WHANGAREI MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.

Northern Advocate, 9 July 1887, Page 3

WHANGAREI MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.

On Friday evening, the 17th June, '"M* F. ; Kysh gave an excellent lecture on land nationalization. He considered that the present system of . land tenure was reducing the masses to slavery, and a change would come about before long. In the old country there was a vast mass of discontented people threatening the very existence of the empire, and tbeir claims would have to be hoard. He asserted that as a rule poverty was duo to unequal distribution, more especially in populous countries ; and whero there was most room there was least poverty. In a free country a man was supposed to enjoy his own earnings, but how could he do this when another man got the most of them? The earth should belong to all, not to the descendant of a few individuals who had obtained estates by such means a s violence or roguery. To . expect a farmer to thrjve. under existing land laws was as reasonable as if an individual were placed in the middle of the Atlantic and told to walk ashore. The idea of hind nationalization might seem utopian, but he reminded his hearers that the greater part of Sir Thomas Moore's ideas had come to pass in our day. It might take us some time to get used to it, but a beginning should be made by placing a heavy tax on unoccupied land. Mr Elliott thought virgin soil of no value until it was improved, and that the man who improved the land should own it. He was afraid too that the land nationalization might drive away capital from the country. At .the same time Jhe heartily agreed with Mr Kysli as toY heavy tax on unimproved land. . „S Mr J. D. McKenzie believed inland nationalization, and thought are tribution was inevitable. If an example was needed of the iniquity of the present system let them take Ireland. He considered that the landlords of that country were the real murderers of Bourke and.

Cavendish. If he wore an Irishman ho would consider himself justified in going almost any length to rid the country of landlord oppression. Mr Sealey believed in freeholds of limited size with a right of commonage amounting to acre per acre of the freehold. The present system of land tenure in Englaud was a disgrace to civilization, and its days were numbered. In old times the greatest rascal got the most land. If a redistribution were decided upon he would bo in favour of giving the present owners any compensation. They have had their innings long enough. Mr H. McKenzie thought that the distribution of wealth would 'always' be a serious difficulty and the case will not be met by land nationalization. Mr D. C. Wilson agreed with Mr Sealey that the days of landlordism were numbered. It was a most absurd state of affairs when a few individuals owned a country and all the rest of the people wero their slaves. • : . Mr Dukes thought some 5 change necessary, but believed more in cooperation as a" cure for the present evils. The socialists who advocated land nationalization were a very objectionable class of people, especially those of Sydney and Melbourne. . Mr Carruth did not think land nationalization would bring about such happy changes. It would not be right to limit the wealth of industrious people, and .prevent them from owning the homes they lived in. Mr Kysh then; briefly replied, but a poll was not tsfeen. This gentlemen will give a paper entitled " Compensation " later on, with the object of having the subject properly debated, and some new members have joined who hold opposite views, so that the debate will not be so ono sided. '

On Friday, the 25th June the business of the evening was a debate. "Should a man open his wifes letters." Affirmative, Eev, J; Dukes, negative Mr D. Wilson. Mr Dukes based his arguments on the axiom that a wife should have no secrets from her husband, while Mr Wilson contended that a man should- mind his own business. Messrs Elliott, Steadman, and Pollock, spoke in the affirmative, while Messrs H. and J. McKenzie. . Storey, Sealey, D. McKenzie and Carruth all spoke in ■ the negative. The subj ect was viewed in a variety of aspects, but a large number of ladies were present, and the negative side appeared to be most in favour. Mr .. Carruth then tested the opinion of the 'class first, and afterwards of the whole audience. The results were as follows :— Ought a man to open his wifes letters? This met a unanimous negative. Ought a man to know the contents of his wife's letter ? For, eleven, against; two. The whole audience — for 20, against six, and a number did not vote. The same question was put to the ladies alone, and all voted in favour of the affirmative except .two obstinate young ladifs who appeared to think that a man had no business with his wife's letters under aay circumstances.