alternatehistory.com

Conclusion of the Convention

The third session of the Convention eventually met on 30th March and was at first as chaotic as the first two. The promised constitutional expert did not materialise. Privately the Speaker confided that no reputable academic was willing to step forward. The few he had found willing to speak would he felt, make matters much worse than no one at all. Instead he prevailed upon the Clerk to the House of Commons, Sir Courteny Ilbert to speak, in the hope that his reputation for providing legal expertise while remaining impartial in the face of the political divides caused by controversial legislation would prevent the intemperate behaviour of the previous sessions.

It was a forlorn hope. Despite his past reputation, Ilbert was seen by many as outdated. His experience in India had equipped him to tackle questions of constitutional law, but he was less able when it came to the devising of new constitutional forms or legislative structures. His address was not much more than a revisit to a lecture he had given in 1911 to the University of London which focused on procedure rather than larger matters of Constitutional change.

...there is an agreement among all civilized nations as to the general principles on which legislative procedure should be founded. A modern law is not brought down from Sinai, or imposed by the will of an irresponsible despot. Every important law must, before it takes its final shape, be submitted to the scrutiny and criticism of, and be liable to amendment and rejection by, a popular assembly elected for that purpose.
The extent to which this process of scrutiny, criticism and amendment is applied, and the methods by which it is applied, differ according to the nature of the subject-matter, and the procedure, habits and idiosyncrasies of the legislature.

Members of the Convention from all parties complained that this was inadequate and not what had been promised. Even Bonar Law bitterly complained that “Members of the House are well aware of their duties.” Despite bewildered protests from Ilbert, he was sent away and the Convention turned its wrath on the Speaker. Lowther however was made of sterner stuff and well able to defend himself.

Despite my best efforts, I was unable to find a constitutional scholar willing to present himself to this body. Without exception they cited the intemperate behaviour of Members at previous meetings as the reason. There were any number of people claiming expertise but none with the impartiality I had hoped you would see in the address of the Clerk to the House. So, Gentlemen if we find ourselves today at an impasse, the remedy is in your hands. You must moderate your behaviour and your language and you must, at least for part of the day ahead, close your mouths and open your ears to the opinions and beliefs of others!

This meeting is now adjourned for 1 hour while you consider your positions. I remind you of my three golden rules for Parliamentary speakers: Stand up. Speak up. Shut up. When I return I trust that you will take those to heart so that we may at last get down to the business for which we were convened by His Majesty.

With that he rose and stalked out of the room. Palace servants described him as being white lipped with anger as he left. In his diary he worried that by making his anger so obvious he had damaged the standing of the Speaker, although he noted with pleasure that for that day at least it had had the desired effect on those present. Certainly on his return, the Members proved less recalcitrant and certainly less disruptive, with the usual exception of Carson, who was as abrasive as ever.

In his opening address after the adjournment, clearly having made his mind up to impose order, Speaker Lowther reminded those present of the four questions they themselves had identified.

First: was there a case for significantly increased levels of devolution? Second: should devolution be based on regional or national lines? Third: what powers should be devolved to these legislatures? and Fourth: how would these subordinate legislatures be elected and what would be their relationship with the existing Parliament?

Despite Carson’s best efforts, Lowther refused to allow any discussion that was not germane to these four points. Slowly, grudgingly, and despite dissenters on every issue, some sort of consensus began to emerge. On the first question they were closest to agreement, with Carson the only dissenter. He argued that the Union was paramount and that creating, as he described them, competing legislatures, was a dangerous step. All the others accepted that at a minimum there was a pragmatic case for removing from Parliament the congestion caused by the many petty local issues that were placed before them. Beyond that there was little agreement, especially when they discussed the principle alongside the area to which powers should be devolved. Carson, fighting a rearguard action tried to argue that congestion could be removed by simply handing over certain powers to existing County Councils, which also had a degree of support from some of the Labour and Liberal members as well as from Straughan, representing the Ulster Socialists. Qualified support was also given by those representing Welsh and Scottish interests, provided that the powers were delegated to a Welsh or Scottish assembly who had the power to then consider further delegation to County Councils.

By now, the constant use of terms like ‘delegation’ and ‘devolution’ was beginning to be itself an issue. Many of the Labour delegates as well as the two representing Welsh interests began to argue that this was the wrong perspective. Parliament itself only held power with the consent of the people and if some of that power was to be exercised by other bodies it was not ‘devolution’ taking place but a return. Although this was dismissed as splitting hairs by Carson and Bonar Law, other more pragmatic members of their parties proved willing to try to find different language if it moved matters forward. Eventually it was agree to talk of the ‘redistribution’ of powers presently exercised by Parliament, Carson as ever dissenting.

On the second question of the areas to which powers might be redistributed, there was no firm agreement. Those representing Welsh and Scottish interests argued of course, as did the Liberal delegation, that Scotland and Wales were countries and as such should have National assemblies. It should be for them to decide on any further redistribution. In relation to Ireland, Carson was in real difficulty. If he argued for the retention of Ireland within the UK as a single entity, then the Unionists would lose out. On the other hand, if he argued for an Ulster Assembly in some form, he risked alienating Unionists outside Ulster, including his own Dublin constituents. It would also make a nonsense of his objections to, in his words, the ‘competing legislatures’. Gradually a sort of consensus emerged that, if national or regional assemblies were to be created, then they should be for Scotland and Wales. In respect of Ireland, Carson and Bonar Law reluctantly accepted that there might be a case for separate assemblies for Ulster, however that might be defined, and for the rest of Ireland. Rather maliciously, in an attempt to hobble any Irish body that might emerge, Carson suggested that Ireland might be split into its historic provinces of Connacht, Leinster, Munster, and Ulster. He was somewhat put out to find support from some of the Irish Nationalist supporters, even if only in the context of an independent federal Ireland.

Surprisingly it was the question of an English assembly that proved the stumbling block. Bonar Law simply refused to accept that there was any need for it. “We have a UK Parliament” he said, “English MPs will still remain in overwhelming majority.” On this he was standing alone. His usual ally, Carson had decided his interests were best served by avoiding involvement in English issues. The Scottish and Welsh groups were less reticent. Together with the Liberals and surprisingly the Ulster Socialists, they accepted that England could do for itself whatever it wished, but refused to accept any arrangement that would allow England to dominate any UK level legislature. At that level they argued, the Nations of the Union should have equal standing. Labour members were split. All agreed that any English body would almost certainly be forever lost to them. To give them any chance of a presence in government below the UK level, some argued that England would need to be further subdivided. The extent to which that should be done could not be agreed. Proposals were tabled for two (North and South), three (North, Midlands, South) and five (Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, South East and Wessex) regional assemblies. The option of creating a separate Capital Assembly was also raised, on the basis that London would have an excessive dominance on any assembly of which it was a member. No agreement could be reached on the standing of any Capital Assembly, in particular if it should stand outside the system of Assemblies, especially if the Lords were to be replaced by an elected body.

The Convention was equally divided on the third question, the powers to be exercised by the new bodies. Here again Carson had a dilemma. If an Ulster Assembly was to be created, then he wanted it to have as much power as possible. However he was unwilling to concede the same for any body covering the remainder of Ireland. Burning his bridges he was also openly contemptuous of the chances of a Welsh Assembly, dismissing it as this ‘so-called country.’ All the other participants seemed to be of the same opinion, that what was by now being described openly as the Federal Parliament should be responsible for foreign policy, although there was no consensus of opinion in relation to taxation or the courts.

The fourth question of the relationship between any new bodies and the Federal parliament also brought up the question of the Lords. The Tories and their Unionist allies were adamant that it should remain untouched, arguing that creating an elected body would be creating a competitor for the Commons. A good proportion of the other parties would have been happy to see it abolished without replacement, but generally they agreed that in a Federal system of government, a non-elected legislative body at its peak was unacceptable. The Scottish and Welsh members raised the idea of replacing the lords by a body with equal representation for each local assembly, whether directly elected or appointed from their membership. English members of the Convention, of all parties, were not enamoured with the idea, since it would reduce English influence in Parliament, even assuming this new body had similar powers to the Lords. English Labour members especially found themselves in an acute dilemma, since they had no wish to retain the Lords, but equally were concerned that a single English Assembly would have a permanent Tory majority. Replacing the Lords by some sort of Senate might give them a backdoor to retaining some influence.

They continued to discuss the options for a replacement Upper House or Senate, the splutterings from Tories held at bay by Speaker Lowther and slowly another option emerged of an Upper House elected directly by the population at large, probably at the assembly level, perhaps voting for a party list, with representation determined by the share of the popular vote. Comparison with the US was often made, but the consensus seemed to be that if a second House were to be created its powers should be more or less equivalent to those of the present Lords, rather than competitors as in the US.

Perhaps surprising themselves as much as the Nation, these discussions continued without too much animosity over a period of three days. Towards the end of the third day, Speaker Lowther tried to draw matters to a close by summarising the position in which they now found themselves.

‘Gentlemen. At the beginning of our discussions, the King spoke of his feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness that we had gathered together to discuss these matters. We did not, as I’m sure you will agree, begin well, but as the King expected, you have these last three days largely set aside your disagreements and made great efforts to meet his expectations for you and for the country. I thank you for those efforts. Again in the King’s words “We have in the past endeavoured to act as a civilizing example to the world” and it is my hope that this may continue.

I would be naive if I were to suggest that we now have agreement on the way out of our problems. We do not. What we have is a way forward. Given the circumstances that have led us here, agreement was never a likely outcome. We now however know much better the limits of our difficulties and the matters upon which we, together with all the King’s subjects in these lands, must now focus. I think that the Convention, or at least this stage of it, should now stand down. It is possible of course that we will be called together again, or it may be that different arrangements will be made to take matters further.

Lowther then restated the four questions around which he had organised the discussion.

Q1: Is there a case for significantly increased levels of devolution?

Q2: What should be the basic unit for any devolution? Should it be the four Nations of the Kingdom or some smaller unit?

Q3: If established what powers should be redistributed to these legislatures from the National Parliament.

Q4: If established how should these legislatures be elected and what should be their relationship with the existing Parliament?

The clerks who have been making a record of your discussions will now prepare a summary of the various suggestions made in response to each of these questions. I will submit that to the Prime Minister and to the participants in the Convention.

Gentlemen, thank you.