many instances the leaseholders would be defeated by the votes of the holders of freehold sections, supported by those who hope some day to become freeholders also.