TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD BALFOUR'S REFERENDUM BILL.
WE have dealt elsewhere with the debate on the Referendum Bill, but must say something more here on the general principles involved, and especially on Lord Lansdowne's speech. No advocate of the Referendum could be anything but satisfied with the general effect of that speech. The Leader of the Unionist Party in the Lords showed that he and his party have adopted the Referendum not grudgingly or as the best of a bad job, but fully, whole- heartedly, and understandingly. It is clear that Lord Lansdowne not only believes that the Poll of the People is going to become part of our Constitution, but also that it will supply a much-needed corrective to certain most undesirable developments of representative institutions which come into being when they are linked with a closely organised party system. In theory the Liberal Party consider that the representatives of the people, who are assumed to be wise, far-seeing men, should say the final word on legisla- tion rather than the people themselves—the instructed rather than the uninstructed. In practice, however, this means that the will of the Caucus, not the will of the people, shall prevail. Lord Lansdowne and the Unionist Party believe that the will of the so-called uninstructed man is better than the will of the Caucus-instructed repre- sentative, and that it is no harder for a voter to decide upon a complicated measure than upon a complicated man, who, in asking to be elected, asks in effect assent to, or dissent from, not one but a dozen complicated measures. Here, then, is the Unionist case in its simplest form,and to this Lord Lansdowne has fully and frankly committed the Unionist Party. The return of a Unionist Party to power, whenever it takes place, now means the adoption of the Poll of the People. Lord Lansdowne went on to suggest that the further discussion of Lord Balfour's Bill should be postponed till we not only have an opportunity of seeing the Bill for the reform of the House of Lords but have learned from the discussion which will be raised in the Commons what is the attitude of the Prime Minister and of the Liberal Party to the proposals for the Referendum. Remember that the Prime Minister said in the most emphatic way a few weeks ago that he was not opposed to the use of the Referendum in exceptional circumstances. But though Lord Lansdowne may have been right in suggesting that the House of Lords ought not for the present to come to a decision as to the manner in which the Referendum should be applied, we cannot help regretting that he did not choose another method of securing his object. It is, in our opinion, most important to lose no time in discussing and designing the machinery under which a Poll of the People is to be taken. It would be most useful to show the country in general how easy it is to take a Poll of the People. But there is no better way of doing this than a detailed Committee discussion in the House of Lords on the clauses of a Bill. We wish, therefore, that Lord Lansdowne had, instead of a general postponement, proposed that the Bill should be read a second time, but that the clauses in regard to the occasions on which the Referendum is to be put in action should be postponed and only the machinery clauses discussed. To put it in another way, we should have liked the House of Lords to act on the principle : " If and when a Bill is referred to a vote of the people, before it receives the Royal Assent and comes into opera- tion, such poll shall be taken in the manner following."
The advantage of this procedure would have been that, at any rate as far as the House of Lords is concerned, there would have been in existence a, well-thought-out plan for putting the Referendum into operation, quite apart from the merits of a general application of the principle. The instrument thus created might have proved exceedingly useful if the Lords should determine to add a Referendum clause to a particular Bill. If the machinery were thus created, the Lords, instead of throwing out a Bill which they believed was not approved by the country, could simply add a clause that the Bill should not be presented for the Royal Assent till a Poll of .the People had been taken thereon and it had received approval at such a poll, the poll to be taken in the manner prescribed in the schedule. In the schedule would have been set forth the clauses and schedules prescribing the reference machinery to be found in Lord Balfour's Bill. By this means the cause of the Referendum would in our opinion have been greatly advanced. If at any moment the general sense of the country called for a compromise involving the use of the Referendum, a well-considered scheme would have been in being for employing a Poll of the People. We trust that even now this suggestion may be considered by the Unionist Leader, and that after Easter Lord Balfour's Bill may be read a second time and proceeded with in Cons- mittee.
Before we leave the subject of the Referendum, we desire to point out Once again what we Vave so often said—that one of the great advantages of the adoptiOn of tho Referendum by the Unionist Party is that it will, when passed, automatically repeal the Veto Bill. Once make a Poll of the People the Constitutional method f "r settling deadlocks between the House of Commons and to House of Lords, and the whole monstrous machinery or passing legislation by a Single Chamber aftei a period. cof delay disappears. Long before the two years had passed. the issue would have been decided bythe master of both Chain-, bers, at a reference to the electors. These considerations supplement what we said last week as to .the forcing, of the creation of peers being the greater of two admittedly great evils. If the peers are created, they will be men prejudiced against a Poll of the People, and, indeed, pledged in honour to obstrnct it. Therefore the creation of peers would be almost certain to prevent. the Referendum passing during the present generation,: or at any rate for many years. If, then, the Unionist Party believe, as assuredly they do; that the Referendum has become an absolute necessity in our ConAtitution and an essential corrective to caucus and log-rolling rule, they are bound, in considering the question of forcing the making of peers, to weigh its effect on the establishment of the Poll of the People. Of two evils, choose the less., That is the principle which by universal admission should guide men who wish to act wisely. Our plea is that very careful thought be given as to which is the greater of the evils that are within the choice of the Lords.
Previous page
