THE UNIONIST LEADERSHIP.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.••] SIR,—I must not impose on your kindness, but I beg you to let me make a last appeal to the Unionist Party to do their duty regarding the Insurance Bill, and to yourself to give me a chivalrous backing in what seemed a forlorn hope three weeks ago, but by no means seems so now. Your article of November 18th, " The Insurance Bill: Why not a Poll of the People ? " supported by the considered judgment of the British Constitution Association, cannot but carry great weight in many minds. To my mind such a force of sober and penetrating opinion would be overwhelming in ninety- nine cases out of a hundred. Forgive me if I venture to differ from it in this case, sincerely and strenuously devoted as I am to every cause which you and the Association have at heart.
I ask you to reflect whether the Referendum clause which you propose should be added by the Lords to the Bill as it comes to them from the Commons, as their sole amendment, would not divide and confuse the issue. We must face the fact that the Poll of the People is not yet part of our Consti- tution. What is more to the point just now, it is not an accepted article of Unionist faith. I am with you wholly and warmly. But let us be honest with ourselves. The party are still a long way from being converted. Good taste and good sense forbid my saying more.
Now let us see what would happen if the Lords passed the
Insurance Bill, untouched save by the addition of a Refer- endum clause and schedule. The Government in the Commons would make great play against the amendment on the plausible ground that the Opposition, by their majority in the Lords, were trying to subvert representative govern- ment by a device unknown to the Constitution. They would not discuss the Insurance Bill at all. Why should they ? The result would be that we should have a bad lobby. There would be mixed voting—all against us—and many abstainers, all Unionists. The Lords, on receiving the Bill back, with their Referendum amendments rejected by a huge majority, would be in a far weaker position towards the Bill than they were in when they last had it before them, because it would have just received the renewed and numerically reinforced approval of the popular Chamber—not really on Insurance, but on Referendum.
Dear Spectator—I am back in spirit in the days of Addison —do not let our party commit such a folly. Let us kill the Bill straight out. Stone-dead hath no fellow.—I am, Sir, &c., E. W. [We cannot admit that the Referendum is not part of the official policy of the Unionist Party. Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne adopted it before the last General Election, and have since repeated their adherence. More significant than all, Mr. Bonar Law did not repudiate his former adoption of the Poll of the People when he took up the leadership. If he felt that the party would not endorse the Referendum he had an excellent opportunity for saying so. That he did not "go back on" the Referendum proves that it remains a plank of the party platform.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
