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 70

[introduction]

II Have hitherto lived, like most country settlers, minding my own business, and leaving other people's alone; but still I have noticed what was going on around me, and for a great many years, for nearly as many as I have been in the Colony, I have been aware that the settlers who worked the land were not getting their just share of the proceeds of their exertions. That where they had borrowed money as a rule nearly the whole proceeds went to the lender, and almost as often the property as well—and that there were great abuses. These abuses had grown to such an extent, and were carried on in such a wholesale manner more lately, that I at last felt that 1 was neglecting a duty in not bringing the matter before the public, and the remarks I made at our last meeting, and those that I shall make to-night, are with the hope of rousing settlers to a sense of their true position, and to induce others to take up the questions, and amend any defects there page 4 may be in my suggestions, which are made with the view of beginning the subjects. Already since my remarks at our last meeting there have been several leading articles in the Woodville Examiner quoting from American papers, and showing the feeling in the United States towards money-lenders. Those who have not read the leading articles in the Examiner of the 28th and 29th July last. I would recommend to do so. They shew that the subject is seriously engaging the attention of other countries. I have also had letters from public bodies expressing satisfaction at my views given at our last meeting, and offering to support any legislation to carry them out. I may say, however, before going any further, that as there may be gentlemen present connected with financial institutions that any adverse statements I may make do not include present company.

The Secretary read the following letters:—

K. of L.,

Woodville,

G. D. Hamilton, Esq., President, Woodville Farmers' Club.

Dear Sir,—At our last meeting the following resolution was carried unanimously, and I was instructed to write to you notifying the same—"That this Assembly express its approval of the speech given by G. D. Hamilton, Esq., ai the last meeting of the Formers' Club in Woodville, in which he advocated low interest on loans to farmers." We will support to our utmost any legislation with that object in view.—Yours faithfully,

M. Tansey

, Recording Secretary.
Danevirke,

Mr M. Tansey,

Secretary Knights of Labour, Woodville.

Dear Sir,—I received yours of 3rd inst., and am glad to learn that my address at the Farmers' Club on the 20th ulto. so favourably impressed your Assembly. I had much left to say on the subject of interest on loans of small farms, and on other matters of importance to all settlers, and particularly to those in this bush district. But as Mr Wilson, the dairy agent, wished to address our meeting, I held much over that I hope to continue at our next meeting on the 12th August next. * * * * * * I must not be understood to be preaching a crusade against capital. The use of capital at fair rates is of great advantage to settlers, but capital has no more sympathy for the straggling settler or labourer than a bar of the metal it represents, and a strong lean to abuse the position. * * * * The eight-hours movement has my entire sympathy, but to be successful must, I think, embrace all civilised countries—not so difficult in these days of wire and steam. As regards the introduction of more population, either capitalist or labourer, if this be done with the object of helping those in distress in old countries to a better life, nothing can be said against it. Otherwise we have the land to divide among ourselves—the work to divide among ourselves. Introducing more people means less land and worse paid work for ourselves and children. Most of us have left old crowded countries because the struggle for life was too bitter. The introduction of more population is page 5 hastening here a condition of things which we were only too glad to leave. I have so far not mixed in politics, but I think the large questions have been much lost sight of in party squabbles. I think all past Governments have entirely failed to appreciate and understand their reeponsibilites to settlers on the land, particularly to those that have been called small farmers. I should like to see the people unite in a national party (I do not mean by this any existing party), and working together for the common good.—Yours faithfully,

G. D. Hamilton.

K. of L.,

Woodville,

G. D. Hamilton, Esq.,

Danevirke.

Dear Sir,—Your letter of June 10th was read at our last meeting, and the principles it contained were heartily endorsed by resolution to convey the unanimous thanks of our Assembly for it. Our officers and members would like to publish your letter if you have no objection.—Yours faithfully,

M. Tansey,

Recording Secretary.
Danevirke,

Mr M. Tansey,, Secretary, Knights of Labour

Woodville.

Dear Sir,—I have received yours of the 2nd inst. I was surprised to find that my address at the Farmers' Club had attracted any attention outside the Club. You are welcome to publish my letter of the 10th ulto., as you wish. If it provokes any comment I shall be obliged by your letting me know, as otherwise I shall probably never hear of it. Both my addresses at the Club on the 20th ulto. last and my letter to you were too general in terms to convey quite what was intended, but I shall be satisfied so far to have started the subjects. * * * * * * The money-lender, the capitalist, wants watching; the tendency is to encroach on all interests quietly, but insidiously. Take, for instance, the relations of English landlord and tenant, without going further into the question of the merits of the system, but taking the system as it was, and is. Long ago the landlord was practically elected from among the people for his shrewd head and fairness in deciding disputes—to lead in time of war, and guide in time of peace—no unfit or unfair man in these rough long past times would have been allowed to keep the position. They and their tenants held the land on conditions of military and other service for the protection of the State. On the principle that like begets like, there is no doubt that their decendants to a great extent inherited their character, although there are always exceptions. Now, I think there should never have been the power to mortgage, much less to sell, given so that land held for certain service to the State could be made away with. If this power to mortgage or sell had not existed, when landed families died out, as they sometimes did, the estates would have reverted to the State and been again available as rewards for conspicious service to the State rendered by such men as generals, who had in their turn risen from the people. Now the power to mortgage has had the effect of there being about as large a proportion of estates mortgaged in England as there are here, some three-fourths. The difference being that here they have almost always been mortgaged to get the money to develop them—to employ labour. In England, much through extravagance on the part of the landlord, who, not unfrequently when a mere boy, a child in money matters, falls into the hands of moneylenders. Say then his estate in fairly good times is let to the farmers for page 6 £2000 a year, and is mortgaged to a money-lender so that it takes £1700 a year of the rent to pay the interest on the mortgage, leaving the landlord £800 a year. Then come bad times. The tenants find that instead of £2000 a year they can hardly make up a rent of £1400 a year. The tenants ask for a reduction. I have known many landlords, and I think, if free, most of them would reduce to what the farmer could fairly pay—but the money-lender says, No! my bargain is £1700 a year; I must have it. The farmers, if leaseholders, are ruined, or, if otherwise, evicted. The landlord loses the goodwill of the tenants, his estate, and sometimes his life, being probably succeeded by a man with no instincts but those of making money. Now in ail this we hear much of the landlord and tenant, yet little, if anything, of the money-lender; yet the money-lender is getting about four percent, for his money—a better security than the landlord has. He seldom advances more than half the value of the property, on which the landlord is getting only two per cent, on the value as rent. The tenants are being sweated for the money-lender, not for the landlord. So much for English land matters. In this country I would advise no man to be a tenant of the State or otherwise, except as a means of acquiring the freehold of his holding. * * * * * In my last I said I thought the eight-hours movement to be permanently successful must embrace all civilised countries.. "What I meant was that the working-man has a right to have a reasonable part of time for leisure and recreation, but it wants combination and organisation among the world's workers to get this on a satisfactory footing. Isolated efforts have been the cause of much mischief, misery, and loss-sometimes driving an industry out of a country altogether, to the permanent loss of the worker. For instance, it is no use for manufacturing operatives in England striving for eight hours, if across the channel, in France, Belgium and other countries, the manufacturers of the same kind get ten or twelve hours for the same money, and so can produce more cheaply. It would mean killing the English employment. Not the least difficulty to overcome in these encounters with capital is the danger of capital sowing dissension among the workers by bribes of some sort. When a young man, I had little opportunity of seeing the life of the poorer people in towns, but after being some sixteen years in the colonies I went Home on a visit. I had had a pretty rough time in the colonies, and having a good deal of leisure at Home, I was curious to seen how the poorer class in London made a living. I spent a good deal of time in the poorer quariers, and I must say the misery and utter hopelessness of the life was apalling. Nor is there any outlet in a country life; England, of course, cannot grow enough food for the population. I should be sorry to see this state of things hastened here. At the next Farmers' Club meeting I hope to go more into the details of these questions; it is hardly possible in the compass of a letter, but I shall be glad if this helps your Assembly to discuss the subjects.—Yours faithfully,

G. D. Hamilton.

As to the other subjects I have undertaken to speak about, they are in the interest of settlement, of production, and of the country and its people generally, and what I shall say shall be with the hope that among my many experiences and suggestions settlers may find some that they can apply profitably. I shall also, as far as possible, show precedents for the suggestions 1 make. I am glad to see farmers in the South Island, and other parts of the country, uniting in Farmers' page 7 and Country Settlers' Leagues. (See Christchurch Weekly Press of July 21st, &c.) These, however, so far seem to be directing their attention to the subject of unfair taxation on country settlers. A good subject, but second to that of the rate of interest on loans, and the way the loans are dealt with now—all land, town and country, could afford to pay tax without hardship where the tax amounted to £1, if the farmers got the money they borrow at five per cent, instead of the eight or ten per cent, they pay now. Some of these speakers were opposed to State-aid to farmers, on the ground that when they (the speakers) came to the Colony they did all for themselves. There were no taxes in those days. There are now enormous public burdens, and tees for works that are not self-supporting. The conditions are altered; people are wanted to be pushed on to the land, to produce and help to bear these burdens. Much of the remaining land is bush, and does not even allow of a where until a space is cleared. As what we say here gets into the public prints, and to prevent misunderstanding as to my motives in advocating State-aid to farmers in bringing their land to a state of production, I may say that I have never derived an acre of land from Government, or had a shilling of Government money, except as an officer of the Colonial forces about 1866-69, when I had 25s per diem, with forage allowance for two horses. This was only a matter of months. It was a special service with special duties and privileges. Candidates were invited. I was not at all eager for the appointment, but others eligible did not accept. The Government pressed it on me, and I was what I suppose would be called among political candidates "returned unopposed." I am not a politician. I daresay if I wanted a Government appointment now, the subject would require some deliberate and mature consideration. It was complete unity and combination among the country settlers that was wanted to secure their own interests, without attempting to put more burdens on the town dwellers than their fair share. We all had relatives in the towns, still the towns were a convenience, not a necessity, to the producing country settlers. The country settlers were a necessity to the towns. If all the towns were submerged for twenty-four hours, which would be the submerged half not tenth (by the way, I do not think we want the submerged tenth here—it would be better, if we wish to be philanthropic, to buy, or annex, or, better still, to get a mortgage on an island somewhere in the sunny Pacific, and settle them there), we would no doubt mourn our relatives, but we could get on without them. page 8 We could charter ships just the same, put our produce on board, and get it sold in London or elsewhere, and get our supplies back much more cheaply in return, as the storekeepers' profit would be saved. This may seem a little wild way of putting it to comparatively recent arrivals in the country, but, like many others, I have already done all this here—pulled a whaleboat through the surf, loaded with wool or sheep, off the open beach to a vessel lying half-a-mile or more off, and brought back the stores the return trip. This would have been just the same work with a vessel bound direct to London instead of to Wellington. Now, if the producing country settlers did not exist, the difference is that the "reason of being" of the towns would cease, and they would not afford the inhabitants of them the means of living, Some of these town dwellers are so because they could not get land (for them I advocate more and better facilities for getting land); the larger proportion from choice, and because they would not face the hardships of a settler's life. These should, therefore, be satisfied to have equal rights in voting, taxation, and otherwise with the country settlers, who already find them the employment by which they live instead of endeavoring to force more than the just burden on the country settlers. And I am bound to say I think well enough of the bulk of the townspeople to think that, left to themselves, this would be their view of the case, if they thought out the question for themselves; but they are led by politicians who, to advance their own ends, find it judicious to endeavor to show and maintain a sort of antagonism of interests among the people. We have left the representation of the country largely to men (our relatives again) who know nothing about land—able men in their own professions, no doubt—lawyers, doctors, &c. (I am a University man myself), with the result that, as land has been the one main thing to legislate about, we have had a series of Governments that, as far as the land has been concerned, have, more or less, done all those things they should not have done, and left undone all those things they should have done, even to sitting in solemn conclave, while rabbits and town sparrows were being introduced, as those reminded settlers of the homes they had left behind them. A trivial matter, perhaps, in the eyes of these law-givers, but not to the people who have had to keep them—the sparrows and rabbits. It was a bad and dangerous thing to be always upsetting everything and doing something different. Our laws might well be called the patch laws. Look at the Native Land Laws! Was it sure that any lawyer or Supreme Court Judge was quite clear about them? New Zealand presented a clean sheet to the page 9 first settlers, but the attempts at government have produced an exceeding muddle and waste of opportunity. People who could not put in a crop of potatoes, or hardly take them out, considered themselves competent to write about land, and laws dealing with it, generally shewing the iniquity of anyone who has land. Much of this is the result of bad health on the part of the writers, the outcome of unwholesome town life and surroundings tinging all things. One of the favorite topics for this class of writer is equality, than which no subject has caused more waste of energy, labor and legislation. The French Revolution was brought about by abuses on the part of a governing class. The motto of the Republic was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The weak point of this, as understood by many, was the "equality." It was the cause, to a great extent, of that seething mass of revolution on revolution, which brought about to the present time a constantly changing form of government, from republican to despotic. The people's natural leaders had become unfit and unworthy, and no adequate leaders had sprung up in their place. Now every man who has gone through the world with his eyes open, amid wholesome surroundings, knows that there is no such thing as equality in Nature. It is not in the trees of the forest, or in the rivers, or in the sand of the seashore, which under the microscope is unequal. It is not in the plants of carefully-cultivated sorts that man grows, nor can all his skill as a breeder of animals produce equality. Man himself has been made unequal by Nature. Where are two men to be found who would weigh or measure everywhere alike, of the same energy, of the same complexion, and alike in every small detail of mind, disposition, or body? Who ever met two such men? Why even woman is different. Most people recognise this, even poets. Had not Scotland's ploughman poet said of Nature, "She tried her 'prentice hand on man, and then she made the lasses." (I am obliged to trust to memory for both my prose and my poetry.) Therefore property can hardly be held equally. The most I am trying to advocate is to strike a mean between those who would try to produce an equality of property, and those who would like about three lending companies, and half-a-dozen people, to own everything, and all the rest of the people to have nothing, and work for them. Trying to bring the laws of Nature, justice, and common sense to deal with the subject, the most we can aim at is equal law for rich and poor. We have this in theory, in practice we have not. A poor man who is oppressed cannot, from want of money, invoke the page 10 aid of the civil law in his defence or for redress. He can thus be legally robbed by a man who happens to be rich, yet who has no single good quality. This is the greatest blot on our Statutes, and ought to be better provided for by law. Such a rich man sometimes tries to work himself among a class that are apt to want other qualities than mere wealth as a passport. If unsuccessful he sometimes becomes a bitter Radical, full of hatred, malice and all uncharitableness. His money obtains him a more or less unthinking following—a man who, having failed to climb, tries to pull others down. I have heard a man of this kind say he would "rather rule in hell than be ruled in heaven"—hardly a safe man to follow. To me in this country the terms Conservative, Liberal, and Radical convey little meaning. While the candidates for political place are masquerading in their different colours to catch votes, and the settlers are divided, their attention diverted to these and their performance, the money-lenders are picking up the proceeds of the settlers' labour. Proposals such as to limit the extent of country to be held by one man to what will carry 20,000 sheep, &c., do not commend themselves to people with a sense of equity, or an elementary knowledge of the subject. It is clear that country is entirely unequal in quality, and that 20,000 sheep on one sort of country would be worth three times as much in produce as 20,000 sheep on poor country. Neither would 20,000 sheep near a market or centre be the same as 20,000 sheep of equal quality in a nearly inaccessible place. The same thing applies to proposals to limit area to be held, and there seems no reason in equity why a man should not have as many holdings as he likes, so long as in the aggregate they do not pass a certain limit of value. I not only see no objection to a fixed limit of value in land, either town or country, to be held by one man or company, but think it absolutely necessary that there should be such a limit to prevent monopoly. Still I would suggest a liberal limit for reasons I shall give later on. Of course, the working man knows that whatever other features there may be in the case, so long as he is working for wages the moderately large properties pay the best wages, and that as some must at all times be working for wages, it seems more prudent to have some properties of this kind than to encourage the properties suddenly to be too much divided, as in Belgium and France. In the latter country the land has been reduced to such small holdings by division among families that the people have endeavoured to prevent the natural increase of population, and the French Government is now endeavouring to find a remedy for a state page 11 of things by which the population of the country has remained nearly without any increase for many years, and from France there is hardly any emigration.