LAND SETTLEMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2325, 22 September 1898, Page 14

LAND SETTLEMENT.

fALMOST inexhaustible is the wealth, of misrepresentation contained in the speech delivered by the Minister for Lands during the financial "debate. On Monday last we commented upon the unjust and ignoble jmanner in which Sir John Hall was at.tacked—the business of " the map ", .while on Wednesday we showed the absurdity of pretending that the import of Mr Scobeb Mackenzie's statistics in relation to land settlement had been materially modified by Ministerial apologists.- The .third part of our task has yet to be performed : a few words must be said concerning Mr Rolleston's reputation as administrator of the Lands department. It ,1s a painful but obvious fact that Ministers in general, and Mr John M'Kenzie in .particular, have deliberately set themjselves to depreciate the value of Mr ■Rolleston's services, in face of the .clearest evidence, —in pursuance, of 'course, of that monstrous myth according |to which the " progress " of New Zealand had its beginning in 1891. To the pressure of this grotesque doctrine everything must give way: are facts against it ?—? — fthen so much the worse for the facts. .The falseness, the essential humbug, of jbhis Ministerial position would be bad enough by itself; but far more repulsive is the ungenerosity, the vicious partisanship, to which the upholders of the docirine are necessarily pushed.

Mr JOHN M'Kenzie's treatment of Mr Rolleston is a typical instance of this partisan obliquity. Of course, it would not be possible, even for the Minister for Lands, to refuse any credit whatever to the member f6r Riccarton : such an extravagance might defeat its own end; even Ministerialists might be constrained to murmur. Accordingly, the Minister doled out a few morsels of chary praise : gave with one hand and took away with the other, — the entire performance fairly justifying Mr Rolleston's nervous remark — "he patronised and patted me on the back with a sort of nauseoiis familiarity win ;h made mo shrink." According to Mv M'lvenzie, Mr Rolleston had good, liberal intentions as a land reformer, and did something — a very little ; but he lacked tho courage of his opinions, and his political friends thwarted him. Mr Rolleston and Mr Lewis had no difficulty in exposing the impertinent falsity of this line -of argument. The Minister had sought to persuade the House that " gridironing" in Canterbury was stopped by Sir George Grey : that Mr Rolleston had merely lf triod" to stop it in 1873. "Sir," declared tho member for Riccarton, "it was not a question of trying, it was a question of doing it." A detailed and conclusive statement of the whole matter was prefaced by these words : — I wish to leave on record — I am not likely myself to be concerned in administration again — I wish to leave on record an absolute con--tradiction of what he said, so far as it affected the administration of the waste lands in the Province of Canterbury. Sir, it was not Sir George Grey in 1877 that stopped "gridironing." "Gridironing" -was stopped by myself by the act of 1873 ; and it was never

t » i^aanLtii^«L^ l -.i»^T7f,^.v..-.*..>.vtsaa,v, i (,'iayvsipggaijvijt^^ I^iv)i<L'j w ftTfi attempted to be stopped by the act of 1877. It v/a3 not attempted, because* it had been already done by the act of- 1873; and yet the Minister, with the assurance that characterises his utterances, mode, an absolutely incorrect statement, and then said that he left honour able members to examine tho act for themselves. Well, Sir, 1 did not speak last night in contradiction of him, because I wished for un opportunity of looking into the act, and there is nothing in the act of 1877 at all with regard to "gridironing," for the simple reason that ail that was necessary had been dealt with before in the act of 1873 by myself. These assertions Mr Rolleston went on to prove, showing that " gridironing " was absolutely slopped by section G of the Canterbury Waste Lands Act of 1873, and that the Minister for Lands had not 'tho slightest justification for asserting that there had merely been a change of method and name. In regard to the perpetual lease Mr M'Kknzib does own Mr Rolleston's authorship, but even here he cannot bring himself to make a full, frank admission :ho has to say — " I give tho lion, gentleman credit for having always supported the principle, but he has been associated with people who would not allow him to give effect to it." This, too, from the author of the lease in perpetuity 1 Mr Rolleston (after a timely reminder concerning Mr Seddon's hostile attitude toward tho. perpetual lease) emphatically defended his old colleagues from Mr M'Kbnzie's aspersions. "There was no set of m.en who ever behaved towards their colleague better than those men with whom I was associated behaved towards myself in reference to this land question. It is pretty well known that members of the Government, and members of tho party to which I belonged, held convictions in regard to that matter different from mine, hut they were men who had the interests of the country at heart, and they sank their personal feelings to allow me to bring the question forward. And should I have got that consideration f rora the other side ? What consideration have they got for me to-day? They care for nothing but political power; and you will find, if you read their utterances, they are making a political cry of the land question." And Mr Rolleston concluded with an expression of rejoicing that his colleagues in opposition to-day, as in office years ago, are men who work together for the public good and never sacrifice that patriotic end to considerations of party. We are sorry to say that the Minister . for Lands and his present colleagues are not the only people who ignore or belittle Mr Rolleston's honourable work as a land administrator. From one who poses as the historian of New Zealand the people of New Zealand have the right to expect a fair and faithful record of facts, and when the historian is also the Agent-general of the colony the obligation of impartiality is all-, the more imperative. Mr Lewis, in the speech from ' which we quoted on Monday, pointed out that Mr Rebvbs's^ recent book on New Zealand, while purporting to give an account of the settlement of the land, contains no mention of Mr Rolleston's name. Mr Reeves writes : "In 1886, John Ballance, then Minister for Lands, made a courageous endeavour to place a number of workmen out of employment on the soil, in what were known as village settlements." The implication is that Mr Ballance was the first to make this endeavour : not a word about Mr Rolleston's previous labours! — absolutely no mention of him In this or any other connection! Mr Lewis did not mince his language in

referring to this failure of an old Can- f terbury boy to do justice to a tried i public servant of Canterbury and New I Zealand : he attributes the omission to | " a spirit of bitter and unrelenting parti- ! sanship." "We should be glad to find a ■ more welcome explanation. To quote Mr Lewis : He [Mr Reeves] knew as well as any one did the history and result of land settlement in Canterbury and New Zealand; he knew that Mr Rolleston was Superintendent of Canterbury 30 years ago, and that he was in the van > of those who were promoting land legislation, which at that time was most liberal in its character. To-day Mr Rolleston is supposed to be behind the times, but he was not behind the times 30 years ago ; and Mr Reeves, knowing this, knowing that for a long period Mr Rolleston was looked upon as the natural j enemy of the large landowner, the monopolist, i and speculator — knowing that, as late as 1887, ' he was defeated in an election at Rangitata owing to tho influenco which large landowners brought to bear against him — knowing, as well as any man can know, of this honourable gen-

tleman's efforts in connection with land settlement, and the success that has attended them— he (Mr Reeves) has inserted in his book a chapter on land settlement wEich contains no mention of the name of Mr Rollestok. This is by an old Canterbury boy, if you please ; and it is a fair samplo of the criticism and entirely one-sided statements in regard to land settlement which have been made ever since the present Ministry came into office. And now, having performed our threefold task, — having put before our readers the true state of matters in regard to Sir John Hall's estate, proved that Mr John M'Kenzie's pretence of having demolished his namesake's figures is nothing but pretence, and shown how miserably Ministers and their friends refuse to give his just due to one of the most Liberal and high-minded of New Zealand statesmen, — we gladly leave the not too pleasant records of the financial debate of 1898.

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS.

Tfco following figures, showing the quantity and value of certain exports from New Zealand during the month cf August, ere published by the Department of Agriculture for general inform&tion: — Quantity Afin Value of Certain Exports in August 1893 :— •

•P-.00C35 00 *-pl lo c OoU o O «" •S* mo I £ mmnmt hap P» o J-K/S «■ --re'o P< — : : • p" ; : r; : ■ to I—l to 1 00 ; wl M II Uhllm? to A. OS CO Cj to to -.i .c- co 00 o a „ 1-1 03 Itli § to IS Jr JJ ii m '^S3S 3l S o 'co'ss'w'mw 00 tooi I I m I I^l I co I I i-'S. CO o WWOOSS7J 4a. ojo —J S CO OT ift-co"«)"e 8 "tc'oj'oo'iD'cr S I I I II I £~t I I i I I I -3223'g ; 1 60 O5 C C3i 05 O S 111 111 1 i 1 IS-S1 111 111 1 i»» OS .i- c£ at g.H. 05 to I DSI-ioijtS 2 .S*l&B| l- s - s l Mill? o a to S3 OS I-1Q032C15 82 p, to JSJS So, , O a ta 00 to at IS Jr So 00 QC^3 4i.yij Is 51 ,1 OS i to 00 no »a if^ en ~S .•js'ifcVw'go OKieSioc I to taw to © w w j-JS , . wot - - - - , 00 we tocj oca Ot IP Cj I I I I I !o? I IS?" ax CO ■-'tscdaicn S Sfi'SS' 1 "i ml ■to. ctcS to • "41. <j"rf». COJ 3? CD to ►-■co I io-a I I os-s epS I I I I I |h