OUR LAND QUESTION.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 1352, 21 June 1881, Page 2

OUR LAND QUESTION.

[To the Editor of the Herald.]

Sir, — Our land question being a subject of great importance, especially at the present time, I beg to offer a few remarks. From time to time, I have heard many different opinions, expressed by different people regarding our lands, and all of them against monopoly. Everybody seems to think, (and I think justly so), that somehow or other our lands are not fairly divided. It is not only the cry in New Zealand, but nearly all over the whole globe, that monopoly, is on the increase. While people are allowed to purchase large blocks of land for small sums of money, and more especially being allowed to purchase unlimited quantities, the inference is that monopoly will continua to be on the increase. Wo have only to look at Great Britain and Ireland, and we will get an insight into monopoly,

and how it is carried on there. I will commence with the Duke of Sutherland. He owua 1,208,546 acres. That man ciuld say with truth, if his land is all in one block, I am monarch of all I beholc, and no one could dispute it. I will next take the Duke of Buccleuci and Queensberry, 459,2fi0 acre* ; Sir J. Matthes.-n, 424,500 ; the Earl of Breadalbane, 372,729 acres. Then there are 67 other on the same list, who hold from 50,410 acres, up to 99,559 acres. Those are but few among the many lund sharks in Great Britain and Ireland. The whole thing is one great mystery why so, very few men are allowed to be in possession of such amount of land, in a country like England, or, like Ireland, while many thousands are almost homeless, ay ! and without food Still the Gorernment assist, if not provide those people with food and shelter, and wink at the land being monopolised, by a few, lazy fellows. For they do nothing but keep race horses, shoot, sport about country, and thousand* of othf*r pranks, which never do ihw country .my Yet the Government wink at it, and wonder at the people raising up against such a thing. I say, the problem is soon solved, they can no longer exist under such tyranny, hardship, and starvation, so they have risen up against it. I maintain that they are quite justified in the action they have taken, seeing that they have to toil hard for the aupport of idlers, which most of those people are. Now, as I have given but few of the many instances of monopoly, and their results, I sincerely hopg, that we, (I mean us Colonials), will take Great Britain and Ireland as an example, and not follow in their footsteps. For " we," are the power and the strength, and by uniting we have it in our power to prevent it. So therefore we should all cry out with one vo ; ce "no monopoly." The poor should have land as well as the rich, and eventually must, have it. They may say oh ! there is land given by the Government for free selection. But in a great many cases it is inferior, or its locality prevents, or nearly prevents any communication with it. So what is the use of it when it is given ? For in many cases those fortunate enough to get the land, are without sufficient funds to erect suitable accommodation thereon, and more so when the supply of timber and other building material, are not to be [ got only under very great expense. So the poor man and his family are still struggling out an existence (supposing them to be on the land. We must bear in mind alßo that every man cannot go farming. Some must necessarily follow their callings in the town, whether trade, profession, or business, so, therefore, land given to such men as those, would be utterly useless to them And further, I say that no man has any right to hold more land than he is able to manage, for that is monoply. It should be distributed fairly and justly, whether bought or given. Take the subject into consideration, and seriously think it out for yourself this question. Suppose the land-holders of Britain and Ireland, were to simply hold a meeting and decide that they will eject every tenant, or person off their land, what would be the result ? Why, they would either be forced to emigrate, or build arks and live on the water. However, I Bay let ua take example by Britain and Ireland and reotify the error, and have no monoply. Although I would advocalo land for the poor as well as the rich, mind I am not greedy ; I don't say give us all the land gratis. Oh, no, for my plan would be give land in the town to those who get their living in the town. Say a house and section to cost a certain amount, according to the requirements of tha applicant, and give a certain time to pay it by instalments, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or in any other way which is best suited to the position of the person applying. By this means everyone would be a householder, a ratepayer, and a voter, and take part in our political affairs. The system would make the Colony more settled, and would also increase the revenue, for what with the little interest on the money lent as it were from the Government and tho profit on the sale of the land, and the extra tax that must come from the extra amount of landholders, in my opinion would in time to come swell the treasury chest considerably. How many times do we see and haar of aid being required of the Government for destitute persons who, in most cases have no homes, no house to go to ; whereas, if the had a home they might or would be able to live without any aid whatever. The never-ceasing rent is the great, and I may say the only drawback. There would be far leas chnvi- | table institutions, less demand on the Government, and less subscription lists going the round for signature and money. Then every deserving man could have his own home, his own house, and his own fireside, and most of all his own freedom. — I am, &c,

Pro P atria.