The Evening Star MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1887.

Evening Star, Issue 7326, 26 September 1887, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1887.

In his speech at Cambrians Mr Scobie Mackenzie said it was not likely he could get any lands proclaimed on the homestead system, as the present Government were against it. Sir Robert Stout met this by sending up a quibbling telegram, stating that Mr Mackenzie had never applied for any homestead land at all. The impression sought to be conveyed by the message was that the Government would have opened lands under that system if application had been made to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Land Bill of 1885, as originally framed, limited the operation of the homestead system to the distriots of Auckland and Westland. It was extended to the whole Colony by the Waste Lands Committee, we believe, on the motion of Mr Macandrew ; but as the records of the Committee's proceedings have been suppressed, we are not Bare on that point. However, Mr Ballance referred to its introduction in the House in terms of deprecation, and Sir Robert Stout was somewhat violent in denouncing the principle. "What right," he asked, "has an individual to the land " without payment even if he does toil on " it ? . . Talk about giving away land, " with all our debts and all our expenses oa "the land! . . If we lay down the "principle that the Crown lands are the "common property, it must necessarily " follow the' individuals have no right to "g.-i to it without payment." All this is logical enough in ito way. But how does the action of Ministers square with the Premier's denunciation of giving land to settlers ? Briefly, it may be said that under the homestead system each person of the age of eighteen and upwards may select from geventy-five to fifty acres, according to the quality of the land, and others under that age thirty to twenty acres. It is provided that no family or household shall have more than 200 acres of first-class or 300 acres of second-class land. The conditions are : Five years' residence, the erection of a house, and the cultivation of one-third the area if open land and onefifth if bush land. The settler is also to pay for the survey, and at the end of five years, if the conditions are completed, he gets a free grant of the land. This was far too liberal for Sir Robert Stout. When the clause authorising the proclamation of land for perpetual leasing was under consideration in Committee of the House, Sir George Grey moved the addition of the following proviso :—" Provided always that " land so proclaimed, if otherwise undisposed " of, may at any time be taken up by appli- " cation under the homestead system." Sir Robert Stout and his colleagues strenuously opposed this amendment, and, on a division being taken, Messrs Stout, Ballance, Larnaoh, Richardson, Tole, and Vogel all voted against it. The objection urged by the Premier was that land should not be given away. Yet they have plunged the country into liabilities the full extent of which is not yet known, but which certainly cannot be less than LIOO.OOO, to carry out their village settlement scheme, having distinctly informed Parliament that L 3.000 would be sufficient to give the experiment a fair trial. In these village settlements the Government pay for the Burvey; give away the land; advance £2O towards the erection of a house; pay the selector £2 10s an acre for clearing it; pay him wages to make roads to his aeotion ; furnish him with the means of transport for himself, 'family, and baggage; and even provide

him with food at the start. In 1886, during a discussion on the homestead system, on a motion of Mr Montgoa< qRY, Mr Ballance spoke of it as an " unfair " one; and Sir Robert Stout declared that tho people of Otago did not want the homestead system. "It might be well," he said, "to try the " homestead system to a small ex- " tent, but at the same time he would " not disguise from the House the fact that '• he was not a believer in thai, system." Let anyone compare the two systems, and it will be seen that, if the homestead system is unsound, the village-settlement system must be rotten, yet the Ministerwho will not open a few thousand acres on the one system in Otago is content to throw away nearly £IOO,OOO of the taxpayer's money, and many thousand acres of land in the deserts of the North. And yet people are stupid enough to speak of Sir Robert Stout as a " strong Otago man," and of his Ministry as an Otago Ministry!