TWO WAYS OF " SETTLING " LAND.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7951, 16 January 1888, Page 3

TWO WAYS OF " SETTLING " LAND.

(N.Z. Times.) It is not necessary to travel very far from Wellington itself for an opportunity to study the respective working of different systems of land settlement. Within a few miles of the Manawatu river may be seen two rival systems in full operation. The contrast is interesting and instructive. In the one case the laud was classified under two heads. On this side of a road it was sold in 40 acre sections on deterred payment extending over eight years. On the other side of the same road the land was sold in blocks of 200 or 300 acres or more, and sold for cash. Tiie former was taken un by men of the laboring class having little money to bless themselves with, but possessing abundance of strength and energy and willingness to work bard and "rough it." The latter was purchased by men with som~" capital, who were determined to improve their property, and were desirous of employing labor to aid them in this und«rtaking. Here then were demand and supply on opposite sides of a road. Naturally capital wanting labor employed it, used it in improving tho land, in making the • soil productive, find in adding to the wealth alike of the owner and of the country at large. Labor on the other hand found acceptable employment, and still had a margin of strength available for cultivating its small holding, and gradually forming it into a profitable little farm, while at the same time meeting the deferred payments as they accrued. Years have passed by, anil now we see on both sides of that road equally snug and well-kept and profitable farms differing only in size. The " larger man " brought his more numerous acres into cultivation by tho aid of his "smaller" neighbor to whom his cash, paid in remuneration of work done, was very welcome. The. "smaller" man cultivated and stocked his lnnd partly by his own labor excited in the hours when he was not working for his employer over tho way, and partly by the aid of the cash which lie received from that employer for " work.done anil services rendered." So the help was Miutual. Both classes of men improved and stocked their land each with the other's help. And nearly all are now in comfortable circumstances, excepting those who have been rash euough to plunge into speculation. Those who have legitimately arid consistently worked out the problem of settlement after this plan have done well. If, however, the trareller goes ten miles or so further on lie meets with a specimen of the other class of settlement which launches men into the wilderness irrespective of their fitness for the position, indeed virtually pays them to become settlers ; gives them the land free, give 3 them money to build houses, gives them money for clearing tho land, and so on. No provision being made for the simultaneous settlement of men with some capital— who, indeed, have been most carefully excluded from the neighborhood — these "free-gratis" settlers are entirely dependent, firstly, upon tho sums which are practically paid to them by the Government to induce them to settle, and secondly, upon the temporary work they can get on public works now in progress. When these sources of incomo cease it is not easy to sco how they can live on rough bush land which will take years of preparation and patience before if returns anything at all. lhe comparison of these two cases goes to show very clearly the wisdom of the course taken by the present Government and the new Parliament in sweeping away the irritating, crotchctty, and mischievous restrictions which were proposed by the late Parliament upon the liberty of settlement, which is so essential to real progress in this direction. What the colony needs is not "class " settlement of either kind — whether pauper or capitalist — but that judicious combination of moderate capitalist and genuine laborer which ensures mutual aid and common prosperity.