The Wanganui Chronicle. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1949 “THE TWILIGHT OF FREEDOM”

Wanganui Chronicle, 9 November 1949, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1949 “THE TWILIGHT OF FREEDOM”

(~)NE of the most penetrating minds of this century is that possessed by the famous ex-Dean of St. Pauls, the Very Reverend W. R. Inge. His readers are legion because he has the power of penetrating below the surface of current trends and revealing them in their historic setting. Naturally enough this great scholar is concerned that the freedom for which men fought, and for which generations of men strove, is being legislated away by men who are able to draw their authority from the people themselves. It is not to be supposed that men are willingly destroying human liberties in English communities: it is perhaps nearer the mark to say that they do not know the nature of their own work. They believe in arrogating to themselves powers beyond the dreams of many a medieval tyrant; but they are confident that no harm will come of it because for the moment they are in office. They do not intend to abuse the powers that they secure for themselves and. therefore, they assume that such powers will never be abused. They cannot appreciate the dictum of Lord Acton: “Absolute power cbrrupteth absolutely.” Yet the legislator who contemplates the situation for even a brief space of time must see that it is not he who wields power, but a Government department, and this department in turn exercises that power at the dictation of a policy which that department may or may not devise. “It is not likely,” wrote Dean Inge, “that anyone wishes to lose his liberty and become a serf under an omnipotent State. Human nature does not change to that extent. And yet this is what is happening all over the world. A few far-sighted thinkers saw what was coming even in the heyday of Liberalism. Such were Amiel, Tocqueville, and Acton, who wrote. ‘The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality madq, vain the hope of liberty.’ More recently Hilaire Belloc has said: ‘The effect of Socialist doctrine on capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters—to wit, the servile State.’ ” “We all admit that the individualism of the industrial age. in the first half of the nineteenth century, had its weak side,” continues Inge. “Freedom does not mean liberty to encroach on the freedom of others. Competition must be restricted by law, and combined action by groups—though this power, like others, may be abused—must be regarded as legitimate. But to say that the Liberal system failed is ridiculous. The result passed all expectations, and there was no class that did not benefit by the growing prosperity. As Groce says: ‘The fruitful develppment of Liberalism in England and all over Europe in the nineteenth century dashed the absolutisms to the earth, liberated oppressed peoples from foreign dominion and united them into great States. It created a supple form of living that enjoyed an immense interchange among the nations of economic, but also of moral, intellectual and social values.’ “It is the rise of economic nationalism which has threatened our liberties. Personal and political freedom can hardly coexist with the abandonment of economic freedom. If Adam Smith could return to earth he would think that he had written in vain, and all the characteristics of civilised society in the West, as they were understood even in Ancient Greece and Rome, are being progressively cast aside.” It is all very fine to quote such first-class minds as Amiel, Toqueville, Lord Acton, Benedotte Groce, Dean Inge, Hilaire Belloc, Herbert Spencer and the like, but the plain man is entitled to ask for concrete examples of how to cite Inge, “all the characteristics of civilised society in the West, as they were understood even in Ancient Greece and Rome, are being progressively cast aside.” Such an example of how this is being attempted was pror vided by the Labour Government of New Zealand when it endeavoured to sneak through Parliament a measure which should have been widely canvassed before the public. Here is the account of that revolutionary incident attempted on the sly as given ' by Mr. Holland in the Opera House and after he had placed the necessary documents before Mr. Rogers, as chairman of the meeting, so he could check the veracity of his remarkable statement. With Mr. Rogers in a position to check the dictations, Mr. Holland read clauses from the Supply Regulations Bill which was introduced suddenly into the House of Representatives in the dying hours of the session of 1947. These clauses, said Mr. Holland, gave the Government the right to confiscate any property, to enter into any property and to search it. The Government asked for authority in this Bill to amend any law without consulting Parliament, and that anything which had been done illegally in the past would be made legal by the passing of the Bill. The regulations covered all phases of the country’s life. This was not in wartime, but in peace. The legislation would have given the Government power to compel a farmer to produce the type of goods which the Minister or Controller ordered. The agent or the controller would be paid out of the profits of the land and he could sell the property as though he were the owner. That the provisions of this Bill made the audience gasp with astonishment is no exaggerated description of the meeting at this point of time. But what is even of greater significance is the explanation offered by the Prime Minister for promoting the Bill. Mr. Fraser said that it was not the intention of the Government to use the provisions contained in the Bill. The manner in which the Bill was introduced into the House revealed a determination on the part of the Government to secure the passing of this legislation which it was its alleged intention not to use. The persistence throughout the night and next morning in trying to wear down the Opposition by a process of exhaustion also bespeaks a determined intention to destroy the liberties of the people. It was a plot against the freedom of the people which, having failed, could not be explained away. This desire to strengthen the State’s machinery at the expense of every legal right of the individual is not dead: it is only awaiting another offguard moment to gam legislative authority. This effort will be made again and again. It will be necessary to be constantly alert against this freedomdestroying tendency. The only way to be assured that this alertness will be adequate to the needs of every occasion is to elect to Parliament men who- are foresworn to the setting-up in a thoroughgoing manner a condition which Hillairc Belloc aptly describes as u the servile State/* a State in which every man will be the serf of the Government, No man would do this with his eyes open. The policy of the Government is by a propagating of fear and hatred so to blind men’s eyes to the real issue that Fieedom shall pass away from the earth. None so blind as those who will not see, but those who will not see may not afterwards complain if in their blindness they have fastened the shackles of servility so firmly upon their own limbs that the bonds may not afterwards be removed. New Zealanders would not be the first people in history to lose their liberties.