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 76

Resumption of Lands for Settlement

Resumption of Lands for Settlement

While this idea may be, and probably is, right in principle, I hold that with a population of less than three-quarters of a million, in a country capable of supporting at least twenty millions, it is worse than folly to enforce it now. The lands that have been already taken were perhaps not being used in the best manner, still they were employing some labour, and producing some wealth for the community. Why then should we take these when we have many millions of acres still in a state of nature.

I am aware that the statement is made that these lands are so far away that they are not available, but that is only a question of the means of transit, and an alteration in the railway system would practically bring these lands as near the great cities as lands 30 or 40 miles off are now. That this can be done is no longer a question of my theory, it is one of actual fact, ascertained by nearly ten years' experience.

In this resumption of land there is too much danger of political influence being brought to bear to let someone out of an unprofitable estate, at the public expense. No system of land administration can in my opinion be right which does not provide means for enabling every worker to acquire a freehold of his own. This brings me to the question of the proposed Working Men's Towns.

page 69

We do not want these towns, but we do want so to alter the conditions that working men can take up land anywhere and everywhere. Homes for our workers has been my cry for many s long year, and I am glad to see others taking it up. If judiciously worked it will have a most beneficial effect; but it is a subject that requires to be most carefully and thoughtfully dealt with. It involves a great deal more than appears on the surface. If we are not careful we shall do the workers greatly Bore harm than good.

The present idea among our politicians seems to be that the Government should purchase blocks of land along our railway lines and lay out "workmen's towns" and run to and from them "workmen's trains." This means that the allotments in these towns must, be reserved for "workmen," and, in the first instance, at any rate, would be purchaseable only by them. Would this be an advantage to the workers? I think not. Have not class distinctions been the curse of the world? Why, then, should we deliberately pass an Act of Parliament and use our railways for the purpose of creating them? I protest against this scheme altogether as being vicious in every respect. Towns composed only of working artisans must necessarily not only be poor towns, but they would always be considered, and would, in fact, be inferior towns, and there would certainly be a class distinction fastened upon their inhabitants. A girl is born in one of these workmen's towns: she grows up and exhibits superior abilities, and tries to make her way. Where does she come from? is asked. "Oh, from that poor little working men's town, Eightbob" Does it help her? Again, I ask, why should we deliberately create these class distinctions? What we want is social intercourse, not social isolation. We want a system that will intermingle rich and poor as much as possible—a system that will bring them frequently into contact with each other: a system that will make them mutually acquainted with each other's wants and requirements. The more we do this the sooner we shall learn that there is much of good in every class and the more we shall esteem each other; but if we deliberately assign one district to one class, and another to another, what can be the result but separation of interests, hostile classes, jealousies, heartburnings. I can scarcely imagine a worse social movement than designedly creating poor districts, which is what these workmen's towns must mean.

We want also to place our work-people in positions where any property they may acquire will increase in value; the more their property improves the better it will be for the State; but how could holdings in districts inhabited by the poorer classes only improve in value? They would not. The better class work-men—all those able to rise—would soon desert them, and they would become the haunts of the idle and the vicious—mere slums.

What we want is to enable workmen, as well as other people, to select homes in any locality best suited for their requirements, page 70 and I say that the introduction of the Stage System of railway administration would do this. Take Auckland, as an illustration, and in the first seven-mile stage round the city—Penrose to Mount Albert—there are ten districts, over which the transit charges would be exactly the same, and in the 15-mile circuit, 19 districts. Certain it is that many landowners will be only too glad to sell, and that numerous townships would be laid out, and plenty of cheap land be available for all classes in every direction; but this does not suit the "Great Liberal Party" at all. It would render the working man far too independent, and make him too much like his better-off neighbours, so he must be kept in a district by himself.

One of the chief objections to these workmen's towns is that they would be the special hunting grounds of the political demagogues. Here they could create imaginary class grievances and prate about the poor injured working man to their heart's content. If the working classes could only be herded together in distinct districts it would be so much easier to manipulate their votes.

Other objections might be urged, as, for instance, the fact that these poor town's would create poor districts; they would depreciate the value of all the surrounding properties; in fact, create an East End and a West End. We do not want this in our colonial towns.