THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REFERENDUM.
DURING the course of the debate in the House of Lords, and in Mr. Lloyd George's speech at St. Pancras Baths, certain broken-kneed. objections to the Referendum were trotted out once more. In spite, however, of the fact that they were not real a but only appeals to prejudice, to cover the dread andhatred which a reference to the people inspires in the party Liberal, it may be worth while to notice one or two of them. Lord Crewe's main objection to the Referendum, an objection which we note is eagerly echoed and re-echoed throughout the Liberal Press, is that the Referendum would not be fair because it would only be applied to Liberal measures, and that the House of Lords would never refer a Tory Bill to the nation. In these columns we have repeatedly shown the hollowness of this objection. There is not the slightest reason why the Liberals should not propose a system of Referendum on petition set in motion by a minority in the House of Commons. For example, it might be enacted that if not less than two hundred and twenty-four Members of the House of Commons, or roughly one-third, should petition the Crown that a Bill passed by both Houses should not come into operation till it had been submitted to a poll of the people, writs should at once be issued for a Referendum on the measure in question. Such a statutory provision would amply meet Lord Crewe's objection. When the Unionists bad a majority in the Commons and also in the Upper House, if the Liberals believed that a measure was not really desired by the country, they would be able, though a minority in the Commons, to put the Referendum into operation. We would make this right of a substantial minority in the House of Commons to demand a Referendum apply even to annual Money Bills. Theoretically, no doubt, such executive acts are hardly suitable to a Referendum. The abandonment of the Lords' claim to reject or amend Money Bills also puts them outside ordinary legislation. In spite, however, of these objections, they should, we think, be " referendable " on petition.
Another objection which is repeated parrot-like against the Referendum is that raised by Mr. Lloyd George. He declares that the expense of referring Bills to the country would be too great, and talks about the millions involved. This of course, as he must well know, is a purely factitious objection. The cost of taking a poll of the people in Britain would proportionately be no greater than in Switzerland or in the State of California. There is no reason, indeed, why it should cost more than on an average £200 in each constituency. Mr. Lloyd George no doubt gets at his figures of a couple of millions or so by adding up all the money which candidates, anxious for a variety of personal and ambitious reasons to get into Parliament, choose to spend on electoral contests. Of course if people were foolish enough to spend voluntarily heaps of money on blue, green, and red posters, or upon election agents and so forth at a Referendum, they could_ not be prevented from doing so. As a matter of fact, however, we very much doubt whether politicians in the various localities could be induced to put their hands into their pockets when personal aims were not involved. At any rate, all the State would have to pay for would be the cost of printing the voting-papers andRroviding afew proclamations outside the polling-booths, and also the fees due to the polling officers and vote counters. The explanation of the measure on which the people would have to vote would be done gratuitously, and quite effectively, by means of the party newspapers. They would make the issues perfectly clear. If political and party organisations liked to spend their money that would be entirely their affair. Probably they would do so to some limited extent on the first two or three occasions, but they would very soon tire of extravagant expenditure, and we should get that sensible, businesslike system of voting at a poll of the people which takes place in Switzerland. The pollings of course would be held on one day, and care would be taken to give the working classes every possible opportunity of recording their votes in their own time. The best plan would probably be to make the Referendum polling-day a. universal half-holiday, or else always to hold it on a Saturday. The polling-booths, again, might very well be opened an hour earlier and. closed an hour later than now.
We have already dealt with the objection that the Referendum would not be fair to the Liberals by showing how easy it would be to arrange a system of Referendum on petition. As a matter of fact, however, we do not believe that this would very often be put in practice, because the party politician would dislike running the risk of an unsuccessful Referendum. Again, he would not like to risk getting the seal of the Referendum set upon any Act which he hoped to repeal, for naturally an Act once accepted by Referendum could not be repealed without a reference to the people. We believe, indeed, that what happens in Switzerland would almost certainly happen here. The Referendum would be used, but not abused. After the first two or three "trial-trips," the country would employ it merely as a corrective of the evils of the party system, and not as an habitual medicine. There would be enough force in public opinion to insist that revolutionary measures and measures involving, or alleged to involve, injustice to large classes of the com- munity should be submitted to the people, but in ordinary times and for ordinary legislation our present system would go on very much as it does now. The only change would be that the people would come by their own, and have the right to check if need be what Walt Whitman called the "insolence of elected persons."
One word more. There seems to be an idea in certain quarters that the Referendum would be conducted through the post. That is, of course, impossible. The only sound plan is voting in person exactly as at Parliamentary elections, and wider the Ballot and Corrupt Practices Acts.
Previous page
