VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2237, 26 September 1889, Page 2

VILLAGE SETTLEMENTS.

One of the gravest faults to be found with the administration of the present Minister of Lands is the fact that he has practically dropped tho system of Tillage Settlements initiated by his predecessor, Mr Ballance. It is true no doubt that not every Village Settlement has been a success, because there have been instances where the sites have been badly chosen, and the settlers themselves not of the class likely to make successful cultivators, but this applies to the North Island only, and m no instance that wo know of has there been failure m regard to the settlements established m Canterbury. On the contrary, wherever these settlements have been established, even, with the drawback of poor land, the settlers are doing well, and we believe it is the fact that at the present moment there is not a single penny of rent m arrear. The whole scheme indeed — the settlements of the North Island included — has stood the test of experience well, as will be seen by the following statistics gathered from a Report on Village Homestead Special Settlements laid on the table of the House last session. From this we find that on the 31st March last there were 75 of these settlements which, for the most part, had been m existence for a little over two years. Of 1196 persons placed on the land under special settlement conditions, 674 remained, to which number has to be added 204: how settlers who Hy transfer of holdings had stepped into the places of some that had left, and 51 settlers on ordinary land tenure, bo that altogether the number of persons holding lands m the special settlements at the expiry of the two years was 929, of whom all but 155 were actually resident on their holdings. Of the total area taken up (28,368 acres) there had at date been brought under cultivation 6773 acres — of which there, were m garden 264, m orchard 88, m grain crop 1988, m other crops 122, m grass 4311 — altogether nearly ft fourth of the total area taken up. Of live stock, on the land, tho settlerß possessed 2499 head, viz. : — Sheep 185, cattle 1385, horses 483, pigs 494, and goats 2. An analysis of the occupations of the settlers, prior to the time when they took up the land, shows that 765; were laborers, 182 were called settlers (probably persons accustomed to country life), 103 were carpenters, 90 were farmers, 46 were bushtnen, and the rest were persona of 60 odd different trades or callings. The figures above given will show that a large proportion of them have proved their fitness for the work of settlement by the fruits of their labors, and when we turn to the figures showing the actual cost to the Golony of their establishment on the land it is pleasing to find that this has beon a mere bagatelle m comparison to the^results achieved. The cost of the settlements is stated to be (including £35,000 as the nominal value of the land) altogether £68,780, or excluding the value of the land £33,780 } the actual expenditure having been as follows, viz., advances on sections £19,041 (of which the amount advanced on sections since abandoned IB only £585), roadworks executed for the benefit of the settlements £12,982, cost of locating settlers £495, cost of lectures £483, cost of fruit trees, etc., for Auckland settlers, £779. It will be seen that the Department has brought to charge against these settlements every item which could possibly be taken into account, and even then, taking m the cost of land, and bringing to charge the full sum of £68,780, less only the item of roads, the nett cost to the Colony is admitted to be less than £8000. As thus— we quote from the Report—r" The yearly rental payable by the settlers is £1,770 ; interest on advances, £923 ; total, £2,698 ; and this amount capitalised at 6 per cent is £53,860 : so that if the settlers were Jto pay their rents regularly Government would nominally stand to lose the difference between £6.3.,86,Q and £68,780, namely £14,920, by the transaction, but of this sum of £14,920 the expenditure on roads frag been £12,982 ; so that the settlements themselves would cost the country £1,938, together with the pay and expenses of the extra supervision by the Bangers, say £1,034, thus making a total of £2 972. This amount on the above supposition would not be nominally altered to any serious extent, eyen if further advances were made to the settlers, for the interest payable by them would bo proportionately increased, but the amount will become greater if more persons throw up their holdings." It is added that at date of the report there were arrears of rent and interest to the amount of £1723, of which sum £1827 was owing fey Auckland settlors, and we may add to tb|s that we nave reasdti to believe that the arrears on the Canterbury settlements were loss than a £$ note, and that at this moment there is not a penny outstanding. Taken altogether we look upon the report as very satisfactory, and if it be remembered that but for these village settlements many thousands of pounds must baye been added to the generally' unprofitable expenditure qoi»ing under' the hha 4? a 4 of "'M'W #&; employed^" Jt wijl at pneo be seen thaj; the fdrmattpn of £hoflo sptilpnicnts has i^aia finfmomlly an advantage to fc^p Colony, as well as a oooi'i tO th ft majority of the settlers. Under these circumstances it is more than ever regrettable that fcb.e present Minister for Lands does not abandon his prejudices m tb.o face of facts, and endeayor'to extend the operations of a system capable, under wise administration of effecting the most beneficial results.