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 passiug 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 Ireland. 



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, I 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, Kome, 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 



