POLITICS AND POVERTY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6603, 14 April 1883, Page 2

POLITICS AND POVERTY.

Mr Robert Stout gave a lecture on the abov« subject last night at tho Lyceum Hall, which waa crowdod in every part. The Mayor of Dunedin occupied the chair, and on the platform were Messrs H. 8. Fish (M.H.R.), M. W. Green (M.H.R.), T. Bracken (M.H.R.), W. D. Stewart, J. W. Jago, A. H. Ross, J. Robin, \V. M. Bolt, and J. Braithwaite.

His Worship the Mayoii, in introducing Mr Stout, said : Ladies and gentlemen, I havo to introduce to you to-night a gentleman who has been so long and favourably known to a Dunodiu audience that I do not need to say one word to you about him. He ha 3 always taken a lively interest, both by hia action on the platform and by hia pen, in everything affecting, not only Dunedin, but the Colony at large, He has been known as a politician, as a Minister of the Crown, and probably as legal adviser to most of you here present.— (Laughter.) The only difference betwoen his meeting you in the latter capacity and hia meeting you here to-night is a difference against himself, inasmuch as he cannot charge you for the advice he is about to give.—(Laughter.) I don't need, however, to ask from you a patient hearing | for him; and , therefore, without further remark, I will introduce Mr Stout to you. Mr Stodt spoke as follows •• Mr Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, if it has been recently admitted that there can be no good government, no progress nor reform, without political life, and if it has also been admitted that this political life can best be stimulated by public discussion, and by tiie public meeting of citizens, I need not apologise for addressing you. I congratulate Major Atkinson on the admission which he has made that political life is necessary, and that it must bo diffused throughout the Colony, and not confined to 'its capital. 1 also congratulate the i»arty of which he is one of the leaders on their leader making such an admission. When I think how Sir Georgo Grey waa abused, and how hs was denounced for meeting tho citizens of this Colony in public meeting, and fordiseunsing with them vital political questions, I recognise that we have made a great advance in our political education.—(Applause.) I think that this admission having boon made, it nerves us all to publicly discuss public questions, for 1 believe that on their proper decision depends tho future well-being of our Colony. In what attitude and in what position, it may be asked, did Major Atkinson address us? I recognise to the fnllest extent that he did not make a party speech. I recognise also to the fullest cxtont that hi.? speech was free from the personal criticisms that often form the staple of political utterances in this Colony.—(Applause.) I recognise, further, that his speeches are free from party bias. But he is a party man, he is Colonial Treasurer, and he is the leader of the Ministry in the House of Representatives. Therefore ho is not an ordinary lecturer giving utterance to his political views. He is a political leader, and we must assume and believe that he thinks that these p»litieal doctrines which he has enunciated are necessary for our welfare. And then, what is our duty? I apprehend that our duty is to carefully criticise overy portion of his speech, and boo whether it is politically sound or not. If we fail to do so, wo are not doing our duty as citizens. We have no right to take the views of any man, or to accept any political doctrinos, without careful criticism — without turning them over, and looking at them from all points of view.—(Applause.) I therefore propose to-night to deal with the several political question? on which ho has touched, and to see whether tho positions he takes tip are politically sound. He dealt in the main } with six questions,—viz., with our Constitution, with our Legislative Council, with the functions of Government, with taxation, with land tenure, and with pauperism ; and to-night I wish to say a few words under each of these heads. He says of our Constitution that it is almost perfect, and the only alteration which ho would make is tho introduction of what is termed harm's sohkjie op eephesentation*.

It would take a lecture in itself were I to endeavour to explain Haro's scheme to you; but I may say that the scheme which we now have is the very antipodes of Hare's scheme. Hare's scheme consists in this: that instead of confining the constituency to one small district, the are to have a wide choice, and minorities are to ba allowed to join together; so that the minority, say, in Dunedin, Chriscchurch, or Auckland may be able to Bend one man to represent them. Our present idea is this : that there shall be single electorates, and that each electoral district shall only return one man. This is the very opposite of Hare's scheme : it almost deprives any minority of_ the power of sending a representative to Parliament. I ask, and I think you have a right to ask, that if it is proper to have the representation of minorities, how comes it that the system that had existed in New Zealand for many years should have boen altered by Major Atkinson's Ministry ? Wo had, for example, tho towns united as one electoral district. Wo had several electoral districts in the Colony—, like Franklin, Wanganui, and other places — returning two members. Why was it that the single-electorate system was introduced into this Colony? And I ask if, as we learn from him, thero was a great danger of the centres of population ruling, how does it happen that under his system tho centres of population have full representation given to them ? Dunedin, under the old system, had only three members, and now we have four. I say that tho solo reason for the introduction of this single-electorate system was an attempt by tho Conservatives of the House of Representatives to stem the growth of democracy.— (Applause.) Their hopes were just the samo as the hopes of the Conservatives in France, as those "f the Conservatives in Italy—because this question is not beinpr fought out in our Colony for tho first time. Wo have only to read what has been done in France during the last few years, or in Italy, and what do wo find ? We find the Conservatives in France determined to get what might be termed the single-electorate system. We find that the Conservatives in Italy fought for tho same thing. They do not want to see large masses of men sending in ono or more members. They trusted to local questions engaging tho people's mind, so that the large democratic questions which they are called upon as a nation to solve would be kept away from them. They teliod upon their at tentiou being bestowed upon little paddling things—a road here, a britige thero, and a railway in another place. Therefore, if Hare's system in ono which gives a representation to minorities, and is a good system, we had no business to introduce this single-electorate system, which has a tendency to keep the minds of the people in a narrow groove, and to stop them from discussing political questions from a wide standpoint. But I must say—and I here agree with Major Atkin-. son—that I do not think Hare's systam would work. If wo would introduce proportional representation, there are many systems better than Hare's. We may take Bell's, or a well worked out system recently referred to }by Professor Anson, of Melbourne, in a paper read before the Victorian Royal fjneioty a few months ago. Tho latter allows a man to do this sort of thing: Suppose there are three candidates to bo elected, a man may say, " Wo will voto for two or three, and if these are not successful we prefor two farther down tho list "; so that he is given a chance, if one candidate does not go in, of putting in another. The maintenance of the largo electoral district system was tho only hope of New Zealand gotting rid of tho petty local questions that monopolise our House of Representatives, and I charge Major Atkinson's Government— I do not charge him, for it was well known that some of the members introduced tin's single-electorate system—with saying : "If this is introduced the town 3 will bo split up, so that a democracy will not bo able to voice itself." I now pass to what he said in refereuco to tho

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. I understand from him that he is in favour of the constitution of tho Legislative Council being altered, and I here ask, Why alter it ? Does he want the Legislative . Council stronger than it is? If ho wants that it will mean, I presume, that the Council shall oppose moro vigorously than in the past the legislation that is proposed by tho House of Representatives—in fact, that though our machinery has worked smoothly in the past, tile Legislative Council shall be made so strong that we shall have on era of deadlocks*. Does anyone want the Legislative Council any stronger? If not stronger, does ho want it mado weaker ? If he wishes that, what does l)e mean » That there is to be less control over the legislation of Now Zealand by this second Chamber than there lias been iv the past ? If you will read what took place during last session of Parliament, you will find that tho Legislative Council, while considering bills, never took the trouble to dispose of one clause at a time, aud iv Committee they actually voted for 100 clauses of bills at a time without a reading. It cannot be very well mado weaker than it now is.—(Applause.) Why, then, is the Legislative Council to be altered ? I ask Major Atkinson, or anyone who desires an alteration in tho constitution of that body, to say what he means, and whether the poople of New Zealand are to allow a second Chamber to grow stronger, so that we- shall have those ruinous deadlocks we see occur in the neighbouring Colony of Victoria. Here I ask, Is a second Chamber necessary at all ? —(A Voice : "No."} I assert it is r.ot necessary.—(Applause.) I apprehend the only nocessity of a second Chamber is to supervise and provide against hasty legislation. Now we can only judge of the good that our second Chamber has done by tracing its history, and I tell you that every vital bill—every bill that really touched our Constitution on a vital point, every bill checked, however orude. One has only to look which was really a political bill—has never been at the Abolition of Provinces Bill—one on which the people had not been consulted, and one which, I believe, worked a groat deal of harm to thia Colony. What did the Legislative Council do with that bill ? Only two or three members out of the whole of the Council saw fit to criticise it, far less to oppose it. If you look at the record of bills passed in New Zealand you will find that tho only bill in reference to which the Legislative Council seemed to take up a determined position was the Doceased Wife's Sistor Bill—(laughter) —and at last they passed it, What good, I ask, has our second Chamber done? It has never taken up the position of saying in regard'to a bill, "The poople have not boen consulted, and you must defer it until they can bo consulted." There has been no bill altering a policy which has not at once been accepted. How are we to test its usefulness '! I appeal to you to look at its past history, and you will find that in only two or three cases was any good done ■by it 9 refusal to pass bills. And one has only to remember the history of seoond Chambers. How did they arise ? Why, we well know from history that it was the

House of Commons that was the second Chamber, and that it waa given to the people by the Lords, in order that there might be some ref>re>entation of the common people in Engand, and consequently the second Chamber grew in England out of political exigencies that wo havo not had in New Zealand. But wo havo had in New Zealand a legislative body that had no second Chamber. We had our Provincial Councils, that had power to tax us — that had power to pass laws creating offences — powor to deal with the whole social economy. They passed laws without any supervision from a second Chambor, and I say that if you weigh the laws they have passed they will stand just as careful criticism as any that have been passed by the two Chambers.—(Applause.) Wo therefore have tried the experiment, and I say that if there is any alteration whatever of the Legislative Council it will be an alteration that will cast greater power into the hands of the propertyholders —it will bo an alteration that will give property greater weight and power than it now has, and if we are to alter it at all, the alteration I should suggest is that it be done without.—(Applause.) Now I come to the other point—" the functions of Government," and I regret that here we are now getting on to the twentieth century, and, according to Major Atkinson's speech, after nil our political training, after all instances that have been written, after all tho books on political science that havo been published, after all the experiments in government we have had, extending back for thousands of years, we are reduced to this chaotic position. He says that what the duty or function of tho Government is, nobody knows.—(Laughter.) Certainly, if that is so, we are in a very lamentable plight. He says that the only thing that is to guide us is this : that we are to determine from time to time what it is for the advantage of the people that the Government should do. That is, a chance majority in tho House is to determine what the functions of the Government are. I deny that that is so. I say that tho function of Government, if we are to have true liberty in any State, must bo limited, and that it must not depend upon a chance majority. Why, gentlemen, if the functions of the Government are to be determined by a chance majority, what will you say lias been right or wrong in tho past? A majority of people in England, and perhaps a majority of the people in Scotland, say that a State Church is right, and if you put tho question to the people of Ireland, I have no doubt that a majority of the people would say that it i 3 the duty of tho State to support the Roman Catholic Church. I ask, If this is to be our test of the functions of Government, where is the true liberty for the individual—for the minority? 1 say that the whole function of Government is this: not merely to recognise the rights of tho minority, but to recogniso individual liberty ; to so pass laws, to so manage its affairs, and to so administer tho State, that there shall be given to every individual man the fullest liberty, subject to the like liberty to everyone in the community.—(Applause.) I say that wherever the functions of Government tread on that liberty, that Government is a usurper—that Government is becoming a despotism. I admit, however, to the full that jn new countries—through want of historical associations, through want of the habit of organisation amongst residents in new colonies—tho State may have to stepin and do things that it is not necessary in old countries that Governments should undertake ; but I say it is our duty to watcli closely tho inroads of the State on the individuality of tho people. If we ever choose to say that the only limit of the State's functions are the views of a chance majority, we are laying the foundation for a despotism, tho ond of which wo cannot now see; and I say that this theory of Major Atkinson's, that there is no limit of the State functions but what a chance majority may decide is the fallacy underlying the whole of his proposed political changes, with which I shall deal presently. And now I may say one or two words on taxation. Ho told us that Adam Smith's four canons of taxation were yot resognised as correct, and I may say this: it is almost marvellous, when one comes to read recent writers on political economy, to find how little they have yet done on this great question of taxation, and how little advance they have madn beyond Adam Smith's four canons— " equality, certainty, convenience, and economy." The last three no one ever questioned ; it is only when one comes to deal with the question of equality that any differences of opinion arise. I do not intend to go into Major Atkinson's figures—l have not time to do so—but I wish to say something about the question of the relative fairness of a LA.YD AS'D PROPERTY- TAX.

Those in this meeting who wore in the Colony in 187S know that I then advocated the land tax, and I may say that I have not seen any reason to change my mind.—(Applause.) Tha question is, whether a land tax or a property tax is the fairer tax. Lot us test it. Major Atkinson told us that if a man had £1200 worth of land, and the State demanded £2 10s per year from him, that he would term " confiscation." It is an ugly word, " confiscation," and it is said that to take £2 10s a year from a landowner who holds a monopoly over that which he never made and never created is " confiscation." Let us see: If I come to this Colony with £1200 worth of goods—wo shall say jewellery,—what does the State officer demand from me before I land them ? The demand on the goods iB 15 per cent, of their value—a vory different thing from the £2 10s on the £1200 worth of land. I ask what would you call that tax which says to a man with £1200 worth of goods, You must pay me 15 per cent, on their value? Would "confiscation" ba too ugly a word to use ? But that is not all. He has paid the 15 per cont. on the jewellery, and he may bo told by the Major, " You have paid the duty, and it is now in the Colony, and you can put that 15 per cenV. on and charge it to the person who in buying it from you.' Well, let us see how that works. Wo will now take the property tax. The property tax is a tax on what the thing is worth. Then ho has to pay this halfponny in the pound on the £1200 worth of jewellery, and he has to pay the halfpenny in the pound on the 15 per cent, he has paid the Government; so that ho is taxed on the tax ho has paid. What would you call that ? Would confiscation bo an ugly word for it ? And then I ask you, in dealing with tiiis question of property tax and land tax, to look at tha great distinction between the two. If you have land you have the producer. It is land that is the producer of everything we possess. If you have £1200 worth of land it will produce something : it will produce grass; it will produce grain; it may produce coal or various other things, and without any effort from you it may produce a great many things. But keep the £1200 worth of jewellery, and the longer you keep it the less valuable it becomes. It-is giving you no return. It is not producing anything. Yet a charge of a halfpenny on the land, which is the producer—which is a monopoly— in confiscation ; but a charge of a halfpenny on jewellery (which has already been taxed 15 per leant, ia a fair and equal tax.—(Laughter.) I ask further, in dealing with this question of a land and property tax, that we should look at what is the tendency of either tax. If it is said that the tendency of tho land tax is to diminish the valuo of land, I apprehend that the Bame tax put on personal property cannot increase its value. Surely that is self-evident, But I ask you, how does the property tax act ? We shall say, for example, that here ia machinery. Jloro is a man who \yishes to start a now industry. Ho puts all his money into the machinery. He knows that perhaps for soveial years he cannot possibly get interest on his money. In starting that new industry he has to work under great difficulties—he has to work under great disadvantages. He has not only to train workmen who will be able to manufacture for him, but ho has actually to cultivate a market, so that the colonists may accept his goods rather than prefer the articles they have been accustomed to. During this time he will necessarily lose money; yet upon all his machinery he has to pay a tax to the Government, Is that a way of encouraging production? I apprehend that the object of the State should be to keep two things in view in dealing with taxation. Tho State ought'to see, first that it encourages production, because that is tho only means of making the citizens wealthy. Second, it ought to sco that its taxation tends to encourage thrift. That is what we have heard spoken of a good deal lately. I ask you how does tho property tax act, say, on two men, both getting the same incomb, both having the samd sized families ? One man saves a hundred pounds; the'other man saves nothing. Tho one man at once, after the limit of £500 is reached, begins to pay a tax on his savings to the Government; while the person who spends all his money escapes all taxation. Is that encouragement of thrift ? But we maybe told: "Oh, but the property tax, you know, will stop people from having unused capital that is not productive." I ask, are there a dozim peoplo in this Colony who keep their money in a stocking ? And'l say if you put your money in a bank it is not unproductive. Every person who knows anything about commerce knows that just as deposits in the banks increase, the facilities for commerce increase. The banks, as they get larger deposits, will lend money out cheaper; and if so, there will bo moro industries started,' more workmen employed, and the capital will be circulating throughout the Colony. There ia therefore no such thing as capital unused in this Colony. There are perhaps two ways in which capital may not bo reproductive. Wo have heard something about pictures, and also about furniture. Well, Ido not think all the pictures and furniture in New Zealand are of such immense value as to require tho Treasurer to insist on taxing them specially. But I say further, it should not over bo the duty of the State to discourage tho possession of pictures. If they have been imported they have already paid 15 per cent. Picture-frames have to pay 10 per cent.; and I say if there is one thing tho Colony requires to encourage it is the fine arts,—(Cheers.) In order to create true humanity in this Colony, we must have culture : and I say there will be no proper culture—l do not mean culture for the few, but for the many—until we have in all centres of population large picturegalleries, so that the minds of the people can be continually elevated.—(Cheers.) Therefore, if it is only for the sake of getting at pictures, Burely the Government, instead of trying to discourage the fine arts, should do its best to encourage them. Where you have a love of the beautiful you will necessarily have a dislike of vice.—(Cheers.) Another thing said about the land tax is, Why tax land, and not other property ? Let me give- some reasons, First, I tell you that the tax we put on land, and that is proposed to be put on land, was of the smallest possible amount. What do you think was tho total amount estimated to come from

the land tax first put on, for the whole Colony of Now Zealand ? It was only £100,000 for the whole Colony. Was that a large tax to put' on the landowners when one considers the

millions of money that have been borrowed to make land more valuable. I will tell you WHY THE LAND TAX WAS FIRST ECT CW. What did we see ? We saw this Colony had expended not one million, not two millions, not ten millions, but nearly double that in improving; the lands of this Colony. We saw that the lands of this Colony had increased in value ; and this increase in value had not been caused by the landowners, but by the State. It had been caused by the increase of population and by their industry. We said :Is it fair that all these railways should bo made, that all these bridges should be built, that all theae roads should be constructed, and that all the interest for these vast sums of money should come from the Consolidated Revenue — from those who are perhaps landless—and that the landowner should escape free of taxation ?—(Cheers.) We said, This is not fair, and it is our duty to put on a land tax. And how did we put it on? We said it was our duty, if we could do so by a tax, to encourage thrift; and hence wo provided that for every acre a man tilled, for every improvement, for every house, for every fence he put up, no tax should be charged. We encouraged him to improve hiß land by exempting; all improvements from taxation. We taxed the bare land on its value, exempting all improvements, so that he might be encouraged to improve his land and make it most productive for the benefit of the State.—(Cheers.) I ask whether that was not fairer than pntting on a property tax ? I ask you to note, in regard to the property tax, this distinction.,Wo find that as the Colony advanced land went up andup in price, while money or personal property fradnally cheapened. 1 remember that when came to the Colony first in the gold-digging days, interest on mortgages was often 15 per cent., and in very few cases was.it 12£ per cent.; but as the millions began to flow in freely, and the Public Works Bcheme progressed, and after people began to save, money went down in price. People could only get 10, 8, 7, perhaps only 0 per cent, for their money. So you will see that while the land all the while was mounting in value, personal property was practically decreasing in value. I ask, therefore, was there anything wrong in determining that the land, when it was gradually increasing in value, should pay a small proportion—a very small proportion—of the burdens imposed on the people, in order to make it more valuable '! That is the theory of a land tax as opposed t:> the theory of a property tax. I will say one word more about taxation. I say that a land tax is defensible on another ground; I say that it is defensible, even if the State did not make a single railway, road, or bridge. I will tell you why. LAND, A MONOPOLY. Land is a monopoly, and it will always remain a monopoly. I, however, believe that the land should belong to the State, and not to individuals.— (Applause) The only reason wiy land is given to an individual is that it may be made most productive; and it is contended by Mill and various other writers that taxes are put on it to get at its value notv. If it is found at the end of 10 or 20 years that a man's land has increased in value, this tax is put on in order to get (Mill says) some portion—not all—of that unearned increase in the value of the land which is continually going ou all over the world. I say, therefore, that a land tax is a fair and equitable tax compared with a property tax. I ask you to remember what has been done by the present Ministry in reference to the property tax. The property tax casts the whole burdens of the country on the customs revenue, and the tax produces a miserable pittance. While the Treasurer says that the Colony is worth many millions, the sum paid annually into the Treasury under tho property tax amounts to £156,000. That is the great good which has been dono under the prosent Government in taxing tha propertied classes, who, owning hundreds of millions'worth of property within the Colony, are only asked to pay £15G,000 a year into the State Treasury. J3ut the radical distinction between a land and a property tax hangs upon LAND TJ2XURE.

Here. I may say that I am quite at a loss to understand what views are held by Major Atkinson on this question of laud tenure. He say 3 that he is favour of free-trado in land. When did free trade in land ever answer, and what does it mean ? It means that a person who owns laud can do with it what he likes. It means that if one person owned Duneilin he could say to the people of Dtmedln, " Clear out. The laud is mine." It reminded him of what a Maori member once said in the House. The Maori was objecting to the form of feo simple, as their lands were going away undor it. He believed in communal rights. He said that if : this mode of depriving the Maoris of their land ! was not stopped, the only thing left lar them would be the main roads on which to stand and view their former possessions. If you once admit that there is to be free trade in land, then the State ha 3no right to control contracts relating to land. In Ireland it has been found necessary to pass a law which says that the landlord shall not fix what rent ho likes. There the (State has said: "We will not recognise free trade in land. 'We appoint Government officers, who will step in between you and the tenant and fix what a fair rent shall be." In order to meet the difficulty in another way, what did they do in France? There the State has said: " You have no right to dispose of your land on your death as you please; but the State will step in and dispose of it for you." Major Atkinson says that after next session there will be free trade in land in this Colony, but this will simply be the beginning of our difficulties. Until this question of land tenure is faced—until Major Atkinson understand the difference between free trade in land and the nationalisation of the laud, —wo cannot hope for any wise land laws. JVow I como to deal with the Major's scheme of NATIONAL INSUEAKCE.

Here, I may say, 1 recognise that we ought to thank him sincerely for tho effort he has made to solve this problem—(hear); but I wish to find out first what solution ho proposes. His solution is that there Bhould be a poll tax on all people between the ages of 16 and 23 and 15 and 23 years; and those between 23 and 48, in order that they may reap the advantages of the system, have also to pay for fivo or seven

years. I want you to know what this money amounts to—what this poll tax which the Major proposes will produce. I find that there are in this Colony about 01,000 people between, the ages of lii and 23. There are really over 62,000 persons; but J have left out, in order that the Major may have the benefit, those in hospitals, criminals, and others from whom the tax cannot be collected. If

you take the average paymenr to be nearly £6—£3 17b is tho sum—the poll tax will produce during the first year £360,000, which is more than double what the

property tax yields. Then these payments go on increasing for seven years, because there aro about 12,000 people between 1G and 18 years coining in. There are probably more than that; but hare we can knock off 2000 or 3000, because the excess of births over deaths is about 13,000 or 14,000 in this Colony. Wo have these immigrants coming in, some between these ages ; so that, even at the lowest calculation, I believe about 12,000 or 13,000 are coming up each year. But in order to do absolute fairness to Major Atkinson's scheme, I have, as before stated, struck off 3000; so that it cannot be said lam over the mark when I Ray that, excluding those in the hospitals, lunatic asylums, and gaols, who will not require to pay, there will bo at the seven years at least anothor CO.OOO persons between the ages of 17

and 23 years. Thus, at the seventh year thoro will be actually £726,000 coining from thin poll tax. Hut there is to be provision made for the widows and orphans, and consequently persons above 23 years have got to pay two shillings a week each for five years longer in order to provide for these widows and orphans. Thus, those above 23 and under 48 have to pay from£(Jto £S for five or seven years. Let us again be generous. There are in the Colony 106,000 persons between tho a#es of 20 and 45. I am quoting from the census of ISSI. Assuming that there are 100,000 males between the ages of 23 and 48; and again, taking the lowest contribution—£G each—you will have £600,000 contributed by this poil tax during tha first yoar, so that under this scheme the people would be called on to pay into the State Treasury for pauperism £96t>,000, and tho propertied class are paying £1515,000. This proposed poll tax will thus produco nearly a million of money during the first year, and if it goes on increas ing it will amount in the fifth or seventh year to more than £1,250,000. Why, bur customs revenue amounts only to £1,500,000; and this poll tax that the Government are going t6 give us will put into the State Treasury more than all the other taxes' put together—l don't consider railway revenue in the nature of a tax—with the exception of our customs revenue, and it will nearly equal that. Now I assume in this calculation that the immigration will at least equal tho deaths. Now I submit to you that this is a very big scheme, and ask you to notice what this big scheme means. We are to have a fund for the relief of pauperism, which will provide for the giving of 153 a week to sick people, without the attendance of a doctor; and for an annuity of 10s for those over 65, and also for ah allowance to widows and orphans. Now, first, I call this taxation on two grounds—because it is a payment in return for services rendored by the State, and it is compulsory. Now if you join' a friendly society or an insurance company, you have not got to pay for sick people. No persons are admitted to a friendly society j or an insurance company without undergoing medical examination, and it is only those in good health, and who are thrifty that are admitted. But under this system the thrifty are to pay for the unthrifty, and the healthy for the sick. Now I ask you where is the money to come from ? It must come eithor from our savings or our present expenditure—that is, the money must come out of the savings of the people, or else they must lesson their expenditure ; and I ask you, is it likely that any unthrifty person will lessen the expenditure ol his money merely because the State makes a tax '> I would like to know of any instance of a man voluntarily doing anything of the sort. It has been said by Major Atkinson wo must not discuss the scheme. He practically says that, because at the meeting at which he spoke after Mr Green he said, " We do not want declamation : show

us a better sehpino" ; and I have hoard, several people say, " Wo do not want criiicism of this scheme. What is your scheme ?" Well, ladies and gentlemen, that puts me in mind of an anecdote. I have known men who have what are termed "fads" gu to a patent-office, and you find half the ideas registered aro useless, and yet men have spent an enormous amount of timo and labour on them. Well, I knew a man who fancied ho .could make a

flying-machino, and he constructed one on a very elaborate plan, r.nd undertook to demonstrate that he could fly with it. At the trial ho turned round and said, " It is all very well for you to criticise, but show me a batter machine."—(Laughter.) I say we have aright, in dieenssing thjs scheme, to say to Major Atkinson: Pauperism is a very bad thing; it

i is a terrible evil, and perhaps by. discussing the means proposed to meet it, we ahaUlaarn, how" the happiness of every individual'can * beI secured." This question of poverty has been ; discussed long before flying-machines, and we are no nearer a solution than before. This scheme of Major AtkinEon'a is ono to stop poverty, but I say it does not strika at the root of poverty at'all.. Docs any man say that giving lfls a week to a sick person will stop poverty, and 10a to a person over 65? Wo know people have been poor who were never sick, and who never lived till 65 to receive this 10a annuity. I will illustrate what I say. We see in Home countries men stricken down yearly with malaria, and quinine becomes of enormous importance to them. They say if they could only get quinine they would get rid' of the, fever. Major Atkinson's scheme is a quinine scheme. I'say the proper scheme is to get rid of the fever, not to give quinine. I would say to the people of a city : "Drain your marsheß; look after your health, and you ought to have no fever." AH that Major Atkinson desires is that the people should give him little bottles of quinine that he may distribute it when thoy take the chills. Now what is to be done with this vast sum of money? -We are told by the Major and his supporters it must be invested in 4 per cents. What does it mean? Parliament get, say, a million a year to be expended on public works, and that turns out to be.insufficient for our requirements ; the Major does not like to go into the Home market, and he says to to the citizens throughout the Colony, I will utilise the money from this poll tax, giving a promise to pay for it into a fund, and go without loans. Now I come to what may be termed tho root of this question, and I ask, is it the duty of the State to support tho poor? Now I admit at once this is a muchdebated question. There are some able political economists who say it is not, and some who say it is. As I understand him, Major Atkinson nays it is the duty of the State to support the poor. Let ub assume that. Let us assume that everyone here grants it is the duty of tha thrifty to support the unthrifty, the wiae to support tha imprudent, the sober to support the drunk; and look what follows. I presuinn thn matter will have to be met by taxation. The four canons of taxation, an prescribed by Adam Smith, mast be applied to the poor as well as other things. What i* tho first? There must be an equality of sacrifice. If there is a duty to support the poor by taxation, the taxation must not be per head, but in accordance with the property a man possesses.—(Applause.) If you admit it is the duty of thebtate to support the poor, you must necessarily admit that the taxation that is to go for the support of the poor must be a tax not per head, but according to the means of individual citizens. Why, our joroportytax payers are only supposed to pay £156,000 a year, - while you are to be called upon by this taxation per head to pay nearly a million. Is that fair | I say if you once admit that it is the duty of the State to support the poor, and if you once admit that Smith's canons of taxation are right—viz., equality of taxation—then the Major's scheme is gone.—(Applause). But if it is said, on the other hand, that it is not the duty of the State to support the poor—supposingyoutakeup that position, then the scheme is equally gone. What is the use of politicians bothering about the question at all ? So th.it I do not care which view you take: if yon say it is the duty of the State to support the poor, then it must be the duty of the State to tax eqnally, according to their means, the citizens for that purpose ; but if you say it is not the duty of the State to support the poor, then, of course, there is no need of considering the scheme at all. But now I say further, look at what would be some of the effects' of the scheme. And first, I say the main effect of the scheme would be to do that which in his first address Major Atkinson so much deprecated—namely, to direct the attention of the people to the Government for their every want. I say. that is the abiding political sin of Colonial people. Why, we cannot get a bit of a bridge at the North-East Valley built without a formal deputation— —(applause and laughter)—a little bit of a bridge that could be built in a week by the citizens working a day or two. But they got up a deputation: we must have a formal deputation, headed by M.H.R.'s: we. can do nothing in this Colony without invoking the aid of the Government. I say that that is the besetting sin of Colonial people, and that if they do not guard against it they will soon lose their independence. What, I ask, should be our duty, living as we do, in a freer state than at Home ? It should be to do without State interference, except in-regard to those things which individuals cannot manage. If we look at what the result has been in the - past, we will see that whenover a State tends to interfere with n people in any degree it tends to weaken their individuality —• it tends to make them slaves. Major Atkinson says the main aim of a democracy—the sole object of a democracy, as I understood he put it —was to work for the common good, ldeny that that is the aim of a democracy. I say the aim of a democracy is to turn out perfect men and perfect women, and I say that any Government that does not aim at turning out perfect ' men and perfect women is doing an injury to the race, and I say that there can be no such improvement of the race if Government here, there, and everywhere interferes with our social affairs. 'Way, we must I«ok forward to tho time when instead of the Government's functions increasing they must decrease. We have always found in the past that as individual liberty has increased and Government interference decreased, nations have risen in tho scale of existence. I ask you, what is the tendency of democracy? At one time it was said that all the world would come to naught if Governments did not have State churches. la our world coming to naught because the Government does not vote sums for the church in Parliament? I say I look forward to the time when, instead of democraoy doing more for tha people, a true democracy will do lesß. I say that I look forward to the time when oven in the matter of education the State will not interfere, but will leave it to the citizens. I think wo should look to the State doing aa little as possible of what the individual can do. This is most important, il could givo illustrations by tho hundred; of its effects. Take this for example: About a month ago I met with the ''Nautical Magazine"—a magazine published in London, [ealing mainly with nautical affairs. I opened it, and thought, " Well, one cannot get much, surely, out of this: it deals with warships, seamen, how to have a proper navy— things out of my line"; but in reading it I came across a remarkable thing, and it shows how out of things that seem often out of one's road some facts may be got that are rueful. I found that in an essay in it there was this marvellous thing—a thing the writer could not understand. If young people of good parentage were put on a proper training-ship, well fed, well clothed, and well housed,, what sort of sailors, it was asked, would they make compared with the fisher lads, who were worse fed, worse housed, and had less training? And what did he say ? Why, that a fisherlad, for ability to doseanian's work and for resource in danger, was worth two of the other lads. Providing you give full play to the individual, you will find great advance made. I ask you to inquire of those accustomed to the sea, and they will toll ypu that if you take a sailor who has been thoroughly trained in a merchant vessel, and another who has been thoroughly trained as a man-of-war's man, the man who will have most resource in time of danger will be the man who has been trained with less control—tho man to whose individual charac-

' ter more scope has been given 'will turn out a better sailor than one who has always had some quartermaster over him. Then if you wish to take a national teat, you will find the same result. Go to the Continent of Europe—to some of the nations where they cannot stir, cannot ba married, cannot do anything without the Government interfering with them at every stago of existence, vrherb frobl the cradle to the grave there is a Government officer looking after them-take one of these men, and take ah Englishman—or, better still, because of the greater freedom of the individual—an American, and see which on a desert islaud would makri the better1

ivirig first? So it is'; you must givo scope to ;ho individual, and I believe the true aim of

democracy is to make a man feel like a man, and not to bow before those in authority over Him, If that is the true aim of a democracy i then I say the less interference of the State with the citizen the better.—(Applause.) Now I say, how will this affect the equal liberty of others? The Mayor gave us an illustration from the keeping of pigs. He said the Statp now interferes—you are not allowed to keep pigs. That comes within the principle that you are to have liberty in everything, so long as you do not interfere with the liberty of your neighbour. If a man keeps pigs in the city, and causes stench, discomfort, am} disease, he is interfering with my liberty. Thp highest ideal of a State is to prevent interference with liberty; and therefore it is invoking no extraneous aid from the State—it ig simply asking the State to protect my liberty in the preservation of health. I will say og& word more with reference to the question pf - equal liberty, I say—for the land problem is closely related to the poverty problem—we must lay down the same rule of equal liberty with reference to land, and if we lay down the same rule we must at once come to this con-

elusion—that the land is the State's, and that

the State should only part with it for the State's bonefit. Now I wish to say one or two words in reference to

nOW IS POVERTY TO BE MET?

First, I wish to say a few words in reference to some of Mr Green's remedies, because I wish to apply the same principle in dealing: with Major Atkinson's or any other scheme, Ido uot believe in State interference in reference to Hocusing a publican any more than the State interfering in referenae to dealing out sick-pay. I believe that if the State became the publican —the vendor of liquor—you would not stop drunkenness to any appreciable extent ; and you would have other attendant evils, just the same as yon have other attendant evils whorever the State interferes with what should bo left to individual effort. In reference to a paper issue, I will tell you what a paper issue means, or how far it could do any good. The only effect of a paper issue, supposing the Colony had a bank of issue, would be this: If instead 0/ the banks issuing bank-notes, the Government did so, seeing that ths banks issue only about a million a year, it would save £40,000 or £50,000 in interest. That is all that could_ bo saved, because we have got to pay for thiDgs outside the Colony, and people outside the Colony will not take our banknotes except they can get them exchanged or recognised beyond our Colony. Therefore to issue more paper money in this Oniony would havo no effect further than bank-notes now have in the Colony—simply for the purpose of exchange. You vrould only savo the interest un the money, which I believe wonH only amount to £40,000 or'£so,ooo a year. But you

would have other attendant evils, because tha tendency of every Colonial Treasurer m difficulties would be to uso the printingpress, quits careless of the effect that would be produced a few months afterwards. I wish to point out ,befow 1 leave this question, two dangers in reference to Major Atkinson'si scheme, one of which has boon entirely overlooked in any criticism I have seen of it. One groat evil would be that all our youpg people at 1G or 18—1 moan those of tho labouring classes who havo not large means, nnd who could not pay thoso various sums to the Colonial Treasurer—would at once havo to turn to some profitable employment. What does that mean ? It means in one respect that no poor person's children would have a clwnco of higher education, because if they had at once to turn to work for their living they would be deprived of the chance of attending the higher schools. I say that is a danger existing even now in this Colony. As soon as youths come to the age of 1G they are removed from school and set to work, borne of the brightest boys who, if they were sent to the grammar schools and university, nught become ornaments to tho Colony, are sent to drudge for n living, and on account of the poverty of their parents they have no chance of attaining to high distinction.—(Cheers.) If we havo this evil at present among v.«, I say it would be intensified tenfold if the Major's scheme were carried out. Then, I say, the standard of living must be necessarily lowered. If you have the people living up to a certain standard, and if they got less monoy to live on, thoy must lower their standard of living. What does that mean ? It means either worse lodging, or worse food, or worse clothing, or less amusement. You cannot, tho Major says, get nothing out of nothing. Therefore, where is this money to come from ? It must either come out of the savings of the people, or out of their expenditure. If it comos from the saving people, they would savo their mone\ m any case, and make a better use of it than by handing it over to the Colonial Treasurer, who will disburse it perhaps among those who are not provident. Now Major Atkinson gave us four causes of poverty—bad laws, want of thrift, over-population, and crime. I think the causes are different. I say the first cause ia State interference with human rights.— (Cheers.) Thesecondcauseisphysical weakness; third, mental weakness; fourth, moral weakness; and fifth, poverty—because I say-that poverty produces poverty. Physical weakness is a cause of poverty when men cannot do the work that is obtainable; mental weak'nessr may, perhaps, produce a want of ability to save, tho person having no self-control; and that is included in moral weakness, such as giving way to drink an i other vices. If you agree that these are the causes of poverty, 1 ask, how are they to be remedied? \\ul they be remedied by paying 15s a week to people when they aro sick, and paying them 10s a week when they are over 65 years of nge.' The thing is perfectly ridiculous. First get at the causes. First remove bad laws, iinst have your land system changed; have your taxation system changed. And yon must have your voting system changed to do that. Do not imagine that our Constitution is perfect. Do you call that a perfect Constitution which permits a man who has perhaps £25 worth of land in each ward in a city to vote for four members of Parliament, while a man with £5000 worth of property in one ward has only one vote ? Do you think that a perfect system which gives encouragement to faggot votes? I don't. Again, do you consider it a perfect system of government —and here, 1 say, i3 an instance of bad laws interfering with human rights—where there is no attention paid to the laws of health, and whore we have preventable diseases in all ths largo cities. I took up a Christchurch paper tho other day and road a report of the medical officer of the Christchurch Board of Health. I do not know what our Mayor docs with the Dunedin reports; they arc very rarely published. I find that thore were a vast number of preventable diseases in Christchurch—something like from 150 to 200 cases of actually preventible diseases; and tho medical officer shows how they could be prevented. Through disregard of the first laws of hoalth there had been typhoid fever, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and other feverß ; and I say that in all our Colonial cities our attention as citizens has not been half devoted to this question. If we wish to get rid of sickness we now suffer in this healthy clime, we must pay seme attention to the laws of health ; and that is one way of getting rid of poverty.—(Applause.) Further, we must pay attention in the education of the young to training them up to habits of thrift. Idonotbelievoyou can teach people thrift between the ages of 10 and 20 or 23 and 28. I say you must begin with the clnldren. Some of those now present know thnt Air Dalrymple, Miss Dalrymple, myself, and others fought to get savings banks established in the achoolß, so that children from thn earliest ages might learn habits of thrift and uelf-relianco.—(Applause.) Yet what have we done in this repect? I believe that throughout the whole province thnro w hardly ono savings bank yet established in connection with our schools. Then we must also have the children taught lessons of physiology, so that they may attend to their health ; and if wn wish also to see them well educated, and to got rid of one of the greatest vices of the Colony—drinking —we must teach them temperance. I fought, and others fought, to introduce into the schools temperance lesson-books, so as to teach the children in their earliest years—not to leave it until they are 1G or 23 years of age—the duty of abstaining from anything that will injure them physically, mentally, or morally.— (Cheerß.) I believe that that is the only way in which social reform can be obtained. I ask you to cast your eyes on history, and see how nocial reform has been obtained in the past. As a race, what enormous advances wo havo made! If we go back, for example, to the time of the Plantagenets, and look at what even the king had to put up with : no glass in his windows, no paper on his walls. Ho had no fine Turkish carpets; he had no railroadß, no telephones,?" no telegraph*. Why, he did not live.half as well as a large merchant in our town. And if you go further back, just consider tho Cave man—or what is termed by geologists the River Drift Man — and see what enormous advances humanity has made. I ask you, how have these advances been made? They havo not been made by a short cut of 15s per week. They have been made by raising the standard of living, by training the individual, and they have not been obtained right away. I say to those who think that one or two generations, or three generations, will get rid of this question of poverty, which has existed for ages, or thiß question of intemperance, which has existed for ages, that they are trusting to a rope of sand. CONCLUSION. This is one of the Bocial evils which it wil take ages and ages to get rid of, and it will only be got rid of finally, not by trusting to legislative means, but by raising the standard of living of the people, by educating the people, and by promoting culture amongst the people. Let us look to our Statute-book. It is enough to make us cease to believe'that anything can come by merely passing: lawn. If yon look at our Statute-book you will always find an amending Act tho preamble of which says that all previous Acts have been failures. No great Bocial roform can ever come from State interference. This I cannot bettor illustrate than by quoting a passage from one of tho greatest of living men, who says: "You see that this wrought-iron plato is not quite flat ; it sticks up a little here towards the left—' cockles,' as we say. How shall we flatten it? Obviously, you reply, by hitting down on the part that is prominent. Well, here is a hammer, and I give the plate a blew as you advise. ' Harder,' you say. Still no effect. ' Another stroke.' Well, there is one, and another, and another. Tho prominence remains, you see. The evil is as great as ever— greater, indeed. But this is not all. Look at the warp which the plate has got near the opposite edge. Where it was' flat before it is now ■ curved. A pretty bunglft we havo mado of it. Instead of curing the original defect, we have produced a second. Had we asked an artisan practised in ' planishing,' as it is called, he would have told us that no good was to be done', but only mischief, by hitting down on the projecting point. He would have taught ■ us how to give variously-directed and speciallyadjusted blows with a hammer elsewhere—so attacking the evil not by direct, but by indire actions. The required process is less simple than you thought. Even a sheet of metal is not to be successfully dealt with after those common-sense methods in which you have so much confidence. What, then, Bhall we say about a' society? 'Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? asks Hamlet. Is humanity more readily straightened than an iron plate?" I say to those who imagine that pauperism and all other social evils are to be got rid of. by putting an onormous amount of taxation on the people, that they are trusting to Bomething which must end in utter failure. How, then, it may be said, are we to help forward this great movement? I believe it will help forward thrift, and to get rid of poverty by means sucH as these : by educating the people up to this question, which demands solution from us ; by expending our enthusiasm on this subject, a.nd not on every subject; by recognising (tar responsibility as individuals, so that each ore of us in the democracy recognises that ho does not act for himself, but that it is 1113 duty to act for others. If each one of us acted in the capacity of a moral guide, and adopted the maxim of Kant, and so acted that his aotionß.might form a law unto humanity, what a differunt nation we would be ! If we as a nation are ever to get rid of poverty, crime, and vice, wo must not only incline to individualism,' but we must each of us try to live his lifo so as to act as a guide to those among us who may be physically, montallv, and morally weak. Doing theso things would do more to promote a true democracy and to raise humanity than to assist some in getting getting rid of tho duties of property, and casting on tho working rren this enormous burden of taxation.—(Loud and continued applajse.) Mr J. W. Jaoo had had the honour and privilege of moving a few nights ago a vote of thankfj to Major Atkinson fur his discussion of this great and important question, in which the present and futme welfare of this Colony is involved. He had been aaked again by gentlemen upon the platform to do a like duty on this occasion, and he did it as freely and heartily as before. He would not Ray whether ov not he agreed with Mr Stout, as in the case of Major Atkii.son, but he thought both had done a groat service to the community. The whole question was one of very great difficulty, and required much thought and serious discussion ; and any gentleman who aided the ultimate solution of the matter, as he thought Mr Stout had done, deserved tho thanks of tho community. He would propose a vote of thanks to Mr Stout for his address. Mr W. D. Stetvabt, in seconding tho vote of Uranus, mid that everyone who contributed to the information of the: people on

the problem of poverty was entitled to thanks. He need scarcely aay that he had given this matter some little'consideration, and keenly appreciated its difhcultica. The scheme propounded by Major Atkinson, to his (the speaker's) mind, would tend to foster poverty, and not to prevent it.—(Applause) He thought that a great many of the suggestions and arguments advanced by Mr btout were not only plausible, but well founded.— (Applause.) . . The vote of thanks was carried unanimously. Mr Stout said : I thank you very heartily for the vote which you have unanimously passed. I have to regret that in consequence of tho number of the subjects I had to condense a great deal that I had to say. I will ask you now to join with me in a hearty vote of thanks to the Mayor for presiding over this meeting. The vote was carried by acclamation, and the meeting dispersed.