RYOTWARRY—(No. 1).

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5451, 16 September 1878, Page 2

RYOTWARRY—(No. 1).

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Sin, —The proposal I have put before the Government and the public under the title of Ilyotwarry does not seem by many persons to be quite understood in all its bearings. Permit me a few words of explanation. The results it seeks to attain are chiefly : (1) To give to the Maoris a safe and profitable way of throwing open to Europeans the large tract of country from which, as a measure of self-defence, they now exclude us ; (2) to enable small European capitalists to become possessed of land in the most economical way to themselves and the nation; (3) to create a Crown lands property yielding to the nation a permanent income of half a million a year in future. I would say a few words regarding the first two objects. There are of course other ways in which the King country may be made accessible. The present system of bargaining for and purchasing block by block may be continued. The Government or private individuals, with much waste of time and haggling, may overreach the savage, buy his land cheap, and mike a profit out of its sale to European settlers. The Wellington and Foxton railway now waits while this lame though praiseworthy attempt at justice to the Maori is being enacted. As a result large sums will be spent at the bars throughout the country, and an impoverished and poisoned remnant of a people will drag on, to, curse us, and be provided for. I submit for consideration whethei the introduction of permanent leases would not prevent these ills, be comprehensive, and immediate in its effect, just and wise. Next, the opening offered by Ryotwarry to small capitalists, and its beneficial results both to him and the nation, are large and manifest. It offers him a property viitkout the cost of purchase. Suppose au im - migrant to arrive with £IOOO of capital. Under present circumstances he will probably sink the whole sum in the purchase of that which an Englishmen loves well, if not too wisely—a freehold—say, of 500 acres at £2 an aero. He then has either to retain his new capital, the land, unused, while by manual labor be earns more money to spend upon it, or else he must borrow. If with borrowed capital he fences and stocks it, the success or failure of his whole emigration venture depends on the state of the first season and the markets. If they favor him he succeda ; if not, he is ruined. Under the permanent lease system no such perilous gambling surrounds him. Having selected, say, the same 500 acres, he receives a lease, pays the first year’s rent, say of £SO, at 2a an acre, and the land becomes his irrevocably. From that day it becomes, without purchase, his own landed estate, to mortgage, to sell, or to leave to his children, while £950 of his capital is still in his hands for its improvement. With this £950 he fences and stocks a part, pays next year's rent without feeling it, makes waste acres productive, and becomes a valuable settler, a benefactor to.the nation, himself a prosperous unit in the general progress of the community. Is such a proposal not worth at least consideration ? Is there any other scheme that the man of small or moderate capital would prefer ?—I am, &0,, E. G. Thomas.