The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1914. A STRIKING CONTRAST

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2309, 17 November 1914, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1914. A STRIKING CONTRAST

Befoee 1 the Reform Government took office an incredulous country was assured from a hundred"'Wardist platforms that its advent to power would be followed by a rapid process of land aggregation and the progressive depopulation of country areas. With ■ a remarkable pertinacity in error the Wardists still retail these inventions,' in a battered and contracted form, though they have long since been refuted by the achievements of the Government in the domain of land legislation and settlement. Against the vague assertions of its opponents that it has "done nothing to help along settlement" (one of the stock fictions ground out by the . Opposition Party machine) the Government is able to set an array of facts and figures which demonstrate conclusively that it has stimulated settlement to an unprecedented extent. To cite a single example—that of' operations under the Land for Settlements Act —the Government spent three times as much in acquiring estates, and provided teritames as much land for settlers in ,1913-14 as the Ward Administration did in 1910-11. This, however; is not by any means the Whole of the story. Not only is it truo that the_ Government, by its acts and achievements, has completely rebutted detractions with which it was assailed before it took office, but it has undoubtedly checked the evils which it was accused by the Wardists of desiring to promote. The policy of the Government makes for the suppression of aggregation and the; encouragement of subdivision and settlement. The policy of theWARD Administration had the opposite,effects. This may seem to bo a somewhat sweeping statement, but it is' fully borne out by official statistics. ■ '

Since it is as much necessary to maintain existing close settlement ne. to encourage new settlement the final test of a land settlement policy is'• the increase in the total number of holdings of rural land throughout the country, and the only possible proof that such a policy is progressive is a substantial increase in the number of these holdings, year by year. Applying, thie test it will be found that the settlement policy of the Ward Administration was anything but progressive and the; official figures warrant no other conclusion, than" that, during' its term, aggregation proceeded at such a_ pace as to a great extent to nullify anything that was accomplished by the Lands Department in promoting subdivision and settlement. The table printed below speaks for itself. It shows the number of occupied holdings (Crown and freehold) in the years indicated: , Occupied holdings of one acre and over, 1891 43 777 Occupied holdings of one acre and ' over, 1906 09 942 Net increase for 15 yeais, 1891 to ' . lm :• ■ 26,165 Average increase per annum IJ4I Occupied holdinga of one acre and over in 1911 .; :...J.. 73 876 Net increase for five years. 1906 to . 19" .•• •••• 3,934 Average increase par annum 787 Increase in number of rural hold..ings owing to subdivisions of , rural land from July 1, 1912, ' to June 30, 19U (two years) ... 4,483 Average per year , 2,211 These particulars call for little in the way of explanation. The essential fact is that while the number of rural holdings increased in tho time of the Seddon Government- at an average rate of 1744 per year, this increase fell away in the time of the Ward Administration to an aver-, age of only 787 additional holdings per year. The figures are taken from the Official Year Books for the respective years and of course cannot be controverted. They disclose, to say the least, a remarkably poor performance on the part of the politicians who are now accusing the Government of doing nothing to help' 8 along settlement. In the absence of official figures it is impossible to extend tho comparison in the same form to the time of the present Government. Statistics.of occupied holdings for the last two years are not obtainable, but statistics of the subdivision effected during tho first two years of the Massey Government have been taken from the Budget of last year and the annual Lands Reports. It is safe to predict that when the record ofoccu-

pied holdings is brought up to date it will bo found that the Government has rcoovcred much of the leeway lost by its predecessors. Meantime, accepting the view that a sound settlement polity entails tho maintenance of existing settlement as well as its further extension, the fact is clearly established that the Wardists, when in office, failed niisrt?ubl,Y In tb<» turn flsJrf Sn vhjttb twg now «?£««> to th role'oi sritice,