EDUCATION.—THE LAND.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3945, 20 August 1881, Page 4

EDUCATION.—THE LAND.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.)

Sib, —When the Scriptures represent the Creator as giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites, it is under condition, and with the injunction that it should be divided equally: among all the families, that it should remain in the families to whom it was given ; and it was provided that in case of temporary alienation it should revert, after fifty or a less number of years, to the original possessors. A strict prohibition was put upon the personal accumulation of land. Terrible curses were pronounced against those who removed or destroyed the ancient land marks, or who united the portions of several persons, or formed them into one estate. Awfully and terribly deep are the curses oh those who " add house to house" and ," field to field," and set themselves on high '.'above their brethren." In fact, the whole tenor of revelation opposes the modern notion" of individual right to large estates in whatsoever manner acquired, and which thereby, in many instances, monopolise large tracts of country and disinherit the masses of the people of their birthright. Scriptural authority abundantly proves that the land is common property; that every man or family has an inherent right to a part of it, and that no man or number of men— rich or poor, noble or simple, learned or ignorant—has, under any pretence whatever, any right or authority to engross, monopolise, or under any conditions, or however obtained, possess great tracts of country for private purposes. Here, as in Great Britain, the, government for the time being, lawyers, parsons, and priests, declare that the Scriptures are an authority—an infallible authority. They use the Bible in Courts of Law and in their Legislative Assemblies, and thereby and otherwise maintain that the Bible is a part and parcel of the law of the land. It is asserted, however erroneously or ironically, that New Zealand is a Christian colony, and that the Government and all estates and institutions of the people are bound by Scriptural laws. Upon this, their own principle, the doctrine that the land is common property, is part,of the New Zealand constitution, and it follows, as the night} the!,day, that an absolute property in land, and especially a monopoly of land, is a violation of the constitution, a violation of its first and fundamental principles. Private property in land is in fact public robbery. Knowing, however, that a large majority of the people andi the largest part of our legsilative representatives do not believe the scriptures or regard them as an authority, when they run counter .toptheir own private fancies or interesttffejle will argue the question on other grounds and ask : If the Creator did not give to individuals an exclusive right to* the soil, who else conld do so ? To whom did the land belong before man existed? Surely to the Creator of it! Surely, to the power that made it! It could not belong to man, for he did not make it. If anybody had ever an exclusive right to the land, it was the first existing man or. the first existing pair ; but no exclusive right could be obtained to the land except from its maker, and if no such right was given he had no right. If no such right existed or was given he could not transfer it to his children. If he could not give his children any absolute or exclusive right to the land, who could ? If the children received no title from their father, whence could they obtain such, rights? The cultivating of the earlh by its first inhabitants, however brought into existence, could not constitute a right to its absolute or exclusive possession. Cultivation may give a right to the produce^ to the fruits of culture, but not to the land itself. Besides the cultivation of the surface could contribute no right to that which lies below the surface. Cultivation of * extensive tracts of land could not carry to the cultivator a right to cultivate the laud at his own

pleasure. In the beginning, one man's right to cultivate the land must have been equal to another's, and, therefore, no one man had a right to cultivate more than be needed, unless the quantity of land exceeded the wants of all the people. The right to cultivate in excess of need when the number of people was circumscribed, would cease when the number of people became larger, because the additional population would require a portion.—l am, &c, Bon Ami. 15th August, 1881.