The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1886. LAND SETTLEMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1527, 3 July 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1886. LAND SETTLEMENT.

Sir George Grey’s Land for Settlement Bill is undoubtedly the most important and the most liberal measure that has been introduced during this or any previous session. It proposes to empower the Government to purchase lands from private owners for the purpose of leasing them to farmers at an annual rental. Sir George Grey does not intend to borrow money for this purpose. He proposes to pay the present owners the property tax value of their lands with Government bonds bearing interest at between 3 and 4 per cent. If this can be done—and we see no reason why it should not—it is certainly a magnificent scheme. It is, it will be noticed, similar to Mr Gladstone’s scheme for buying out the Irish landlords. Possibly it may not suit everybody. For instance, if a man wanted to sell out and leave the colony he would not care to part with his land for a bundle of paper. Xho paper would not run current for him in other countries, and he could not make use of it. It is different, however, with Banks, Mortgage, and Land Companies, who have immense tracts of land on their bands, and who have no ambition higher than to get interest out of the money invested by them. Companies of this kind are altogether different from private owners. They never think of making homes for themselves or their families ; they only bold the land for speculative purposes, and would sell it any moment they obtained a high price for it. JSo question of sentiment comes into their calculations ; pounds, shillings and pence are all they think of, and if pieces of paper yielded better interest than green fields they would be better satisfied. Now, as things have been lately, there can be very little doubt but that the estates held by these institutions have failed to pay interest, on the capital invested in them, and we see no reason why they should not gladly take bonds that would yield to them a certain annual percentagej Bad seasons, low prices, epidemics, droughts, or anything else could not interfere wiih the interest derivable from these bonds, and consequently we

think that, they would very gladly] accept a certainty for an uncertainly. j It is therefore more than likely that Sir George Grey's proposals would Iw acceptable to people like those. Thorp is one provision in the bill of which we do not approve of. It is that the Government should build houses on these iands for the tenants. That is a very serious mistake, and one likely to lead to loss to the Government. One of the clauses in the Bill provides I that the lease shall be forfeited ii any of its conditions are broken, or if the tenants are six months in arrears with their rent. Now if the Government build houses for the tenants, there is nothing to prevent any of them who may fee) so disposed from allowing his rent to remain until he has all his crops off the land, snd then making a " moonlight flit "of it. Under such circumstances as these the Government would the half year's rent, while at the s»me time they would have to pay interest on the bonds. If, on the other hand, tlio Government insisted each tenant should build a boufle and make improvements on the land equal to the half year's rent in value, then they would have sufficient security always on the land, and no one could escape without payiug rent. Another feature of the Bill which is not at all desirable is that it proposes to buy without making sufficient provisions for the disposition of the land immediately afterwards. It apparently contemplates that tho Government would get tenants to jump iuto these farms the very moment they had acquired them. This is a mistake. In many instances difficulties would possibly be experienced in getting tenants, and while the land remained on the hands of the Government it would mean a loss to the consolidated revenue, as interest would have to be paid on the bonds. The proper way to proceed would be this : The Government ought to intimate to the landowner that his land would be taken under the Bill as soon as tenants could be found for it. Tho Government then ought to advertise the farms to let, and as fast as tbey received applications take the land. In this way the tenant would be paying rent from the moment the land was purchased, whereas if the whole block were taken over at once the Government would have to pay the interest until they dould let tho land, which might be months or years, lhera is another objection to the Bill. It is not compulsory, It says, " The Governor may purchnse," but it does not say " That the owner Bhall pell." It is therefore left at the option of the owner as to whether he shall sell or not, and of course it is possible that owners might refuse to sell, and thus render the act a nullity. The Bill wants altering in the directions pointed out. It would not do in its present form, but of couisa it would be very easy to amend so as to remedy the defects referred to.