MR. OSCAR BROWNING AND THE REFER E N ROM M R.
OSCAR BROWNING has been staying in the Engadine, and "in the country of the Referendum" his thoughts naturally turned to the merits, or demerits, of this piece of political machinery. In Switzerland, he decidedly approves of it, for it "has undoubtedly worked well;" and if it would save the expense and uncertainty of General Elections, he might like to see it introduced into England. But will it have this effect ? Will it "work in harmony with our present system of party government and Minis- terial responsibility " ? Would not a Ministry defeated on a measure of first-rate importance be expected to resign just as much as when a measure of first-rate importance is rejected by the House of Commons ? And if so, would not a General Election be necessitated, just as it is necessi- tated now, and so the country be no better off than before ? The advocates of the Referendum are bound, Mr. Browning thinks—and we quite agree with him—to give an answer to these questions "before the Referendum can be con- sidered as within the scope of practical English politics." Nor, as it seems to us, is there any difficulty in finding an answer. No doubt, if public opinion continues to demand the resignation of a Ministry which has had one of its measures rejected by the popular vote, one of the chief gains we expect from the Referendum would not be realised. But then we cannot understand the state of mind which would go on demanding this. One principal object of the Referendum is to distinguish between the support of a Government and the support of a particular Bill intro- duced by that Government. It may easily happen that a majority of the electors think well of the general policy of a Cabinet, and ill of one item in that policy. It is probable, for example, that this is the precise state of things in which we at present are. The Government have carried their Home-rule Bill through the Commons ; but they are evidently very doubtful whether the country is as well pleased with it as they profess to he themselves. But there is no reason to suppose that the other elements of their pro- gramme are less well liked than before, and they consequently intend to get as many as possible of these adopted in the hope that at the next Election Home-rule may be smuggled in under cover of these more popular measures. One object of the Referendum would be to put an end to all this manceuvring. If a majority of the electors are- opposed to Home-rule, and at the same time favourable to the Government which has identified itself with Home- rule, why should not they be allowed to discard the Bill they dislike, and to retain the Ministers they like ? There is nothing in this that is inconsistent with party govern- ment or Ministerial responsibility. The party of which Ministers are the representatives would continue in office because the majority which originally placed it there wished it to continue. The Referendum would simply relieve the majority from the necessity of accepting an unpopular Bill rather than turn out a popular Government. Whenever the next General Election takes place every Liberal elector will find himself in this dilemma. If he votes for Mr. Gladstone, he will vote for Home-rule; if he votes against Home-rule, be will vote against Mr. Glad- stone. The Referendum would enable him to separate the two issues, and to keep the Minister who enjoys his con- fidence in matters of general policy, while ridding himself of the Bill which forms the one exception to his acceptance of the Ministerial programme. The result of the appeal would thus be to keep Mr. Gladstone still in office, while relegating the Home-rule Bill to the limbo of lost causes. If the people of this country had so fax realised the advantage of this change as deliberately to adopt the Referendum, we can hardly conceive that they would insist on neutralising one of its principal results. Mr. Browning may be right in thinking that if a measure of the magnitude of the Home-rule Bill were rejected by the popular vote, the position of the Ministry which intro- duced it would be "seriously affected." But it would be affected only so far as it weakened the confidence placed in the Cabinet by its own supporters. It would show, no doubt, that the Prime Minister had misread the feeling of the country, and to that extent had shown himself unfitted for his office. But it would not weaken his position as regards the Opposition. If the Home-rule usually reserved for the most distinguished citizens or the Bill failed to stand the test of the Referendum, " would guests held most deserving of honour. If M. Zola's produc- not the Unionist Party," asks Mr. Browning, " clamour tions are worthy of criminal prosecution, M. Zola himself, in for the resignation of Mr. Gladstone and. his colleagues ?" his capacity of author, can hardly be a fit object upon which Very possibly it might ; but, inasmuch as Mr. Gladstone to bestow a quasi-national welcome. Yet we have given one and his colleagues would still have their majority in to M. Zola, and if he knows the facts, he must regard his the House of Commons, it would clamour to very entertainers, delighted as he was with their reception of him, little purpose. The end which gives what strength with a certain admixture of rather angry contempt. As, how- it possesses to the Unionist demand for a Dissolution, ever, we dislike M. Zola's writings, but should not have sent would have been attained by the Referendum, and Ireland would no longer constitute the dividing line between him to prison for them, we may, since he has lectured upon us, obtain what benefit we can from observations which lose, Ministerialists and the Opposition ; it is even possible that at the result of taking it out of the way would be toerhaps, something of their force when we remember that he never was in England before, and does not, by his send some Unionists back to the Liberal camp. We are not, indeed, as much impressed as Mk. Browning admission, know a word of English. Still, genius mayenable a man to admire Shakespeare, as M. Zola did, with. by the advantage to the country of making General Elec- tions less frequent: In the modern Liberal, dislike of out having read a line he ever wrote ; and it is quite con- Dissolutions is curiously combined with a theoretical pre- °dyable that a man may have something to say worth hearing ference for shorter Parliaments. For ourselves, however, about a national journalism, which is to him, nevertheless, we see no harm in a fresh appeal to the country when- a sealed book. The advantages or disadvantages of im- ever there is fair reason to suppose that the House of personality in newspapers, moreover, do not depend upon Commons no longer represents it accurately. Still, to the language in which the avowed or hidclei author delivers upset a Ministry for a single blunder, involves a con- his opinions, and M. Zola therefore, despite the profundity of siderable waste of time and energy, and if the blunder his admitted ignorance, is entitled to be heard. He knows, at could be remedied without entailing this consequence, it least, what personality and impersonality have done for the would be a practical gain. With the Referendum it journalists of his own land. What he says is much of it correct, would be remedied, because Ministries would only have and is all of it curiously characteristic. It is quite true, as M. to resign when they were defeated on a direct vote Zola says, that English journalism is not like French journal ofconfidence. From this would follow one very real ism, "a brawl in which the great interests of the community advantage. The supporters of a Minister in the con- are lost sight of amidst abominable personal squabbles ;" and stituencies would be released from the obligation which it is equally true, though he only implies it, that this is now rests on them of swallowing, as best they may, every in great measure due to its impersonality. Our people, it measure that he chooses to offer them. It is scarcely is true, are not so dominated by the desire for distinction doubtful that at this moment this relief would be keenly as the French, and can live happily without that " des felt by some, perhaps by many, Liberals. They are not so licions celebrity " which M. Zola considers the fitting reward much opposed to Home-rule as to be willing to see Mr. Gladstone banished from office, rather than that the Bill of a life of effort ; but still, if every man signed his articles, should be carried. What they want is to keep Mr. Glad- every second man would begin to think of himself and stone, but to throw this particular measure overboard, his reputation, to hate or like his rival, and to forget the As it is, they are powerless to give effect to their wishes, community in his eagerness to press forward his own per. They must take both or leave both. But is there any sonality to the front. 'It is I,' he would exclaim, 'I who am necessity for this Siamese twinship ? None at all, if we fighting the battle of the Union, or of the Irish, and not that had the Referendum. The Ministerial majority would rival of mine either in the same paper, or over the way !' This remain, but the national majority would be strong enough is the temptation of all politicians but the highest ; and it to reverse its decision on one particular point. Would not would be the temptation also of all journalists, except the few this be a more satisfactory result for the Liberal Party to whom the victory of their ideas, not that of themselves, is than a General Election, in which the Bill could only be the first object of ambition. That of itself is the truest defence defeated by turning out the Ministry which is responsible of impersonality in journalism, not the one which M. Zola has for it ? brought to the front, the corporate weight of the anonymous So far, we have spoken only of the benefit which, under writers. That corporate weight may, and does, lend additional certain circumstances, the party in power might derive effect to their work ; but then that effect may just as well be from the Referendum. But the nation at large would evil as good, and very often is. The information or the . equally be a gainer. It will be conceded, we imagine, that thoughts in the Times have twice or ten times the impact as a general rule no measure ought to become law which they would have if they were signed, but then a malig- is not really desired by a majority of the electors. Now, nut or an ignorant statement in the Times has twice the operation of the existing Parliamentary system marat the impact too. A corporation can be a bad agency as any moment make this rule inoperative. To refer once more well as a good one in politics, as in anything else ; and it is to contemporary affairs, it is quite possible that the Liberal majority at the next Election—if there is one—may contain from the other side, the suppression not of individuality, but many persons who are not really anxious to see the Home- sonality of English journalism deserves M. Zola's praise. of the hungry desire for individual repute, that the imper- rule Bill become law, but are content to accept it as part of The political writer among us wants to influence his readers, the price they pay for keeping the Liberal Party in office. Consequently,. ll become law, though the majority of the the nation will be condemned to see the not to exalt himself, and if be suffers from temptation at all, Home-rule Bt suffers rather from too much readiness to speak, not indeed haps rather a violent one—that all politiciansare sincerely heaviness and want of literary distinction, which are its anxious that the real wishes of the nation should find, drawbacks, and which have, we think, of late years tended to expression in the Statute-book, this state of things is increase. We will not say that the most successful journals surely preferable to that which now exists, among us are often quite curiously tame ; but it is certain
Previous page
