THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1908. POLITICAL DANGERS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 310, 24 September 1908, Page 6

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1908. POLITICAL DANGERS.

One' of the most interesting of rccent congresses was an international conference on the political constitutions of modern States. TJic character of this 'gathering may be. deduced from the eminence of its leading members: Sib William Chance, Sii} Aeohibald Geikib, M. Yves Guyot, Professor A. V. Dicey, Me. T. Gibson Bowles, M. Emmanuel Vidal, and others. It was, that is to say; a conference embracing some of the greatest living authorities on constitutional history aftd political philosophy. There is small reason for wonder that the general trend of the proceedings of this important gathering went in the direction of an attack upon the growth of Socialistic ideas in modern politics. As it is very probable that tho New Zealand public may still pay some attention to tho views of some of the most eminent of modern publicists, it may bo worth while to note some of tho wise things said at the Congress, especially as'these havo some close interest for i Now Zealanders. The keynote of the proceedings was struck by Sie William Chance in his observation that " tho cry of ' the greatest good for tho greatest number ' had given ' way to ' tho greatest good of particular classcs.' " Tho world, he said, was " prone to deal with the things that were pressing and obvious, and therefore to treat symptoms rather than causes." His opening address was followed by a paper in which M. Yves Guyot discusscd the Constitution of the French Republic.

M. Yves Guyot traced tho history of the Republic from 1780, with the object of showing the gradual subversion of the principles of liberty proclaimed by the Revolution, and tho reversion of tho Government to the arbitrary methods of the old regime.

Tbo more legislation interfered (ho said), tho moro importanco it _ cave . to tho oxeeutive power, to the offioiatai and State agouts. l'hp Uglalidjioni ly wulu« attthomalM%;uaa doro*

gations, increased opportunities for arbitrary dealing. It led to tho old ideal of absolutism _of _tho Divine right; government by polico institutions. Tlio result was that, by multiplying its legislativo deeds, Parliament gavo an increasingly important part to tho executive power; it allowed itself to be swallowed up by tho executive, and, with this aggravating circumstance, tho practices of official candidature still reigning in France, the deputies and candidates became the liegemen of tho Minister of tho Interior. •

No particular acuteness is required for a realisation of tlio exactness with which New Zealand has illustrated this thesis down to its last detail. The multiplication of arbitrary laws, tho absolutism of tho late Mr. Seddon, the substitution of tho will of Cabinet for the will of Parliament, tho swamping of tho House and Council with liege-men—or " dummies," as we say here: examples of these phenomena will occur to everyone who has followed the political history of New Zealand in the past fifteen years. In France theso unwelcome developments, as M. Yves Guyot showed, sprang from a neglect of . the principles of liberty and equality proclaimed in 1789. " The Socialist legislation implied spoliation of some members of society for the benefit of others land war between classes. The great .characteristic of political progress had been, as was admitted by Maine, the passing from status to contract. The entire Socialist legislation was the suppression of the contract by the rearrangement of authority." It is worth noting that tho Socialists have won their successes in France by tho same means aB have been employed here. " The whole strength of the Socialists," said M. Guyot, " and of the members of the general confederation of Labour came from concessions they had torn from tho weak Government, which only applied tho law by fits and starts instead of applying it regularly."

Professor Dicev's paper on " Legislativo Oppression " is particularly worthy of note in this country for its revelation of the view taken by this eminent publicist of certain phenomena that have lately caused much surprise and alarm in New Zealand. He said that sober Englishmon did not fear royal or aristocratic tyranny, or', indeed, any of the ■old tyrannies at all. What- they did dread was " tile passing of laws, and still more the administration'•of the law, in accordance, not with tho' deliberate and real will of the nation, but in accordance with tho immediate wishes of a class, namely, the class of wage-earners." It was not only by statutes limiting the freedom of men and women to enter into otherwise lawful contracts and to sell their labour on such terms as they choso to accept that a Government in search of popularity might trench-upon tho freedom,of individuals: i

. Any Government which proclaimed that it would not make uso of powers conferred upon it by Act of Parliament for tho suppression of boycotting must 'bo hold responsible for' tho orimo which it did not suppress. Such an executive oxercised in a new and particularly odious form that suspension power which had been formally denied to tho Crown. Thjs authority- to suspend tho action of tho law had not yet, they would bo told, been oxercised in Great Britain. Whether tho assertion was absolutely true, in spirit at least, ho was not certain; but a precedent set in one part of tho United Kingdom admitted, if sanctioned by popular feeling, of easy oxtensipn. Turn the matter which way they would, , they could not deny that men 'who wished'to bo ruled in accordance with fixed, laws, sanctioned by the deliberate will of tho majority of-the nation, had reason to fear what ho might briefly'call legislative oppression. i '

For "boycott" read "strike," and you have a judgment by ono of the foremost living authorities on constitutional law upon the New. Zealand Government's administration of the Arbitration Act. In looking for means to check tho . growth of class legislation, Professor Dicey placed his reliance in the good sense and genoral fairness of the people in a sound state of public opinion. If anything more definite were required, ho would suggest that the Upper Houso should really and most actively exercise its function of protecting the rights of the nation " by preventing any party, by whatever namo it might be called, from carrying throligh important and far-reaching legislation to which the electors had not given their assent." Wo commend this opinion to' the gentlemen who agreed in the Legislative Council to the "gag" clause of the Second Ballot Bill. Professor Dicey would also recommend the maintenance of the honorary status of members of Parliament. "It excluded from politics the professional' politician. This was quite enough to satisfy any man of common sense that it was an arrangement which ought at all c6sts to be maintained." He would also demand " the independence, and, therefore, the exclusion from political life, of the whole body of the Civil Service."' Our space will permit no further summary -of the Congress papers, and in conclusion wo havo only to point out the serious significance, of tho fact that the eminent men at that gathering expressed views upon government and legislation which are almost at all points opposed to the practice in this country. This is only ono more illustration of the-truth that a little acquaintance with sociology and political philosophy produces a Socialist, and a deep knowledge of those subjects an opponent of Socialism.