The Daily News THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1926. EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1926, Page 8

The Daily News THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1926. EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Just as surely as unity is the keystone of the Empire’s strength, so is immigration the means whereby the development and prosperity of the Dominions are made possible. Probably no subject has been more thoroughly investigated and discussed than that of Empire settlement —a problem which has many aspects, and the satisfactory solution of which depends upon the judicious selection of migrants quite as much as upon finance. It would be well to bear in mind that the comprehensive report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference asserted that “free institutions are the Empire’s life blood; co-operation is its instrument; peace, security and progress are among its objects.” In the light of this preface, the contents of the report of the Overseas Settlement Sub-committee of the Conference are invested with a special significance in view -of the fact . that Empire settlement has for its main object the redistribution of the white population of the Empire “in the best interests of the Empire as a whole.” As an indication of the logical and businesslike methods adopted by the committee in dealing with this subject, it will be noticed that in the forefront of the report is the statement that the committee is convinced .that “a sound policy must be based on scientific and carefully considered schemes designed to secure the settlement of suitable persons under conditions conducive both to their well-being and the prosperous, development of the Dominion in which they settle.” Stress is laid upon the importance of accelerating this redistribution of people, hence the need for co-operation by the different governments. Obviously, without that co-opera-tion there could be no stimulus to an immigration scheme worthy of the object in view; also, that each Dominion has its special requirements, and naturally prefers recruits most likely to ‘satisfy those requirements. When weighing the merits or demerits of the committee’s views upon the methods regulating the selection of migrants, it would be prudent not to lose sight of the fact that the committee has enunciated general principles and has not set forth hard and fast lines which might suit any one particular Dominion, but not any of the

others. While advocating the extension of the nomination system, preference is given to family settlement as being the ideal form of migration. Theoretically the latter form is superior to others, but it needs far more searching investigation into the suitability of the families than is requisite in the case of individual migrants, while it also entails the provision of a sufficiency of capital in each case to enable a start to be made in a new country. In the ease of New Zealand, the committee recommends the preparation of a definite scheme for assistance to supplement legislation for the settlement of families possessing capital, but limiting Britain’s financial aid to £2OO per family. It would seem that if the head of a family possessed sufficient capital to justify emigrating to this Dominion he would probably be agreeable to accept free passages; but would be unlikely to be attracted by a loan of £2OO. The question of suitable training of intending immigrants forms the subject of the committee’s views, but it is an open question whether time spent in that direction in Britain would not be far more profitably employed in gaining actual experience in the Dominion selected by the emigrants as their future home. New Zealand offers free passages for approved boys and girls under nineteen years of age, and the most promising results are already being obtained from immigrants of that kind. This field can most profitably be further exploited.