LAND LAWS AND LIBERALISM. TO THE EDITOR.

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 37, 28 May 1881, Page 404

LAND LAWS AND LIBERALISM. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — In your political article on the land question lately you wrote as if landowners still possessed the power to entail their property in this Colony. This sui prises and puzzles me. I wished to entail my land (which is of no very great extent or value), but I was told by my solicitor that it could not be done, though I could grant a perpetual lease. To grant a perpetual lease seems to me tantamount to making an entail. I wanted to keep the property in my family ; and to prevent it being encumbered or sold or illused, as I had a kind of affection for it, having spent much money in improving it and beautifying it. I cannot think that there is either sense or justice in the present outcry kept up by yourself and others against large landowners. As well declaim against big merchants and the magnates of the Stock Exchange ; as well make laws to prevent small merchants becoming great ones, and small capitalists from increasing their capital. Such a system of Government, it seems to me, would be arbitrary and unjust in the extreme, and injurious to the best interest of the community. Money is power, and so is land. The possessors of money and the possessors of land may both abuse their power. But that is no good reason why laws should be made to prevent men acquiring either money or land as much of both as they can got by fair and honest methods. Large landed proprietors, titled or un titled, are the natural leaders of the people, and their defenders against oppression, their generous benefactors in times of adversity. If we go to our history books we shall find that this was so in the remote past. Why should it not be so again ? Who was it that 600 years ago obtained for the commons of England that " Great Charter," which, to this hour, is the keystone of English liberty, and the best protection of the poor and weak against the oppression of the wealthy and powerful ? Who was it that secured this unspeakable political blessing to us all ? who but the nobles of England, led by an intrepid and patriotic English Prince of the Roman Church— Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury. It little becomes any English statesman or patriot to try to raise a feeling of popular indignation or suspicion against large landowners, because they may possibly abuse their power, and because some of them have abused it grossly already. History is there to prove that men who declaim the loudest against large landowners or aristocrats, and flatter the pride and vanity of the people, or excite their cupidity by so doing, are often the worst of tyrants when they have the opportunity and a plausible excuse to be so. The Great English Charter of popular rights lias never yet been set aside but by tyrants, and for purposes of oppression. We have seen it quite recently set aside in Ireland and in New Zealand by men calling themselves "Liberals." Certain Maoris (British subjects) have been punished in defiance of the British Constitution by being cast into prison and detained there without being arraigned and convicted of any specific crime in flue course of law. Punish first, try afterwards, was the principle on which these Maoris were treated. Not one member of the so-called Liberal Press here has, so far as I know, protested against this arbitrary and unconstitutional act. On the contrary, they applauded it I>y silence, if not by consent. The Great Charter is a very inconvenient document for tyrants. Our King John and Henry VIII found it so in past times. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Hall have found it so in our day, when they wished to override the liberties of the people or an obnoxious portion of them. It is much more convenient for tyrants to rule without it, and substitute an arbitrary Act of Parliament or Orders-in-Council in its place. I am not excusing rebellion or law-breaking either in the Maori or any other. Punish culprits for their crimes, but punish them m due course of law, and in a manner agreeable to the forms and spirit of the grand old British Constitution — not otherwise. Witii such a military force as the Colonial Government had at their disposal — Volunteers and Armed Constabulary — so numerous and so expensive, it was humbling to our British pride to see that they were cowed by some 150 Maoris, and confessed themselves unable to uphold Her Majesty's authority and defend the lives and property of her peaceable subjects without destroying the British Constitution. Was this upholding the " liberty of the subject " and popular rights, of which you boast so much aa being the proud characteristics of a " Liberal Government "~ or a Government acting on Liberal principles. You praise our present system of education(the work of "Liberals") on the ground that it is a " national " system. Do you really believe that any system of education can be truly called "national" which excludes a seventh part of the population from its advantages, or allows them to share in its advantages only if they will violate their conscience ? In ray view a nation means all the people and not a mere section of them, however large or respectable. I respect liberty and popular rights as much as any man can do, would fain see the humbler ranks and the working bees in the social hive protected from all sorts of oppression, from unequal excessive and unnecessary taxes more especially. I would like to see the people protected from themselves. In my opinion they are often their own worst enemies. This confidence is often abused by ambitious and selfish men, who assume the garb of patriotism. I would like to see the conscience of the people free, and not fettered or offended by any Education Acts, such as the present one. Therefore, I should like to see the Viceroy free, and not as now possessed of the mere shadow or semblance of power or liberty. He ought to be the real " Minister of Justice." Yours, etc., John Wood.