The frequent use of the plebiscit would certainly tend to diminish in the mind of political leaders the true sense of their responsibility. It would too often offer an easy way out of an awkward position without the consequence of having to give up power. If I understand right the real meaning of the two words: _plebiscit_ and _referendum_, the first would be used to try and ascertain how public opinion stands upon any given question of public policy, of proposed public legislation: the second would be employed for the ratification by the electorate of a law passed by Parliament. I have less objection to the second system which, in reality, is an appeal from Parliament to the Electorate. But to the well practised, the adverse vote of a majority of the electors should have the same result as a vote of the majority of the House of Commons rejecting an important public measure upon the carrying of which the Cabinet has ventured their existence. Without the immediate resignation of the ministers meeting with a reverse in a _referendum_, I consider that ministerial responsibility would soon become a farce destructive of constitutional government. The defeat of a Cabinet in a _referendum_ would be equivalent to one in general elections and should bear out the same consequence. Surely, no one having some clear notions of what MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY means, will pretend for a moment that a Cabinet who, on being defeated in the House of Commons, advises the Sovereign--or his representative in Canada--to dissolve Parliament for an appeal to the people, could remain in power if the Electorate approved of the hostile stand taken by the House of Commons. I can see no difference whatever in the meaning of an hostile referendum vote and that following a regular constitutional appeal from an adverse majority of the popular House of representatives. In both cases, the downfall of the defeated ministers should be the result. From the above comments, I draw the sound conclusion, I firmly believe, that any important readjustment of the constitutional relations of the Colonies with Great Britain, should be first ratified by the actual Parliaments of the Dominions and subsequently by the electors of those Dominions. But I am also strongly of opinion that the ratification by the electorate should be taken upon the ministerial responsibility of the Cabinet who would have advised the Sovereign and asked Parliament to approve the proposed readjustment. It would be the safest way to have the Cabinet to consider the question very seriously before running the risk of a popular defeat which would have to be followed by their resignation.