FARMING IN NEW ZEALAND

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2060, 22 April 1907, Page 4

FARMING IN NEW ZEALAND

ROUGHING IT IN THE NORTH ISLAND. In concluding an article entitled •On the Land in New Zealand,” a writer in Macmillan’s Magazine says. —No doubt some of the best brains in New Zealand are put into farming, and no doubt we at Home are too conservative. Good management, as well as good luck, brings in to the New Zealand farmer his 20s and 21s per .acre for wool alone, leaving hint his lambs and his mutton and his flax-rights in addition. But. when all that is said and allowed for, it remains true that the science of going without things is profitable to pursue, and that if some of our men and women would live as plainly and shop ns little they also might have a balance at the bank before they were middle-aged. This, of course, is said with due regard to proportions and to the acknowledged fact that in England it would not he possible to lead such a life as it led in the bac*k blocks. It is all but impossible to make an untravelled Englishman understand even dimly what it is like. Let us take a few instances by way of conclusions.

The first shall not be very far out of the way, for it lies near a barharbor into which small coasting steamers can enter at high tide, anchoring at a little township with one hotel, where such rough visitors sometimes lodged, that once when the settler and his wife chanced illluck they had to spend a cold night in the goods shed. Next morning they took their hoat and went up stream to within a short distance of their house. On another occasion they' got stuck on a mud-bank, and had to wait the turn of the tide in wot weather—they two and the babv. Their house was a one-roomed hut", the bed being insufficiently screened off by a short curtain. When strangers came they lay by the fire, and the hostess had to undress on bed because when standing on the mud floor her feet could be seen. If clothing fell on the floor at night it was too damp to be worn the morning; and once when they went away for a few days there was a fine crop of fungus under the bed on their return. But they were luckier than some because they could vet an old Maori woman to wash for them. The house stood in a small clearing in the bush. As there was no pasturage for sheep, they had not yet come to the mutton-stage of diet, and the garden-stage is long after that. To another settlement men were brought from Home with . a great flourish of trumpets, but at least a third of them were totally unfit for their job. The roads were roughed out, but not made. In the worst place earth had been thrown up in the middle, of a swamp for half a mile or so, flax and scrub thrown over it, and you alighted from your horse and picked your way as best you could. One of the emigrants was a retired Indian officer, who assumed that Maori labor would be available, and that in two years or so he could complete a home fit for a wife and family. But there were neither materials nor labor for building. and as for building with his own hands,he had more than enough to do to provide for his own comfortless existence. He spent £SOOO, got between £2OOO and £3OOO back, and went home to report failure. The story is only worth telling because the colonists who stood to their guns are now, twenty years after, flourishing men, as they deserve to be; but still they are forty miles from a railway, and still their horses are bogged on the highroad every winter. The third and last example is in a sheep country, where a man possessed by land hunger has taken up more land than he can afford to pay for. He is by no means a penniless man; many thousands are tied up in the holding that he already has. But in all countries the land is a greedy mistress, and for her sake man will sacrifice himself and his nearest. So this man has set himself to save a great price. He is his own shepherd and he has close on 2000 sheep; if you are up at sunrise you may meet him driving fat sheep along the dusty road. He is his own horsekeepor, gardener, stockman. 'With his own hands he felled and fired his remaining bit of bush, and besides all this there is always fencing to erect or to renew. He cannot afford to marry yet, but ha has a sister to work for him, a cheaper plan for many reasons. For seven days in the week she works sixteen hours fl day, when it is not seventeen, washing, churning, baking, sowing, poultry-raising, cooking, preserving; she can harness the horse and drive or ride it as well as a liian; she can help on the farm when the work is crowding in. As for her expenditure, it is less than that of a servant, not counting the wages. Now the point is not if all this is worth doing ;• those who do it think it is, and they should know. But if a man took a bit of land and lived like that, adding penny to penny and pound to pound, he would find himself at the end of some years in easy circumstances, which is all that he can fairly expect to he able to say for himself in New Zealand. MAIL NEWS, INCOME-TAX IN FRANCE. (Spectator Summary, Ifitli Feb.) Foreign news of importance during the past week Ims been unusuallly meagre. Perhaps the most importani event recorded is the introduction of the Income-tax Bill in the France Chamber a.t the end of last week. If is described officially as a measure for "the reform of direct taxation, tin establishment of a tax on the different sources of income, and of a complcmcntary tax on the income as a whole.” According to the Paris correspondent of the Times, the .scheme differs from the English and the German systems; but in France, of course, wealth is more evenly dis tributed than in any other greal country. Tl\e Bill, which abolishes the old taxation, exacts 4 per cent, from real estate, 31 per cent, from business or industrial revenues, and 3 per cent, from incomes derived from earnings. Roughly, the Bill lightens the burden on real estate and on the wages of the working classes, but increases it on incomer derived from revenues. France as r nation has always been opposed tr

direct taxation. Tile people prefei to have their taxes disguised, without really considering whether they may not be paying more in that way They are at least saved the shock oi parting with a lump sum that doe; not bring something immediately ir return. The press, with the sanx prejudices as the people, lias always opposed direct taxation. But tlicrr is no doubt that French taxation has been unfair in its incidence. The workng man does not eat less than tho rich man, yet through his food he is taxed to almost tho same amount. It will be interesting to see whether the country as a whole will abandon its prejudices.

THE PAPAL POLICY

The alleged solidarity of b rencli Homan Catholics in their support of the Papal policy is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. The Temps and the Siecle have published circumstantial narratives asserting that the Bishop’s declaration was practically dictated from Home narratives presumably communicated, by one of tlieir number; while thfv speeches of Cardinal Mathieu and'

Comte d’Llaussonvillo at the Academy last week have excited the adverse comment of monarchial journals. Cardinal Mathieu's offence consisted in a guarded acquiescence in the Revolution; but Comte d’Haussonville’s speech, in which he developed his dream of a transformed and emancipated Froncli Church, was irreconcilable with Ultramontane ideals. 11l ail eloquent passage he forecasted a time in which the church would ask nothing from the State, and would draw her resources solely from the generosity of Roman Catholics; when her pastors would live in intimate communion with the faithful, instead of being inaccessible officials, and thefaithful laymen would he allowed a share in the administration of the temporal property of the church, instead of being regarded as a dumb (lock of contributors. The day on which the church decided to draw from the people the elements of her life would, in his opinion, give her renewed vigor and youth. Comte d’Haussonville’s plea is all the more significant in that lie is admittedly one of the most eminent and influential Roman Catholics in France.

BRITISH PARLIAMENT. Parliament was formally opened by the King, who was accompanied by the Queen, on Tuesday. The King’s speech, after the customary refer--nces to foreign Powers, alludes to the earthquake in Jamaica. ‘‘The courage and devotion” of “the Governor and his officers” are praised. Without further comment the Speech passes to a graceful recognition of the sympathy of the United States and the "assistance promptly offered by their naval authorities.” Tile Imeer’s visit to India is spoken of as “tending to promote that right feeling which is even more important than formal compacts. The unrest in parts of India is met with the nromise of “widening the base of Deace, order, and good government.” The most important clause of the speech refers to the differences between the two Houses —“serious question affecting the working of our Parliamentary system.” The Cabinet is said to “have this important subject under consideration.” Thus the expectation of many people is upset that the Government would at once present a scheme for reforming the House of Lords or modifying its veto. The next measure in order of importance is that “for further associating the people of Ireland with the management of their domestic affairs and for otherwise improving the system of government.” In the same clause the reform of university education in Ireland is mentioned. A clearer definition of functions, and. an improved organisation, are promised for the Army. Other Bills are foreshadowed concerning licensing, holding and valuing of land in Scotland, a court of Criminal Appeal, hours of labor in mines, the Patent Laws, valuation of property in England and Wales, services of women on local bodies, small holdings in England and Wales, and better housing.

MR. BALFOUR. Mr. Balfour, speaking on the address .was in a mood of light and amiable railery. It “surpassed his comprehension” that the King’s speech contained no reference to the Colonial Conference. As to the difficulty between the two houses, he complimented the Government on their decision to reflect. He hoped they would reflect much more and talk much less. Comparing recent speeches on the subject by members of the Government, he twitted the Home Secretary on the policy “known as ‘filling up the cup,”’ and described the Attorney General, who looked forward to “a series of dissolutions ending in a revolution.” as a Roberspierre in disguise. A conflict of opinion, said Mr. Balfour, was inevitable so long as there were two houses. If there were never to he such a conflict, a second hojise would be superfluous. All that was necessary was that ultimately the people should have the power of deciding. As to reforming the House of Lords into an impeccable Second Chamber, that would simply mean a stronger body than ever. Turning to Irish legislation, he said that it would he vain to try to discover something that was “both Home-rule and not Home-rule.” He accused tho Government of aggravating educational difficulties in Ireland by dragging Trinity College, Dublin, into the problem. He professed to he ignorant of the Prince Minister’s views on Free trade and said that certain speeches by Mr. Haldane and Mr. Churchill were inconsistnt with that policy.

THE PREMIER, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman answered Mr. Balfour’s speech point by point. He reminded the Opposition that in 1897 and 1902, when Mr. Balfour was in office, there were Colonial Conferences, hut they were not mentioned in the King’s Speech, He accepted the interpretation that the clause dealing with the House oT Lords was the most important. The House of Lords had been called a watchdog. The difficulty was that their watchdog was sometimes somnolent and sometimes awoke to ferocious activity. When the Government was of a. certain complexion the House of Lords abdicated its powers as a revising body; hut when the other side came into office it became aggressive. Tho Leader of the present Opposition could always rely upon men “not elected but born to support him.” The Prime Minister suggested that the difficulty might bo “easier of solution than many pcopic thought.” “At all events,” he added, “settled it must be.” As for Irish legislation, ho asked whether the House could really deny the Irish people the right to manage their own domestic affairs, provided that they did not interfere wjth ours, or impair the supremacy of Parliament and the established relations between the two countries. The Irish people should have what every selfgoverning colony had. That was his “larger policy.”