THE ‘OTAGO DAILY TIMES ’ ON ECONOMIC LAW.

Evening Star, Issue 3385, 26 December 1873, Page 2

THE ‘OTAGO DAILY TIMES ’ ON ECONOMIC LAW.

To the Editor. Sin,—The writer of a leading article in the ' Otugo Daily Times’ recently endeavored to throw dust into the eyes of its readers by parading his knowledge of law and politics, am. oy accusing the authors of restrictive legislation of ignorance of economic law. It is the dodge of ignorance, but too old to be of any weight at the present day. It is like the cry of the thiel running through a town crying, “ Stop chief.” It answered once, but it won’t do now. A few set phrases thrown here and there through a leading article—such as “ free trade and protection,” “supply and demand,” “economic law”—and our contemporary thinks he has mastered the principles of political economy, as applied to land, accumulated wealth, and labor. Let us for a moment look to England, and see what her Parliament has done within the last seventy yeais, at the instance of her best statesmen, her most benevolent, wise, and practical ) oliticians. Did she not use to a man, md with her wealth liberate millions of black slaves from bondage? Was this not a direct interference through her will, with her trade, as taught by the ‘ Daily Times ?’ 1 Was not the Bill of 1802 brought into Parliament and carried by the elder Sir Robert Peel (himself a factory man), restricting the hours of apprenticed labor, a direct interference by the man of capital with the labor oc the poor ? Then, again, aiu not the elder Bir Robert Peel, assisted by his ~on, one of England’s best men and best statesmen, succeed in 1819, in passing an Act restricting the labor of unapprenticed children ? Did not that Act affirm the principle of restriction as legitimately applicable to “freelabor?” Again, in 1825, at the instance of Bir J. C. Hobhouse, another Act was passed. In 1833, the Parliament did not only lay down the principle of restriction as legitimate, but at the instance of Lord Ashley, laid down the law that it was the duty of the state to see that the law was obeyed. In 1807 and 1872 the provisions of those Acts were further extended. In 1867 women were prohibited altogether from entering and working in mines, and protection was given to children wjho are working, not for wages at all, but only under a patent. The powerful combination ot motives for gain—the worshippers of mammon were so faithful to their idol—“Milton’s meanest devil”—that tiie State had to carry its interference to its utmost length. I do not believe that the employers here are any better or more moral than they are in England ; I believe they require to be watched. There is one thing I am certain of, and it is this—that the writer of the article in the ' Daily Times’ requires very careful watching. If the writer in the ‘Daily Times’ would condescend to take a few lessons in the principles of economy as applied to land, or labor, or anything else, from some scientific authority, instead of by the opinions expressed by the writers in the Melbourne ‘ Argus’ or * Australasian,’ there would be more truth and less transparent contradiction in its columns. There are too many “ buts” and “ ifs” used to give its writers a high class position as economists, and for the sake of science, and more particularly for the sake of the supervising head of the paper, I would recommend its writers, as teachers of great truths, to be, on scientific subject* at least, more positive—at all events, more consistent. if the well-intentioned Act of Mr Bradshaw and the Legislature is broken by any employer of female labor, it will not be the fault of the Editor of the ‘ Daily Times.’ However, there is always a way open to those who feel aggrieved when their wages are reduced: they can leave and go elsewhere. Workshops are on the increase, and so long as that state of things continues, the purchasers of labor will have to_ pay a fair wage to those that wish to sell their labor. The buyers of labor here will find out—as thej’- have found out recently in England—when the time comes, that there are more sides than one to the principles which govern political economy. If it teaches the principles of the accumulation of wealth, it also teaches the principles of distribution ; and that the latter is of equal importance with the former, for with the latter there Is a wider purchasing power, a wider prosperity, and a wider distribution of political power and contentment, which every well-regulated mind should be glad to encourage. The writer in the ‘Daily Times’ looks at the eff ct of Mr Bradshaw’s Bill in one light only- the light of money-making. Let me see how the Duke of Argyll looks at the effect of restrictive legislation. The Duke says “ Nor is there among a large section of politicians any adecpiatc appreciation of the powerful influence it has had in improving the physical condition of the people, and securing their contentment with the laws under which they live. “When, however, we think for a moment of the frightful nature of the evils which this Legislation has checked, and which to a large extent it has remedied—when we recollect the inevitable connection between Buffering and

political disaffection—when we consider the great moral laws which were being trodden under foot from mere thoughtlessness and greediness—we shall be convinced that if, during the last fifty years, it has been given to this country to make any progress in political science, that progress has been in nothing happier than in the Factory Legislation. The names of those who strove for it, and through whose faith and perseveiance it was ultimately carried, are, and ever will be, in the history of politics, immortal names. No Government and no Minister has ever done a greater—-perhaps, all things considered, none has ever done so great a service. It was altogether a new era in legislation —the adoption of a new principle—the establishment of a new idea. Nor ate that principle and tint idea even now thoroughly understood. The promptings ot individual self-inte-rest are still relied on for the accomplishment of good which it does not belong to them even to suggest, and which they can never be trusted to pursue. Proposals for legislative interference with a view to arrest some of the most frightful evils of society, are still constantly opposed, not by careful analysis of their tendency, but by general assertions of Natural Law as opposed to all legislation of the kind. ‘ Yon cannot make men moral by Act of Parliament ’ —such is a common enunciation of principle, which, like many others of the same kind, is in one sense a truism, and in every other sense a fallacy. It is true that neither wealth, nor health, nor knowledge, nor morality, can be given by Act of Parliament. But it is also true that the acquisition of one and all of these can be impeded and prevented by bad laws, as well as aided and encouraged by wist and appropriate legislation.” B.