THE LAND TENURE REFOEM LEAGUE OF VICTORIA.

Colonist, Volume XV, Issue 1502, 16 February 1872, Page 7

THE LAND TENURE REFOEM LEAGUE OF VICTORIA.

(From the Melbourne Argus, January 8.) The programme of a proposed society, to be called the Land Tenure Eeform League of Victoria, has been issued, and whatever objection may be taken to some of the items it contains, it cannot ho denied that the ends which it will be its endeavor to attain hove received the sanction and approval of many of the most eminent political economists of the day. They are as follows : — "1. The immediate cessation of the sale of all Crown lands. "2. The fee simple of the public domain to vest in perpetuity in the State (that is, the people in their corporate capaciiy). "3. Occupancy, with fixity of tenure, subject to rental for revenue purposes. Transfer of tenant-right. "4. Land already alienated from the State to be repurchased by the State. No re-sale ..to individuals to ibe permitted. " 5. The gradual abolition of all indirect taxes whatever. The revenue of the State to be derived solely from the rentals of the land." In other words, the undertaking in which tho public are invited to take a part involves nothing less than the accomplishment of a complete social revolution. No question has excited more attention of late years than that of the right of exclusive property in land, and no question could be raised capable of exciting more interest or evoking more decided opinions. It appears from what is going on in England and amongst ourselves, that the discussion is likely soon to be transferred from the closet of the philosopher to the hustings, in the first instance, and before long to the Parliament Houses ; and although none of those who are at present living may live to see even a single step taken towards realising any of the objects which the Land Tenure Eeform League has in view, owing to the fierce opposition with which its proposals are sure to be met, no obstacles can prevent the ultimate success of its principles if they are founded on right and justice. The idea of permanently vesting the ownership of the land in the Government of a country in trust for the general community is by no means new. In ancient times it was the custom in many parts of Europe, and partially so in Saxon England. At the present day, it remains in full force in India, a very large proportion of the revenue of that country being derived from the rents paid by the zemindars, who occupy, as far as the ryots or actual cultivators are concerned, very much the same position as the laudlords in this or any other country where the land has passed into private hands. But there is this important difference, that whereas the latter can for the most part "do as they like with their own," the former are obliged to conform to certain general conditions laid down by the paramount power in the interests of the laborers. No occupier under the Indian Government would be allowed to depopulate large tructs of country with the object of forming deer forestß, or for any other purpose ministering only to his selfish gratification. The State recognises and protects the right of the people born on the soil to its enjoyment on equitable terms, and looks/on the production of food as the most important use to which the public estate can be put. It is not necessary that we should go into particulars showing how the rent is arrived at —in other words how the fair value of each description of land is assessed; we merely wish to call attention to the fact that in India at the present day, under British administration, a system of land tenure is in operation which embodies two of the principles for which land reformers contend. It provides the state with a revenue, and puts it out of the pow6r of any one individual to monopolise natural advantages, which they insist, and not without reason, were intended for the enjoyment and sustenance of all. The right of private individuals to exclusive property in land, free from any obligation whatever, is rather a modern innovation than a custom sanctioned by ancient practice. The feudal system under which so many large estates were acquired in England, carried with it the liability to military service ; but when this method of government declined, the estates remained vested in their old owners, although duties which originally secured their tenure were no longer exacted. The feudal system, as long as it lasted, at all events had this merit—it secured a quid pro quo from the holders of the land, and thereby tempered the injustice which is inseparable from any law which deprives the many of their natural inheritance for the purpose of endowing'the few. Owners of landed property have ceased to be liable to any personal service in respect of their holdings, and no doubt this is one of the reasons which have caused their rights to be subjected to such severe scrutiny of late, Those, of course, who protest against the right of the public to interfere, contend that landed property is like any other, and that every owner should have the same control over his paternal or purchased acres as the manufacturer has over the products of his looms. The fallacy of such a line of argument, however, is evident from the factr that the quantity of land available for tillage being limited, the rights of .owners must always be Bubject to the necessities of the people as regards food. The exclusive rights of the landlord, therefore, are not and cannot be absolute, but only relative. Mill lays it down that the principle of property can only apply to those articles which have been produced by labor and accumulated by abstinence; and not as in agriculture, to " the raw material of the earth." "No man," says that great authority, " made the land. It is the original inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency." Furthermore, he lays it down that " the principle of property gives them (the possessors of land) no right to the land, but only a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of. To that their claim is indefeasible." The policy pursued with regard to land required' for railway purposes is a practical example of the application of this principle. Should such proposals as those we are noticing ever ripen into action, the utmost regard w«uld of course be paid to individual rights and vested interests. It is in the last degree improbable that any British community would seek to found a new social fabric on a basis of injustice and general plunder. If we have allowed a system to continue in force for years, which on mature consideration we consider to be inimical to the general weal, no blame can attack to those who have acquired property under it, and although they could not be allowed to stand in the way of improvement and progress, they would be dealt with tenderly and amply compensated. But to this, as to every question, there is another side, and a great deal may be urged in favor of leaving the laws which regulate the acquisition of landed property as they stand at present. In the first place, the possession of land in fee simple is a sort of paasion with the members of both the AngloSaxon and Celtic races. To possess a few roods of ground which he can call his own, a mau is content to dare and do a great deal —to work hard, live frugally, and cultivate those domestic) virtues whioh it x is » desirable to encourage, Would, ho regard a

leasehold property with such fondness, even though ' guaranteed fixity of tenure by the State as long as he paid his rent? We doubt it. Mill also points out that a great deal of land can only be rendered productive at a heavy expense, which is immediate, while "the benefit is spread over many years, perhaps over all future time." " Under the guarantee of perpetuity," says Sismondi, speaking of older countries, men have undertaken great works," and have covered the face of the country with a vegetation everywhere abundant, and everywhere useful to the human race. Among their labors there are some of which, the fruits can only be reaped at the end of 10 or 20 years; there are others by which prosterity will still benefit after several centuries." It is only reasonable to conclude that many of the works he mentions, which have proved so valuable, would not have been undertaken unless perpetuity of tenure had been relied on. There is mujh to be said, then, on both Bides of this complicated question of national policy, and although the subject may not be ripe for decision, it would be as well if it were more generally discussed, for it is one ! of those points on which the immediate future will \ demand an opinion from each of us.