The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 1, 1895. PUTTING ON THE FETTERS AGAIN.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 8990, 1 January 1895, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 1, 1895. PUTTING ON THE FETTERS AGAIN.

Nothing is more remarkable and more noticeable in the history of legislation than the lack .of novelty in human laws. Almost every new law has been tried betore Bomewhere or other, nob of course in the letter, but in spirit, In other words in such matters the world goes round in a circle. The tendency just now is for the State everywhere to assume the function of a parent and to look after the individual in all his relations in life. People speak as if ibis tendency were something novel, the product of the sympathetic aud compassionate spirit which is characteristic of the nineteenth century. But in reality in all this socialistic legislation we are but going back to laws which some centuries ago were tried in England. At one time the State mothered the individual to an extent which at present we do not even dream of, and though under the conditions of those times the experiment answered very well for a while, yet the system broke down, and the legislation of a period lasting more than a century was chieily occupied in breaking off the fetters thus imposed upon the individual and giviug to him liberty to work out bis owu destiny. We are now suffering a reaction from tbe extremes of liberty, and are busily occupied in putting on : tbe fetters again. Our aims and objects are no doubt good. We want to lessen if we can the enormous mass of human misery which we see constantly in our midst. It is a noble object and worth risking something'by way of experiment perhaps. But the question of most importance is, are we going tbe right way to work ? Will not all this legislation which seeks to relieve tbe individual of tbe consequences - of bis own folly or incapacity in the long run only accentuate his misery? We suppose the common people of England were never more cared for. aud on the whole more comfortable than in the times of; the Tudors. In those days, at least in tbe early days of the Tudors before tbe Reformation, population, owing to various causes, remained almost stationary. The Statesmen of those times did not regard a great increase of the population as of itself a desirable objeot. They were more concerned with the maintenance in a sound condition of the population then existing. In those days the duties of property were far more considered than its rights. In the administration of landed property duty to tbe State was at all limes supposed to override tbe private interests of the owner. The whole State, in fact, was regulated on the military principle, There was legislation prescribing the dress of men iv each rank of life." There were statutes prescribing the- dieb of eaqh olasß, regulating the number of courses at each meal, 'and so forth. There were laws regulating as definitely as Mr. John McKanzib could desire tbe ! quantity of land which might be I held by a *_»ah, and even what he should da I 'with it. The price at which commodities should be sold was regulated by statute., So also was the price of labour. Adulteration and. bad workmanship were even more than now crimes punishable by- the magistrates. The old Guilds bad far mote power oyer tradesmen than the Trades -niohs of the present time even aspire to. They regulated the numbers of those who were to enter a trade and the conditions of their apprenticeship. They fixed prices, and saw that goods sold were what-they professed to be. It cannot be denied that these laws answered well fo_ a time. But it does not follow that we can with profit revive them. In those daya production and population remained stationary. In those daya also the adult male population was practically an army, and a military organisation was therefore suitable in all the departments of life. I_ , '*__ose days, too, there was a spirit of |ovalty between man and man which we have no conception of. Itjwas the product of the feudal system, and it led to a high standard of honour in the dealings of man with man. . But when tbe golden age of Elizabeth was reached, and the Old World became debauched by the gold of the New World, a -money making spirit was .'begotten, which in the course of a generation or two caused such a system to work badly, and to act aa SMsiogupon progress, and as we have said for more than a century tbe struggle has been to strike off tbo fetters and. give, free play to the individual. Now we are trying to go back to this old system. , We have' not yet quite got legislation a* to what we shall ear. and • what olotbes we shall wear.

Coercioain regard to these^matte rs at present only effected by t-ieXlus-toms House. Bat we are trying to fax the hours of work and tlm^o play by Statute. There is much talk o legislation to .fix the rate of. the rate of interest. We already have legislation to fix the _uautity ofland to be held by a man. The Trades Unions are trying to acquire vvast power over the actions of the individual workman. In fact in every direction we are endeavouring to go back to tha old state of things when the State as we have oalled it mothered the whole people. Is the new plan likely to prove successful ? We have seen that it succeeded in old times for a while under conditions of society entirely dissimilar to those of the present day, aud that as those conditions approximated to the conditions at present existing, it proved a ghastly failure. It is unhappily characteristic of man that he has always a great teudency to go to extremes and the advocates of individual freedom have discredited their cause by olaiming an extreme liberty for the individual. There can be no doubt that there has been much interference with individual liberty which is beneficial and desirable, such as the interference occasioned by Lord Ashlby's Factory Acts and many i similar laws. But if the individualists have shown themselves to be ** tremiats may not the Socialists admit that there are extremists on their aide even more dangerous ? We presume that the pendulum having swung so far ou the one side has now got to swing so far on the other. We confess we look with dread to the possibilities of the future. In the past men were punished with death, imprisonment and fin e f° r holding certain opinions. Is ib too much to fear that in the future there may yet come a time when such punishments will again be inflicted for the like offences? When we take count of the Prohibitionists, who long for the time when they may imprisou and fine anyone who takes a glass of wino or of beer, we are by no means certain that our forebodings may not one day be realised.