528 Transactions. — Miscellaneous. 
Take the case of Ireland. That country suffered from bad seasons, a 
dense population, and American competition. The Government of England, 
led by Mr. Forster, thought that as the people could not possibly pay their 
rents the landlords should forgive them for a few years. But the law of 
contract is higher than passing humanitarian motives, and directly the 
Government began to intefere in the working of the law they stirred up the 
landlords. The mistake was in having a feudal class of landlords at all, as 
the only true remedy for Ireland is to divide the land among the population, 
as in France, and make the people their own landlords. The emigration of 
the people is a barbarous and temporary remedy. The custom of gavelkind 
would have long since abolished the “ great ” landlords of Treland. 
And as to this cure of pauperism and compulsory subdivision, I read 
history differently from John Stuart Mill, who would prefer “to restrict, not 
what any one might bequeath, but what any one should be permitted to 
acquire by bequest or inheritance.” I prefer to leave the individual perfectly 
free in all his dealings, only applying the compulsory law at his death. 
Thus, for the present century, speaking of New Zealand lands, I would 
content myself with so regulating the law of bequest that a man’s sons should 
inherit their father’s land whatever it might be, share and share alike. But 
with this limitation, that in order to preserve parental authority, the father . 
may, by will, disinherit any one son, be that son an only one. There is no 
necessity to divide the land among the female children of a family, as in a 
properly regulated State the males should support the females. There 
should not be so great a disparity in numbers as exists at the present time 
in England, where there is supposed to be one million more females than 
males. This is a further incident of the application of the unfortunate 
feudal laws, and the source of so much misery and crime. 
So far as to landed property. As to personalty, 1 should not hesitate to 
declare even this divisible among all the children (with a fitting reservation 
to preserve parental authority), if necessity arose. The accumulation of 
capital leads to the accumulation of land, and it may be necessary for us to 
insist upon a compulsory subdivision of both. But at the present time I 
am only dealing with the land question. The subject of usury requires a 
separate paper. Yet, I am doubtful whether the question of usury should 
not occupy a higher place in our thoughts than the one of land. 
It is necessary for any person desirous of making himself at all ac- 
quainted with the land question, to read Leviticus, cap. xxv., the histories 
of Greece, Rome, and England, and Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill, 
before reading Messrs. Wallace and George. 
Before an Anglo-Saxon Colony or State adopts the principle of national- 
ization of land, it would be well for it to send a Commission to inquire into 
