Land Settlement.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9298, 27 July 1901, Page 5

Land Settlement.

[to the editor.]

Sir,—ln reply to the letter of Mr E. J. Watt in yesteiday's issue, let me say thaji, in re Forest Gate, I am perfectly satisfied with the Premier's explanation which entirely removed from my mind any imputation of iniquitous conduct on the part of the Government in this matter

lam sorry to say that Mr Watt has utterly failed in his endeavor to show me how the compulsory clause is a " menace to the security of the country," either *'■ internally or externally," mainly because his and my point of view of it are utterly at variance. I maintain that the passing of the Land for Settlements Act was mainly intended to remedy a wrong; ay, a very grievous wrong, committed in the early settlement of the colony — a wrong whereby the public lands were not only squandered, but Crown grants were also issued to many who were not rightly entitled to the same, and the compulsory clause was inserted to enable the Government to coerce all such as are unwilling to aid them in their laudable efforts, not only to remedy this undeniable wrong, but also in carrying out an avowed policy of " fair and honest legislation for the good of all classes, to induce every man to do his best, and to give every man his chance." The wrong I refer to was perpetrated all over the colony, but especially in Hawke's Bay ; resulting in 'the fact that almost every town is hampered and hindered by sheepruns of enormous extent and owned by those who, as a rule, care for nothing but themselves, and who by their holdings prevent the progress of a colony which surely was intended, and can certainly be put to much better uses than monopolisation by sheep farmers, the very nature of whose business precludes the possibility of their being of much public benefit, especially when the bulk of their unmanufactured products are exported.'

Moreover, I consider that a large landed proprietary is a curse to any country j and the trend of t he times is decidedly towards the removal of that curse, and the restoration of the land to those to whom it most justly belongs; and I am greatly rejoice' to fiud that the legislature of this colony is still engaged in the furtherance .of this gteat desideratum, especially in the endeavor to curtail the freehold, and prevent the reagpregation thereof, thus thwarting the acquirement of big estates. Furthermore, I do not think that anything done by the present Government will, even in the slightest degree, damage the credit of this colony, either in London or elsewhere; especially as I have very good reason to know that the credit of New Zealand was nowhere until Mr Seddon and his party took hold of the reins; almost from that moment the credit of the colony rose by leaps and bounds, and still continues to rise, for the self same reason. I do not think that the retirement of a. few mortgagees is a matter to be either dreaded or regretted, here or elsewhere ; therefore, that phase of the question counts for little or nothing, except to,the parties concerned. Again, no man need be turned out of his " trim and comfortable house and home " either by the compulsory or any other clause of the Act if he exercises the right conferred by the said Act of retaining possession of 1000 acres. Surety such should suffice to satisfy any reasonable man. Even Mr Watt admit* that 1000' acres of good land is "as much, as an ordin>ry man can make the utmost U3e of." Ay, and even any extraordinary man, in anything but an extraordinary way. He may not be able to run many thousands of sheep thereon ; but I maintain that all such special avocations should be relegated either to the back woods, or to lands which are otherwise comparatively useless. Certainly, no really good agricultural land should ever be used for any such purpose". Finally, let me assure Mr Watt that I freely and fully accord all possible credit -to the pioneers ot New Zealand ; at the same time, it must be fully admitted that they have been more than amply repaid therefor. I also admit that sheep have had and still have much to do with this matter.. Nevertheless, 1 steadfastly maintain that the time r has come when there should be fewer sheep and more men, women and children in New Zealand, and that other industries than sheepfarming would be of infinitely greater advantage to the colony and its inhabitants, especially the latter.—l am, etc., A. J. Baden Jenner. Napier, July 26th, 1901.