Pues. —On the Law of Gavelkind, 525 
the Anglo-Saxon custom of gavelkind, in place of the feudal laws, I much 
doubt whether to-day there would be in New Zealand any attempt to 
restore a system of nationalization of land which, perhaps, best applies to 
tropical countries, where population is dense, and the rules of government 
require to be simple. (Nothing is so simple in the way of taxation as a 
land rent. But its very simplicity has the terrible effect of enslaving the 
nation. It places too much power in the hands of the Government, whereas 
a people should always reserve powers as much as possible, granting them 
out year by year, as in the case of the Mutiny Act). 
Having stated this much, I may now lay down certain principles, drawn 
from the world’s history, with respect to the land. I only submit them for 
your consideration. ; 
1. The land laws of tropical countries do not apply to temperate 
zones. 
2. We cannot trust the State. 
3. We cannot trust the people with the leases. 
4. It is absolutely necessary that the area of the land of a State 
should be divided in accordance with the density of the popu- 
lation. 
In explanation of the first principle, it is sufficient to say that the north- 
western nations of Europe broke away from tropical or semi-tropical 
customs. For the simplification of ruling dense masses of people, there is 
no better means than nationalization of land and a land-tax. On the other 
hand, nationalization of land destroys individual independence. The 
highest aim of any government should be to render each man as free as 
possible within the State. A very simple form of collecting revenue may 
be found harmful to a State. — 
In explanation of the second principle, “ that we cannot trust the State,” 
it is only necessary to say that all modern writers, close students of history, 
agree in condemning Mr. Wallace’s proposal upon this one ground. But, 
then, Mr. Wallace has apparently a very slight knowlege of history. Mr. 
George is a far more able man, but, living in so free a country as America, 
he is apparently unaware of the evils of trusting to State management. 
Would it, however, be well to trust the corrupt government of the United 
States, or the constantly changing government of France, with the sale and 
re-sale of the leaseholds? It would certainly not be found advisable, as 
“party” would then rule in a question with which it, at present, has 
nothing to do. ‘ Party” is a power which has ruined many a State. We 
must keep it away from the land question. Directly a piece of land is sold, 
say in New Zealand, it passes clear away from Government interference. It 
is as far removed as our judges are supposed to be. All the need there is 
