530 Transactions. —Miscellaneous. 
bequest of personalty, I see no objection to a much higher scale of stamp 
duties than exists at present. But the scale should be a graduated one, the 
largest amounts paying the heaviest duty. 
It may be desirable hereafter to watch carefully the manner in which 
companies acquire large landed areas, but no immediate action is necessary. 
No association partaking of the character of Mortmain should be allowed to 
stand in the way of a compulsory subdivision of the land. Herein, too, I 
would point out the growing danger to the State of ‘ capital,” when 
administered by powerful companies. Justice, railroads, telegraphs, stocks, 
even the constitution itself of the United States, may almost be said to be 
at the mercy of powerful monetary combinations. Compulsory subdivision 
appears to be the only safeguard against accumulation, whether of land or 
money. The custom of gavelkind is advocated for the first ; the second is 
hardly a matter for present consideration. Except, perhaps I may be 
allowed now to say, that the State has a perfect right to declare in what 
way property shall pass from the dead to a living possessor. By a proper 
manipulation of the laws of inheritance, the State possesses a lever of 
gigantic force. Never yet, in the world's history, has this Herculean 
instrument been applied, except by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, in their 
custom of gavelkind. If I now uncover the baby giant from the dust of 
ages, it is for the good of my fellow men, and I trust to see its strength 
grow and grow, until the Anglo-Saxon world recognizes its power, and by 
its aid sweeps away much of the misery, crime, and poverty, and unequal 
distribution of wealth ruling amongst us. I think our Parliament should 
once and for ever declare what the common law of England was previous to 
the Norman Conquest (the custom of gavelkind), reserving the right of dis- 
inheriting one son. - 
As to the danger of the land, when subdivided, falling into the hands of 
the usurer, it is only necessary to point out that the law of compulsory 
division works inexorably. Of whatever land the usurer dies possessed, that 
land would have again to be divided. There is no escape. 
I therefore think the ideas of both Mr. Wallace and Mr. George un- 
worthy of our adoption. They are as unsound as the Rev. W. Blakely’s. 
History, too, condemns them. And I would say, as my earnest opinion, 
that the nationalization of the land destroys personal independence. The 
tendency of humanity has been to free the individual. Property now 
belongs to the individual, not to the family, clan, or State. It would be a 
step backwards were we to say that it should belong to the State. The 
highest aim of Government should be to render the individual as free as 
possible within the Home borders. The more the Government interferes, 
the more the personal independence of the citizen suffers, and if the unit 
