Oruru Debating Society.

Northland Age, Volume 4, Issue 3, 3 September 1907, Page 7

Oruru Debating Society.

leasehold v. Freehold. There was a very small attendance of this Society at tho Qruru School-room on Saturday night, the threatening appearance of the weathor doubtless affecting the less stout-hearted though tho subject of debate, Leasehold v. Freehold, should have proved most attractive. A number of ladies including Mesdames A. D. Lambly, Berry, White and Rowe and the Misses Lambly and Weßton graced the meeting and thereby displayed greater enthusiasm than some of tho gentlemen who should have taken active part in the discussion.

Mr. White in an able speech, well thought out, and foroibly delivered, advocated leasehold tenure as the only just system of controlling the wealth of the couhti y. He claimed that “ landlordism ” was at the root of all the misery and destitution in the world, quoted the horrible want occasioned by .tho landlords in the “Old Country” having possession of more lands than they required, and being thus able to refuse the right of tho soil to men who could and would earn a comfortable living if only they were permitted to use the land on reasonable terras. The necessity for everyone, who wished, to be able to work the soil at a rental was emphasised but Mr. White contended that as a rule the freehold tenure which gave the ground into the possession of a few, made landlords usurers in the Bense that their one idea was to obtain rent, more rent, and as much rent as possible from the unfortunate being who was farming a heritage which should belong to tho peopleand to the people only. Under direct government control, with none permitted to inherit and only the man who used the land being permitted to occupy and rent it, there could be no question that there would be less misery and greater national wealth and the taxation by being distributed (by means of rentals) more evenly over the whole—upon the land which is the source of all wealth—would relieve much necessity and give scope for the advancement of all; this was Mr. White’s contention, he frankly avowing himself a socialist and evidently glorying iu tho statement.

Mr. Nawton speaking in favor of “ freehold ” held that the “ leaseholders” were beating down the farmers and not raising up the nation, that in placing the government iu control of the land it would mean a far worse “ landlordism ” than anything which Mr. White had described, government departments being without soul, body, mind or sympathy. Ab to the misery in the world this was brought about by individual laziness, or other sins, and not by any disability to earn a livelihood, at least through the locking up of lands as the landed proprietor, even in the “Old Country” paid out quite as much for labour as could bo earned on his soil.

Mr. John Garton supported the leasehold in a telling speech showing by a balance sheet which he had prepared, that the leaseholder had more opportunity of making a good living than had the freeholder. His oonviction was that sentiment was at the root of the 'clamour for freehold.

Messrs. Miller and Rowe spoke in favor of the freehold argument and made some smart points, Mr. Rowe insisting that taxing the land meant taxing the produce of the land which had to compete in the markets of the whole world.

Replying, Mr. White was of opinion that the question at issue had been entirely burked by his opponents and it was evident that the audience agreed with him, for a vote was recorded with a small majority in favor of leasehold. Mr. A. D. Lambly, the president of the Society, supervised the debate with tact and impartiality and at the conclusion the ladies, with fairy grace, made glad the heart of mere mortal man with coffee and delicacies.