THE LAND QUESTION.

Western Star, Issue 281, 25 January 1879, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE LAND QUESTION.

(From the Dunedin Evening Star.) In all the Colonies the land question must necessarily be a burning one. On its proper solution depends in no small degree the future destinies of the people, not only as regards that material power and prosperity which spring from equality of rights and the absence of extremes in condition, but the social and moral being, which is the sur esult of independence of national character and which cannot exist amongst the masses when they are serfs all but in name and have no chance of rising above the servile labor and the weekly pay. In the settled countries of Europe the question, owing to the very nature of things, resolves itself rather into one for the political economist than the statesman. Systems, the bases of which were settled perhaps centuries ago, are now developing their fruits; systems good, bad, and indifferent, according to the opinion of different schools of thought, but apparently unalterable except by revolution. The lands are hopelessly alienated and passed away out of the power of Crown and Parliament. Vested right and vested wrong are buttressed up by law and precedent until they are practically unassailable. All that can be done is, so far as possible, to modify results to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. In Great Britain the tenure of the fee-simple of the soil by a comparatively few individuals has, with the enormous increase of population during the last fifty years, brought inequality of condition amongst the people to . a point which threatens danger to the commonwealth. Whilst the few rich get richer day by day, until some amongst them can hardly count their incomes, the toiling millions get comparatively poorer. There is little hope for the laborer and working-man beyond a struggling life and a pauper’s grave, the only bit of land there is ever a chance of acquiring. This is not a healthy state of things, nor can it be regarded without pain and apprehension. Fortunately for England she has her Colonies, and in peopling them the strain may be. relieved which is now pressing upon her own overtaxed resources. Emigration upon a large scale seems, indeed, the only remedy which can reasonably be' adopted with any prospect of success. The landed interest is too powerful to allow of any hope in the direction of legislation, even if the evil, as we believe it, is not too firmly seated to be dealt with by any legislation possible. In the Colonies, with their future before them, and no irremediable past to contend with, the questioa stands upon

altogether a different basis. It is not a morbid carcass to be theorised about and dissected in its various tissues for the entertainment of political anatomists, but it is a thing of life capable of practical treatment—of being made the very soul of our polity, whose foundations may thus be set upon a rock, stable in the security ensured by a free and contented population. It may be argued that in New Zealand the mischief has been done that large landed estates already exist, and that vested rights in the soil have been created which cannot under any circumstances be interfered with. Both facts may be admitted; the latter, however, with certain qualifications, which we shall hereafter deal with. There is, however, a vast area of land, especially in the North Island, which still remains inalienated either by the Crown or the Native owners, and this will sooner or later come to be dealt with under the land laws of the Colony. So far the heritage of the people is untouched, and no one can deny their right through the constitutional channel of Parliament to do as they please with their own. But we are quite prepared to advocate that the “ vested right” of the present land-owners is limited, and must give way, if necessary, to the general interests of the community, especially considering that these rights are of very recent acquirement, and have been obtained rather tUlicto juris than de jure, Stuart Mill, who was no Socialist, distinctly lays down that the “sacrednesa of property ” does not appertain in the complete degree to landed property. “No man, he says, “ made the land. It is the original inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is solely a question of general expediency. When private property to land is not expedient, it is unjust.” And again: “ The claim of the landholder to the land is altogether subordinate to the general policy of the State. The principle of property gives them 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. , , , , But, subject to this proviso, the State is at liberty to deal with landed property as the general interests of the community may require, even to the extent, if it so happen, of doing with the whole what is done with a part, whenever a Bill is passed for a railroad or a new street.” Accepting, as we are justified in doing, this high authority, it appears to be beyond any reasonable doubt that the Legislature has power in the matter of laws affecting the tenure of land to make such laws retrospective, if so considered necessary in the public interest, and further to place the tenure I under restriction as to the maximum area, should such a course commend itself to parliamentary wisdom. This, of course, is stating the proposition in the widest manner and significance, and we need hardly say that atbitrary legislation of such a character is hardly likely to be proposed or adopted, although circumstances may be conceived under which so crucial a policy might be justifiable. The Attorney-General, whose ! views upon the land question generally may probably be taken to represent those of the most advanced school of thought, discussed the subject at some length in his address to the electors last week, and with a great deal of what he said we moat cordially sympathise. With all his vagaries, intellectual and political, Mr Stout has in truth always been, to parody one of his favorite expressions, “sound on the land;” and this we may say, in our opinion, covers a multitude of sins. He has consistently advocated the breaking up of the large runs and the de-ferred-payment system, and we are glad to hear that, having charge of the portfolio of “Lands,” he is doing his utmost to press forward settlement and people the interior with men and women instead of sheep. Holding, as he does, very strong opinions as to the political evil of the land becoming absorbed into a few hands, it is to be noted that he expresses no approval of anything approaching a “bursting up” policy, but indicates two ways in which the effect of gradual subdivision may be brought about: the French law of heritage, which results practically in a system of small and peasant proprietorship, or the imposition of a progressive land tax, which specially touches up the possessor of acres over and above a certain fixed and moderate maximum. In favor of the first scheme there is much to be said, and we shall take an opportunity of entering fully into the consideration of the subject, which is far too important to be disposed of in a few words at the end of an article. A progressive land tax we are not at all inclined to support. It savors of penal legislation, and is altogether inconsistent with that “ equality of rights and conditions ” which Mr Stout and his friends so loudly advocate. The existing tenure'of land may be altered by means direct or indirect, but so long as that tenure is legal it is opposed to all equity that exceptional taxation should be imposed upon the freeholder. Fiatjustilia I should bo the abiding principle of every si atesman. Carried Out to its logical conclusion the greatest happiness will result to the greatest number.