Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 26

III

III

The question which the large landowners are bound to answer satisfactorily is this—Upon what plea do you claim to monopolise to your personal use these enormous tracts of territory? It has been proved that the monopoly is injurious to the public weal, since its ultimate tendency is to force masses of people into cities, thereby stripping them of their independence, and reducing many to pauperism, and a larger number to semi-pauperism; that it violates the original principles upon which the land belonging to a community was parcelled out and placed under the care of individuals; that the lords of these estates cannot base their titles upon eminent public services; and the only argument left is the profitable utilisation of the soil. Every inhabitant of New Zealand is able to judge for himself as to the tenability of that plea. He need not pore over musty books, or grope amongst columns of bristling figures, to ascertain whether the proprietor of 10,000 acres or the proprietor of 200 tills the soil most carefully. The fact is notorious that the returns from the large estates are proportionately far smaller than from those of limited area. Did no other impediment exist, the enormous amount of capital that would be required to put one of these vast domains under close cultivation would be an effective bar to their being used in that manner. They are managed on quite a different system. The object kept in view is to reduce the quantity of human labor employed to a minimum, and to produce the greatest possible return from the capital at the owner's command. Hence, a rough and ready style of farming, if farming it can be called, is adopted, and since the rearing of sheep and cattle meets these requirements best, it is chosen in preference to agriculture, even though the soil be of arable quality. The small cultivator, on the contrary, is obliged to make the most of his plot; he applies infinitely more hand labor to his fields than the lord of many acres does; while he bestows upon his little domain an affectionate care which seems ridiculous to the wealthy runholder, who regards his huge estate as a mere money-making machine, and "works" it accordingly. The waste of the resources of the soil en- page 27 by comparing the yield of produce per acre attained by the market gardener with the results achieved by the proprietor of a 50,000-acre freehold. The official report of the proceedings taken under the Victorian Land Act during the year 1874 likewise illustrates, but less forcibly, the want of economy which these vast estates engender. It states that "the withdrawal from pastoral occupation of 3,500,000 acres of the best land remaining in the Colony has had little influence in decreasing the number of stock held by the pastoral licensees, and therefore has not materially injured that interest, but has increased the stock held by farmers to the value of £3,000,000." Thus, by the transference of 3,500,000 acres of land from the bands of squatters to those of small farmers an immediate net gain of nearly £3,000,000 has resulted to the State. If the land had been placed under tillage, the gain would probably have been much larger. These figures, however, only prove what every candid and practical breeder would acknowledge, that, where the land is of fair quality, the small farmer will rear a larger number of stock to the acre than the runholder is accustomed to raise. Of course, there is poor and rugged country unfit to be cut up into small farms and considerable areas of which must needs be occupied by the shepherd, but that must be dealt with separately. We want shepherds, but not Shepherd Kings, in the Colony.

The argument of impracticability must be met. Persons, who admit the desirability of an Agrarian Law, nevertheless shake their heads and say, "Oh, it is impracticable." Now, when a new political idea which, if put into practice, would produce important and useful consequences, is propounded to the British public, the public usually responds, "It is impracticable." That objection disposed of, a second is urged, "It would be mischievous if carried into effect;" which likewise disappearing before the blows of reason the dangerous novelty is tried, and no more is heard of the objectors. The sole argument that has been urged in support of the plea that the proposal for an Agrarian Law is impracticable is, that it would be impossible to overcome the power of the great landowners, who would resist the passage of such a law to the uttermost. That is a singularly cogent argument on my side. If a small body of men has acquired such empire in the country that it is able to stifle a measure calculated to produce beneficial consequences to the community at large, it is time that its influence was reduced to reasonable proportions. Let it be remembered, too, that the possessors of this influence are not the Aristocracy of the country, but a Plutocracy. It is not intellect, nor learning, nor patriotism, which rules, but Brute Wealth. I acknowledge that among the large landholders educated gentlemen may be found, to whom the latter page 28 remarks will not apply, although the main argument is just as cogent in their case as in that of their social inferiors; but they are gradually being supplanted by that objectionable class of rich parvenus already described. But however bold a front they might show, I apprehend that, when it came to the push, these gentlemen would give way, if only to save themselves from worse evils. It is part of their policy to cast the stigma of impracticability upon every proposal which threatens their dominion over the public estate; and their command of the Press enables them to do so with effect. Not half a dozen journals in the Colony are free to discuss the land question with a single eye to the public interest. Still in this, as in other matters, the truth will ultimately prevail.

The day is rapidly approaching when, throughout the civilised world, Wealth will be summoned by public opinion to show cause why it should exist at all, unaccompanied by merit. It would long since have been brought to that trial in European countries, but for the interposition of a class which, possessing riches, is likewise endowed with higher attributes. In New Zealand that class has no place, while the poorer ranks of society in the Colony are permeated with an intellectual leaven which will make them far more impatient of injustice, and far readier to resent it, than the corresponding classes of society in Europe have been. Hence it is to the immediate interest of the rich to guard against the creation in the Colony of a large body of landless poor, and of huge cities inhabited by festering masses of discontented people. To them such a state of things means critical danger. It is extreme folly to ignore the existence of new ideas on these matters. They are waves of reflection, coming no one knows whence, but passing through the minds of millions. People are asking themselves—Why should a man who is in every respect detestable, whose sole virtue is the demi-animal instinct of acquiring money, be permitted to dwell in luxury, while the honorable man, whose talents, were he given a field in which to use them, might be of great service to the State, is condemned to perpetual poverty, simply because his own sense of what is right and becoming will not permit him to employ those contemptible means of accumulating riches at which the base spirit of his rival has never blinked? The old answer, diligently propagated by those interested, that it is one of the inevitable evils of civilisation, has lost its force. People will net believe it. It is, indeed, a monstrous lie. Modern civilisation, whether in the form which it assumes in Great Britain, or in the worse shape in which it presents itself in New Zealand, is an artificial product, and the same hands which built it up can pull it down again. If it has defects they can be amended; if good features, they can be preserved. page 29 Turning back to the principal topic, however, it must be granted that the enactment of an Agrarian Law, so as to accomplish the object in view and at the same time avoid doing injustice to individuals, would be a difficult work. It would require statesmanship, but not a tithe part so much now as twenty years hence, when probably almost every available acre of land will be alienated from the Crown.

It is absolutely certain that if Australia had husbanded her waste lands, three-fourths, perhaps the whole, of the revenue required for the machinery of Government could have been raised from the State domain. These things were done in the olden time by the Romans, and they could be done now. Australia is already beginning to suffer the chastisement of retributive justice. Like New Zealand, she has scandalously squandered her estate, and is commencing to reap the fruits of her folly. The waste of their public lands will be a black mark upon the history of these Colonies. The free bestowal of the absolute title to all the soil within their borders was a munificent gift on the part of England to her Australian Colonies—next to the right of self-government, the noblest gift a parent State ever made to its dependencies. The gift, however, implied the corresponding obligation to use it properly. In the hands of wise and patriotic statesmen what noble results might have been achieved by means of the waste lands of Australia and New Zealand! What social problems could have been solved; what relief given to the oppressed millions of England; what happy reputations would have rested upon the authors of these successes! Yet, with their course unimpeded, not a single effectual step has been taken in Australia or New Zealand either to permanently utilise the public estate for revenue purposes, or to guard against the recurrence of those social evils which are the curse and dread of England, and which are already making their appearance in the large cities of Australia.

The only real barrier against these social evils is a law imperatively forbidding the holding, by an individual or family, of more than a certain acreage of land, under pain of forfeiture. Such an enactment is the basis upon which all our land laws should be founded. It would rest, itself, upon natural justice, and could be put into force without any unfairness towards private persons. If, as I originally suggested, an individual were restricted to 640 acres, and a family to 1,000 acres of freehold (the principle of restriction is the point, however, not the precise area, which is a matter of detail), it would, of course, become necessary for the State to resume a considerable quantity of land now in private possession, paying the money value of it in the usual manner. It would do so on precisely the same ground as that on which it takes page 30 land for railway purposes—because it is wanted for the benefit of the entire community. It would be merely a difference in degree. There is no wrong done to the individual; the State takes back what it has lent, and gives the person affected a sum of money as compensation for the loss he would otherwise sustain. If a railway line becomes necessary, whoever heard the rights of the landed proprietors through whose estates it must pass pleaded as a reason for abandoning the project, even though the proposed line be a commercial speculation? The rights and privileges of individuals are not permitted to stand in the way in cases when a considerable section only of the community is to be benefited; how then can they be suffered to obstruct the path when the interests of the whole of the people are in question?

Opinion as to the proper mode of dealing with the public estate has made immense progress in the Australian Colonies lately. Few persons, if any, now dare to contend that freeholds of excessive size are useful to the State. On the contrary, their mischievousness is admitted; but those who are interested in their maintenance argue that, while it might be desirable to abolish such holdings, insuperable difficulties stand in the way of doing so. This change of opinion is manifested by the different treatment now accorded to the "State leasing" theory in Victoria to what it received when first propounded in that Colony three or four years ago. Its pioneer advocates were scoffed at as dreamy philanthropists and ignorant radicals, but the idea has grown and grown in public favor until it has at length been embraced by many of the leading men of the Colony, and when an amending Land Bill came before the Legislative Assembly last June or July, the principle, modified so as to make it applicable to those lands only which still remained the property of the State, was fairly put to issue before the Assembly, and while it did not meet with sufficient acceptance to enable it to be carried into law, it nevertheless found a respectable following. In our own House of Representatives likewise the matter has been mooted, and the State leasing theory is undoubtedly gaining adherents in New Zealand. Every man, indeed, who desires to see the land applied to its proper use and fairly distributed amongst the community must sympathise with these efforts, even if he fears they are not capable of effecting their end. In my first treatise I urged certain objections to the project, nor have I since read or heard anything calculated to refute the views there expressed. Certainly, however, I could only wish "God speed" to those who, by a different road, are seeking the same goal as myself; but let me observe that none of the essential objections to the nationalisation of the land would touch an Agrarian Law. The latter would not, as it is alleged the page 31 system of State leasing would do, organise an army of officials and lodge a dangerous weight of power in the hands of the Government; it would not create a State tenantry which might bring political pressure to bear upon the Legislature to release it from its just obligations; nor would it thwart that love of landed proprietorship for which our race has displayed so strong a predilection. Under an Agrarian Law, the Government would have no more to do with the ownership of the soil than it has now, nor would the tenure of the farmer become insecure or of less duration. Whatever political difficulties it might present would be in the effectuation of the change; that accomplished, the ensuing social reforms would work themselves out noiselessly and imperceptibly. The project of nationalising the land is deficient in this respect : it leaves wealth just as powerful as before. The possession of vast tracts of land gives the owner social and political influence, even though he be unfitted to wield either. Now, one part of the problem is—how to strip wealth, pure and simple, of this usurped power, in order that it may be placed in abler and more patriotic hands. Unless the land reformers of Victoria and New Zealand can show that the problem will be solved by means of the nationalisation of the land, they fail in their purpose. Would not the leaseholder of 50 or 100,000 acres of land exercise practically as much influence over the government of the country as if he were a freeholder, and would a mere change of tenure lead him to use that influence unselfishly? It is folly to suppose so. These men would be placed in circumstances of such enormous temptation to use their position for their personal aggrandisement at the expense of the State, that they would require the virtue of angels to resist it. This was the vice which underlaid the agrarian laws of Rome and kept the State in turmoil for centuries, until finally the wealthy converted their State leaseholds into freeholds, a seething mass of pauperism gathered in the city of Rome, and the Empire fell through its own corruption. The one cogent argument which the land leasers can adduce is that, under their proposed system, the Government might derive a large direct revenue from the land in perpetuity; whereas, if the soil be alienated in fee simple, it will get none. That, however, does not embrace all the conditions required.

It might nevertheless be wise for the state to retain possession of the pastoral lands of the country. Much of the land now occupied by runholders is of arable quality; another portion could be made suitable for tillage by scientific preparation when the growth of population rendered such a course necessary; but, even then, a large residuum would be left, amounting to millions of acres, which could only be used for the de-pasturing of sheep. That residuum, if cut up into blocks of page 32 moderate size, could be let on short leases to private individuals, and the proceeds applied towards defraying the expenses of Government. A considerable and permanent revenue would, by this means, be obtained and without risk of creating a dangerous State tenantry, or rendering individuals too powerful by their occupancy of unduly-large areas of land. With the tenure of the cultivable land regulated by a strict Agrarian Law, and the pastoral country divided into moderately sized blocks and let on leases of short duration, it would hardly be possible for the Public Estate to be converted into an instrument for the aggrandisement of wealth at the cost of the poorer classes of the community.

The results of the agrarian legislation of France and Germany show that large estates may be broken up by other methods than defining the acreage possessible by individuals. In those countries, however, the legislator had ancient land tenures and national customs to work upon which do not exist here. New Zealand suffers from a peculiar disease, which requires a peculiar remedy. The remedy, too, must be quick and thorough in its operation. One advantage of an Agrarian Law is that it would be a strictly Conservative measure. Small freeholders are the most Conservative of men. Radicalism is born in great towns. It is engendered from poverty and suffering and ignorance by the oppression of misused wealth, and should find no place in a young country. The political mind of New Zealand, unfortunately, lacks the tonic of that frequent grappling with great questions of foreign policy by which the mother country is invigorated, and is become debilitated and corrupt by Mammon worship. The day will doubtless arrive when the Colony, having acquired strength enough to bear her share of the national burthens, will likewise be able to participate in the national councils. In the meanwhile, she is not chained to the most ignoble of pursuits. Self-condemned thereto she may be, but glorious social works lie before her people's hands, which if performed zealously and aright, might ultimately make New Zealand the brightest star in the constellation of the British Empire.

The foregoing treatise is republished from the (Dunedin) Evening Star.

Printed at the Evening Star Office, Bond Street, Dunedin,