Sir,--Mr. Armfield seems to think that if the land is paid for by Government bonds instead of gold there will be no loss to the country. It would, however, make not the least difference. The bond-holders would still live on perpetual pensions as the landlords live on perpetual rents, and necessarily on the labour of the people, since there is no other source from which they can be supported.

    And to Mr. F. Wilson, I reply, that a hundred a year in the funds represents money originally lent to the nation, whereas a hundred a year from land represents land originally taken from the nation. This is certainly a difference. It is a reason why the former should be paid in full, while the latter should revert to the State on the death of present owners and their living heirs. By this method present owners will not be robbed, while the nation will gradually regain its own without payment, and without admitting that absolute right to property in land which paying for it in full would imply.

Alfred R. Wallace.