Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5273, 16 February 1878, Page 2

Thb oration which Sir Geobgb Grey delivered on Thursday night differs in no important respect from hia previous efforts to throw dust in the eyes of the people. There is inequality of wealth in Now Zealand, as there is in every civilised country on the face of the earth. In everything,which conduces tp happiness, comfort, social and political equality, the British nation and its offshoots are in advance of all other people ; and of all Anglo-Saxon communities, New Zealand has enjoyed iu the highest degree that which is considered the end of all just government —the greatest good of the greatest number. No natural or artificial law is observable here whereby the rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. The condition of the working classes of New Zealand has been immensely improved during the past seven or eight years; and despite any thing which Sir George Grey and his followers may say to the contrary, the legislation of lato years has tended to that improvement. The Premier points to tho large estates which have been acquired in this colony ; but we would ask, at what time

were they acquired ? Was it not when he himself was Governor of New Zealand. All large acquisitions of the public estate since 1870 could be couuted on the fingers of one hand. Sir George Grey is particularly severe on the ruuholders of Canterbury, and is constantly holding up that province as a shocking example of that which will inevitably be the rule in New Zealand if his views on the land question aie not carried out. It would be well for many other parts of the colony if they had, to use a somewhat vulgar expression, half of Canterbury’s complaint. Sir George is very unwise in singling out Canterbury, for in that province there has boon more settlement than in all the provinces of the North Island combined. More “ poor men” there have made homes for themselves and families than in any other province of the whole colony, and facilities were given to enable this to be done. With regard to the pastoral leases of Canterbury the grossest misrepresentation has prevailed. Sir George Grey has persistently endeavored to instil into the minds of the electors that the lands are locked up from settlement till 1890. In all his speeches he has never once put the case in a fair light. It is quite within the power of the Government to-morrow to declare any portion of the runs open for sale on deferred payments, without any compensation being given to the runholder. The latter lias only a license to occupy, and the shepherd must give place to the farmer as settlement progresses and the country is opened up. But, as Mr. Rolleston said the other day, the Canterbury squatters could have obtained their runs without a murmur if the representatives of that province had supported Sir George Grey in his separation proposals ; —but they would not do that for “all the runs in Canterbury.” To show how settlemont has progressed in Canterbury, we will quote the remarks of one of the ablest supporters of Sir George Grey’s Ministry. Last session, during a discussion on the Land Bill, the member for Geraldine, Mr. Wakefield, said:- “Wo find that in Canterbury, with about half the area of Otago, and although it is a much younger settlement, in February, 1877, the number of holdings were 2700 ; while in Otago there were only 2G75. Thus we find that on barely half the area, in half the time, and with three-fourths of the population, we have done better by nearly 100 holdings than in Otago. That is rather a startling result of this system of laud sales, by which, w« are told, the great capitalists are to sweep away the whole of the country.” Ho then goes on to show that there is almost double the quantity of laud under cultivation in Canterbury to what there is in Otago, and adds—“We are told this is a mere matter of to-day—a mere temporary result—and that a few years hence it will be just the reverse. But that is not the case. This rise in Canterbury has been as steadily going on as it is possible to conceive. We have here before us the returns for the last ten years, and we find that Canterbury has steadily risen year by year, and has never gone back, except in one unfortunate year, when our crops were very bad, and our farmers were nearly ruined. . . . The figures

stand thus ; In Canterbury we have 653,383 acres under crop. Fancy that! And that is the country which is held by a dozen lordly squatters, and yet we find that the whole area leased and purchased and under crop is 653,000 acres, having a settled population on it, and no sheep. In Otago the whole area settled is 536,753 acres, or about 120,000 acres less than in Canterbury.” It is inconceivable that any man could have the audacity, in the face of official records, to point to Canterbury as the home of the land monopolists.