THE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 103, 2 May 1889, Page 2

THE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE

Vhe usual meeting of the Progressive . \eague was held on Monday evening. The ■■' ' Resident occupied the chair. Hr A. Withy's address on ," Land a)pnalisation " was listened to with great % Ist. The subject was a continuation ■'■ KaF nreyious debate, " What shall we do Mu fi< h unemployed?"1 Mr Withy said Ihere*w6re several theories in existence /•which professed to meet the difficulty. He / would notice them in their order: (1) Free 7 trade in land. Its advocates would do away with entails. Land should be bought and sold like any other article. Under the present system big estates got bigger, and small ones smaller. England was not the only offender, for in California one estate contained 60,000 acres, and one in Dakota 100,000 acres. (2)' Peasant proprietorship. The theory was to divide all the land equallyamongstthepresentinhabitants, but this would not give satisfaction, for some is Letter than other. Lord Ashbourne's Act merely took the land from the owners and crave it to the farmers ; it didn't settle the question, for by increasing the number ot small owners, it created more interest on the side of landowners. In France, where there was a system of peasant proprietorshin a man divided his land amongst his family. Extracts from a French writer wer* read to show that instead oi thja system being a step nearer land nationataation, it really built up a rampart of small owners which protected the larger ones. In fact, it acted as a lightning conductor, conducting harmlessly to the ground those forS Which would otherwise rend and b^eak up the big estates. (3) Land Satfonalilation with compensate. The state was to take the land and lease it; no _ub leSg to be allowed. Herbert Spencer savsif we could get at the ones who stole Ekr^i^zzp^ &m^mtr^^_ to it. It was population crowding into a Saw which made land so valuable. He gKdJed that landlordism.reduced *. to g ebate of chattel slavery. (4) .By the single £r theory all taxes would be abolished except that on land. This tax^ would be a small one to start with, but would be gradually increased until it absorbed all the ground rent. He said that it would be a eood thing for the morals of the landlords, for it saved, them from robbing the people. The land was made for all the people, therefore tho people had the best right to the ground rent, which should be paid to the State. Mr Withy favoured the single tax, for it was a direct tax, and direct taxes were best, being more easily and cheaply collected. He claimed for the single tax that it reduces the complexity of government . .takes ground" rentß and uses them for public purposes ; that capital now locked up in land would be set free ; that it leads to absolute frco trade ; paves tho ■wav for a federation of all English-speaking nations now baned by hostile tariffs ; and eventually OP*"* fcho wa^ fco the millen"^warm discuraion followed, in which Mewsrs Farrington, O. T. Penshaw, Pheney. White rind We«t took part, Mr, Farrjngton objected to people who owned land being called robbers. Monoy

could be invested in a bank and interest received on it, and it was all right, but if the same money were invested in land, that man would be called a robber. He denied the assertion that land nationalisation would set capital free; for when the Government took his land they took his money, which was locked up in it. He thought it would be a hard thing for the New Zealand Government to seize the land which they had sold to private persons without compensating them. Messrs West and C. T. Renshaw spoke on the side of laud nationalisation, referring to land monopoly and its effect on wages, etc.