TOPICS OF THE DAY.
NATIONAL SERVICE AND THE REFERENDUM. LORD ROBERTS'S speech at Bristol, which was the opening of a great and well-thought-out campaign for making the country understand the objects of the National Service League, was an unqualified success. It proved not only that the country will now give its full attention to the proposals for universal military training, but also that the attempt to embarrass the cause by giving it a party label has been a complete failure.
Throughout the country Liberals are refusing to let their minds be dominated by the outcry that the National Service League is a wing of the Unionist Party, and that its programme is a Tory dodge for imposing conscription, or a "class " attempt to force the poor man to bear the burden of war while the rich man escapes. A few more meetings like that at Bristol and it will be absolutely impossible for anyone to go on pretending that the National Service League is a party organization. A body which had for one of its Vice-Presidents a member of a Liberal Cabinet (the late Lord Wolverhampton became a Vice-President while ho was still in the Cabinet), and a body to whose programme the Unionist leaders refuse to give their assent (witness Lord Lansdowne's recent speech in the House of Lords), cannot with any approach to decency be described as a Unionist conspiracy to promote militarism.
But though it is clear that the National Service League is going ahead, and though we are devoutly thankful for the fact, we must not conceal from ourselves that there are a great many obstacles, and very grave obstacles, which must be surmounted. On present lines the task before the League is the conversion to its policy of a majority of members of the House of Commons.
Such conversion might, no doubt, be obtained as it were by force if the League were to capture either one of the political parties and get its policy inserted in the programme of that party. Then all the members of Parliament belonging to the captured party must either agree to vote for National Service or in the end disappear from the House of Commons. But this is the thing which the National Service League has, no doubt rightly, deter- mined not to do, or perhaps, to put it more correctly, cannot do. The League cannot do it, because it is com- posed to a much larger extent than the public supposes of members of both of the two great parties in the State.
Assuming that the short cut to converting the House of Commons by convincing one of the political parties in the State is closed, the task of converting members of Parliament to a view which, whether right or wrong, popular or not, undoubtedly creates violent antagonism in certain sections of the population, is an exceedingly hard one. The ordinary member of Parliament, whose primary object, remember, is to be in Parliament, and not, as he would say, to carry out even his own political fads, dreads above all things fierce non-party minorities, for he knows that they can kill. A fierce section wholly in the other party—in the party not his own—is already earmarked against him, and he therefore does not fear it ; but a fierce section, part of which belongs to his own party, is from his point of view " the very devil." In a word, the ordinary member is not going to commit himself to National Service except under some compulsion or inducement which on its present lines the National Service League cannot supply. He may say smooth things about National Service, but he will not pledge himself to vote for it, even when at heart he approves of it, unless he is sure that he will not thereby antagonize a powerful section of his constituents.
How is " the elected person " we have just described to be dealt with, and induced to adopt what no doubt would represent his own private view were he a free man ? We believe, as we tried to explain shortly last week, that the easiest and quickest, and perhaps indeed the only way, if National Service is to remain a non-party issue, is for the League to make it .a definite part of its programme that any measure imposing National Service shall, before it comes into operation, be submitted to a poll of the electors— shall only come into operation if the electors express their personal consent. No doubt, at first sight a great many supporters of the National Service. League will be greatly annoyed at our suggestion. They will be inclined to say, " We are already well in train to convert the House of Commons, and here comes this well-meaning but blundering Spectator to fidget and distract us with another proposal. While trying to help, this busybOdy is putting yet another obstacle in our way. Such a proposal is the foolish and unnecessary suggestion of people who have got the Referendum on the brain." We fully understand such impatience, but we believe that if the objectors we have described will listen to us we can make it plain to them that our proposal is sound. If neither great party takes up National Service, any attempt to force members of Parliament of the neutral kind—of the kind who are not willing to make sacrifices for the cause, and to risk political extinction to obtain it—will fail.
And for this reason. Mr. A. is a member of Parliament who says he cannot support the National Service League policy. Upon that the National Service League organization points out to him that it will ask its members who have hitherto voted for him to vote against him. He replies in effect, "Do your worst." He knows, and it knows, that owing to the tremendous strength of the party system at a moment of crisis like the present it will fail to detach votes.
If the League were to say to a body of Liberal National Service League men, " Vote for the Unionist candidate, Mr. B., because Mr. A. is going against the National Service League," those electors would reply, " We are very sorry, but we cannot. We must support Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment at the crisis of their fates. Great as is the issue of National Service, it must be subordinated to keeping a Home Rule Government in power." In the same way Unionist voters, with the questions of the Union and Disestablishment hanging in the balance, would not vote for a Liberal National Service League candidate merely because the Unionist candidate would not adopt the policy of the National Service League. In fact, any proposal to put on the screw by the National Service League, though no doubt often contemplated by the leaders, has always been seen to be impracticable. A Referendum on National Service would, however; set these electors free. At a Parliamentary election they could not vote for their favourite scheme because the objection of their party candidate would be in the way, and because the cause would be mixed up with other things that they deemed for the moment more important. With a Referendum things would be very different. They would then be able to please themselves. Voting for National Service then would not mean breaking away from their party allegiance, i.e., doing what the party. man esteems the greatest of crimes. The Referendum, for one sweet moment, knocks the shackles off the limbs of the party slave and allows a man to do unhampered what he deems his duty to his country. In other -words, there would be literally hundreds of thousands of electors who would be set free to vote for National Service by the adoption of the Referendum.
We are then absolutely convinced tha at if National Service cannot be carried by means of the ordinary: politic-al machinery, i.e., by being adopted by one party, it can only be carried by a Referendum—by being put to the country in isolation and free from all other issues.
But this is not the only advantage that will flow from the National Service League making a Referendum on its Bill an essential part of its policy. By' means of a Referendum clause it would unquestionably 'get the support of a very great number of members of Parliament who are now its opponents. Take, 'again, Mr: A., our canny M.P., who is not going to antagonize a section of his supporters even though he would personally like to see universal training introduced. A Referendum clause sets him free to indulge his personal predilections, and so to vote for the Bill. He could explain to the anti-compulsory service people that they would not be committing theniselves to a crime, as they think it, by voting for him, because they would always have an opportunity of withdrawing their votes, as it were, by voting against National Service at a Referendum. One can hear his speech of explanation : " if the effect of 'voting for the Bill were, as my friend, Alderman Bulper, said just 'now, to rivet the shacklei of militarism on the limbs of the people of this country I should never dream of voting for it. But in reality I am not voting for compulsory service by voting for the Bill. All I am voting for in reality. is a, Bill to. give the people of this. country an opportunity of saying once and for all for themselves whether they want universal training or nut. If they want it, they can vote for the Bill, and like a loyal believer in democracy I shall of course bow to their opinion. If they do not want it, they will say ' No,' and then the question will be settled. It is not for me to prevent them from stating their own opinion on a matter which concerns them so vitally. But that is what I should be doing by refusing to vote for a. Bill with a Referendum clause. I admit that as a rule I am strongly against the Referendum, for I bold that it would tend to weaken and destroy our representative system, a system which has done so much for the country. In a word, I value the absolute independence of the member of Parliament far too greatly to impair it. At the same time, I think that it will not be denied that this is a perfectly exceptional proposal, and that each voter ought, in this case at any rate, to be allowed to say whether his sons as they reach manhood shall or shall not undergo military training—for that, of course, is the proposal. As a, man does not have the vote till he is practically twenty- two, and as a man of twenty-two will be beyond the initial military age under the Act, no one will in effect be asked to impose a military burden on his own shoulders. I intend, then, to vote for the National Service League Bill in Parliament, because it is the only practical way of letting the country decide this problem for itself and putting an end to an agitation which has already so greatly disturbed the even tenor of our political life, and which will disturb it still more if it is not quickly settled." In a word, the candidate, Mr. A., will find that agreeing to submit the matter to the country will be the line of least resistance and he will therefore take it. A vigorous cam- paign on the part of the National Service League to induce candidates not to say that they agree to National Service, but that they will agree to let the country decide the matter for itself, would in all probability be successful, especially if it were understood that voting for the measure need not in any way be taken to be an admission that the Referendum on other subjects ought to be adopted as a part of the Constitution. Another reason why the National Service League should adopt the Referendum proposal is the fact that even if they do not adopt it now, they will almost certainly be forced to adopt it if after a year or two more of campaigning they get a small nominal majority of members of the House of Commons in its favour. Their opponents in the last resort would almost certainly propose to add a Referendum clause to the Bill. But if the advocates of the Bill refused they would be exposed to the taunt : " You do not trust the people. This Bill is merely the creature of Parliamentary log-rolling and intrigue, and is against the will of the nation as a whole." Most probably this cry would become so insistent and so dangerous that at the last moment the National Service League would have to show its trust in the people by agreeing to it. But if this should happen, the refusal to take up the Referendum clause now would only have had the result of postponing victory by several years. We are confident then that an immediate adoption of the Referendum proposal will immensely stimulate the pace at which the conversion of members of Parliament will proceed.
Yet another and very important argument in favour of the Referendum is one not of tactics, but of substance. We must never forget that one of the dangers to the Bill is the possibility of something in the nature of a strike against it, and of this strike or obstruction ending in a movement for repeal. If, however, the Bill were carried at a poll of the people such resistance would be doomed to failure. The resisters might argue that the country had only been hoodwinked into compulsory service, and that the scheme had no real popular sanction if there was nothing but a Parliamentary endorsement. No one could say that after a poll of the electors had been taken. It would be a case of " Britain has spoken," and of the case being finished and beyond further appeal. We must say one word as to still another objection. We can understand an ardent advocate of compulsory service declaring th a if. Parliament could be got to agree to the scheme -he was not going to run the risk-of the country, through some - misapprehension, refusing • its assent,: at-the polls. It is =notorious; he would add/ that polls of, the people generally end, in the vetoing of :legislation, and this Bill is too precious a one to run that risk. In a word, he would argue that the Bill would never get the assent of the people. We cannot agree. We believe that the Bill would be triumphantly carried by the electors. It would be a measure very easy to explain, because it would not be prejudiced by being involved in party issues. No one would be able to say : " You cannot vote for this measure because you are a Liberal or because you are this or that or the other." People would vote solely on the merits and on the question whether the country would not be safer if the people knew how to use the weapons of war, and whether its young men would not be better equipped for the battle of life if their physical and moral strength had been developed by a military training.
We are free to confess that if National Service could not get the consent of the electors at the polls we should have no desire to see it passed, because it could never be maintained. We have no use for National Service imposed by the House of Commons on an unwilling country. In our opinion, however, there is no need to confider that matter, because we believe that unless it carries a Referendum clause no non-party Bill of this magnitude will ever get through the House of Commons. As to the notion that all measures submitted to the poll of the people will be thrown out, we must point out that it is a delusion. No doubt a good many measures are rejected, and rightly rejected, in Switzerland and in America at polls of the people, but this is by no means always the case. Take, for example, the Swiss law passed in 1907 for doubling, or very nearly doubling, the obligations of military service imposed upon the young Switzer. The Socialist Party, who were very much against the Bill, insisted on its being sent to a Referendum. They felt sure that the peasant voters were not going voluntarily to shoulder a new burden. Yet contrary to all the calculations of the politicians tho law was accepted by a very large majority. The result, we are convinced, would be the same here. The people of this country, if asked whether a Bill obliging every young Briton between the ages of seventeen and nineteen to be trained in the use of arms for the defence of these islands, and to serve four years in the Territorial Army and later to join the National Reserve should become law would, we are certain, adopt such a proposal. Let those who disagree with us have the courage of their opinions and consent to put the matter to an issue by the pre- sentation to the electors of a specific Bill. Remember that it is no good to say that there is no means of taking a Referendum in this country and that noun can be devised. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Bill, which we described only a week or two ago, with perfect ease and lucidity adapts our existing electoral machinery to the purposes of a poll of the people. The thing is perfectly simple. We have only got to hold an election, though with- out candidates, under the ordinary machinery. The one difference is that the ballot paper, instead of having the names of two candidates for Parliament upon it, will have a "Yes " and a " No " column, so that those who want. the Bill can put their cross under " Yes," and those who do not want it can put their cross under " No." The allegation that Englishmen could never be made to understand how to vote at a Referendum is either fraud or folly. To suggest that the people who with comparative ease answered the conundrums of the Insurance Act and have put that Juggernaut in motion could not learn to say " Yes" or " No " at a Referendum is preposterous non- sense.
Previous page
