ANTI-POVERTY LEAGUE.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 483, 25 June 1890, Page 3

ANTI-POVERTY LEAGUE.

Auckland, June, 19. An interesting meeting of the above body was held last evening in the Wesley Hall. There wa9 a large attendence, amongst those present being the Revs. Chew, Sommerville, Worker, Dudley, and Long. The business of the evening was a discussion on “ Land Nationalisation,” in which the Rev. Dr. Hooper, of Mount Albert, spoke in favour of that system, whilst the Rev. Dr. Wallis argued against it. Mr Hould, the vice-president, in introducing Dr. Wallis, said that usually from their platform the speeches were in favour of land nationalisation. They were, however, obliged to Dr. Wallis for attending to propound his views in opposition, as it was always well to hear both sides of a question, and then arrive at a more mature decision.

Dr. Wallis was received with applause. He said that his object was to vindicate the rights of private property in land against Henry George and his followers. Property, he considered, was the right to the exclusive use of anything within the bounds of law and reason, and he could see no reason why land should nob be held privately the same as any other property. He had five objections to land nationalisation. First it was not essentially or materially different from other kinds of property. There wore two elements in property—one was the natural, and the other the human. A factory, which all admitted was private property, bore a striking analogy to a farm. It was a delusion to think that land produced wealth without labour, or chat it was a perennial fountain of wealth. It only produced what was put into it, and then taken out by labour. His second point was that individual ownership of land was the growth of civilisation, and national ownership had been repudiated by all civilised nations. Whenever a step was taken in advanced was from savagery and comm unisrn to civilisation and individualownership ofland. Private ownership of land was involved in the idea and claim of national independence. Pie argued that Henry George was not consistent throughout his book. The whole tenor of it was land nationalisation, whereas the first principle should have been the humanisation of the land. All ho claimed was America for the Americans and England for the English. That was really the right of private property in land by nations. If the land in the world belonged to the people of the world, what right had 40 millions of people in England to say to the 1,300 millions of the rest of the world, “This island belongs to us?’ What right had half-a-million of colonists in New Zealand to say to the outside world, “This is our land, and we will not allow others to come in and participate except upon our terms?” The fourth point was that an individual’s right to land was perfectly consistent with man’s social and natural rights. His last point was that individual right in land was more productive than State-ownership. Under land nationalisation a landed gentry would be supplanted by needy and venal demagogues. The magic power of private property wa3 great, as men were made industrious and thrifty. Communism would simply mean the Government stroke. Yeomanry proprietors were a tower of strength to the State and contributed to sound prosperity. Dr. Hooper, in reply, said that the first point raised by Dr. Wallis really begged the question. He held that land in its natural state was produced by the Creator, and not by man at all. All other things had been produced by man’s brain or muscle, and that was an essential distinction. Land was necessary to the life of man, and he must live upon the land. When once they admitted the right of private ownership of land they admitted the principle that legally one man or a number of men could deprive others of the right of existence. If New Zealand could be parcelled out to syndicatesgthey would have the right to order people out of the country, and the latter would have no right to any produce from the land. The speaker then reverted to the question of land being the capital of the farmer, and declared it was not so, though Dr. Wallis appeared to imagine it was. He admitted great truth in the second point raised by Dr. Wallis. Private property in land had grown with civilisation, but so much the worse for civilisation. Many blessings they had received from God, but the blessing of civilisation wassometimes turned intoacurse. The higher the civilisation, now-a-days, the wider the gulf and the deeper the vortex into which the landless were precipitated. The speaker instanced Rome as an example, pointing out that as the Empire advanced and private ownership in land was in the ascendant Italy had been kept back. She had not yet recovered. Modern nations were tending towards her goal, and could only be saved by land nationalisation and thesingle tax. Dr. Hooper agreed with his opponent with regard to the third point, that private or individual property in land is involved in the idea and claim of national independence. He agreed with him that Henry George was inconsistent in going in for land nationalisation, instead of for what might bo termed, for want of a better word, humanisation ; but the inconsistency was merely in the letter. Land nationalisation was the only practicable way of breaking up the present system ; but, in the years to come, he looked forward to the nations coming together as they were now doing with regard to South Africa, and agreeing as to a common occupation of the lands. The only plea for occupation was where there were waste tracts of land. He pointed out that there was no chance of a man being turned off the land as long as he paid the rent to the State. In reply to the argument that private ownership of land is more advantageous to the nation than ownership by the State, Dr. Hooper referred to tracts of land being locked up unused, waiting till the owners could wring from the wouldbe cultivator the highest price. They did not want a landed gentry here, with their social and political influence. He considered that by land nationalisation the occupation of the dirty demagogue would be gone, for everyone would be comfortable, save fools and rogues, and, such being the case, they would not be led away by demagogues. \ Dr. Wallis replied briefly, and a vote I of thanks was accorded both speakers.