THE ANTI-POVERTY LEAGUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8285, 18 June 1890, Page 6

THE ANTI-POVERTY LEAGUE.

DEBATE ON LAND NATIONALISATION, A meeting of the Anti-Poverty League took place last evening at Wesley Hall, when a public discussion took place between the Rev. Dr. Wallis and the Rev. Dr. Hooper, M.A., of Mount Albert, on the question Land Nationalisation, Dr. Hooper speaking in favour of that system, and Dr. Wallis against it. There was a large attendance. Among the audience were four clergymen, namely, the Revs. J. Chew, R. Somanerville, Worker, and Long, and a number of citizens who take a leading part in the discussion of political questions. Mr. Hoold, Vice-President of the Society, [ presided, and briefly introduced Dr. Wallis. lie said usually from that platform they heard nothing but speeches in favour of Land Nationalisation. Dr. Wallis had the courage of his opinions, and they were obliged to him for coming forward to propound his views in opposition. It was always well to hear both sides, and then form a calm and matured decision on the question before them. Dr. W.u.i.is on coming forward was received with cheers. He said his object in coming forward was to vindicate the right) of private property in land against Henry George and his followers. What was property It was the right to the exclusive use of anything within "the bounds of law and reason, and this lie illustrated by various examples. He could see no reason why land should not bo owned privately us well as any other kind of property. There was private property and public property. He admitted that there had been community in land, but with civilisation came individual ownership. He based his objections to land nationalisation on five grounds, which he would deal with seriatim. The first was that laud was nob essentially or materially different from other kinds of property owned privately. There were many points of similarity ami analogy between land and any other kind of property. There were 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, and he described the "points of analogy. It was a delusion to think that land produced wealth without labour, or that 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 private property in land or individual ownership of land had grown with the growth of civilization, while communal or national ownership had been repudiated by all civilized nations. Mankind had had an extensive experience of land nationalisation, and whenever a, step was taken in advance it was from savagery and communism to civilisation and individual ownership of laud. The nations who adopted the latter system were characterised by a history of activity, life, progress. The right of private property in land had come down the ages, and was bound up with all we knew of modern civilization. The third point was, that private or individual property iu land is involved in the idea and claim .of national independence. Henry George's doctrine was, the land of the world belonged to the people of the world, and the speaker read a quotation from George's work, " Progress and Poverty,"' to that effect. He called such a sentiment pure, unadulterated Georgoism. Henry George was not consistent throughout his book, for the whole tenor of it was land nationalisation ; whereas, it should have been from his first principles the humanisation of the Land. All he claimed was America for the Americans, England for the English. That was the right of private property in land by nations. If the land of the world belonged to the people of the world, what right had 40 millions of people in England to say to the 1300 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 terras?'' The fourth point was that an individual's right to the exclusive use of land was perfectly consistent with man's social and natural rights, and this he reasoned out at some length. And his last point was that private ownership of land was far more productive anil more advantageous to the nation at large than State ownership. In some countries the land was held by those bad men known as landlords—(laughter)—who leased their land to tenants ; and in others it was held by peasant proprietors. Ho showed that under the system in England, the landlords, who got 2£ per cent, for their investments in land, bore burdens, which, under land nationalisation, would be transferred to the State, and that the landed gentrynoted for their liberality and patriotism—would be supplanted by needy and venal demagogues, wnose dirty services at elections would have to be rewarded. The magic power of private property was great. It made men thrifty, industrious, frugal, while communism meant the Government stroke. A peasant proprietary or yeomanry, he was free to confess, produced more from the land than could be got under the tenancy of private persons or the State. Such a class of proprietors was a tower of strength to the .State, and largely contributed to sound prosperity. He had intended saying something of the evils and errors of land nationalisation, but his time was fully up. (Cheers.)

Dr. Hooper followed in reply, and was received with hearty cheers. He said ho proposed to take up the five points propounded by Dr. Wallis, and answer them as concisely as possible. With regard to the first point, that land is not essentially or materially different from other kinds of property owned privately, he thought that was practically begging the question, but ha would pass that over. As a believer in Henry George's doctrines he held that there were two strong reasons why land was different to any other kind of property. 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 or 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 syndicates they would have the legal right to order the people out of the country, and the latter would have no right to any produce from the land. Dr. Wallis seemed to look upon land as the capital of the farmer, but the followers of Henry George did not believe it could be capital. Capital was stored np labour —land was not so, but it was that alone from which we could produce everything. It was a fallacy —a begging of the question—to call land capital. The land could not be converted into crops, it could never be otherwise than what it is. lie had a right to the crops because they were the outcome of labour, but the land was not so produced. With regard to the second point advanced by Dr. Wallis, he admitted there was great truth in it—private property in land had grown with civilization, but so much the worse for civilization. (Cheers.) Many blessings we received from God, but the blessing of civilization was sometimes turned into a curse. The higher the civilization, now-a-days, the wider the gulf and the deeper the vortex into which the landless were precipitated. As the Roman Empire advanced, private ownership in land became in the ascendant, and Italy was kept behind and low in the scale of civilisation, because she had not yet recovered from private landlordism. Rome, instead of being quoted as an example, should bo a beacon to the nations, for the freemen died out, and slaves tilled the soil. Modern nations wore tending towards her goal, and would be only saved by land nationalization and the Single Tax. With regard to Dr. Wallis' 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 be 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. He held that if the I Maoris had fully occupied and cultivated i the land the colonists had no righb

to be here. The only plea for their presence was the wastes of uncultivated land. The landlords might fight for the land; but how could a people who were losing their hold upon the land and their interest in it have any feeling of patriotism eifclier in England or here in New Zealand, where the land was held by a few landlords ? As to Dr. Wallis's fourth point, he hold there would be no chance of a man being turned off the land while he paid tho stipulated rent to the State. Dr. Wallis said a man had a right to life, and the necessary opportunities to maintain life. In saying that he was conceding all that Henry George had claimed and maintained. As to Dr. Wallis's last point —that private ownership of land is far more productive and more advantageous to the nation at large than State ownership — he (Dr. Wallis) was ontitled to tho courage of his opinions after looking upon New Zealand, whero largo tracts of lands were lying idle, unused, and uncultivated, till the owners could wring the highest price from the public for them. Dr. Wallis was wise in selecting the English tenants, and pointing to their kindly relations with their landlords, for these were better than in Scotland and in Ireland. They had not to take the best instances, but tho places where the principles were at work without modifying causes. The landlords certainly gave dwellings, bub such dwellings! Why, in some places tho horses of the landed gentry were far better housed. Tie knew many of these landlords were kindly men, and did a good work among their people, but men' wanted their rights, not charity. Land nationalisation would give that magic of property which Dr. Wallis alluded to, and that stimulus which was needed. They did not want a landed gentry hero, with their social and political influence, but that all should have the same chance of distinction and influence. He agreed with much that Dr. Wnllis had said in eulogy of the English country gentlemen, but that gentleman drew an alarming picture of their being supplanted by low, dirty demagogues. By land nationalisation the demagogue's occupation would bo goue, for everybody would be comfortable save fools and rogues, and people in comfortable circumstances were not likely to be led away by demagogues. (Cheers.) Dr. Wallis briefly replied to Ins opponent.

Mr. Kelly moved and Mr. Cowlky seconded a vote of thanks to the speakers. The debate was conducted with perfect courtesy and good temper. The proceedings closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman, who announced that next month Mr. W. J. Napier would deliver an address before the League upon tho same subject.