PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1880. ON THE DEFENCE.

Patea Mail, 7 December 1880, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1880. ON THE DEFENCE.

It has been known for some weeks that the Parihaka block was to be surveyed into larger sections than the 50 acre lots on the Plains, The cabbage garden allotments wore made by the Grey Government with the commendable object of meeting the wants of settlers with little capital. That experiment cannot bo called a success, so far as facts justify a conclusion at present. Our sympathy would be strongly in that direction for the simple reason that a new country should encourage the settlement of the largest number on the land, while keeping in view the essential condition that no farm should be too small to support an average family in comfort. The Waimate allotments ware not large enough to enable settlers on deferred payment to work ofl’ their obligations with reasonable certainty. Those who can afford to purchase an adjoining allotment on cash terms will be in a fair position to farm at a profit. It seems to us that land offered on deferred payments should bo made really attractive to industrious settlers, by giving an assured prospect of realising a freehold by average industry and skill. One hardship inflicted on these Waimatc settlers is unfair and impolitic on the face of it. So long as the Maoris combine on this coast to resist the peaceful settlement of the soil, there must be a possibility of trouble to the settlors. The resistance need not be active. It is bad enough when it takes the form of a fanatical belief that some miracle is going to be worked by To Wbiti for driving away the pakelias. That is the position at present. Tim Maoris are resisting fpassivoly. They are taught at Parihaka that active resistance is not required because the Maori race are under special divine protection, which assures to them the victory at the appointed time. They expect to sec the pakeha driven back. The enmity of race against race is in their thoughts, and To Whiti’s influence fosters the continuance of that enmity. So long as native tribes are banded into a largo body by such an influence, there will be a native question on this Coast. In other words, there will be a certain anxiety among settlers. It will prevent some holders of cash sections from spending money in improving their land : will prevent them building bouses and making homes, until other settlers have (irst tested the safety of settlement by risking life and capital in working on the land as deferred payment selectors. Is it a right policy that all this risk should he thrown on the poorer class of settlers, those least able to bear a loss through native troubles ? By compelling these settlers and not compelling the other class to occupy the laud for improving it, the Government are legislating for the moneyed speculator and not for the practical farmer. Our proposition is this ; if every holder of a section wore required to fence and improve it to a certain value per acre, within a certain time, the effect must bo that the sections would bo taken up by bona fide occupiers, and not be bid for by moneyed men who intend merely to hold sections as a freehold investment till higher prices can be realised by waiting. Tbc increased value would come as the direct result of the district being settled in advance by a few hardy men risking their safety and substance on deferred payment sections. The brunt of the first battle against odds is to fall on them alone. Their presence on disputed land is to settle the native difficulty by braving its dangers. Their presence is to bring increase of value to vacant sections held by moneyed absentees whose skins are in safe quarters. And the deferred payment men are to uiitKt; bye-roads at their own expense, thereby providing roads to back sections

1 held by absent casli owners. Is such an inequitable mode of settlement the best policy ? Can it be called policy at all ? It seems to us that the best and cheapest kind of armed force to keep on the disputed portion of the Coast is for every section to have its separate settler* one or more. • The whole Coast would thereby be covered with watchmen, each owner being his own scout, his own policeman, his own defence. A numerous body of settlers would feel confidence in combined strength. They would be a mutual support in defence, and a mutual assistance in shaving the burden of necessary road-making. Why should the cash buyers be exempt from risks and expenses which must fall on the first actual occupiers ? Is there any political justice in the present plan of sale and settlement ? To say that a cash buyer cannot be made to settle on his section is a crude negative. Put it in this way: If he buys, ho must do what the deferred payment buyer does—he must improve up to a certain value. If lie does not dig himself, ho sends a substitute. That substitute is a settler for the time-being, and fulfils the conditions of helping to populate and protect the Coast. On the Plains and on the Parihaka block, safety and confidence are to be found in compact compulsory occupation, as opposed to scattered and partial occupation.