WISE AND UNWISE LEGISLATION: A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2363, 8 June 1899, Page 27

WISE AND UNWISE LEGISLATION: A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

At a meeting of the Dunedin Fabian Society, held on Thursday night, a paper on th« above subject was read by Mr D. R. White, rector of the Normal School. The following is the first portion of the paper: —

I was asked some time ago by Mr Bastings to write a short paper for the Fabian Society. I made a. good many excuses at the time, but your secretary would not be put off, and so my name appears on the programme of your proceedings. My disinclination arose from the difficulty I had in selecting a suitable subject for discussion. I have made no special study of any branch of social science. Many of the members of your society must knew more abotit social and political subjects than I know. Under these circumstances, I have been obliged to take a very wide subject, and I shall have to treat it in a very cursory kind of way. The purpose of my few remarks is not to eulogise any politician or political party for what is wise in our legislation ; nor to condemn any party for imsgovernment ou maladministration of our affairs. lam not at all interested in this party or in that. Wise or unwise legislation is the work of the people as a whole, and from this point of view I wish to speak of it. Every citizen on the electoral roll is supposed to know something about the politics of his country, but, as a matter of fact, the ordinary elector is too busy to concern himself with " the turns of political fortune, the ebb and flow of popular feeling, the hidden mechanism by which parties are moved, and lie generally looks with indifference on any discussion about the theories and principles of legislation. Th© common sense elector has a kind of contempt for abstract proposition about progressive legislation and the brotherhood of man: Others have no faith in the sincerity of political parties, and therefore stand aloof and take no part and no interest in public life. On the other hand, we have the enthusiastic citizen and elector, who seems to think that the safety and welfare of the nation depends entirely on our accepting hia ideas of political wisdom. Of these representative citizens I believe it may be said with truth that the indifference and apathy of the one is a greater source of danger to the State than the extreme views and radical enthusiasm of the other. A learned historian has r<aid that the greatest dangers in a democracy lis in the apathy and indifference of the people. It is clear, then, in the first place thac we shall have no wise legislation if the people don't take an intelligent interest in the affaire of the Commonwealth. I have said they must take an intelligent interest in legislation. Anyone recognising the complexity and difficulty of the problems that legislation tries to solve will very readily admit that it requires a good deal of intelligence to see all round the questions that are every few yeara coming into the sphere of practical politics. Now"~are the people sufficiently well read, and have they the education necessary to understand all the issues involved in our new legislation? When I speak of more education, I do not refer to school education, though the rising generation would be all the wiser if they got something more than the beggarly elements of the Fourth Standard ; I refer rather to education that cornea from reading and study and discussion. More education by means of public libraries, by the reading of books, magazines, and newspapers ; more study and discussion by means of political clubs, societies, and associations. The public newspapers ought to have great influence in forming and educating -public opinion on public questions. I have been told that previous to an election in the United States some of th" newspapers insert articles dealing with infportant questions specially written and signed by qualified authorities and experts. The same paper will publish articles dealing with both sides of the question, and in this way the press fulfils one of its chief functions — that of educating the people by letting them read and -judge for themselves. It's a mere truism to say that wise legislation depends upon our having wise and intelligent electors.

Perhaps, however, the people will always continue to be too much engrosßed*"m their own private affairs ever to give much heed to political movements and political education- It may be too much to expect from them, and, in that case, we must look to our political leaders for wisdom and guidance. It has been said that an uneducated democracy must inevitably put itself in the power of its leaders. If this is the case we must educate our leaders. Obviously, to become a wise political leader requires some training in public life, some leisure foi the study of facts and principles of legislation, and time to devote to public affairs. We cannot expect from, them much independence of thought or careful and disinterested actions ; our legislators are not in a position to fulfil these requirements. Honesty of purpose, adminis-

trative ability, and a grasp of the principles of sound legislation are generally admitted to be the qualifications most necessary for those who are fit and proper persons to represent the people in Parliament. But where are we to get legislators of this class? I think they require some special training for 'this difficult work. And the first step towards this end should be this, that every candidate should pass an examination in political and constitutional history, and in social economics; and, besides this, and more important still, he should have an intimate knowledge of the land laws*and fiscal lawß and methods of taxation adopted in the countries of modern and ancient times. Of course, I know it will be urged against this that a man may pass any number of examinations and be» quite unfit for the administration of public affairs, but as a guarantee that our political leaders are at least familiar with the history and principles of legislation,- I think we should have a higher educational test than we have at present. It is quite obvious that good legislation depends entirely upon having educated and common-sense legislators. And even when we have got this wise class of legislators, what good after all can they do? Some people have great faith in legislators and legislation. Only get a particular law passed, and they seem to think that all the evils of State and society will disappear as if by magic. That national prosperity or adjVeraity is dependent on the Government of , the day, or the form of government, has from time immemorial been a popular sentiment. Fifty years ago thousands of people were leaving the motherland for the colonies under the belief that with new laws and a new political constitution, there would be a better state of society — there would be no poverty and no poor-houses. And now, after half a century's experiment, in new and fertile lands, where are we? Either our legislation has been bad and unwise, or legislation has in reality very little to do with the social condition of the people. This unsatisfactory state of affairs haa led many to abandon the theory of the utility of legislation as a means of improving the people, and forced them to the conclusion that the prosperity •of the people largely depends upon other causes altogether outside of Government regulation and Government control. Many have come to acknowledge the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of legislation to carry out social and financial reforms. Many people think that the effectiveness of legislation, the probability of a better state of things, is in great part a popular fallacy and a delusion. 'And we must admit that there is some truth in this. State Government is only one out of the many institutions in a civilised community that have their share and influence in making men wiser and better. In estimating the progress of a country as attributable to legislation, we must bear in mind, I think, not to expect too much from legislative action. Legislation has much to do with the social and industrial condition of the people, but it is not everything : its influence is inlarge measure remedial and indirect, rather .than creative.

But the legislation may be effective enough of its kind if it were only in the right direction. It may be lhat we are not proceeding on right principles, or perhaps we blame our legislation because it does not do what it ,was never designed to carry out. It may be that we have followed too closely on the old lines, and for a new order and new dispensation we must have new laws. It is generally admitted that legislation is both a science and an art. Experiment and research are the first conditions of success and progress in physical science. Perhaps we must bring this same spirit of inquiry and experiment into the science of legislation if we aTe to succeed on this point. We have great differences of opinion. It has been said on the one hand that the legislation in New Zealand for the past 20 years has been experimental and "dangerous, and on the other hand it is affirmed th.at it has proceeded on principles already widely recognised, and on principles that have been productive of very great good to the community. It may easily be conceded that there is no reason why legislation should not be experimental, for to some extent every reform is an experiment. No one is quite wise epough to foresee or foretell all the effects of an act of Parliament until it is in full operation. As Macaulay says: "We shall not, we hope, be suspected of a bigoted attachment to the doctrines and practices oj^ past generations. Our creed is that the ejeience of government is an experimental science, and that, like all other experimental sciences, it ib generally in a state of progression. No man is so obstinate an admirer of the old times as to deny that medicine, sur- j gery, botany, chemistry, engineering, and , navigation are better understood now than in any former age. We conceive that it is the l some with political soience."

But there are experiments and experiments, and some of them are exceedingly dangerous to ourselves and to others. We must know something of the first principles of our science before we begin making experiments. It is a comparatively easy matter to pass a law ; it requires wisdom and patience and observation; to Irace all the effects it has upon the condition of the people, and this for two reaeons: primarily, because of the difficulties in seeing the relation between cause and effect ; and, secondly, because a statutory declaration is of itself a thing of very vague and uncertain import. Its meaning is determined by the way in which it is administered. The administrator of the law is the interpreter of the law. Every experiment in legislation is" Burrounded with difficulties, but these ought jot to deter us from making experiments, but they ought to remind ns to go slowly. All sound legislative progress is slow work. It is a very difficult matter to repeal a law. We are slow to give it up even when it is proved ■useless, inadequate, and unwise. We are justified in making experiments in legislation provided w,© let the experience of the past be our guide and provided we know the principles of our science. I am going to take the principles laid down by Bentham in his exposition of the science, and see if they will apply to the laws we have been passing during the last quarter of a century. . One of the first duties of the Slate is to do all it can to increase the material wealth of the country, to give opportunity for an abundant supply of food, clothing, .fire, and shelter. Now, as all these things, the necessaries of life, come from the land, we should have wise and liberal land laws. As soon as a Government takes possession of a country it makes provision for the occupation and cultivation of the land. In apportioning the land, the chief aim of legislation should be the complete development of its abundant resources, and to do this we must have a large number of people engaged in pursuits immediately connected with _ the land and its production. To do this, legislation proceeds on the principle of equality of opportunity, and endeavours to secure this by small holdings and equitable methods of allotment. It is for the good of the State and of the individual to secure and to accumulate an abundance of wealth. I believe that individual interest is the most efficient factor in

the creation of wealth, and individual energy and intelligence the mainspring of progress and civilisation. The greater the number of intelligent workers the greater the amount of wealth. The instinctive desire to seek out and acquire is one of the strongest impulses of man's nature. His desires increase _ his means and his means increase his desires. No legislation is ever likely to change the nature of the individual in this respect ; if the State has in view the creation of abundance as one of its first duties, then I don't think it would be wise to do so. Indeed, the State encourages individual effort by giving security to property and wealth. Giving security to life and property is one of the chief duties assigned to the State, and one which it seeks to maintain at any cost. In our own land, the Government asserts the necessity for this principle by voting the sum of £336,000 annually for the defence and protection of life, food, shelter, and clothing. Wo have more law and legislation for upholding the principle of government than for any other. The State recognises the right of the individual to possess and enjoy private property. Every person has a right to hold property obtained in a lawful way. A man must be able to say : " This food, shelter, clothing, is mine, not yours." If we do not recognise this fact, then there can be no law and no political society. To repeat, the individual must be allowed to create wealth, and he must be allowed to hold and to enjoy it. It seems to me that these are two of the fundamental principles of wise legislation.

(To bo continued.)