[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Srn,—I have read with the greatest interest and sympathy your signed articles in the Spectator on the Referendum. I am heartily: in sympathy with you—in fact, for years I have felt that the Referendum was the one solution for the Parliament Act.
I believe that the party organizations, as well as many individual politicians, would oppose the proposal to the very last, but the matter is a national question and not one merely for politicians.
I have often noted the remarks of people like Mr. Asquith on this question at party meetings. The objections seem to be as follows :—
1. The Referendum would upset bargains between the Party leaders.
2. The Parliamentary fights to get some new legislation on the Statute Book might be rendered nugatory.
3. That it is un-English. 4. That it would take away the sense of responsibility of Members of Parliament.
5. That it would give too great an advantage to the more wealthy sections of the community because the appeal to the nation would be costly and the wealthy would therefore have more facilities for propaganda.
These points are all taken from the Parliamentarian point of view, except possibly the last. You have shown us how the people of Switzerland on a Referendum defeated a Capital Levy, and I should imagine that there would be many influ- ential people who would welcome a move in the direction indicated and support it. Recently, in the Sunday Times, Mr. Harold Cox has urged the supreme importance of the proposal and the desirability of bringing it before the public.
You, Sir, have done much of the preliminary work, but some momentum is wanted. Unless we secure the Referendum we shall be at the mercy of log-rollers and be governed by
Previous page
