Pururrs.—On the Law of Gavelkind. 529 
the working of the land laws of China and India. The Imperial Govern- 
ment would do well to publish a précis of these laws. In such a great 
Empire as China, there are many different land laws just as there are four 
or five in England; viz., freehold, copyhold, gavelkind, and borough- 
English. 
“There is nothing new under the sun,” especially with regard to this 
question of land ownership. I wish to see the people of New Zealand, at 
least, properly educated as to this question. ‘ Vox populi vox Dei,” says 
the proverb; but it is only when the people act upon the experiences of 
ages,—only when they are properly led,—only when they act with caution 
and not with impulse, that the voice of the people can be ior considered 
as the voice of God. 
Having laid down four principles or maxims, I may be allowed to add 
one or two more— 
5. That the population of a state should not exceed the limit of its 
home food-supply. 
6. That the state has a perfect right to manipulate the rules of inhe- 
ritance without injury to private property. 
7. That different rules of inheritance apply according to the density 
of the population. 
These three principles have already been explained. 
In order that we may perceive how easily we may be led into error, it is 
only necessary to refer to the Rev. W. Blakely’s Scheme of National In- 
surance as a cure for poverty and crime. This writer proposes a scheme 
which, like emigration, only cures the outcome of the evil, not the cause. 
Hither Mr. Wallace or Mr. George would laugh at Mr. Blakely, and yet 
neither of those writers is to be depended upon; that is in regard to their 
scheme of nationalization of land as the cure. To check poverty and crime 
we must first teach the people that paupers should not breed paupers. The 
best teacher is the compulsory subdivision of the land, as in France, 
whereby the people themselves will see the inadvisability of too minutely 
subdividing their frecholds. A leasehold title of any kind will only continue 
existing evils. Neither emigration nor national insurance can possibly 
check paupers breeding paupers. 
Pauperism is a question best left to the people to voluntarily relieve. 
The less a government interferes with a people the better, therefore a 
government should stand apart both from the land question and the relief 
of the poor. Under the compulsory subdivision of land there will be found 
no need for poor laws. Furthermore, should a person, by bequest, devise 
in charity, no tax ought to be levied upon such a bequest; and this to 
encourage the independent action of the people. But in the ordinary 
34 
