[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Siu,—Your persistent advocacy of

the Referendum and the correspondence which you have published are alarming to all who see in this ancient device of democracy the easy path to revolution. You guard yourself by limiting the Poll of the People to " definite and concrete, but not abstract projects, as set forth in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Bill." What possible guarantee could be given that this or any other limitation could be maintained ? The Referendum itself Auld be used, in circumstances easily imagined, to sweep

away, any restrictions, and would be so used if adequate forces could be organised for this purpose. Are you prepared to define the difference between concrete and abstract projects ? Take the question supposed to be decided by the recent elections. The doctrine of Free Imports is clearly an abstract proposition. The question whether (say) tyre.; should be protected in the interests of British working-men is, as clearly, of a concrete character. And you will find that this inherent difficulty extends to most of the matters

which would propose to refer to the judgment of the people. I grant, of course, that a Referendum on the abstract and not concrete proposition recently submitted to the electorate

might have enabled the Conservative majority to retain power for a time. But how can it be maintained that the elections settled anything ? The votes given to the Socialist Party implied only that so many men and women had been induced to believe that the only real remedy for our present ills was to be found in Socialism. For many electors—women especially—the only question was : " Will what I need cost me more ? " I strongly contend that any close analysis of the forces by which this election was decided must lead to the conclusion that the Referendum would be perilous to the country and the. Empire. General Smuts appears to have a glimmering of this, as he realises that, failing continuity of policy, Imperial Conferences are futile.

You could not give me space to develop my objections to your proposal that we should " honestly democratize our

Constitution " by tacking on an artifice which would infallibly wreck what remains of it after sixteen years of Liberal and Coalition government. I can ask you only to permit me to point out the following as a totally inadequate presentation of the probable results—the certain results in my view—of your policy :—

" I. No stability in domestic, Imperial or Foreign policy would be possible ; because a dominant party, or a powerful minority, might create an atmosphere—vile phrase—and snatch a decision.

2. Such a decision, being deemed the ' Will of the People,' could not be upset for some time, because you could not ask the people to stultify itself. 8. The complication of all national questions is now so involved that it is quite impossible for more than a small fraction of the electors to master even their elements. Not one per cent. of the electorate could have given an intelligent explanation of the difference between free imports and regulated Protection.

4. Propaganda has been reduced to a fine art and has become a deadly weapon in the hands of minorities provided with funds. In veiled suggestion its main strength lies, and modern democracies arc its easy victims."

No, Sir, the Referendum, attractive as it may seem, contains the seeds of destructive revolution. Do not ever forget the classic example of the Poll of the People at Jerusalem two thousand years ago.—I am, Sir, &c.,

SYDENHAM.

[Lord Sydenham's letter is an argument against all demo- cratic government, whether based on a purely representative system, or on one in which representation has the corrective of the Poll of the People. If the Will of the Majority is not to be accepted as the ultimate power, then his argument may be good ; but it is certainly not good for those who, like our- selves, believe that the Will of the Majority in a country is the only final and ultimate foundation. If, however, as we expect

is the case, Lord Sydenham does not mean to challenge the Will of the Majority and accepts our present Democratic Constitution, then his arguments are, we venture to say, quite beside the mark. We do not say that the Referendum will always decide right, but it will, at any rate, give us a second string to our bow. It will give us an opportunity to correct the ill-working of representative institutions, which notoriously may place supreme power in the hands of a minority through a system of log-rolling if a corrective may not be applied. At any rate, by having the oppor- tunity of applying a corrective we are not worse but better off than under the existing system. For ourselves we believe that the corrective will work, and that it also is very much better to make quite sure what is the Will of the Majority,

right or wrong. The power of the demagogue is not increased one whit by the Referendum, but, in our opinion, will be im- mensely decreased. Now as to Lord Sydenham's special points. If he will remember how the Referendum works in Switzerland, he will see that his difficulties are imaginaiy. He will, no doubt, recall the fact that in Switzerland the first

tariff was put to the country as a whole, schedule and all, and was accepted by the country. In the same way it was not

the principle of a Capital Levy that was submitted last year to the electors, but a regular project of law. Finally, in regard to Lord Sydenham's four propositions as to the results of the Spectator policy, we would ask him whether he really thinks that our present system, which he is presum- ably defending, meets his points. It is possible that the. Referendum, like every other form of government, contains within it the seeds of destructive revolution, but we say with the utmost confidence that there are many more seeds— seeds far more likely to prove destructive in a representa- tive system—without the check and safeguard of the Referen- dum. Surely Lord Sydenham is entirely begging the question when he assumes that, because the mob at Jerusalem cried " Crucify Him 1 " they represented the will of the people. They were simply a city mob stirred up by the selfish, sacerdotal oligarchy which ruled in Jerusalem. We have as good a right, though, of course, it is no right, to assume that Galilee and Judaea, and even Jerusalem itself, would have reversed the verdict of the mob, hounded on by the Scribes and Phari- sees, as he has to assume that the city mob and the vox populi or Will of the Majority were identical.—En. Spectator.]