THE LIMITS OF THE REFERENDUM. F ROM the constant mention by
public men of various forms of local Referendum as an acceptable solution of questions wholly differing in kind and character, we infer that the idea of a Referendum in the abstract is rather popular just at present, and that the notion of the scope and limit of such appeals is in the last degree vague and indefinite. There is no evidence, for instance, that the speakers who suggest, or the audiences which applaud, the reference of standing difficulties to the direct vote per capita, have so far got rid of the confusion between the ultimate reference to the electors of a measure making part of a policy, and abandoning to a part of the electorate the decision of a question on which it is the duty of a Government to form their own opinion, and then to take that of the representatives of the nation. We recently suggested that in the event of such a measure as the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales being intro- duced into the House of Commons, it should be the business of those who adopt the democratic principle, and desire to be certain that such a measure is in truth the will of the majority, to insert a clause declaring that before the Bill is put into operation, a poll shall be taken for or against Disestablishment ; and that if the decision is against Dis- establishment, the Bill shall become, and shall remain, inoperative. That, we take it, would be a proper occasion for the use of the Referendum, conforming to that in force in the Constitutions of other countries in which it is a tried and approved part of popular government. So used, it is a device for presenting a single question to the cool judgment and consideration of the people, stripped of all the rival issues which rise up at a General Election to per- plex and darken counsel. It may be doubted whether this large and simple view of the functions of the Referendum is just now that most frequently present or presented to the public mind. For while the abstract notion of a Referendum seems rather popular than the reverse, there is a disposition either to confine its operation to interests so limited and local that they are admittedly outside the working cognisance of Parliament, or to divert its uses to the settlement of other questions on which neither Parlia- ment nor the public have yet made up their mind, but which, if sporadically decided by Local Option, may, it is hoped, become established, and grow into law before the majority is aware of it, stealing into the Statute-Book behind the shelter of precedent. Against the use of a local plebiscite for purely local matters, such as the establish- ment of free libraries, Village Councils, School Boards, and municipal government in general, there can be_ few objections, if we are not run away with by the notion that such minor and local functions are the limits of the Referendum. No doubt there may lurk behind Local Option, so understood, some elements of mischief, as elsewhere. If London were to become as well organised as Birmingham, it might perhaps de- velop into a formidable factor in the body politic, an "over-mighty subject" in days when the growth of towns is one of the most marked political features. But what- ever danger of a " conflict of freedoms " may arise in the future between a self-governing Metropolis and an Imperial Parliament, there is little doubt that at present, with the vast and undeniable inequality that exists between the education and intelligence, say, of the London electorate and the peasant vote of Ireland, the verdict of a ple'biscite of the Metropolis on such a question as Home-rule would carry with it a preponderance beyond any expression of opinion short of an appeal ad hoc to the nation. Con- siderations of this kind could hardly fail to raise the estimate of the local Referendum in the minds of thoughtful politicians. The present danger is, that it may incur suspicion and dislike from attempts to steal a march upon Parliament, and force the hand of the country by submitting matters affecting Imperial interests and personal liberty to a limited local Referendum to pronounce upon. Some such idea is a marked feature in a good deal of recent Gladstonian oratory, by which forms of Local Option are advanced as a means of getting a lead on ques- tions which the titulary leaders are afraid to face. Such, for instance, is the proposal at Newcastle to leave the question of an eight-hours day to the decision of particular trades, and so to shift the responsibility for a measure directly affecting in principle the right of every English- man to make such use of his powers as he will and can, to a partial and narrow Referendum, to a minority of a minority. " Local Option," in the sense in which it is most familiar, though not open to all the objections incident to such a proposal as the initial decision of a measure like the eight-hours day by a particular trade, or some fraction of a particular trade, is equally a shifting to localities of a question involving interests sufficiently general for us to demand that Parliament shall not be afraid to pronounce judgment upon it, and shall not leave it to become law by a patchy and irregular process of growth from local centres. Inconsistency in the advocates of this mis- taken view of the scope of the local Referendum is to be expected, and is not found wanting. With the eager- ness of the advocates of primary Local Option in cases in which only the decision of Parliament could even justify recourse to a subsequent Referendum, we may con- trast their reluctance to allow any exercise of discretion where the principles of Local Option give clear and formal ground for its employment. For instance, the Newcastle programme asserts and demands the principle of payment for Labour Members. But it expressly denies the right of localities to decide whether they shall pay their Mem- bers or not, and throws the burden of a State subscription for Members of Parliament upon the community. Again, if there is a point upon which public opinion is more agreed than upon others in connection with Local Option, it is as to the power of Municipalities to make their own by-laws for the regulation of traffic, public order, and the like. Whatever may be the merits of the decision of the Eastbourne Town Council in the matter of Salvation Army music in their streets, it hardly lies with Sir William Har- court to advocate the regulation of the village street by Village Councils, and in the same breath to deny the com- petence of the Town Council of Eastbourne to exercise its judgment in a similar way. Yet we have his authority for saying that the action of this local body is against the common • law of England; and Sir William Harcourt is one who knows the law.
To deny the competency of a town to regulate its streets, and to give that power to a village ; to refuse to allow a, constituency to decide whether or no it shall pay its Member, and to allow a body of artisans to limit the wage- earning power of its fellows,—argues a sufficient indifference to the logic of Local Option to justify a doubt whether the use made of the growing favour of the local Re- ferendum is not being consciously abused for party pur- poses. When we find the principle of the Referendum in the largest sense distorted and gravely cited as an argu- ment for Home-rule, the doubt becomes a certainty. Ever since Mr. Gladstone's conversion, we have been asked to accept the verdict of Irish constituencies as a final argu- ment for handing over a third of the taxable area of the country to a separate and hostile Government. The nation as a whole at the last Election refused to take this local Referendum as a valid pronouncement on an Imperial question. That verdict was, so far as the verdict of any General Election can be, a distinct and separate answer to a distinct question,—that of the separation of Ireland from English control. At the coming General Election, an appeal will be made to reverse that de- cision. But the appeal to English electors will not be made upon the question of Home-rule. The electors are to be asked to take the Irish local Referendum as final; and where that fails to satisfy, to take a " consideration" to accept the Irish verdict as sufficient. Mr. Tuckwell's Home-rule sandwich is a sufficient instance. ' The labourers,' said Mr. Tuckwell in effect, ' do not care twopence about Home-rule. But they will swallow Home- rule if it is • sandwiched between Allotments and Village Councils.' Tricks of this kind will never satisfy the majority of Englishmen in a national question ; and sup- posing a majority pledged to Home-rule were returned on such side-issues, the place of the Referendum would become plain and undisputed. As a nation, we are not quick in these party juggles. Many of our people are new to politics. We do not wish to be asked if we will have Home- rule and Allotments, or Home-rule and No Vaccination, or Home-rule and a Free Breakfast-Table, or even Home- rule and Mr. Gladstone. Amid such a tempting list, electors may well lose sight of proportion, or see only the gain and not the cost. But they can give a plain answer to a plain question. In the event of a Home-rule Bill ever passing the House of Commons, it will be the duty of those who respect the democratic principle, to see that the decision be referred to the electors in a dry light, to be judged finally upon its merits. If the time comes to drink the strong wine of change, we would have it pure, and not drugged. There must be a Referendum of the question of Home-rule to the nation ; and then, and not till then, can its decision be taken as final.
Previous page
