TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE POLL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THOSE who are anxious to see the Poll of the People introduced into our Constitution in order to settle deadlocks between the two Houses of Parliament, and also to prevent grave changes in the Constitution being made unless it is certain that the majority of the people desire such changes, will find no small cause for satisfaction in the debate which took place in the Commons on Wednesday on the Parliament Bill. The debate showed in the first place how firmly the principle of a reference to the people is now held by the Unionist Party, and next how weak in argument and partisan in spirit is the opposition offered by the Liberal Party and its leaders to this sound democratic measure and essential corrective to certain evils of representative government.
Nothing could have been better than Mr. Balfour's speech. He began by brushing aside the absurd objection that under the proposal the country will find itself in- volved in an endless series of small General Elections. Mr. Balfour—and here we are sure he is followed by all thought- ful advocates of the Referendum—is perfectly prepared to meet the Liberal objection as to an inordinate use of the Referendum by careful safeguards. Mr. Balfour starts, as the Spectator has always started, from the position that the Referendum is primarily to be called into opera- tion when there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. In all probability the unwillingness of either party to take the responsibility of invoking the Poll of the People on unimportant issues would by itself prevent appeals to the electors on trifling points. Lest, however, party zeal should override party discretion, Mr. Balfour suggests following the principle which Tacitus in his Germania tells us governed the Teutonic tribes in matters of legislation : " On smaller matters the chief men deliberate ; on greater matters all the people." The smaller differences between the two Houses are to be decided by joint sessions, and only the greater by references to the whole body of the people. Mr. Balfour next went on to deal with masterly lucidity with the objection that representative government would be destroyed by the introduction of the Referendum. No thinker, he said, can suppose that in any representative system the representatives can be taken as being equivalent to those who send them there. " We represent the people in a sense, but we are not the equivalent of the people. What we do is not always what the people would want us to do if they had present to their minds the whole facts of the case, nor is it right or possible that in any representa- tive system the representatives of those represented should be regarded as an equivalent body." " Tenure of modern Governments depends," Mr. Balfour went on to declare, " and depends too much, not merely on the general support of the House for its broad administrative policy or legisla- tive policy, but on the perpetual support of the House in all demands, legislative and administrative."
With this text Mr. Balfour proceeded to show how unwise and unnecessary was the assumption that if a Government measure was defeated by the veto of the people on a Reference, the Government must resign. " Why is it," he asks, " less damaging to the self-respect of a Government that, having an opportunity, they did not bring in a Bill than to bring in a Bill which is subse- quently rejected by the country ? " Very apposite was his example of the Irish Council Bill. That Bill, our readers will remember, was brought in as a Government Bill by the Cabinet Minister responsible for the government of Ireland, but it was promptly vetoed by an Irish Conven- tion. The Government, however, did not resign, but accepted the decision of the Nationalists with perfect equanimity. If they could bear this set-back from one section of their supporters, surely they could bear it from the voters of the nation as a whole. We need not follow Mr. Balfour's very able exposition of the fallacy that the electors could not vote for a complicated measure, for we have often set forth in these columns the absurdity of thinking that though it is possible to vote for or against a complicated man it is impossible to vote for or against a complicated measure. As Mr. Balfour says, it is really worse than that, for at a general election the elector has not only to strike a balance between the merits of two com- plicated men, but to that complication is added the existence of half-a-dozen complicated Bills to which the complicated candidate as a member of his party is pledged. Admirable, too, was Mr. Balfour's statement that one great advantage of this scheme is that you put a measure before the country free from all the perturbing influences of local interests, local prejudices, local over-representation and under-repre- sentation, and all the shortcomings of our present electoral system. Mr. Balfour ended the ablest defence ever made for using the direct vote of the people to correct the evils of representative government by a passage so remarkable that we cannot refrain from quoting it verbatim :—
" If you will only consent on great questions to carry out this reform and on smaller questions to carry out a system of joint sittings, I believe you will see restored to this House and to the country that freedom in regard to its own legislation which it really has not had and cannot have under the existing system so long as you bind up the political life of your Administration with the forces of each successive legislative product. We do that fax too much. If you want at once to deal with those great problems and at the same time to keep your continuity and to keep your Administration secure for an adequate number of years, and as a third condition to carry the people of this country with you, one plan, and one plan alone, is possible—that which does on those great occasions give the opportunity to the Government of the day without a dissolution, without a resignation, without the utter subversion not merely of a particular scheme of legislation, but of your whole political system, administrative as well as legislative. The only machinery for it that the wit of man has yet devised is the Referendum, the appeal to the people at the polls. That it is practical we know, because it is practised. You may imagine, if you like, the various abuses which may spring up—I think them in the highest degree improb- able—yet I believe you will find it works smoothly against the excessive party system, which is undoubtedly the danger awaiting us in the future. I deeply regret that, while the Government apparently admit that there are cases in which an appeal to the people might be proper, might be right, might be expedient, might even be necessary, they will not show the least favour to any plan that we propose on this side of the House by which the revolution they are striving to accomplish will leave to the people of this country some shadow of their old power to preserve the institutions which have grown up during the 660 years of which the right hon. gentleman speaks. They and not we are the ultimate custodians of the British Constitution. To them, therefore, not to us, is committed far more explicitly the guardianship of that which is their trust rather than ours."
In other words, a wise and judicious use of references to the people, will prove, as we have said so often, the anti- septic to certain corruptions of representative institutions which have grown up under a too close adherence to a rigid party system. Mr. Canning stated that he called a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old. The Unionists will call the direct vote of the democracy into the Constitution to redress the balance of the party system, which has of late set so strongly in an anti- democratic direction—or, as a satirist might say, the Unionists will check the insolence of elected persons by reminding them that the people, not they, are the ultimate masters of the nation's fate.
Mr. Asquith's reply to Mr. Balfour was not unworthy of the occasion. Though he met the Leader of the Opposition with an immediate non-possumus, it is pretty clear, on reading between the lines, that he recognises, as all far- seeing men must realise, that, however inconvenient to the Liberals from the party point of view, it will not be possible for them permanently to resist the demand for a Reference to the People. Now that the Unionist Party have made a Poll of the People a part of their programme and mean to press it, as unquestionably they do, with zeal and vigour, it is bound to come. Mr. Asquith, in his speech, used these memorable words :-
"I agree that the party system has been developed in this country in recent years to a degree of rigour and inelasticity not on the whole conducive to the best interests of the country. I am sure there is no honest or intelligent thinker on either side of the House who does not secretly or openly share that opinion. I agree with him further that Governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, are somewhat over-sensitive to what may be casual or isolated expressions of dissatisfaction or want. of confidence, and the title of a Government to retain its posi- tion of authority should depend not so much on this or that particular matter or question, but upon the general assent of the majority of those who represent the people of the country. So far I think we all, or most of us, would agree with the right hon. gentleman."
Here in substance, though not in form, the Prime Minister surrendered to the principle of a Reference to the People. By admitting the evil he admitted the need, and the urgent need, of a corrective. The more the matter is considered the more certain it is that no corrective consistent with democratic principles can be found but the direct appeal to the people. By declaring that corrective to be revolutionary, as Mr. Asquith does, he does not advance his case, for after all, " revolutionary " is a neutral word, and may merely mean progress and development. That point, however, need not be laboured, for Mr. Asquith admitted specifically that the appropriate corrective to the evils which he described may be found in a Reference to the People.—" I myself referred to the principle in opening the discussion on the Resolu- tions. I said then, and I say now, that I should certainly not exclude the possibility of the application of something in the nature of a Referendum to special, rare, exceptional, but conceivable cases of Constitutional difficulty." Here was the essential part of Mr. Asquith's speech. What followed was what we may venture to call a grinding out of the old barrel organ tunes about the sanctity of repre- sentative government, responsibility of members, and so forth, ending with that favourite Liberal air—stolen from Noodle's Oration—that the Referendum, though all very well in theory, would not work in practice. Mr Asquith admitted, of course, that you could not quite say that the Referendum was impracticable,—Australia was almost at that very moment taking a reference on two important Bills. He went on, however, to argue that in this country a Reference to the people would be attended with all the canvassing, wire-pulling, placarding of the walls with pesters " of more or less veracity or mendacity," and in fact with all the apparatus of a, general election. Upon this point we will only say that we entirely disbelieve in Mr. Asquith's fancy picture of a Reference to the people. No doubt there would be a good deal of speechifying, but since no personal ambitions would be aroused, the amount of money and energy expended would be on a. very different scale from that at a general election. What causes the fierceness, the extravagance, or, if you will, the financial profligacy displayed at a general election is the fact that Jones is fighting Smith and is determined to beat him. Thus to the political discussion is added the personal excitements of a prize fight or a horse race. If Mr. Asquith imagines that individuals are going to fight as fiercely and make as many pecuniary and other sacrifices over a Bill as over the question whether this or that man is to obtain the right to represent a particular place in Parliament, and to have the chance of getting "the honours and emoluments of office" which may flow from that representation, he is, we are sure, very greatly in error. Before we leave the subject of the Referendum we must express our regret as practical politicians that Mr. Balfour did not see his way to adopt the Spectator's pro- posal that a minority in the House of Commons should. have the right to demand a Referendum at any rate on matters of great Constitutional importance, even if a Bill had been passed by both Houses of Parliament—a pro- posal to be found also in Lord Balfour's Bill. We admit that, theoretically, that may be opening a door for too large a use of the Referendum. We admit also that as the chief part of the Liberal case against the Poll of the People is that it will be used too often, it seems somewhat strange that the Unionists should meet their opponents by a pro- posal to give even more occasions for a Reference. As a matter of practical politics, however, we know very well that the Liberal Party mean to fight with desperation against the idea of a Reference to the people, for they know that it will mean in practice their inability to pass by log rolling arrangements legislation which is specially dear to the hearts of large and influential sections of the party. We know also that in the last resort the argu- ment which they will use to the country, and which is very likely to affect the judgment of the country, is this : " The Unionists are proposing a change in the Constitution which will help them as a party, and which will injure the Liberals as a Party. As they command a permanent majority in the Upper House, none of their Bills while they are in office will ever be submitted to the people, while, on the other hand, Liberal Bills will be constantly referred, owing to the refusal of the Lords to agree to them. The Referendum is, therefore, a mere party device, grossly unjust and partisan in its operation." The only way to meet this argument is by the proposal that a sufficient number of Members of Parliament, say one-third of the House or 200 members, may petition for a Reference to the People even of Bills passed by both Houses. Remember that this proposal is made not so much on its intrinsic merits as a necessary concession to Liberal opinion. It entirely meets the Liberal complaint of the unfair use of the Referendum, for it is incredible that a Bill which could not find 200 opponents in the House of Commons would be rejected at a poll of the people. This proposal, too, does not in reality, as some Unionists, including probably Mr. Balfour, seem to imagine, throw open the floodgates and admit unnecessary and trivial references to the people. In practice only the Leader of tl-e Opposition would be able to get 200 of the House of Commons to petition that a Bill passed by both Houses should go to the people. At any rate, he could always veto attempts at inopportune References. He would be loth to put this machinery in operation unless in the rare cases where he felt certain that the Bill would. be rejected.
The reasons that would weigh with him have often been described in these columns, but we will set them forth again. In the first place he would not want to expend party money and party energy on a doubtful or unsuccessful struggle. Next he Amid be certain to point out to his followers the provision which, we take it, must be found in any Referendum Act—namely, that if a Bill is once referred to and accepted by the people, it cannot be re- pealed without another reference to the people. Accordingly he would say to his supporters, " Do not let us run the risk of getting this miserable and retrograde Tory Bill endorsed by a Poll of the People, since then we can never repeal it without the risks of another appeal. The Bill is a bad Bill, but if it merely passes in the ordinary way we shall be able to repeal it the moment we return to office. I refuse, then, to ask the party to put what may prove an insuperable obstacle to repeal in the shape of an unsuccess- ful reference to the electors." We venture to say, then, that though the Unionist leaders may at present be timid in the matter and afraid. of opening up too many opportunities for reference, it is quite certain that in the end, and when they have had time to give more consideration to the matter, they will come to the conclusion that any Bill for a Reference must include the provision in regard to the reference of Bills passed by both Houses which we have just described and which Lord. Balfour wisely included in his Bill.
That, however, is a matter which we cannot discuss at any greater length to-day. The essential thing, the supremely satisfactory thing from the point of view of advocates of the Referendum, was Mr. Balfour's speech and the general discussion in the House of Commons. By it the cause of the Referendum has been put beyond the hazard of party negligence. No doubt, like other great changes, it will take time to accomplish, but now that so democratio and so reasonable a proposal has been adopted as the first plank in the Unionist platform, its ultimate triumph is certain.
Previous page
