THE DELAYS IN OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—It seems a far cry writing you from the gateway of the West, but your article entitled " Mr. Baldwin's Boldness" (?) in your issue of May 18th constrains me to put pen to paper. Colonial Development figures in this, and I am reminded of that phrase coined by the late Lord Rosebery, "There are measures and measures." Yes, that is true and never truer than of late, when unemployment and emigration have figured so prominently.
I am going to be boldness itself in asking the Overseas Development Board to make up their minds seriously to tackle a proposition out here which fits in with Mr. John Buchan's idea of acquiring some land in Ca lads they could call their own—for colonization purposes. Par ty politics cut no ice so far as the said Board is concerned, but I may be excused for remarking that had Mr. Baldwin seized the fitting oppor- tunity it might well have saved him fifty to a hundred seats. The project was allowed to wait over till after the General Election. It was a measure, however, of paramount import- ance, even if only set under way, and someone committed a faux pas in relegating the scheme to consideration afterwards. Procrastination is fatal. Briefly, the scheme means British capital and the affording of transport facilities—" steel "- and last, but not least, British settlers. Go to it ! It follows that the British Government must be behind the scheme even to the subsidizing, say, of boats via the Panama Canal.
That is the way to approach B.C. The only way. The rest is with the O.S. Board. They, in turn, must see that the Bill to amend the 1922 Empire Settlement Act is brought to fruition. The Second Reading was passed in the House —without a division—February, 1928. Why keep us on tenterhooks in this manner ? Am I too bold in asking why ? I wait for a reply.—! am, Sir, &c., "OLD COUNTRY." Vancouver, B.C.
Previous page
