WORKING MEN'S ASSOCIATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1613, 14 February 1866, Page 2

WORKING MEN'S ASSOCIATION.

' I A meeting of the members of this society waihelii last night, at the Hall. Mr. Kbmt occupied the chair, and in the course of his remarks stated, that at a previous meeting, it had been resolved that the policy j ot the various candidates for the Supeiinten- j dency should be discussed,, and that it had been settled by ballot that the policy of Mr. Travers should be the first to come under discussion. Mr. Mansell opened the debate, and spoke in favour of Mr. Travers's scheme f6r selling the hill land at £1 per acre. He (the speaker) thought that the project would prove a very beneficial one to the province, as it would enable the Gov i nment to become lenders of money, instead of being borrowers. There was a vast deal of land now lying idle for want of purchasers at the present price of £2 an acre, and it was surely more advisable to get a reduced price for it than to suffer this state of things to continue. Under existing arrangements the Government could not get five shillings an acre for the land; if Mr. Travers's idea was carried out and the land sold at £1 per acre, a great benefit would accrue to the province. The land regulations might be very good, but there was no reason why they should be like the laws of the Medes and Persians —unchangeable. Dr. FLORANeu objected to Mr. Travers's scheme ; he did not consider it practical. The soil and climate of New Zealand rendered the value of land so great, that he thought it unadvisableto part with it at a lower price than the one now fixed. Mr. Smith was entirely opposed to the adoption of Mr. Travers's scheme of selling the land at £1 per acre, but still more to his system of encouraging immigration. There were already more people in Canterbury than could find employment, and no more persons were required. If immigration was promoted, wages must be lowered ; in fact, they were already being so. He knew an instance in which an employer actually offered a workman 3s 6d per day, and this he (the speaker) considered an insult to any one. He was sure that if Mr, Travers's project were realised, it would be a great detriment to the working classes, instead of being a benefit to them. As such, the association ought vehemently to oppose it. Mr. Campbell took the opposite view of the subject, and approved of Mr. Travers's policy. Mr. Mills thought that the hill country ought not to be parted with at a low price. Possibly the lands in question might prove as valuable on account of their mineral productions as others are for agricultural purposes. Mr. Sr. Qoentin was strongly opposed to the ideas of Mr. Travers. If they were carried out they would tend solely to the benefit of what he might call the " Squatocracy." It was all very well for Mr. Travers to talk of raising a million of money by selling the hill country, but where are the purchasers to come from? Was it likely that run-holders in Victoria, and elsewhere would leave their runs and take up land in Canterbury even at £1 per acre, which was a higher price than they were at present paying. He thought that a change ought to be made with respect to preemptive rights but they ought not to be altogether abolished. A run-holder should be entitled to a pre-emptive right,if he made some valuable improvements on his run. He ought to obtain the right if he put up a substantial house, but not if he merely set up a wire fence. Mr. Worth should most earnestly protest against Mr. Travers's policy. If carried out, it would force the squatters to become the purchasers of the runs now held by them, and the land would thus be for ever alienated from the general public. The supporters of Mr. Travers were fairly open to the charge of inconsistency, for one portion alleged that he wished to sweep away pre-emptive rights, and the other, that he wished to support them. He (the speaker) would like to see these rights supported ; but he thought that their present arrangement was susceptible of improvement. Mr.' Lee spoke against the policy of Mr. Travers, which he disapproved of on many grounds. Mr. Amdbbws inan able address, supported Mr. Travers's policy, replying to the arguments of the previous speakers. After some further discussion, the meeting which had been continued for half-an-hour beyond the usual time, adjourned.