THE REFERENDUM IN ENGLAND.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5460, 11 January 1896, Page 6

THE REFERENDUM IN ENGLAND.

A great conference of Conservative delegates from various parts of England was held in November last' at Brighton, and a number of public questions, more or less within the range of practical politics, were discussed. On the closing day of the conference, Sir Ellis Ashinead-Eavtlett, M.P., brought forward a motion declaring that no great measure of constitutional change should become law without a direct and special vote of the people, a declaration in favour of the principle of the . referendum which had been adopted by the association at its conference at Newcastle last year. Sir Ellis claimed that this principle had, more than once been advocated in public- by Lord Salisbury. He went so far as to declare that no country, save Russia was so devoid of bulwarks against revolutionary change as was the English people, and urged that at general elections the issues were so multifarious and confused that a direct appeal was absolutely necessary. The motion was resisted by Sir Alfred Hickman, who stigmatised it as inopportune and premature, inasmuch as the present Government was returned largely to avoid further tinkering with the Constitution. He maintained that an effective referendum already existed in the House of Lords, who could be trusted to deal with any proposed constitutional change. Major Sandys, M.P., remarked, on the other hand, that it had been seen that the House of Lords had been threatened with extinction because it had resisted a great constitutional change, and, amid loud cheers, he claimed that the country ought not to throw on the House of Lords an obligation which it was itself afraid to undertake. Among other speakers, Mr Stroud thought that the House of Lords' was a sufficient embodiment of the principle of the referendum, with the extra advantage that the House of Lords could not be gammoned. But, he asked, would they tell him that they could not gammon the populace ? The delegates were (says the Daily . News correspondent) much tickled by this insinuation, ' apparently having some knowledgo of their constituencies; indeed, Mr Frank Hatchard, who followed, was ingenuous enough to admit that it was not always to be supposed that the referendum was to be used only against Liberals, as it might happen that the country might be gammoned by the Conservatives. This idea seemed so fanciful to the Conference that it was received with an audible rustle of incredulity. The discussion might have continued indefinitely had it not been foT Mr Low, • of Birmingham, who bluntly, called the proposal impracticable, and moved to proceed to the next business. This was promptly seconded and carried: by a substantial majority, the voting proving that the English Conservatives, though coquetting with this great democratic reform, are not prepared to make it part of their programme. The Tories, in fact, seem unable to determine whether the reference. of great questions to the people would prolong or shorten the existence of the House of Lords. Of course, the idea that the hereditary Chamber is "an embodiment of the principle of the referendum" is so wildly absurd that it might pass for a freak pi Gilbertian humour instead of being the sober suggestion of respectable Conservative gentlemen.