The Dominion THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1911. RADICAL BUREAUCRACY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1226, 7 September 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1911. RADICAL BUREAUCRACY.

« ; We have often had occasion to ' emphasise the truth that the essence 1 of modern Radicalism is its contempt for tradition and established principles—a truth that the Radical himself is usually so far from denying' that he admits it with some pride. But if he were, as he usually is not, capable of leaving abstractions and considering in the aggregate the concrete facts of Radicalism in action, he would' probably feel less inclined to plume himself upon his "courage"- and "originality." The practical working _ of Radical bureaucracy was the subject of a valuable and important speech that Lord Seldorne, formerly the Governor-General of South Africa, recently delivered before the Constitutional Club—a speech especially valuable for its mustering and correlation of facts.'. As yet, of "course, tho British Radicals have not gone quito so far as the Radical Government in this country, but they have already shown that they arc moving along lines with which tho Seddon and Ward Governments have familiarised New Zcalanders. Lord Selborne set out to show, and did so by citing a mass of indisputable facts, that since 190G in Britain there has \ been a huge growth of the bureaucracy, accompanied by tho eating of the cancer of patronage into the Civil Service, _and_ a steady increase of bureaucratic interference with every institution in the country. "Not only," said Lord Selborne, "is each of us in our capacity ns private citiyens every year put more and more under tho heel of tho bureaucracy in Lon- ' don, but that local government which has been the prido of England and Scotland is in absolute danger of being crushcd out of existenco by the bureaucrats ill tho metropolis. It has been our prido and our boast that wo manage our local affairs in counties and in boroughs, that the people who live in these counties and boroughs understand their business in a way in which 110 Civil Servant, in London can understand it. If you follow what has been taking place vou will iind that the whole effort of the Government has been to reduce the independent sphere of responsibility of the borough and the county council, and to subject them to the orders of bureaucrats silting in Westminster, who are governing by theory, and know absolutely nothing about the peculiar and constantly varying conditions of different parts of tho country." Ono feature of modem British .Radicalism has been its rontemufci

for law as law. In its refusal to ad- ; minister the law when it dues not suit itn own political opinions the , Jiritish Government has never gone the length of saying that if certain men are committed to prison by tho Courts the prison doors will be dosed against them. But it has acted just as unjustly in other ways. J''or example, although under the law 110 money can be voted out of Imperial taxes for the building of elementary schools, the' Kadicals, without repealing that law, voted £100,000 to build schools for their Nonconformist supporters. The Government , supported the Swansea Education Authority in refusing their just and legal salaries to competent teachers simply because they taught in Nonconformist schools. It did all it could to prevent a certain secondary Church school from receiving its ' legal grants. In case after case tho higher Courts have overturned the arbitrary decisions of the bureaucrats, and have had to express some plain opinions. In one case, when a certain charitable bequest was diverted from its proper objcct with the consent of the Government, which had its political reasons for so acting, the Court of Appeal spoke very strongly. Lord Justice FlE7;ciier Moulton had to say that "it is alarming to find that a Government office is capable of such misapplication of tho funds committed to its care." Another case of much importance was a dispute between a taxpayer and the Attorney-General. Tho taxpayer claimed that ho was under 110 obligation to fill up a certain land-tax form, and the Attor-ney-General sought to have the ease dismissed without hearing. The Court of Appeal rejected the plea of the Government, with some stror/g observations upon the right of the citizcn conic before tho Courts. The familiar pica, that if the claim of tho plaintiff were allowed the Government would bo inundated with such pleas, was cast aside very emphatically, with the observation that "if inconvenience is a legitimate consideration at all, the convenience in the public interest is all in favour of providing a speedy and easy access to tho Courts to any of his Majesty's subjects." We cannot cite any more of the many similar oases dealt with by Lord Selborne, but we may t|uotc his explanation of this "disease of the 'tin tyrant'," especially with reference to its working in the matter of appointments 'for party purposes. Why (he asked) is this so? I am afraid it is because public opinion, that public opinion that we know and \allied so much, 110 longer has the foTce it used to have. What the Government care for is tho public opinion of their own party and (heir own pre*?. . . . You cannot account in any other way for the unblushing effrontery with which they have con-, ducted 1 heir system of political patronage. Rejected Radical politicians aro appointed to public posts as "exports" over tho heads of tried Civil Servants; journalists favourable to the Government receive handsome State billots; districts favourable to tho Government aro given a treatment denied to districts where opinion is against the Government; Radical journals, like lici/uohh's Ncws/mpcr, preach the spoils to the victors doctrine as frankly as the Hon. It. M'lvenzie. In making appointments, it said, tho Government should "stand loyally by its political friends." Sometimes (in ,the case of Sir Ernest Soares, hj Ministerial < private secretary who was made 1 Chancellor of the Exchequer for India) oven tho Radical press rebels. As to the Civil Service, nearly ■ 1000 have been appointed since 190G • without passing the usual examina- ; tions. One' of the greatest reforms 1 of last century u'.'ts the introduction 1 of the competitive system and the 1 appointment of Civil Servants by in- i dependent Commissioners, who * had ( no connection with the party of tho ' day. "That," said Lord Selborne, ! "gave us a wonderful Civil Service. : I have no hesitation in saying that 1 our Civil Service was the pride and 1 admiration of the civilised world." 1 The actual evil of the new system of 1 jobbery ho put very well in these i words: What do you suppose is going to be tho < effect of all this on the Civil Service? Do 1 you suppose that all this can be done and 1 tho Civil Service remain ns it was? I I liave said already, and I hear testimony | to it from experience, that Civil Servants, although each nun lurl his own privato ' views about politics, were absolutely 1 loyal to both political parties when they j were in power. # But what is to Ixi tho 1 effect if the Civil Service is flooded with mei: who aro only put in because of their ! political opinions and political record? Will it be astonishing if tho Civil Servant says to himself: "It is not honest and loyal work that pays, but party sympathy" ? How true this is we all know in New Zealand, .For remedy, Lord Selborne suggests "the rigid enforce- < ment of the system of Civil Service 1 Commissioners." The whole indict- : ment is severe, but it is everywhere ] supported by fact. Behind all the ■ manifestations of Radical bureau- ! cracy there lies one great fact—the I tendency -of the Radical to disregard : the law and tyrannise over minori- 1 ties: j When Tin tho jiast] one Government ! camo into power ,it accepted tho acts of ■ tho previous Government and prided it- - self 011 its respect for law as law, and I this was so because up to now there has 1 been a constant lespect by the majority of tho moment for the rights of minorities. A large and important minority of this country was suro ii) past (lavs' of courteous and considerate treatment. It was regartbd as a part of tho nation and not as a parcc-l of political pariahs. Now the spirit of administration is to trample on minorities, however large or however likely they are ii the future to becomo majorities.' This is tho natural result of Radical contempt for continuity and tradition. For the Radical there is no past, there is only his present. For him there is no wisdom except his own, 110 opinion is worth a moment's consideration except the opinions of those who voto for him.