The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1886-11-20 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

THE EDITOR OP THE BIRKENHEAD NEWS. was somewhat pleased in perusing the report of a lecture by Mr. W. R. Kennedy, Q.C., in your issue of Wednesday, 9th inst., and was somewhat disappointed that I had not the pleasure of hearing the lecture in question, which I certainly would have availed myself of had I been aware of the fact, and in all probability would not have made reference to it now but for the remarks (in the same issue) contained in a paragraph under the head of "What People are Saying." The paragraph in question says that "He (Mr. Kennedy) regards Mr. Hyndam as a dangerous leader, and his programme as one of destruction; and the spirit of individual enterprise is to be fostered, not destroyed, and a man is to be protected in the enjoyment of that which is legitimately his own. On the other hand, unjust laws must be destroyed, anomalies and monopolies must be swept away, and every impediment must be removed from the path of the poor. Now, this style of reasoning appears to me to be close skin to "boxing the compass." We are told that all the reforms above enumerated must become law, all of which are included, and, in fact, were the leading features in the programme of the Socialist leaders of forty years ago; and in the same breath we are told that this programme is one of destruction. Now, we are told—but for the certainty I cannot vouch—that a pig that takes to water, if left to itself, will ultimately cut its throat. This, I contend, would be the fate of our friend Mr. Kennedy if he continued in the same direction as he set out. The only difference in Mr. Kennedy's Socialism on the one hand, and Mr. Hyndman's Socialism on the other, is contained in the rendering of the words legitimately and monopoly above italicised. The difference is evidently only a difference in degree; that which Mr. Hyndman would, in some instances, consider a monopoly Mr. Kennedy would not; but individual interest must be sacrificed for the general good. It is impossible to have social or political improvement without clashing with class interests. All the reforms above quoted, and evidently endorsed by the lecturer, would tend more or leas to interfere with class interests; and in all probability the interested classes would object to these reforms as being privileges legitimately their own. There is one little point, however, in your summary oi Mr. Kennedy's address which I do not endorse. He says: " Socialism, in its professed anxiety to distribute the wealth more evenly, threatened sa interference i which would n the long run leave very httle to distribute by drying up, the sources of wealth." Are we to take this as an honest expression of opinion or merely as a quibble? To talk of drying up the sources of wealth, which is &heed illimitable, is to talk sheer nonsense. Rarely the necessary requirements of nature itself i sufficient safeguard against the drying up the sourest' of wealth. If he meant that Socialism would tend to dry up the sources of 1 the system .of profit-mongering, landlordism,  0 A  .. . ; i . 18 ..es will ,4180 MOND .. the shop where . (*drown attw•Mid to ...ig-house of Mr. 1:eyoon, . ime business of a g r,e a: rocer, dincl florist, and who is the ~wiicr of , eoperty, in which one of his eons was ..ieeping ; and had it not been for the prompt I _....4 action of P.C. Shilston, the man Animal' -ices of would, probably, now stand charged with. ....odlordism, wilful murder.  I