522 Transactions. — Miscellaneous. 



becoming acquainted with the Indian Archipelago, he also became acquainted 

 with the Chinese land law. Quit rent and tenant right is, I believe, the land 

 law of China. Mr. Wallace was doubtless also aware that the land of India 

 is held under a State proprietary. I think both Mr. George and Mr. Wallace 

 should have given us tbese precedents. They have not done so. Were they 

 afraid to quote precedents for their own argument ? 



Looking then to the continents from out of which our ancestors migrated, 

 we find that China, India, portions of Turkey, and Egypt are countries 

 wherein the land is nationalized, and in all these countries the people are a 

 degraded people. In the face of the communal system, the north-western 

 nations of Europe individualized their land, although it does not appear 

 clear that they intended the law of gavelkind as any check against the 

 accumulation of large estates. I advocate it now as a check to accumulation, 

 as I do not wish to see the peoples of the Anglo-Saxon race become such 

 degraded beings as the Indians, Chinese, or the Egyptian fellahs. I take it 

 that perpetual leasehold property will sap and undermine the strength and 

 independence of any nation, as it is impossible for a man to prove himself 

 so free and independent a citizen under the leasehold as under the freehold 

 title. 



It will be observed that the nationalization of land has not, in times 

 past, prevented the accumulation of land, nor has it divided the land 

 according to the population. Thus, if New Zealand were divided into 640- 

 acre blocks, or 320-acre blocks, to-morrow, and each given to one man, we 

 could not, by legislative enactment, get back any of this land for the 

 purpose of settling upon it a future excess of population. We might pass 

 laws to take it away, but those laws would be inoperative. On the otber 

 hand, we cannot be sure that, under the perpetual leasing system, land will 

 not accumulate ; for it may so happen that, nothwithstanding any act we 

 •may pass now against accumulation, yet, nevertheless, these two islands 

 may become separate governments, or foreign war may arise, and then 

 prominent and worthy citizens may be given large areas, or acquire them 

 in other ways. 



Is it not therefore preferable to place the subdivision of the land apart 

 from the State, and apart from the people ? To place the question upon 

 the imperishable basis of a great custom, used for many centuries by the 

 most independent nations of the globe, and still used and tenaciously clung 

 to by tbe people of France : a custom whereby the area of the land becomes 

 subdivided exactly in proportion to the population ! 



To prove this, let us refer to the history of the Eoman Empire, and to 

 the Agrarian Laws, although I must apologise for troubling you with 

 historical events, with which you are all acquainted. Passing over then 



