Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1936. THE SPIRIT NOT THE LETTER

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 78, 1 April 1936, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1936. THE SPIRIT NOT THE LETTER

Making allowance for the paucity of material for comment in the Speech from the Throne, the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply made an admirable beginning in the first debate of the session. Because the Speech gave them little that was definite to discuss they had perforce to fall back upon some of their campaign notes; but they both displayed a proper appreciation of the change that has taken place since the campaign. Labour is now in power with an assured control of the Parliamentary machine, and public attention will henceforth be concentrated less upon the sins of previous Governments than upon the performances of the present Administration. In November Opposition candidates could create a favourable impression with generalised statements of an ideal., Now Government members are expected to be more practical in their references to the programme. Of this the speakers appeared to be aware, and while they were naturally tempted to indulge in rhetorical flights, their preference for concrete measures was clearly indicated in their remarks upon unemployment, housing, and health services.

One of the rhetorical pleas, however, disclosed a tendency to leave the strictly practical ground upon which the work of this session must be done.

I wonder what would happen if we were actually to introduce a Biblical system of economics (said Mr. Lyon in claiming that the Government policy was the application of Christian ethics to the life of the community as a whole). If rents and usury were to be abolished and debts were to be wiped out every sabbatical year,.! wonder what the members of the Opposition would have to say about it.

The sabbatical cancellation of debts and the prohibition of usury are, of course, part of the Mosaic system of ethics and not the Christian, but that is by the way. What is relevant is the bearing upon Mr. Lyon's question of his own initial submission that the time has now arrived when possibly there has to be an adjustment of control in order to overcome a position in which no work can be found for a large number of people. The implication of this submission is that our economic system is not such as to assure to society the full fruits of scientific progress, that social organisation has lagged behind science and mechanisation. But the lost ground cannot be overtaken by substituting for the present order a system of economics (for the Mosaic law was economic as well as ethical) which was designed for a pastoral people who knew,nothing of mass industry.

The Mosaic law was suitable for the time and it was equitable. It operated equitably. Land which was sold had to be restored in the year of jubilee and the buyer, knowing this, paid a price adjusted to the time for which he would hold it. He paid for a leasehold. But it would be quite different, and not equitable, to write such a condition into the tenure of lands which have been bought and sold under a completely different legal system. Similarly with respect to usury, the receipt of interest (except from strangers) was forbidden, and therefore lending was not practised extensively. This is clearly shown by the instruction that a man should not refuse to lend to his destitute neighbour. A law against interest nowadays would not promote the reorganisation of society but would hinder it by discouraging the provision of capital which is essential for progress. Mosaic society did not require this capital and, to correct the abuse of an interest system, could, without great detriment to society, place a ban upon interest. An attempt to apply similar methods today would withhold from the industrious part of the reward of their industry.

We cannot make progress in this way by looking backward unintelligently. The ethical principles that inspired the Mosaic law may be adapted and applied to new conditions. That is a task partly for the individual and partly for society as a whole. Society is indeed working along these lines. As the law of Moses forbade permanent enslavement of a man and his family, so our own society provides for widows and orphans and assures educational opportunities for the children of the poor. The individual is under the same moral obligation as he was in the day of Moses to give help to the needy ; without demanding interest or a return. By the action of society and the individual greater humanity and a closer regard for ethical principles may be'introduced into our economic system. But that does not mean that we should condemn and abolish the system which lias enabled nations to make the great material progress of the last hundred years. In judging the value of the system we must give weight to its benefits as well as its abuses. Less still should we, in correcting one wrong, make a greater as we

would if we were to decree the expropriation of the possessions of people who have been neither extortioners nor usurers, only industrious and provident, animated chiefly by a commendable desire to provide for themselves and their dependants. This can be avoided and the humanitarian aim achieved if we distinguish intelligently between the letter of a law which lias changed and the spirit which is enduring.