A CRY FROM FLAXBOURNE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLI, Issue 177, 29 July 1907, Page 5

A CRY FROM FLAXBOURNE.

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—l see by your paper that the Land Board is going to force the residential clause of the Act on a lot or the Flaxbourne settlers. I shall watch this with interest, because there is more than one-case where the husband and wife each hold a section: Where they are joining it may be easy enough, for then the house could be placed so that the dividing line of the two sections divided the house; butrwhere the sections are not so situated there will be trouble. To comply, they must surrender one holding, live apart, or get divorced. The holdings are already too small for them to live on, and how are they to live if one half is to be taken away? It is no fault of the settlers that the sections are so small, and if forced to surrender them, what better position will the one who takes them up be in ? The Act was made to deal with the land in a general way, but not to force a holder of 10 acres to live up to it, at present, in the same way as one who holds 500 acres. There are settlers who have lived here on one of their holdings (if they have two) ever since the estate was cut up, and there are others holding a section who have mad© no attempt to live here; and yet both have received exactly the same kind of notice to comply with the Act. Now, in the name of commonsense, is there no difference between the two? If a poor man holds two small, sections (because one is too small to run his cow on) and has spent his £100 in making a makeshift of a home for his wife and family, and is doing his best to pay his way. what sort of a law is it that says he shall build on both sections, and live on them, too? Surely there is a governing body to put these things right! If our lamented friend, the Right Hon. R. J. Seddon, in whose time this law was made, could speak with us now. we should get a consolation that would gladden cur hearts for the rest of our lives instead of being driven to our wits' end to know what to do for the best. We have spent our bit of ready cash, and if wo have to surrender we must go out of it paupers. Will not the Hon. C. H. Mills come to our rescue? I feel sure that he will try to do something for us when he hears what is being done. Is not a settler who is living on one of his holdings here complying, to all intents and purposes, with the Act? I wish'l was a son of Carnegie, that's all; then I would not be in such trouble. Why did I not stay with my grandmother on her freehold ? Living at Flaxbourne and paying a pound an acre rent, and not allowed to break the surface wwa,plough, or spader- and not allowed to sell a blade of flax if any grows on the land. Talk about living in Russia—l'd chaneeitf Our

land laws are right enough if a little eommpn^sense was used wita- the aa~ ministration. To show; the absuixuty .•;■ If a settler, could build his,liqij&|,. or even move: it, if it was- alread^miilt, half on one and half on the other, providing he held; two sections —which lots of us do—he would then be complying with the Act. Instead of trying to keep the Chinese out of our country I think the better way would be to let them in to enlighten us a bit. Excuse me for troubling yoUj. Mr Editor, yet I feel sure you will agree that I am in sore trouble. FLAXBOURNE SETTLER.