The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1914. GOVERNMENT BY REFERENDUM

New Zealand Tablet, 21 May 1914, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1914. GOVERNMENT BY REFERENDUM

tffejrcTO> HE plain and practical objections to the *J Hi introduction of the Referendum as part of British legislative machinery have been stated . with remarkable clearness and cogency iu two recent articles by such eminent and competent writers as Sir V<SjpT William Robertson Nicholl and Professor * A. F. Pollard, M.A., Professor of English History at the University of London. Both writers go straight to the heart of the subject; and it is difficult to see how their admirably reasoned statements can bo effectively gainsaid. Sir W. R. Nicholl writes in liis own paper, the British Weekly of March 26, and Professor Pollard in the London Times of March 23 ; and though both are dealing .primarily with the question of a Referendum on N Home Rule, their observations admit, of course, of a much wider application. The fundamental objections to the Referendum which they set forth may be thus summarised: (1) The Referendum is useless, because it does not —as its advocates seem to imagine—definitely settle or dispose of the question submitted. (2) The Referendum is vicious, because once admitted, no limit can be placed to its application. What is asked in one case cannot be refused in another; and the indefinite and ill-regulated extension of the principle would certainly be the means of working grave injustice. (3) The adoption of the Referendum means the abdication by Parliament of its "essential and constitutional function. * (1) In regard to the first point, both writers are explicit and emphatic. Still speaking with special reference to Home Rule, Sir W. R. Nicholl asks: 'What is the use of taking a Referendum when we know that neither side will accept the result?" After referring to the position of Ulster, Sir William continues : ' But it is of the Nationalists that we are mainly thinking. Does anyone imagine for an instant that the most overwhelming adverse vote in Great Britain would in the least degree terminate their contending ? They have failed as yet to win Home Rule, but they are on the edge of victory, and all through these many troubled years they' have won concession after concession from Conservative Governments,' so that they may look round and say that if any party has been successful it is their own. They are now to all appearance in the zenith of their power. What is a Referendum to them, who have been watching grimly, silently, hopefully; resolutely for more than a generation? Does anyone think they are going to sink back exhausted by the struggle and lose for ever the hope of freedom?' Professor Pollard emphasises the same point; and shows that the objection is not peculiar to a Referendum on Home Rule, but applies as a matter of fact to every Referendum. ' Advocates of the

Referendum,' he writes, ' seem to cherish the delusion that its adoption will dispose of the question once for all. That is not the way of the Referendum. No sane observer imagines that even a majority of three to one against woman suffrage would stop the agitation. Time after time in certain of the United States the Referendum has gone against woman suffrage the only result has been a fresh Referendum two years later, and the Referendum only settles the question when the women obtain the vote. A Referendum on Home Rule would not settle Home Rule unless it established Home Rule. Its use in the present conjuncture is not to settle Home Rule, but to unsettle the Parliament Act,' (2) Both writers stress the point as to the dang'er to be feared—or at all events as to the risk to be run—from the ill-considered, unjust, and even disastrous lengths to which the application of the Referendum may be carried. Legislation in the future, as the British Weekly points out, will be mainly social. ' The minimum wage is close upon us. Does any sane person believe that the principle of a minimum wage, and a high minimum wage, would not be adopted by a vast majority of the voters? Suggest a minimum wage of 30s a week, and put it to a Referendum, and we shall see what we shall see. Supposing it, were proposed that all old-age pensions should begin at sixty, and that they should be 10s a week, and suppose this were put to a Referendum, who can doubt the issue?' Dr. Pollard calls attention to the same aspect of the question: 'How,' he asks, 'would our latter-day advocates of the Referendum regard the prospect of plebiscites on proposals to place the entire expense of maintaining the roads on the owners of motors, the total cost of insurance on the employers, the whole burden of taxation on incomes of over £1000? If we are to appeal from the incompetence of Parliament to the wisdom of the masses, we shall not be able to limit the jurisdiction of the Court to suit our pockets or our predilections.' To take a Referendum in Britain on Home Rule would be a recognition of the principle : and the Referendum once established, the Conservatives would not be able to pick and choose the subjects in regard to which it would be applied. * (3) As pointed out by both writers, the adoption of the Referendum as part of the recognised legislative machinery of the country would destroy the responsibility of the representative Chamber, and ultimately rob Parliament of its powers. . Having once abandoned the principle of Parliamentary legislation and representative government for that, of plebiscitary enactment, it is idle 'to suppose that' its operation could be limited to Home Rule. ' Nor is it more rational,' writes Dr. Pollard, 'to imagine that we could stop at the Referendum, and repudiate the initiative. If Parliament is not competent ,to determine what should not be done, it is no more competent to determine what should be done.' 'Long ago,' says the distinguished Professor of English History, 'the House of Lords struck the first blow at its own authority when peers asserted an indefeasible right to be summoned to Parliament, but denied all obligation to attend. The House of Commons will have exploded its constitutional, power as soon, as it disclaims responsibility for legislation. The principle of the Referendum is far more revolutionary, far more destructive of the British Constitution, than the principle of Home Rule; and its lighthearted adoption is another painful reminder of the fact that since -the advent of Tariff Reform there has been in British politics no Conservative Party with conservative principles.' * As we have said, these principles have a wider application than to the particular case of a Referendum on Home Rule to which they were addressed. All three of them, and particularly" the first two, have a direct application to the Referendum, or rather plebiscite, which is being agitated for in this country. As has befen so often pointed out, the case against the proposed New Zealand \ Referendum is in-

comparably stronger by reason of the fact that its object is to decide, by brute force, certain delicate and sacred questions of religion and conscience. If, by law, to take the life is persecution, is it not more so to force the conscience? We commend the above considerations to the notice of our New Zealand legislators and to that of their friends in the electorates. If the great organ of the Nonconformist Protestants of England thus condemns a mere political Referendum, with what scorn and indignation would it denounce the tyranny of those who are prepared to place the rights of conscience and religious convictions of the people at the mercy of a count of heads.