THE REFERENDUM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12567, 31 July 1901, Page 4

THE REFERENDUM.

The Referendum Bill was not very favourably received in the Legislative Council yesterday. The nine speakers in the debate on the second reading were all hostile. The surprising feature of the discussion was the number of professing Liberals who condemned not merely the Government Bill, but also'the principle, which has been, a plank in the Liberal platform for many years. Wo can understand the attitude of the Hen H. Scotland, whose appointment to the Council dates back to the misty and musty past, but what can be said for the. Hoh J. M. Twomey, who parades his aggressive Liberalism on every conceivable occasion, the Hon A. Lee Smith, the Hon J. Rigg, and the very latest of these Liberal lords, the Hon Charles Lcuisson? The Bill has its weaknesses and its faults, and we were prepared to find it.severely handled and even mutilated in committee, tut, strangely enough, it was the principle of the measure that roused the anger of the Council. “A slur on the Legislative Council/' Mr Twomey called it, evidently with half a fear that its adoption was a strong step towards the abolition of the Upper Chamber. Mr Lcuisson supported him with the amazing statement that 90 per cent of the people were not interested in the Bill. If it is true, as he implied, that the; Council, after twicei rejecting measures passed by the House, invariably swallows its convictions and accepts the Bills on their third appearance, it should surely be glad to have its conscience protected by the appeal to the people. But Mr Lonisson, like so many of his colleagues, forgets that .the prime object of our legislation should be to give effect to the will of the people. Mr Lee Smith was similarly illogical in declaring that the present legislative- machinery, if properly guided, was sufficient to reflect public opinion, because one of«the objects of the Referendum Bill is to prevent the evil effects of the improper guidance of Parliament. The weakness of the Bill, to our mind, lies in .the restrictions which might have commended it to the Conservative Chamber, It is only a halfmeasure of reform, and this debate simply confirms our view that the full adoption of the principle is necessary if we are to have amytnmg like an expression of public opinion in our legislation. When professing Liberals deliberately condemn a principle that has for years been discussed by the country and has been approved by all ■classes of the community, it is high time we found some means of preventing the nominated Chamber from obstructing necessary legislation and of bringing the work of Parliament as a whole , into closer touch with public opinion.