DUNEDIN CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXI, Issue 12, 20 July 1894, Page 8

DUNEDIN CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

The nsual weekly meeting of the society was held on Wednesday, the lltb ins>, the rev president took the chair and ther« was a large attendance of members. The minutes of the previons meeting were read and confirmed. Mr W, Connor was nominated for membership on the motien of Mr Marlow and Mr Gnffen. A letter from Mr T. J. Lynch was read, in which he expressed his regret at having to leave the society on account of his approaching departure for Wellington. Mr Carolin said he was very sorry to hear that Mr Lynch was going away. Ab a membtr of the society he had carried out well anything he had undertaken, and he moved that a motion of regret at his departnre be recorded. Meßsrs P. Hally and Griffen also heartily endorsed what had been said by Mr Oarolin, and the motion was unanimously carried. The meeting then resolved itself into the form of a parliament the Rev Father Lynch occupying tbe Bpeakei'a chair. ' Mr Marlow (Premier) spoke as follows : Mr Bpe»ker— ln formally moving the following resolution, " That this house declares ■ its unreserved opinion in favour of the land policy of the New Z aland Government, particularly in re.pcct of (1) acquiring private lands for settlement ; (2) the dispoeal of Crown lands nndtr a leasehold •ystem so as to reserve the freehold to the Crown ; (3) a liberal scheme of special settlements-, so as to afford all classes an opportunity o( occupying the land ; (4) the limitation of the area of land which any person or company may acquire in fee simple under the Land Act, 1892," I feel that my task is an important one, because the question

of how beet to deal with tbe land must ever be a vital one. The question naturally arUea on claase 1, " acquiring private land for settlement." Is it necessary ? To answer this query it is essential to glanca at the history of the land legislation of th« Colony : in the first caße w« had companies purchasing from the M»orif, and sailing to settlers, some of the earliest Maori wars being caused by these companies purchasing from chiefs that bad not power to sell, and, of course, when the company went to take possession, the legitimate owner resisted, but the land laws may be said to commence with the granting of responsible government to New Zealand in 1853, then, for the first time in Australasia tbe control of the land was handed over to the Government, each provincial Government being given the control of the land within its province. Time will not permit of aj describing the various systems that arose in the different provinces, suffice to say that in general the town and suburban lots were sold by auction, the rural land being fixed at 10s per acre, but by modifications tbe price was reduced to 5s per acre. It was at this time and price that the foundations were laid of some of the largest estates in New Zealand. To give you an idea of the extent of some of these, I will mention that there are in New Zealand 7 holdings of over 100,000 acres, or a total of 1,077,000, in tbe seven. Then there are 24 holdings between 50,000 and 100,000, with a total in tbe 24 of 1,530,000. You thus have 31 holdings averaging over 80,000 acres each, but perhaps as many of joa are not farmers 80,000 or 100,000 acres, may simply be terms that would fail to convey to you a fair idea of their magnitude. Let me put it aoother way, there is an estate in Canterbury "Gleomarlt" through which a railway passes. The locomotive going at top speed takes one hour and five minutes to go from boundary to boundary. Do you grasp their enormous dimensions now? Tnat these huge estates co-exist with a scarcity of land for settlement is a sufficient answer, Let us suppose the Government purchasing one of these estates, surveying it, adding the cost of survey, and letting it at a rental to cover the interest on the outlay, what is the result ? In place of one homestead, a few shepherds huts, and a half wildemes", you have a hundred bright homesteads with nature bestowing her choicest gifts in response to the toil uf the selector, and in due course an increase in customs, revenue, and exports. But if these are some of the direct benefits who shall estimate tbe indirect 1 These settlers r< quiring clothing, furniture, literature, and a hundred and one things necessary to civilisation with their consequent employment to the inhabitants of the towns. I think, Sir, I have said sufficient to show that the " acquiring of private lands for settlement" is * wise and judicions schema. Clauses 2 and 4 are so much bound up in ons that 1 will take them together. Previous to 1892 we bad three systems of disposing of

land, first purchasing in fee simple for cash, secondly purchasing under the deferred payment system, thirdly the perpetual lease, the latter briefly being that a 50 years' lease was granted with the right of renewal, the rent being fixed at 5 per cent on its capital .value ; but every 25 yeara the estate had to be revalued. With the consequent liability to increased rental this wns distasteful and caused mauy to burrow money and take advantage of a purchasing clause. We thus find that no less than 40 per cent of our settlers are virtually tenants of the mortgage companies. To obviate this the lesse ia perpetuity was framed, under which a lease is granted for 999 years at a rental of 4 per cent, on its capital value. Thero aro no vexatious revaluations, and the leas n e has the right to sell his lease and improvements at any time, the sole reserve being that the purchaser shall not hold land which with the addition of the purchased lease, would total over 2 000 acres. This is necessary as the Ministry would occupy a very illogical position did they on the one hand purlarge estates to cut up, and then dispose of the lots in such a manner aa to allow of their being formed into large estates again. Ia Canterbury in 1891, 20,000 acres were cut np and sold to fifty different persons, by 1892 the whole of this tract of land was in the hands of three or four institutions. This proves the necessity that exists for a limit being placed on the amount of public land that a man can hold. On the whole our scheme may be justly c-»llel a progressive and liberal one. I will conclude, as I began, by drawing the attention of honourable members to the importance of this measure. I cannot oonceive of legislation more worthy of their best endeavours, than that dealing with the lanJ, because if you will point me a nation whose land laws are so wisely framed as to secure a fair and reasonable tenure to the tiller of the soil, I will show you a people prosperous and contented. If, on the other hand, you point me a nation whose laws have been so lax as to allow the land to concentrate in the hands of a few, I will show you a people whom rack-renting and absenteeism have embittered and impoverished.

Mr J. P. Eager (Auckland), regretted the Minister should not have devoted his talents to bring before the House something better and more tangible. In objecting to men holding large estates he overlooked the cause that brought this about. Ia iha early dayß there was no one to take up the land and the Government were only too glad to sell it to them, and encourage them in every way to take it up. The Premier, he also said, draws a delightful picture of a large rural population and smiling homestead?, etc. But a great many people who think it would be a nice th ng to settle on the land, find it very different when they come to put it into practice. In concluding he said that owing to the state of his health during the past week, be had been unable to read up much on the subject, and he had no doubt that there were plenty of able speakers on the Opposition benches to show the Government tha fallacy of their arguments.

Mr Carolin (Westland), Baid he was very sony for the Opposition if they had no better arguments to bung forward. It ia a natural law, he went on to say, that the laad belongs to the people, but now-i-days it was owned by a few. A very able scheme had been laid before them by tb9 Premier, whose aim was to get people on the land, not sheep or rabbita. The towns ranked only as a secondary consideration, because their prosperity depended very much on that of the country.

Mr P. Haliy (Wellington), before adlrewng tha House oi the question before them, congralulated tha Premier oa the excellence of hia speech. Wiih his policy he dil not, however, agree, but he had no doubt they would be like all previous Government^ and make a name for themielvee. With regard to the first clause in the resolution, he did not see any necessity for acquiring private l»nda, as there were ooi lions of acres of native and other lands that might be opened up. Ab for the special settlement scheme, the Membar for Auckland spoke as if it were merely a question of taking a number of men off the street corners and giving them a plough and making farmers of them, but you might aa well ask a man who knew nothing about it to make a pair of shoes, or put him to any other trade and expect him to make a living. To make a profitable living ont of farming a man must know a lot about it, and even with the requisite knowledge, those whom it was desired to benefit lack:d a very important thing, namely, — a little hard cash.

Mr F. Caotwell (Waitotara), said that he was not in favour of the policy brought forward. Some of the Members had made a great deal cut of the Government acquiring large tracts of land and cu fting them up, but anyone studying the question would sea that it did not work well, though it might have a veiy rosy appearance on paper. Taking the Cheviot tor instance. There the settlers found the greatest difficulty in getting on, they could just hAd their own and no more. The Government now were erecting a creamery for their benefit, but if they continued on that line of policy everybody would be living on the country by-and-bye, and private enterprise would be killed. Again, the Premier's proposal of limiting the holdings of any one mm or company to 2000 acres, might do very well in some places, but in Otaga Central, aud parts of the Maniototo distiict, that area would scarcely keep 100 sheep.

Mr Griffan (dlonial Secretary), in giving his support to the Bill, said be was animated by a desire to serve the best interests of

the Colony and remedy the evil done in the early days when suoh large tracts of country got into the hands of a few. Anyone who took a common-senae view of the matter would see that a number of small farmers would cuntribute more to the prosperity of the country than one or two large holders.

Mr T. Hu3sy (Timaru) referred to tha position of those men who are nnfortunate enough to hold land at the preient day in being liable to have it taken from them at any time. They came here with a little money to develop the resources of the Colony and when they have attained a comfortable position a Liberal Government itepi ia and grabs the lot. If land for settlement ia wanted they should open up the Otago Central and other places with railways. la referring to clause two, he would like to see the lands sold right out rather than under a system of lease, so that the man who bought it could call it his own and not be subject to the freaks of an everchanging Government. Neither was there anything to be gained by limiting the area of any single holding, for on a large eßtate it would be necessary to employ a hrge amount of labour, and the worktngman would rather be earning a steady wage than trust to the sbancg of making a living out of a farm of his own.

Mr Falkner (Buller) explained that he had only come to town ft few days ago, and had not had ;an opportunity of studying the subject, so that he was in the position of a rail-sitter. After listening to the arguments on both sides be had coma to the conclusion that the soherne proposed by the Premier was a good one and deserving of support. He mentioned that there was one estate in Canterbury covered with sheep and only employing a few shepherds, that gave a profit of £80,000 a year to a company in Kogland. This was composed of land that would grow anything, 200 acres of which would be a fortune to anyone with a piir of willing handa. Speaking of clause 2, he brought forward a number of arguments to show that a lease in perpetuity was even better than a freehold, it having all the advantages of a freehold, with only a nominal rental. Mr F. W. Petre (Nelion) said that one point he wished to attack wa« the disraspectf ul way some of the members had spoken of the early settlers, calling them " land grabbers," etc. They were men who had come from home with a little capital, and helped to develop the country, and not only had they to work hard, but they had often to flgbt for their land among the savages, and he could Bay that ninetenths of these men never got back the money they had put in tho land. The Government were responsible for a great deal in trying to make a land rush. They forced tradesmen and mechanics on to the land, whose natural instincts were all towards town life, and what could they do if men who had been farmers for generations were unable to make a living.

Mr C. E. Haughtoa (Hjlswell) at this Btage moved the adj urnment of the debate, and announced hia intention of moving the following amendment next Wednesday :—" That this Houae does not approve of any land system that does not provide for real settlement by men of agricultural experience having soma capi'al." The motion was seconded by Mr Ea^er, and carried.