They have very few laws, because, with their social system, very few laws are required. Indeed, one of their great complaints against other countries is that, although they’ve already got books and books of laws and interpretations of laws, they never seem to have enough. For, according to the Utopians, it’s quite unjust for anyone to be bound by a legal code which is too long for an ordinary person to read right through, or too difficult for him to understand.

[Leges habent perquam paucas. sufficiunt enim sic institutis paucissimae. Quin hoc in primis apud alios improbant populos, quod legum interpretumque uolumina, non infinita sufficiunt. Ipsi uero censent iniquissimum; ullos homines his obligari legibus; quae aut numerosiores sint, quam ut perlegi queant; aut obscuriores quam ut a quouis possint intelligi.]

Thomas More (1478-1535) English lawyer, social philosopher, statesman, humanist, Christian martyr
Utopia, Book 2, ch. 7 “Of Their Slaves, and of Their Marriages” (1518 ed.) [tr. Turner (1965 ed.)]
    (Source)

Turner has the same translation in the 2003 ed.

(Source (Latin)). Other translations:

They have but few lawes. For to people so instructe and institute very fewe do suffice. Yea this thing they chiefely reprove among other nations, that innumerable bokes of lawes and expositions upon the same be not sufficient. But they think it against all right and justice that men shoulde be bound to those lawes, which either be in number mo then be hable to be read, or els blinder and darker, then that anye man can well understande them.
[tr. Robynson (1551)]

They have but few Laws, and such is their Constitution, that they need not many. They do very much condemn other Nations, whose Laws, together with the Commentaries on them, swell up to so many Volumes; for they think it an unreasonable thing to oblige Men to obey a Body of Laws, that are both of such a bulk, and so dark, that they cannot be read or understood by every one of the Subjects.
[tr. Burnet (1684)]

They have few laws, and such is their constitution, they require not many. They much condemn other countries, whose laws, with the commentaries on them, swell so many volumes; esteeming it unreasonable to oblige men to obey a body of laws so large and intricate, as not to be read and understood by every subject.
[tr. Cayley (1808)]

They have but few laws, and such is their constitution that they need not many. They very much condemn other nations whose laws, together with the commentaries on them, swell up to so many volumes; for they think it an unreasonable thing to oblige men to obey a body of laws that are both of such a bulk, and so dark as not to be read and understood by every one of the subjects.
[tr. Burnet/Morley (1901)]

They have but few laws. For to people so instruct and institute very few do suffice.. Yea this thing they chiefly reprove among other nations, that innumerable books of laws and expositions upon the same be not sufficient. But they think it against all right and justice that men should be bound to those laws, which either be in number more than be able to be read, or else blinder and darker, than that any man can well understand them.
[tr. Robinson (1909 ed)]

They have very few laws; people so trained, need but few. The chief fault they find with other people is that they have almost innumerable books of laws and commentaries on them which yet are not sufficient; for they themselves think it most unfair that any man should be bound by laws, which are too numerous to be read through, or too obscure to be understood by any.
[tr. Richards (1923)]

They have very few laws because very few are needed for persons so educated. The chief fault they find with other peoples is that almost innumerable books of laws and commentaries are not sufficient. They themselves think it most unfair that any group of men should be bound by laws which are either too numerous to be read through or too obscure to be understood by anyone.
[tr. Richards/Surtz (1964)]

They have very few laws, and their training is such that they need no more. The chief fault they find with other nations is that, even with infinite volumes of laws and interpretations, they cannot manage their affairs properly. They think it completely unjust to bind men by a set of laws that are too many to be read and too obscure for anyone to understand.
[tr. Adams (1992 ed.)]