page break

The people of this portion of New Zealand have, for a considerable time, been notorious for changeable and uncertain action in the matter of their land laws.

Several systems have been tried and pronounced unsuccessful, and the best method of "settling people upon our lands" appears to be still an open question.

Possessing, as I do, a somewhat extended acquaintance with the progress of settlement in this part of the Colony, and taking a very deep interest in the question; having, moreover, reflected not a little on the subject, and having arrived at definite conclusions thereon, I have conceived the idea of putting the results before the public in the present form, thinking it possible that if the ideas enunciated commend themselves to the minds of those who take a more active part in the management of public affairs than myself, the result may not be altogether without advantage.

It is manifest that unless we have distinct conceptions and correct views of the uses to which our lands ought properly to be put, it cannot be possible that we can have any sound system of land legislation.

If we are disagreed as to the ends and purposes to be served in settling a population on the land, we will necessarily differ in our notions of the methods, which may most suitably be adopted, to further these ends.

One legislator imagines that the chief, if not the only, purpose to be kept in view is to get the land to "support" as many people as possible, and that the summum bonum of Colonial legislation is to secure a numerous agricultural population.

Men of this idea are invariably much exercised on the subject of the evils of large towns, which they delight in representing as huge vampires, preying on the vitals of the country. They have also an intense hatred of squatters, and every description of capitalist, whom they look upon as the natural enemies of the hard-handed tillers of the soil.

Another class is never tired of telling us that it is the wealth and capital of the great wool-growers, who produce page 4 our most valuable export, which is the real cause of any prosperity we enjoy, and they conceive that land legislation should be of such a kind as to encourage and conserve an interest so important.

This class urges the renewal of pastoral leases, comprising immense areas, to present tenants, and other legislation of a like character.

Still another party advocates the claims of the gold miner to consideration—points to the prosperity we have enjoyed when his class were numerous, and advocates the conservation of his interests before those of any other portion of the community.

The community at large, scarcely apprehending the importance of sound legislation on the subject of land and its disposition, leave the matter very much to the rival classes of agriculturist, squatter and miner, to fight out among themselves the result being an incongruous compromise, satisfactory to nobody.

Any person included in the professional or commercial classes, who displays a very active interest in the subject of land legislation, is apt to be treated as meddling with a matter which does not properly belong to him, and of which he can know comparatively little.

To proceed, however, to the consideration of our subject more immediately, I think it will be apparent that ere we can devise a proper method of disposition for our lands, we must consider the ends to be had in view in that disposition, We must also remember to whom the lands belong, It must be steadily borne in mind that the lands belong to our community, as a community. The inhabitants of the Province, present and future, are the owners of the public lands. Thus every man in the community has a direct interest in the question of their disposition.

It will, I think, be granted that, unless some very especial indirect benefit is to be gained by the community at large, it would be injudicious and unwise to part with the public lands to private individuals at a rate under their proper market value.

It is not impossible that some indirect or remote advantage may be gained by alienating the public lands at a price below their true value, but the existence of such a benefit, immediate or remote, ought to be very clearly demonstrated before such a course can, I think, commend itself to the mind of any prudent proprietor.

The importance of revenue from land is certainly most powerfully felt by all those who have taken part in the duty of government in this part of the Colony since its founda- page 5 tion. The large and important public works—roads, railways, bridges, schools, &c.—which have been initiated and completed by the Provincial Government during the last 20 years, and which have opened up and rendered habitable distant parts of our territory, could not possibly have been executed and paid for unless we had enjoyed a large revenue from the public lands. The conservation and, if possible, increase of this revenue is at least one important end to be kept in view in disposing of these lands. The total revenue derived from land in this Province since 1854 amounted, on the 31st December last, to £2,165,928, and the revenue for the year 1875 alone to £204,556.

I have dwelt upon the question of revenue first, because it is an apparent and immediate benefit to be derived from the disposal of public lands, and also because I conceive that its importance is at present in many quarters insufficiently realized.

The second end may be stated as follows:—" The settlement of as numerous a population as is consistent, first—with the welfare and prosperity of the whole community, and secondly—as is consistent with the welfare and prosperity of the actual settlers themselves (i.e. viewed as a class distinct from the rest of the community).

The prosperity of the whole community has a right to be considered before that of the actual settlers themselves, viewed as a part of the community only, not only on the ground that the whole is more important than a part, but for the further reason that the whole community is the owner of the land. Inasmuch, however, as the prosperity of the entire community can only be affected by the condition of the actual settlers themselves, it will be sufficient for our purpose if we can devise a scheme which will secure as large a population as is consistent with their prosperity, without unduly sacrificing the direct revenue from the land.

Before it is possible to indicate the direction which I conceive legislation should take to further this end, it will be necessary to travel in a direction which may not, to a superficial observer, seem to lead very directly to the goal we desire to arrive at; but my excuse must be, that I know of no shorter road.

The terms of the proposition must be well weighed. "The settlement of as numerous a population as is consistent, first, with the general welfare and prosperity, and secondly, with the welfare and prosperity of the settled class themselves."

It is no uncommon delusion to suppose that, to settle a population on any terms and upon any system is to untie page 6 the Gordian knot. It is stated and believed that, once "tie a man to the soil," and you have him fast.

He is a bonâ fide producer, a consumer of imports, and a contributor of so many pounds to the Customs revenue—a Colonial yeoman, the very pith and marrow of the country.

Persons entertaining these ideas are not slow to advocate any measures which may bring about such a desirable state of affairs. "Give a man any credit, nay, give him the land for nothing, and it is a gain to the country."

Entertaining, however, no inconsiderable faith in the wisdom of the old saying, that it is a difficult matter to take a certain unmentionable garment from the persons of my own North Countrymen; or, to apply the wisdom of the old adage to the case in point, that it will prove no easy business to derive a revenue from a destitute and impoverished population, I may be excused for considering that the number of persons actually settled or to be settled in the land is of secondary importance to the prosperity of that number.

All legislation which tends to the encouragement of persons possessed of low capacity, and without capital, to take up areas of agricultural land, is, in my opinion, a fatal mistake.

A man of the agricultural labourer class who has not the firmness of character which leads to acts of self-denial and thrift, and who has been unable or unwilling to save a considerable sum out of wages, may be considered quite unfit to enter the yeoman class and become a proprietor of land.

Such a man is a mere cumberer of the ground, and is only occupying a place uselessly, which might and ought to have been filled by a better man.

The danger of holding out tempting inducements to persons to settle upon the public lands, is that such a class as I have referred to may become more numerous than is at all desirable. On the other hand, we can have no better class of small settler than the man who, passing through the "labourer" class, enters the one above it by his own energy, self-denial, and thrift.

Taking up, therefore, the consideration of this question, "How may the prosperity of the actual settlers upon our soil best be attained," I have been led to the following conclusions :—

1st. That the settlers themselves must possess intelligence, knowledge of their industry, energy of character, and sufficient capital.

All other circumstances being equal, in proportion as a settler possesses these advantages will his success probably be.

page 7

2nd. They must raise the particular class of produce which, in all the circumstances of the Colony, is of most value, and can be least expensively grown and exported. What is that produce?

In relation to the first point, we must see that our legislation does not tend to encourge persons of the wrong stamp to take up land; and on the other, that it does not hinder those of the right stamp doing so.

In the relative importance, however, which is attached to this second point or question, and in its successful determination, lies, in my opinion, the true solution of many of our Colonial difficulties, and the views held on this subject ought to influence very materially our land legislation.

Now, I hold very tenaciously to the belief: 1st. That this portion of the Colony is eminently adapted for the growth of wool. 2nd. That wool, and wool only (I mean as compared with cereals), is our proper export, and that, by the cultivation of grain in excess of the wants of our actual population, the settlers are kept poor, and the country at large does not derive any benefit whatever.

It will be perfectly self evident to you that, as soon as anything like a considerable population is settled on the lands in this Colony, the produce of the land cannot possibly be used or consumed by the inhabitants of the country, and that, therefore, we must look for other markets in which to dispose of the surplus.

We thus become necessarily exporters of produce, and excepting for such products as we can dispose of in neighbouring Colonies, the prices to be obtained in this market are simply the prices ruling in London, less the charges for freight, insurance, agent's commission, and other outlays incidental to conveyance of produce to the Home Country.

We are thus brought at once into direct competition with the English farmer when we grow or produce anything whatever from our land which we cannot ourselves consume, or for which we cannot obtain a nearer market.

When either a people or an individual is brought into direct competition with another people or individual, it is advisable for each party at once to take a careful view of his situation, to estimate as nearly as possible the relative advantages or disadvantages he enjoys or labours under, and to take steps, if possible, to turn the scale in his own favour.

In supplying the English market with any produce of land, we must therefore consider well the advantages we enjoy or the disadvantages we labour under as compared with our British rival.

page 8

Our advantages may be thus stated :—

1st. The comparatively low price of the land itself, and, consequently, of rents.

2nd. The virginity of the soil, whereby at least for a time cereals can be grown without using manures.

3rd. Climate.

Our disadvantages may be thus enumerated :—

1st. The price of labour and implements.

2nd. The cost of carriage to market, including inland carriage here.

We have, in addition, the power of choosing which particular product we shall send to market.

It will, I think, be granted that to follow any course which necessarily involves a greater incidence of disadvantages than another course open to us, and which, moreover, constantly tends to increase our disadvantages and to diminish our advantages, must be an unwise course. Such a course I hold the export of grain to be. The cost of carriage of grain, and of the labour necessary to its production, is so great in proportion to its value as to more than counterbalance the advantage of the lowness of rents, or the price of land, and it is only the possession of the further advantage of a virgin soil which enables the New Zealand settler to export grain at all, even at starvation prices.

The continuance of this course, moreover, is constantly but surely altering the scale of relative advantage and disadvantage in favour of the home grower, as the soil soon becomes exhausted, and it is impossible to compete with the English farmer when manures are required, To illustrate this position roughly, let us take the produce of an acre of good land in New Zealand and in England.

This may be set down roughly at say a ton of wheat. The rent of good wheat-land in England is, say, £3 10s. to £4 per acre, and in New Zealand, near a seaport, 20s. per acre. (I purposely state the New Zealand rate low, although, in fact, as high as 30s. per acre is within my knowledge paid for good farming land in Otago.)

The New Zealand farmer pays cost of carriage from his farm to port, say 10s. per ton; freight to London, with insurance and incidental charges, 55s. per ton; rent, as above, 20s. per ton. In all, £4 5s. per ton, which, for practical purposes of comparison (a ton being the produce of an acre, we may call his rent per acre, compared with the English farmer, £3 10s. to £4.

This leaves only to consider the difference in the value of the labour expended in actual production in the two countries, page 9 and cost of manures, and as the home-grower has a decided advantage in the former item, it is not very difficult to foresee that we cannot possibly compete with him when we have to manure our lands.

We pay practically a far higher rent; our labour is much more costly, and we must ultimately be driven from the market.

In stating the rates of freight and charges on New Zealand grain exported, we have taken the most favourable view possible for the colonial grower; but to estimate the matter truly, we require to consider also the liability of freights to great variation. I am informed, on sufficient authority, that freight alone varies generally from 45s. to 60s. per ton, but that it is occasionally very much higher than even this latter amount—a couple of seasons ago ranging as high as £5 per ton.

On the other hand, our land yields a somewhat better crop, at least for a first crop, than the English farmers land, even with manure.

If these considerations lead us to the conclusion that the production of grain for export will not be a profitable occupation for New Zealand farmers, we are naturally led to enquire is there any other possible product more profitable—a product, to the exportation of which more relative advantage, and less disadvantage, will attach than that of grain?

To this enquiry I at once reply—wool. The freight on £100 worth of grain from the farm in New Zealand near a seaport to London, is somewhere about £32 10s., whilst the freight on £100 worth of wool is only about 70s. The saving on this item alone is therefore enormous.

The production of wool has also the further advantage as compared with that of grain, that instead of exhausting the soil, and so rendering the use of manures an absolute necessity, if the industry is to be continued at all, it improves, and continues to improve the land, and, moreover, requires the expenditure of less labour in proportion to value.

In my opinion, therefore, the natural and only possible profitable permanent export for this Colony is wool. (I speak, of course, of it viewed as a product of the land raised by settlers, pastoral or agricultural, and as compared with grain, and am not at all considering such exports as gold minerals, or other products of a like character.)

It must further be borne steadily in mind that my remarks on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of growing grain and wool are only intended to apply and are only true when the growers export.

page 10

I do not for a moment intend to affirm, that a very considerable and profitable cultivation of grain may not be carried on for the supply of inland population by farmers whose lands are situate in the proximity of such populations, even when less favoured localities are compelled to export, or that the cultivation of grain would not be a very profitable occupation were a quantity grown only sufficient to supply the wants of the Colony alone. In such a case, the market would probably rise to the price ruling in the nearest grain-exporting country, plus the cost of carriage, &c., here, and might for a time be even considerably higher.

I am, also, well aware that in districts with exceptionally rich, virgin land, such as is to be found round Oamaru and in parts of Canterbury, grain can be grown profitably even for export. But even in these favoured districts not more than one wheat crop, if even this, can be taken from the land without perceptibly impoverishing the soil.

Having arrived, then, at the conclusion that, at least in the case of all ordinary land, land which does not possess extra-ordinaiy advantages either of locality or quality, the best and most profitable article to grow is wool, and not grain, I return to the question, which it is possible you may have imagined I had lost sight of, viz., our Land Laws:—

Are our Land Laws so framed as to facilitate the growth of wool by the settlers on our soil, or are they obstructive to such a course?

I have to reply that our Land Laws appear to facilitate and encourage the production of grain, but are obstructive to the production of wool, and that until these laws are altered so as to fall in with the true interests of the producers, we cannot expect a prosperous class of settlers on the land, and consequently the prosperity of the community at large is hindered.

I may here explain that I, of course, except settlers who succeeded in obtaining land near the large centres of population, and who are enriched by the accidents of proximity to market, and the increase in the value of the land itself.

My argument is intended rather to embrace and consider the case of those who have more recently purchased land from the Crown, and who may in future do so.

In order to disclose the defects which appear to attach to the present system, I will sketch the system, which, after a good deal of thought, I have concluded would be suitable to replace it, and will then point out how this system will encourage the growth of wool.

page 11