The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1908. THE CRAZE FOR LEGISLATION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 275, 13 August 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1908. THE CRAZE FOR LEGISLATION.

_ One of the very best features of public life in England is the readiness of the statesmen in that country to deliver public addresses on the current thought of the day. None of theso eminent mcii is more interesting than Loud Rosebery, who delights to exercise his acute and brilliant mind upon a wide range of subjects, and whose speeches are as stimulating and suggestive as they are witty. We discussed the other day a recent utterance of his upon the danger to national progress and stability that lies in the growing " paternalism " of the Government. On June 30 last he delivered another valuable address upon a subject which closely concerns Now Zealand people—which, indeed, we have occasionally discussed in theso columns. His subject was the modern craze for legislation and the unscientific way in which that craze is pursued—a topic upon which' the New Zealand public cannot think without some soreness, since this country is as great a sinner as any other. Everywhere, it seems, the world's Legislatures are making laws as if for a wager, which is a partial consolation for the load of laws under which we in New Zealand must stagger. In the British Empire there are sixty Legislatures; in the United States about fifty; Europe is full of Parliaments, Australia alone possessing at least a dozen. During 1906 there were 2000 laws or ordinances passed in British countries, of which—a point to be noted later—probably 90 per cent, were in curtailment of the liberty of the subject. If Lord Rosebery correctly gauges the aspirations of .the British Government, it is much like the Government of Now Zealand, for he says that '' a Ministry now reckons its Acts of Parliament at the end of a session as sportsmen reckon their bag.'' And in England, as in New Zealand, "these laws are passed in the main without adequate discussion, because it is impossible to give adequate discussion to so many laws as are passed by our Legislature, and . . . every means "is employed, legitimate or illegitimate, to restrict and suffocate discussion of all ' these legislative proceedings." Lord Rosebery thinks,that the present age relies too much upon the power of Parliament to promote progress; the surest and most abundant progress is in that State which develops through the character and individual efforts of its citizens, as little as possible supported and guided by legislation. But as everyone is going full steam ahead, there should at least be extra care in the framing of laws.

What is required is that legislators should pay more attention to the study of comparative legislation. In Great Britain, it would-appear, legislators in the mass care as little for precedent as they do here. Lord llosebery cited the question of old age pensions, and expressed doubt whether those who supported the Government's proposals had studied the working of tho pensions systems in other countries. So far as the New Zealand Parliament is concerned, we make bold to say that the fingers of one hand would be sufficient for the count-, ihg of the members who bring a real knowledge of the subject to any single legislative proposal of any importance. How many of our members of Parliament have read, for example, even Mr. Reeves's book on " State Experiments"? How many authorities on sociology or economics could the average member name off-hand? Some could name fifty; most could name one; two or threo would be hard put to it to think of anybody but Mn. Tom Mann or Mr. Seddon. No further.testimony to the reckless fumbling of the New Zealand Parliament is required than the extraordinary quantity of amending Acts annually required. Tho one defence sometimes put forward for abundance of legislation is not available in New 'Zealand. That defence- is tho advisableness of keeping tho function of law-making in tho hands of Parliament, and of having in clear print principles that would otherwise have to bo deduccd somehow by Judges from " authorities " and apparently alien enactments. But in New Zealand—and, so far as we know, in no other country to anything like the samo extent—legislation, instead of clarifying, merely complicates. Much of tho legislation in this country has beon purely experimental, and in some cases wo have had nobody else's experience to refer to. That it would havo been referred to is certainly not probable, since the belief is widespread that the natural laws do not apply to New Zealand. But even when our ofrn experience demonstrates tho folly of experiment, our legislators will not profit by the' discovery. For example, although the failure of compulsory arbitration' on the New Zealand model is patent to the world, the Government refuses to admit tho fact.

Tho important point to be noted in the modern craze for legislation is that it is anti-Liberal. Herbert Spencer long ago showed tho modern development of socalled " Liberalism " into something essentially opposed to the doctrinc of the original Liberals. Lord Rosebery restated this important but much-neglected truth. Liberalism brought in an era of emancipation: " Tho object was to strike off restriction. We wero freeing the Jews, we wero freeing the Roman Catholics, wo wore freeing tho municipalities, we wero freeing the universities. Everywhere our task was ono of enlarging the boundaries of freedom." That: era lias gone. Ninety per cent, of thej laws passed in the British Empire in« 1906 were laws in restriction of liberty.' New Zealand is an extreme example of "tho now Toryisnit" What^ PiiOFESSon, SimsoN writos of tho legislative tendon-'

cics of the United States is peculiarly applicable here. " Two potent forces are now at work," he say's; "first, that of philanthropy, general bcncvolence, ethical amelioration, seeking results rather than liberty; the other, the class-conscious multitude of organised labour, seeking to rciraposo regulations and control upon the action of others, either through or beside the State." The results of this tendency are well outlined by the London Times: " Probably very few of the promoters of individual measures have ambitious iconoclastic designs; they \have in their minds some one object which in itself may be small. The aggregate of such legislation may be great—in the course of some years almost revolutionary; and not the less so that the process goes on, not in the streets, but quietly and decorously, with pleasant, reassuring titles given to everything likely to cause alarm." Wo are glad to have this weighty support of the very warning that we have unceasingly issued to the public for the past year. It is inevitable that the belief in the power of legislation to regenerate the world should go hand in hand with a gradual sapping of the foundations of individual energy and freedom. It is, therefore, when the pace of legislation slackens that the friends of real progress can again take heart.