TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE REFERENDUM.—A SOLUTION OP THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

TjIHE proposal to employ the Referendum as a solution of the present Constitutional crisis is attracting more and more attention, and we believe that if we can only get over the ordinary man's suspicion of a novelty, we shall be able to induce the controllers of the Liberal machine, in whom the real resistance lies, to allow the people the right to say whether they will or will not adopt the vast Constitutional revolution that is now proposed. All we ask is that the people shall decide.

We note as an encouraging sign of the times an article contributed by so stalwart a Radical as Sir Henry Dalziel to the issue of Reynolds's Newspaper of last Sunday. In that article Sir Henry Dalziel not only boldly asks that the Referendum shall be used to solve the Constitutional diffi- culty, but actually proposes that the Government before they send up their so-called Veto Bill to the House of Commons shall add to it a Referendum clause. We need hardly say that neither we nor any other supporters of the Referendum would have any objection to such action, pro- vided, of course, which we assume would be the case, that the system of Referendum proposed were fair and reasonable. In fact, the only difference which we can see between our proposal and the proposal of Sir Henry Dalziel is that we suggest that the Lords shall have the honour of initiating this great democratic reform, while Sir Henry Dalziel claims it for the Commons. We are afraid, however, that it will be a very difficult task to get the Government to insert the necessary clause. If they will do so, the way is clear ; for we feel convinced that the Lords would not dream of rejecting such a proposal. But though they would not reject it if it came from the Commons, we admit that there is a certain difficulty in the way of getting them to initiate the pro- posal. In spite of the rhetorical claptrap that is talked by certain speakers about " unbending aristocrats," " proud Peers," and so forth, the Lords are in fact exceedingly shy of taking any course which they think may render them liable to attack and misrepresentation. They have suffered so scandalously from unjust obloquy that it is perhaps not to be wondered that they are cautious about committing themselves to such a bold course of action as the intro- duction of the Referendum, especially when they believe that the Commons would reject it. We admit it is bad politics, but the fact remains that the Lords do not like making proposals to the Commons which they believe will be treated with contempt. That is the reason why all those who care for the Referendum should do their best to point out to the Lords the opportunity which now exists for its introduction.

As there seems to be still a good deal of misunder- standing as to the practical possibility of applying our proposals in regard to the Referendum, we had better set them out once more specifically and in detail. In our opinion, the Lords should refuse to waste time over dis- cussing the Resolutions. They should join to such refusal a declaration that they are quite willing to consider any Bill in which the proposals of the Government are given concrete legislative shape. In view of such a declaration the Government could not, we think, refuse to present their Bill. When it reaches the Lords it should be fully discussed in order that the country may have the benefit of hearing the whole matter debated coolly and ably on both sides, as it is sure to be debated in the Lords. We do not, however, suggest that the Lords should make amendments in a measure which, we assume, they hold to be bad in principle, since it establishes single-Chamber government. What they should do would be to leave the responsibility for the proposal in all its naked Jacobinism to the Commons, but to add to it a clause which would relieve the Lords of the responsibility of giving their assent to a scheme which they believe to be deeply injurious to the best interests of the nation. The clause should be a Referendum clause, and should run as follows :- "This Bill shall not come into operation until a poll of the people shall have been taken thereon in the manner set forth in the Schedule to this Bill, and unless at such poll of the people a majority of the persons entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections ;hall have voted in favour of the said Bill being put into vexation." The Referendum schedule to be annexed to the Bill involves no special difficulties either of drafting or of practical application. The machinery for polling the people is already in existence, and requires only a few words to make it operative. The schedule might run as follows " SCHED171.11 I.

Within a period of — days after this Bill shall have received the Ropal assent, the Crown shall issue writs to the Returning Officers in every Parliamentary constituency throughout the United Kingdom, directing such Returning Officers to hold in their constituencies a poll of the people under the Ballot Act, the Corrupt Practices Act, and other Acts governing Parliamentary elections in so far as they are applicable, such poll to take place at a date named in the writ, but not earlier than the — day of —, 1910, or later than the — day of —, 1910. At the said poll of the people all persons who are entitled to vote at Parlia- mentary elections shall be entitled to vote. The Returning Officer in each constituency shall name two persons to act as chief scrutineers at the counting of the votes, one of such persons to be a person known to be in favour of the Bill to which this Schedule is annexed coming into operation, and the other to be a person known to be against the said Bill coming into operation. The two chief scrutineers shall each name one sub-scrutineer to act in each polling-station in like manner as the scrutineers appointed by Parliamentary candidates at Parliamentary elections. The Returning Officer shall cause a ballot-paper to be prepared in the following form, such ballot-paper to be issued to electors and used by them as at Parliamentary elections :— POLL OF 'riiii PEOPLE. 1910.

—,

BALLor-Papra.

Is it your wish that an Act entitled 'An Act for, &c., &c ; shall come into operation?

If it is. place a cross under the word ' Yes.'

If not, place a cross under the word 'No ' ... Yss. No.

The counting of the votes shall take place in like manner as does the counting of votes at a Parliamentary election, and the result of such counting, with the figures of the voting, shall be endorsed upon the writ and forthwith returned, as in the case of Parlia- mentary writs. Within a period of one week from the date fixed for the holding of the polls, the total votes given by the voters throughout the constituencies shall be counted at the Crown Office in London, and the total number of affirmative votes and the total number of negative votes polled be declared, ender such regula- tions as shall be made jointly by the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and the Master of the Rolls. It shall be lawful for the Returning Officer at the close of the counting to make publics the number of the votes given Yes' and of the votes given `No' in the constituency in which he acts. If a majority of the electors are in favour of this Act coming into operation, such Act shall at once become law."

We are amateurs in the work of Parliamentary drafting, and possibly have made a certain number of errors in detail. These, however, could easily be corrected by an expert Parliamentary draftsman. What we contend is that, by means of a clause and schedule no longer or more complicated than ours, the Lords could add to the Bill words which would enable the electors of this country to say whether they wish or do not wish to be governed in the future by a single Chamber. That this is a bold course we admit, but it is one which, in our opinion, the Lords will be fully justified in adopting. It will put the matter clearly before the country, and make it im- possible that the merits of this great question shall be confused with other issues, or that it shall be decided in ignorance, and under the influence of the unjust accusation that the Lords are claiming new and extended powers, or desire to assume a prerogative position in the Constitution.

Before we leave the subject of the Referendum we desire to refer to the interesting letter by Mr. Lee-Warner which we publish in another column. Mr. Lee-Warner takes us to task for suggesting that Liberals do not, as a rule, like the Referendum. We sincerely hope that we are wrong and that he is right, and that if the Lords do as we advise, the Liberal majority in the Commons will adopt the proposal that the people shall be allowed to decide the Constitutional issue. We may point out, however, that if we were wrong in our assertion, it was not through any malicious misunderstanding We were writing on evidence that seems to us sound. The Spectator's advocacy of the Referendum has been again and again treated by the Liberal Press as a suggestion full of danger to their party. For example, so repro. sentative an organ of Liberalism as the British Weekly set forth the arguments against the Referendum not only in its editorial columns, but afterwards in a pamphlet which has been widely circulated, and which, as far as we know, has never been condemned by any official Liberal writer or speaker. Here is the gist of the British Weekly's objection to the Referendum. In speaking of the Referendum in America the writer in the British Weekly says :— "Members of the Legislatures, they [the advocates of the Referendum] say, may be lobbied, wheedled or bull-dozed,' but the citizens are too numerous to be threatened or befooled. Ia the words of Mr. Goldwin Smith, a staunch supporter of the Referendum, the people 'is not in fear of its re-election if it throws out something supported by the Irish, the Prohibitionist, the Catholic, or the Methodist vote.' In America this partial or local Referendum has worked as a distinctly conservative force. It has been, as Mr. Bryce points out, rather a bit and a bridle than a spur for the Legislature. Here is a fact which English Liberals should ponder. In America, as in Switzerland, the Referendum retards progress. Of America, as of Switzerland, Mr. Lecky's words are true. The tendencies which it' (the popular vote) 'most strongly shows are a dislike to large expenditure, a dislike to centralisation, a dislike to violent innovation."

This is fairly strong, but still stronger statements follow. After being assured that the French will have nothing to do with the Referendum, we come to a section headed : " Should Liberals Support the Referendum ? " Here we are told. that "the Referendum is an appeal from knowledge to ignorance." Then comes a section entitled " The Real Objections." The first of these is contained in the statement : " The Referendum would work steadily to the disadvantage of the Liberal Party." The writer is apparently convinced that the mass of the country hates reform, and can only be cajoled into accepting it by a system of " log- rolling. Here are some of his statements :— " Now it must surely be obvious that there would never be a sufficient number of voters enthusiastic enough about any one reform to carry it in the teeth of the formidable opposition that would make itself felt through the Referendum. When the people vote at an election, they vote for a number of reforms, both social and political ; the man who cares for one may be quite

indifferent to another It is universally agreed that the Referendum has worked in Switzerland as a check on the forces of progress. Conservative minds in all countries love the idea of a Referendum because they see how it damps and chills reforming ardour. At the Referendum polls the people tighten the purse-strings, repent of generous enthusiasms, yield to the petty caprices and whims of democratic government. The second thoughts of voters are apt to be purely selfish thoughts. Advocates of the Referendum see in it a drag upon the wheels of social legislation

Are Liberals going to put another weapon in the hands of their deadliest enemies? Every reformer mourns over the slow and lingering processes of Parliamentary legislation. It is hard indeed to carry the very smallest Radical measure in the teeth of the vested interests. By adopting the Referendum we should enormously strengthen all the forces of reaction."

For ourselves, we can only say that we find in these state- ments the strongest possible argument for the introduction of the Referendum. If, as the British Weekly says, the electors of this country do not want reforms of the kind that are wanted by the Liberal Party, then surely we have a right, in the name of democratic principles, to demand that they shall be allowed to refuse their consent to such legislation. All who honestly desire that the will of the people shall prevail must surely be in favour of the Referen- dum. The Lords in the Middle Ages by their action freed the people from the tyranny of the Crown. If they are both bold and wise they will now free them from the tyranny of the Caucus. The instrument by which they can secure that freedom is the Referendum, and they have in the present Constitutional crisis a golden opportunity for its introduction.