Large Holdings Hindered

Development Until they

were Divided by Law.

ALTHOUGH it appeared to be at the expense of the squatters, the solution of the land problem was really to the advantage of the whole com­munity. More intensive farming kept up land values. With land readily available, more immigrants were attracted. In their attack on land monopoly Seddon, McKenzie, and Pember Reeves pointed out that in 1891 a total of 584 owners held seven million acres freehold and half that amount of leasehold, including most of the best land in the country.

The Progressive party began its attack with a land tax graduated according to the size of the holding. But the problem did not end here.' Prices would not rise until a good proportion of the land was cut up and settled. The owners could not afford to cut it up till prices rose.' To bridge this gap the Government brought in compulsory pur­chase. By 1902 it had bought more than 400,000 acres, on which it placed some 2,000 settlers. Moreover, by 1914 the State's purchases amounted to 1,627,320 acres, on which were settled 5,529 selectors. The late owners usually kept their home­steads and several thousand acres, while the Gov­ernment refused to allot more than 3,000 acres to any individual selector. Land monopoly could have done the squatters little good in the long run. Now they were freed from the embarrassment of un­wieldy properties that could not be efficiently worked as sheep runs.

Today few stations extend to more than 50,000 acres, and these are of poor mountain land that could hardly form smaller economic units. The traditional squatter, now nearly extinct, has been replaced by a far larger class of farmers whose wealth lies in the value rather than in the size of their holdings. The squatter had played his part, with some dignity and merit, in the development of his country. He had been enterprising and dogged in difficulties. He had contributed something of his own to the social life of the country. He had given his leisure to public duty, and his own personal affairs had made him lead a virile, practical life out of doors. He had won his position by using his wits as well as his money. And though he drew many ideas from the English aristocratic tradition, he based his claim to something like privilege on work rather than on passive ownership.