THE VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1817, 17 April 1888, Page 4

THE VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

Interviewed m Christcliurcli the other day the present Minister for Lands (Hon. Gr. F. Richardson) admitted that ( bo far as Canterbury is concerned the : Village Settlements, established under ■ the regime of his predecessor, Mr Ballnnce, had proved " a great success," but said that those m the North Island had been anything but a success. He accounted, or attempted to account, for this alleged difference of results by stating that the land m the Canterbury Village Settlements was good, and that the settlers had the advantage of proximity to a market, vrh\le he represented that, as regards the settlements m the North Island, both these advantages were wanting, the land being described as exceedingly poor, and their want of a convenient market being forcibly set forth m hyperbolical form m the assertion that they were situated " a hundred miles from anywheie." Now while we are glad to have Mr Eichardpon's admission of tha success of the Canterbury Settlements, he would have done better had he stopped there and not attempted to explain that success, for his explanations resemble those Sometimes given by Magistrates of the reason for their decisions m that while the judgment is right, the explanations or reasons are undoubtedly altogether wrong. For while the Canterbury Village Settlements are all within easy reach of a market, the land on which they were started is m all cases poor — while a better-informed authority than Mr Bichardson informs us that the land of most of the Settlements m the North Island is of excellent quality. The " Wanganui Herald" (edited by Mr Ballance, who ought to know all about it) says : — " It is notorious that the land taken up by the Village Settlers of Canterbury is the poorest m the colony. The best land had been taken up under the free selection system, and it was with difficulty any land at all m favorable situations could be obtained for the purpose. Cn the other hand, the land iv the North Island taken up under the system is, with one exception, the very richest m the colony. The exception is where there is a rich gumfield, and the settlers preferred situation to quality. Let us give instances. The Herekino land is uniformly rich, and the survey reports are on record which describe it. So with the Hokianga land, the Auckland Municipal endowment blocks, and the land at Pahiatua m the Wairarapa. The land m all these places is far superior to the Canterbury land. If the cost of preparing bush land is more than open land, it cannot be said that the State is the loser, as its advances are secured on the land and pay better than almost any railway m the colony. We believe the amount stated by the Minister (£7O) is an exaggeration, and that the average cost of preparing the homestead will not exceed £50. Wo are supported by a statement to this effect made by the Colonial Treasurer at the end of last session." With respect to the alleged disadvantageous situation of the northern settlements the " Herald " further says : — " Theee is some appearance of truth m the contrast with reference to some of the Northern Settlements being ' a hundred miles from anywhere.' This is perhaps one of the commonest objections urged against some of the settlements, but it arises entirely from ignorance of the history of settlement. No settlement is more' unfavorably situated than many of the successful pioneer settlements of the early days of the colony. None of the original settlements had half the opportunities and advantages of the worst-placed village settlement established by the last Ministry." As to the actual results of the settle ments m the North Island the " Herald " asks the Auckland papers to let the real facts be known, being apparently quite content to abide the issue of their verdict. Judging from the reports laid beforo Parliament last session, we should say that that confidence is amply justified, and we believe that it will be found when the facts are fully made known that Mr Bichardson was as wrong as tc* the results of the operation of his predecessor's scheme m the North Island as ho was m his explanation of the. success of that scheme m Canterbury, .