The Dominion. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1910. THE REFERENDUM IN BRITAIN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 985, 28 November 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1910. THE REFERENDUM IN BRITAIN.

The suggestion by Mr. Balfour in ms Nottingham speech and by Lord Lansdotoe in his resolutions that the Referendum might be employed as a last resort in the settlement of deadlocks between the ' House of Lords and the House of Commons is by no means a new one. Just as they are ridiculing tho Peers' wili^f^ 0 roform their Hous ° as "a deathbed,, repentance," so the Radicals are' seeking to represent the suggestion of a Referendum as a belated rush to cover. Yet these critics know very well that it is many years since the Lords first moved in the matter of reform, and that the idea of the Kererendum has long been urged in Conservative quarters. The Liberals f a ™ Been quite remarkably hostile to tho Referendum, despite their incessant cry that "the will of the people must prevail. One would suppose that a means of obtaining a clear and unmistakable declaration by the people of its will respecting any particular Bill would be enthusiastically welcomed by a party professing to stand for the popular will even to the point of transforming the Constitution. But it is probable that the Liberals are of opinion that they cannot ,ca-rry their new policies excepting by a system of logrolling, and the banding together of conflicting bodies of opinion in a scheme of mutual accommodation. It is well known; for example, that Ireland is practically solid against the Budget, and that tho Nationalist members of the House aro therefore opposed to it, making an absolute majority against it in Parliament. Yet, in order to gain Home Rule, the Rcdmondites supported Mr. Lloyd-George, on the understanding that tho Liberals who oppose Home Rule will sink their convictions, later on. Tho only Liberal newspaper which has supported the principle, of tho Referendum is the Manchester Guardian, but it has done so reluctantly and apologetically. It.is the Spectator which has most strongly and persistently encouraged this method of solving Parliamentary deadlocks. Before summarising tho case for the Referendum in Britain, as put by the Spectator, it is necessary to notice the 'surprising reasoning whiph the Radicals are driven to employ in opposing the only absolutely certain method erf learning what is the people's will. Tho Radical case was put last year in a pamphlet "Against the Referendum," which was, issued by the British Weekly, the most prominent of the antiReferendum organs. Tho argument amounts to a declaration that if the machinery is- established for tho direct expression of tho will of tho people, it would certainly act contrary to what the ordinary Radical believes the will of the people to be. Tho late Mr. Goldwin Smith, a staunch supporter of the Referendum, is quoted as having claimed as an advantago of tho idea tho fact that the people "ia not in fear of its re-election if it throws out something supported by the Irish, the Prohibitionist, the Catholic, or the Methodist vote," and the pamphlet goes on to say: "In America this partial or local Referendum has worked as a distinctly conservative force. It has been, as Mr. Buyce points out, rather a bit and a bridlo than a spur for the Legislature. Hero is a fact which English Liberals should ponder. In- America, as in Switzerland, the Referendum retards progress. • Of i America, as in : Switzerland, Mr. Lecky's words are true. 'The tendencies which it , (the popular vote) 'most strongly shows are a dislike to large expenditure, a disliko to centralisation, a dislike to violent innovation.' " In other words, Radicals must oppose what is likely, nay, certain, to show a disagreement between the popular will and the Radical programme. After observing that "the. Referendum would work steadily to the disadvantage of the Liberal party," tho writer goes on to say:

It is universally agreed that the Keferendum has worked in Switzerland as a check on the forces 'of progress. Conservative minds in all countries lovo tho idea of a Referendum because. they seo how it damps and chills reforming ardour. At the Referendum polls the people tighten the purse-strings, repent of. generous enthusiasms, yield to the petty caprices and whims of democratio government. The second thoughts of voters are apt to bo purely selfish. thoughts. Advocates of tho Referendum seo in it a drag upon, the 'wheels of social lerisUhcn.

The Referendum, that is to say, must be opposed, since it would act in favour of economy and sanity, and against fanaticism and recklessness! What the Radicals who plead for "the will of tho people" desire is. evidently, not the will of tho people, ,but liberty for the doctrinaires in power to carry out their aims uninterrupted by the popular will. At the present moment,. of course, the Radicals are opposing tho Referendum because they fear that a poll of. the people would destroy each of the mam planks of the Radical pro.Rramme. But such arguments as we nave quoted are evidence of something more. They show the Jacobin mind at its worst. The essence of the Jacobin way of thinking, it will bo remembered, was a devotion to certain wild abstract principles accompanied by a cruel and inhuman refusal to admit any value in the fact that the majority of the people did not approvo of these principles. But we. must turn to the Spectator's defence of the Referendum. That some power of veto must exist somewhere in the Constitution, in every Constitution, must be admitted, and indeed is admitted by most people ovcrywhere. The present check and test in Britain is the general election, but tho holding of an election to solve ovorjy leeielativo

deadlock there has many obvious disadvantages. Tho Spectator's idea is that the House of Lords, whore it disagrees with a new Bill, or a Finance Bill to which new policies or new principles are tacked, should, if no internal amendment will < be accepted, add a now clause providing that the Bill shall not come into operation until a poll of the people has been taken. In the present case, for example, it is suggested that the "Veto" Bill should be accepted without amendment beyond tho addition of this clause. It is still possible, though it seems highly improbable now, that the House of Lords will adopt this suggestion. Were it to do so, how could the Government object with any prospect of obtaining public sympathy ? As to the form of ballot paper, the idea, which has been long advocated by the British Constitution Association, is that the question to which "Yes" or ','No" must be answered shall be, "Is it your wish that the ' Bill' shall become law V The objection that the Referendum would only be put into operation against Liberal measures, and not against Unionist measures, such, for example, as a Tariff Bill, was met in a report issued last July by a Committee of the British Constitution Association, a Committee of which Professor Dicey was a member. The Committee suggested either that the Referendum might be invoked on the petition, of a certain quorum of the electors, or that a Referendum should be taken if onethird o'f all the members of either House of Parliament should make a requisition. Another objection that has been urged has taken the form of the question: "How can a man be asked to vote on a complicated measure of which he likes some parts and dislikes others V To tHis the. Spectator replies that this has to be. done, and is done, every day in Parliament, and, in any case, "if one is to go into , the question of complication, it is much harder to vote upon a complicated man than upon a, complicated measure. Yet that is what we all do at elections." An elector often has to solve the problem of whether he shall vote for B, whom ho prefers to A, or for A because ho prefers A's party to B's. The Spectator has certainly made out it good case for tho Referendum in Britain, but the conditions in Britain are, as yet, very different from those in New Zealand. But tho chief interest of the question is of course the attitude of the British Radicals, who dare not submit to the only proper test, their claim to be the champions of the will of the people.