INTELLIGENT LEGISLATION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 324, 24 January 1874, Page 3

INTELLIGENT LEGISLATION.

" There are questions to which growine necessities will wwrnw or later compel th» attention both of theoretical and of practical politicians. The chief of these is the distinction between the function of making laws, for which a numerous popular assembly is radically unfit, and that of getting good laws made, which is its proper duty, and cannot be satisfactorily fulfilled by any other authority; and the consequent need of a Legislative Commission as a permanent part of the constitution of a free country, consisting of a small number of highly-trained political minds, on whom, when Parliament haa determined that n, law shall be made, the task of making it shall be devolved j Parliament retaining the power of passing or rejecting the Bdl when drawn np, but not of altering it otherwise than by sending proposed amendments to be dealt with by the Commission^ The question here raised respecting the most important of all public functions, that of legislation, is a particular case of the great problem of modern political organisation, the eombinatioa of complete popular control over pubKe affairs with the greatest attainable perfection of skilled agency." — John Stuart M2T. How admirably the problem of modern politics is; here pointed out,, we need not say. Neither,, we presume, need we remind our readers, how very closely the inod-e which; the eminent thinker recommends- as the best, solution of the problem in the department of legislation tallies with the views we have been enforciag in this, matter* In fact the substance and the language of the extract almost exactly/ coincide with our own. It is absolutely necessary, however,, to keep, continually harping on a subject like this> and to keep the iron hot by incessant hammering at ik It is exceedingly difficult to, make people see consequences which, though they feel them and suffer from them* are only indirect,, and therefore not readily connected with the causes-. We have over and over again shown that the hopeless and ever-growing mess into which our statute law has. got is. the practical result of our stupid blindness to the. principle pointed out by Mi\ MllJj.. The very thing which he says. Parliament should not do is precisely the thing which our Parliament is habituallydoing. And, as \»y shutting one's eyes. to. principles you don't extinguish the principle, it always reasserts its truth (if it be ; teue}, b.y making you suffer practically for ignoring^ it. It is all the more inconsistent and irrational that, as we have already said, the principle of uniting, popular' control with the direct agency of-"skille& experts is no innovation in our practice. We already have this principle in full play. Responsible- or parliamentary government is nothing else but this, very principle applied to. the department of public administrationv Why theo^ in the name' of common sense and consistency, dft we persist in ignoring it in- the department of legislation ? If it is salutary, efficient, and necessary in the for.rn.er-, it is ten times more so. im the latter. What is the practical' issue of our disregarding this, principle in legislation, the most important of- all public functions? Hardly a single head of legfe,ation but hap been altered in the Houss, amended, again., reamended, partially repealed, meJdled and muddled into- chaoß.. Hardly & single statute is intelligible^ Hardly a single subject of prime importance or frequent occurr.encCi but we must have, lawyers' opinions, one, two, three, or more ,- and as lawyers* opinions- are only conclusions from premisses, if the premisses are vague the opinions are generally questionable, and iHw upshot is. litigation* The- ultimate issue is an expenditure' multiplied ten-fold or twenty rfold in the blundering effort to fix [men's rights on- the sure and lasting- basis- of reliable finality. All this comes of our shortsighted empiricism in this all-important matter of legislation.. The evil vJlllast, depend upon it, as long as the root of it is permitted to. exist.. Once more we repeat, a popular assembly, good as it is for the work of control either of legislation or of administration, is far- more \mfitfer the direct undertaking of the former than of the latter. We see- not the smallest ground for hope of change in this matter until we practically recognise the transcendent public moment of the principle- here dwelt upon, and commit the management of" our legislative work to- the hands of a permanent body of skilled experts, whose especial duty it shall be to> give formal shape and consfrtency. to our< pjosftive legislation.. We haire in our Cabinet or Ministry such a special organ- of administration!.. It is therefore utterly inconsistent torefuse to give the principle- in question, a practical shape- i<a a co-ordinate specific organ for legislation. — " Otago Guardian."