THE REFERENDUM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12550, 11 July 1901, Page 4

THE REFERENDUM.

Cai-tain Russell's refusal to trust the people to title length of allowing them to settle any difference between the two branches of the .Legislature is strangely inconsistent with his complaint that the Referendum Bill introduced by Mr Seddon is too conservative in its tendencies. If ho had really wanted to assist in the passage of a mora liberal measure he would have surely accepted the principle of the Premier's proposal and attempted, at the proper time, to enlarge its" 'application. But, of course, his attitude towards any reform of this kind is shown clearly enough by his remarks during the debate on the second reading of the Bill. 'lt was a reversal of our whole principle of government'," he is reported to have said. "He would resist the proposal to pass a measure into law over the heads of both branches of the Legislature. He did nob believe in asking the decision of the people upon a question with which they were nob

thoroughly conversant." Captain Russell's own acquaintance with the questions that come before Parliament is very well exemplified' by his assumption that Mr Beddon's Bill proposes to give the people power to pass a measure of which both branches of the Legislature disapprove. As a matter of fact, it only seeks to give the electors the right to decide differences between the two Houses, and to vote en questions that are specially reserved for their decision. If neither the Legislative Council nor the House of Representatives pass a measure' it cannot, under the Premier's proposal, be submitted to the people. This is the very feature- of the Bill—the absence of the initiative—of which Mr Ell complains. But it is easier to understand the opposition of Captain Russell than at is that of professing Liberals like Mr Willis and Mr Carncress. The -former gentleman appears to- have been mainly influenced by the paltry fear of changing his opinion, but perhaps he gave some other reason to the- House which has not yet been communicated to the public. Mr Carncross's objection that it would relieve members of Parliament of some of their responsibilities betrays a strange conception, of representative government. Mr Carncrcs'3 is sent to Wellington merely to speak for his constituents, and if his constituents,' under certain circumstances, prefer to speak for themselves, he ought to be, as a good Liberal, the very last to oppose their wishes. They will scarcely thank him for placing his own dignity before the rights of the electors. It is less difficult to sympathise with Mr G. W. Russell's criticism of the measure. The Bill should limit the Referendum to important questions, such as those mentioned by the Premier when moving the second reading ; but this can be done when it is passing through committee, and we trust that the memiber for Riccarton will nob allow an obvious defect in the machinery to weaken his support of the general principles.