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 78

National Point of View—

National Point of View—.

rise above selfishness, prejudice, and self-interest. The child born to-day might see before he died a population three or four times the present size. If the rate of progression enjoyed by older countries were maintained in New Zealand, the child born to-day might see a population of from three to five million peopling these happy isles. With this prospect before us, it meant that as population increased and pressed on the sources of subsistence the unimproved value of the land must rise. It meant more. The story of older countries would repeat itself [unclear: here] as surely as to-morrow's sun would rise. The story of other countries that had advanced was this: that the landed people grew richer without effort of their own, and the landless grew poorer, or, at least, stayed where they were. unless they increased their efforts. Nearly every State in America had taken time by the forelock, and set apart public land for educational and other purposes. Were we to be more selfish and less philanthropic than they? The Socialism that underlay the Land Bill was the Socialism that admitted making some provision, for these matters, and he purposed outlining what the Bill would do. It proposed to sec aside Crown land for the beneficent purposes he had named—a proposal not new in our legislation. Fifteen years ago Mr Ballanee and Sir John M'Kenzie said that this must be done sooner or later. The question was: Had the time arrived? Personally, he held the opinion that under certain circumstances the freehold was not only desirable but necessary.—(Mild applause.) Over 18,000,000 acres of our best land had passed for ever from our grasp—over 16,000,000 acres of freehold and 2,000,000 acres on l.l.p., or 1,000 years' tenure. The total area of Crown land left was a little over 16,000,000 acres. So more than half was gone. But that was no way to test the matter. What was left was second class or third class land—a poor remnant compared with the richness and productiveness of what had gone. He had had an estimate made which showed that probably three-quarters, if not four-fifths, of the land if measured by its productivity had passed from the control of the people for ever, counting that leased on the l.i.p. as well as the freehold. Were the Government such revolutionaries, such firebrands after all? Sir William Rolleston a man of whom this country should be proud, strove for years to stop the further sale of Crown lands. On the introduction of the perpetual lease Sir William strov to provide for recurring valuation. But when it came to the point provision for recurring valuation had to go, and provision for the freehold was introduced. Mr Ballance, on his advent to power, declared that one of his main aims would be to rigidly conserve the remaining Crown lands for closer settlement. Sir John M'Kenzie declared that no more land should be sold. They all knew the fight that statesman had fought in connection with the lease in perpetuity. He was forced back and back from the position he took up. Finally he had to submit to that indescribable abortion, the lease in per-petuity—a thing that was neither fish nor flesh nor good red herring, neither free hold nor leasehold when one estimated it in a fair measure. A thousand years of lease was a [unclear: misno]. At any rate, M'Kenzie declared—and it was not necessary for him to say how far John M'Kenzie had the interests of the farmers at heart—in 1891 sixteen years ago, that in the interests of the whole colony no further land should be sold. Seddon, at a later date, when the attack was being made, declared that "his back was to the door of the lease-hold," and that he would protect it with all his energy and with all his power. These were men who recognised what they, as successors, were now recognising—that the time had come when, the remnant cf the people's estate should be conserved for future needs. There was an inconsistency in their Opposition critics. They said first that it was a very small amount—the estimated income of their whole endowments was only £186,000 a year, They were paying to-day for old age pensions and education ovcr £1,100,000 a year. "What a small fraction to make an endowment of If it was such a small matter, why make such a fuss about it? If it was such a small matter, why should they not let them have it? It would grow larger as the claims upon that fund increased. The great bulk of that 16,000,000 acres was at present under lease Only about 3,000,000 acres—very inferior land—was not now under a pastoral, agricultural, or one of the other varied leases, so that the area available for the operations of the optional system was exceedingly limited. It was absurd to run away with the idea that the enormous area was open to be taken through the optional system. The great bulk of it was still in the hands of private persons under pastoral and other leases, and the page 11 optional system could only come into effect as these fell in. In years to come they would have very little effect indeed upon the closer settlement of the colony. He would turn to the