THE REMEDY.
paUR object in the article that precedes this was not NJ to emphasize Lord Beaconsfield's prescience, but to lead up to the question whether a remedy can be found. We are not going to get on without a representative system. We are in for that whatever happens, and, whether we like it or not, must endure it. What we have got to find is something that will take away from the House of Commons that apparent absolutism which makes it unpopular. We want, in fine, to find a lightning-con- ductor which will deflect the national jealousy and leave Parliament uninjured in a political thunderstorm. We believe that a remedy is to be found, and that a lightning- conductor can be provided. Like most things that are worth having in the world, the remedy is a very simple one, and one which, oddly enough, our People instantly demanded, and were prepared to take refuge in, on the only other occasion in our history when the House of Commons was supreme—i.e., the Long Parliament after the abolition of the Monarchy and of the House of Lords.
The remedy is the Referendum or Poll of the People. The maladies of Democracy can only be cured on the principle of similite similibus. If the nation could feet that the House of Commons was not a vast Committee of petty tyrants armed with supreme power, whether in the matter of a Bill for the reconstruction of a rural parish or for the most tremendous alterations in the Constitution, we believe that the jealouity of which we have spoken would die away. If the voter could be satisfied that, though the House of Commons might be arbitiftry and absolute in small matters, in really great matters, or at any rate in all matters in which there was a doubt as to the will of the People, it must appeal to its masters, the discon- sideration suffered by the holders of power would dis- appear. We should have reached the rock-bottom. After all, the People cannot be jealous of themselves, and cannot detest the power of which they themselves are the depositaries.
At present, of course, there is nothing which Parliament hates so much as the. Referendum. Pleased with his seven-hundredth part of absolutism, the ordinary member of the House of Commons looks with ill-concealed loathing upon the idea of a Poll of the People. The better type of Member of Parliament thinks that it would rob him of the power and responsibility which he enjoys, or thinks he enjoys, for in truth that power and that responsibility do not belong to him, but to the leaders of that particular Party or Group to which, he is attached. He glories, as it were, in the freedom of his trusteeship. The baser kind of Parliamentarian—i.e., the pure Party man— detests the idea of the Poll of the People for other and less worthy motives. He recognizes that the Parliamentary game as he plays it might be completely spoiled by the Poll of the People. As it is, the Party politician flourishes on the system of log-rolling—the system under which all sorts of measures are passed which the country as a whole dislikes, but which are forced upon it by a com- bination of minorities. Smith, Jones, Robinson, and Brown, as Group leaders, have each a Bill of their own which they want to pass, and they care more for getting this Bill through than for preventing the passage of other Bills in which they are not interested. Therefore they make an unholy alliance to pass three Bills in which they are not interested in order to get their own measure through. It is such combinations as these which are in fact the warp and woof of the two great political Parties that constitute the " Ins " and " Outs." Instinctively the Party log-roller feels that if legislative plans which were due to the successful manipulation of log-rolling Groups on, sufficiently strong demand had to be submitted to a popular vote, the whole fabric would come crashing to the ground. As a Radical opponent of lodging the veto-power in the hands of the People them- selves—i.e., of the Democracy—once wrote in an article in a Liberal Party newspaper, " under the Referendum reform would be impossible," by which he meant of course that Group legislation would be impossible.
But though we see very well why the ordinary Member of Parliament is so fiercely zealous in his antagonism to letting the whole body of the People have a right of veto over legislation on matters of great import, matters in which a certain large proportion of the People challenge the verdict of Parliament as unpopular, we believe that the Parliamentarian who wishes to retain our Parlia- mentary system—as most certainly we ourselves do— would be wise to reconsider his hostility to the Poll of the People. We believe, indeed, that it will prove Ms salvation. It will restore to the House of Commons that popularity and that consideration which all wise outsiders desire it should have restored, and the loss of which is so keenly felt by the better class of members of the House of Commons.• As has so often happened in history, the yielding up of a certain amount of power, instead of detracting from the real authority of Parliament, will increase that authority. As it is, Parliament is in awe of the voters and of the verdict of a Dis- solution, with the result that it is always trembling at shadows, always wondering whether this or that piece of legislation may not prove after all very unpopular. In a word, the Parliamentarian always knows at the back of his mind that power belongs to the People, and is always trying to guess at the will of his master and lord. But those who are perpetually asking questions with a. falter in their voices lose their own self-respect as well as the respect of others. If it could be compelled by the very simple machinery often suggested in these columns to submit vital issues upon which there was
any doubt to the People themselves', the House of Commons would very greatly gain in the matter of independence. A member of the House of Commons would be able to say to himself, to his fellows, and still more to his Party
Chiefs : Well, I fought for this Bill, and fought for it in this particular form, because I honestly believed, after going into the matter thoroughly and considering all the arguments, that it was the simplest and hest form of legislation possible ; but, after all, it is not my business or my right to force legislation upon the People which they don't like. I shall let it go to the country, and the country can take the responsibility of rejecting it if it likes. If it does, my withers are unwrung." Instead-of this, under the present system a Member of Parliament is always being frightened by what is supposed to be the will of the People, though it may be nothing of the kind. Sometimes the Party leaders or leaders of Groups in the House of Commons warn him that he must modify his attitude towards a Bill, although it is against his conscience to do so, in order to meet the will of t he People. At another time it is a powerful Trade Union which insists upon modification. Atyet another time it is some influential City interest, closely organized and with a strong lobby, which presses for modification and threatenshim with the assumed will of the People. Lastly, and worst of all, the Press is always scolding the House of Commons and stating that it knows much better than the House itself does what the will of the People is, and insisting that this or that clause must be passed in this or that shape. Let the answer to all these persons who profess to speak with the voice of the Democracy, but as a matter of fact are as often as not impostors, be brought to the test by giving the People the right of veto over the legislation of their representatives—a right of veto which need not and ought not to be used on every paltry occasion, but which can be kept in the background, ready to prevent the scandal of log-rolling, and the equally great scandal of the power being usurped, not by the Legislature as a whole, but by the majority of a Party majority, or even by a strong-willed minority of a Party majority. By trusting the People, by being willing to submit its decisions to the People, the House of Commons will regain the confidence of the People. Even though it may fall, like the wrestling giant, upon its Mother Earth, it will be invigorated, not injured, by the contact. In order to enjoy the full benefits of Democracy, we must get down to the rock-bottom. We must have the machinery for knowing what is the real will of the People. We must not any longer be frightened at shadows, or allow this or that interest to masquerade as the People. The voice to which we must listen must be the authentic voice of Democracy, and not the pompous whisper of this or that faction. Finally, we must prevent that disconsideration which is so gravely threatening the necessary and wholesome system of representative govern- ment by drowning and destroying that crude jealousy of power of which we have spoken. There must be a final word in regard to every human proposition. In matters of such vital and lasting importance as permanent legislation—for after all legislation is in essence a far more vital matter than administration—let it be spoken by the People themselves, and in tones which cannot be represented as the voice of an unauthorized wielder of authority.
Previous page
