THE POLICY OF CLOSER SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1715, 11 January 1905, Page 2

THE POLICY OF CLOSER SETTLEMENT.

ITS EFFECTS ON BRITISH CAPITAL £600,009 WITHDRAWN. (From Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON, November 25. I When referring a fortnight ago to the j report ot the New Zealand and Austrai tutu Land Company—a Scottish enterprise with headquarters in Edinburgh— I mentioned the- sale by the company of three of its’ most important estates in the colony. At the annual meeting, the chairman went into a full explanation in regard, to this matter. It appears that th© sal©- of the Levels estate was not a voluntary one, the company being compelled to sell it to the Government under the Land lor Settlements Act. This is the third occasion on which the company has been forced to relinquish an estate after it has highly improved it? and in the case of the Levels the loss is felt the more as the estate has always been profitable. While the chairman did not say the price of £6 9s per acre allowed for the estate was not a fair valuation, he contended that the chief hardship in connection with such a sale is that th© Government pays only the barest market price for the land, without making any allowance for the interest lost during the delay which almost invariably occurs before the capital can b© piofitably reinvested. If the New Zealand Government took this point into favouiable consideration in fixing the price .of the land it buys, then, he said, the hardships attached to compulsory sales would not be so severely felt. ‘ In the case of the Levels, the company had, including the sale of live stock, about £332,000 in cash thrown on its hands, and it can readily be understood thatthe reinvestment of such a large sum cannot be accomplished without some delay. . The other two estates were sold voluntarily, and the three together set free no less than £566,284 of the company’s capital. As part payment for the land taken by the Government, the company has accepted £IOO,OOO. in 4 per cent, debentures for two and three jeais, but what-to do with the rest of the money set free by the sales puzzled the board. On this point the chairman said: “As regards reinvestment, it was felt that New Zealand was by no means an attractive country in which to purchase new estates, taxation having been so heavily increased in the ' case of large holders that only a small profit can be looked for. Th© fact is, large holders are not now- wanted there,- and they are fast disappearing. As pioneers they have served their purpose in breaking in the land from its wild state, and one can hardly blame tlie increasing population for their desire to have the large agricultural estates subdivided for closer settlement, the country and climate being admittedly adapted for carrying a dense farming population wherever the soil is good. At the same time, it is rather a remarkable fact that a young country like New Zealand can afford to allow a farming company such as this to withdraw about £600,000 from its shores.”

To cut a long story short, the directors have turned their attention • from New Zealand to Australia, and in Queensland have purchased a run, which will be worked in connection with the Well-shot estate, and on the Liverpool Plains, New South Wales, they have secured an estate containing 109,590 acres of freehold and secured lands, capable of carrying, in ordinary seasons, about 90.000 sheep for practically tlie price they received for the Levels.