A Frozen Spring (relaunched version)

[IanBertram]

From "A gathering Storm" George Dangerfield
Published New York, 1935

...

The Convention failed. That simple statement lies at the heart of the disasters ahead. Its failure was a tragedy for British democracy, and for Asquith, but the manner of its failure was farcical. There was no single cause, although a case could be made for the pig-headed behaviour of the parties involved, each determined to pursue their old lines, defend their old positions, harbour their old prejudices.

Initially it seems Asquith recognised the dangers. After the Cabinet decided in January to appeal to the King to intervene in the Convention, he wrote in his diary on 7th January:

“It has been decided that I should advise the King to intervene, with the object of securing a pacific accommodation. I am not convinced that his participation will be an unmixed blessing. Too many of the Irish are of the Republican persuasion for that to be well received and similar beliefs are strong in other parts of the country. I am concerned too, that involving him in the to and fro of everyday politics, even at such a critical juncture, will damage the Monarchy.”​

On 8th January he wrote: “I saw the King at the Palace today. He is full of ideas for the convention, including what I must concede as an excellent suggestion, that the Speaker should preside”

Asquith's initial doubts were however soon confirmed. The rather vague idea that representatives of all interested parties should attend, a formula arrived at in haste at the end of a protracted Cabinet meeting proved in the end to be unworkable, as every group with the most tenuous claim to participation clamoured to be admitted.

In Scotland, 'The Thistle' printed an editorial titled “Bristibh bannan bhur cuinge” (Break the cords of your bondage), calling for a pan-Celtic alliance of all the Celtic Nations and arguing that against a “united front of all Celts” the English usurper cannot stand. It suggested the creation of a Celtic League (An Comann Ceilteach) to represent all Celts at the Convention.

In Wales, two competing groups appeared – Cymru Goch (Red Wales) called on all socialists to refuse to take part in the Convention as a tool of the employers. Cymdeithas Cyfamod y Cymry Rhydd (Society of the Covenant of the Free Welsh) also denounced the Convention, but endorsed the call by the Thistle for the creation of a Celtic League (in Welsh - Yr Undeb Celtaidd). In Ireland, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (Bráithreachas Phoblacht na hÉireann) denounced the Convention as a front for yet another English plot – which made little difference, since they were never going to be invited – while they also refused to have anything to do with the Celtic League, denouncing Welsh and Scots politicians alike as 'English lap-dogs'. At the same time James Connolly demanded a place for the newly created Irish Labour Party – which prompted the Ulster Socialists to make a similar claim. Even the Manx joined in, with a group calling themselves Fo Sostyn, Fo Ordaag (Under England, under the thumb) demanding to be a party at the Convention while offering enthusiastic support, without a trace of irony, for both Cymru Goch and for Connolly's Irish Labour Party.

Any hope of agreement was finally destroyed by Mrs Pankhurst, who proclaimed that any changes to the constitutional arrangements of the country must include votes for women and demanded a place for the WSPU, only to be countered by a separate claim by her daughter Sylvia, on behalf of a rival group, the Women's Suffrage Federation. The comedy was concluded by the appearance in London of painted slogans in what turned out to be poorly spelt Cornish – rydhh Kernow (roughly Set Cornwall free) and in Hindi offering Indian support for Celtic freedom.

Faced with such a clamour, Asquith met with Bonar Law (but without Henderson or any other Labour Party members) and agreed that representation at the Convention would be limited to the major political parties represented in Parliament, with two delegates each, regardless of number of Parliamentary seats. This meant in effect no Welsh or Scottish representatives, something immediately denounced by both Cymru Goch and Cymry Rhydd as confirming their earlier stance against the Convention. Both Keir Hardie and Ramsay Macdonald added their voices to the dissent, demanding full representation for both Scotland and Wales, arguing that their exclusion made a nonsense of the whole idea of the Convention. A harried and exhausted Asquith rapidly back tracked and agreed that the first business of the Convention would be to discuss how to secure Scottish and Welsh voices.

In the face of this confusion and disarray, the Convention nevertheless assembled on time on 10th March, in the large Council Room at Buckingham Palace, overlooking the Palace gardens. Attending for the Liberals, Mr Asquith and Mr Lloyd George, for the Labour Party, Mr Henderson and Mr Keir Hardie, for the Tories, Mr Bonar Law and Lord Lansdowne, for the Unionists, Sir Edward Carson and Captain Craig and for the Nationalists, Mr Redmond and Mr Dillon.

It was opened by the King, ill at ease and rather nervous, with what he no doubt hoped was an exhortation to seek common ground, but which turned out in the end to be almost as divisive as the recriminations leading up to it.

"Gentlemen. It is with feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness that I receive you here to-day, and I thank you for the manner in which you have responded to my summons. It is also a matter of congratulation that the Speaker has consented to preside over your meetings. ​

My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure. But, the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought together justify my action. For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and sober-minded of my people. We have seen a similar trend towards force in the great cities of England. To me it is unthinkable, as it must be to you, that we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues apparently so capable of adjustment as those you are now asked to consider, if handled in a spirit of generous compromise. ​

Gentlemen, you represent in one form or another the vast majority of my subjects at home. You also have a deep interest in my Dominions over sea, who are scarcely less concerned in a prompt and friendly settlement of this question and who look to the Mother Country as a civilizing example to the world. I regard you, then, in this matter as trustees for the honour and peace of all. Your responsibilities are indeed great. The time is short. You will, I know, employ it to the fullest advantage, and be patient, earnest, and conciliatory, in view of the magnitude of the interests at stake.​

I pray that God, in his infinite wisdom, may guide your deliberations so that they may result in the joy of peace and honourable settlement."​

 

[IanBertram]

Some context to this one

The line Bristibh bannan bhur cuinge comes from a poem by Christopher Whyte http://www.christopherwhyte.com/

The other Gaelic groups all existed from time to time, usually at a much later date. The Cornish graffiti however, is cobbled together by me from an online Cornish-English dictionary, with added spelling errors. The Hindi grafitti is an oblique reference to the Hindu-German conspiracy.

The King's speech is pretty much as given to the Buckingham Palace Conference on the Irish issue on OTL July 1914, with an extra reference to the unrest in England. The reaction, still to come, will be pretty much as OTL too, but with a couple of extra twists.

Posts to come will generally be taking the TL forward, but there will also be some filling in of gaps and expanding the setting a little and probably also some more personal stories/letters

 

[IanBertram]

Hansard 4 November 1913

§ Mr. W. THORNE
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that recruitment to the Civilian Force is now based on a pledge not to be a union member and that the so-called Commander of the Force is a former army officer, cashiered for unacceptable failures of command during the Transport Strike in Liverpool in 1911?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I would refer the hon. Member to previous answers to similar questions. The Civilian Force is a private organisation, over which I have no control, and as to whose numbers and membership I have no information.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Has the Home Secretary any comment on yesterdays events in Tilbury, where an unarmed man was shot down by a member of a uniformed private Militia? What steps will be taken against the perpetrator of this killing?
§ Mr. MACDONALD
Is it not time that he did have such information and that he took steps to control these thugs? Men are being punished already simply for being trade union members. Are they now to be shot dead on the street for it?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The investigation of deaths in such circumstances is a matter for the relevant Police Force and it would be invidious on my part to comment.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
We have seen such deaths before, in Belfast and elsewhere in Ireland, at the hands of the Ulster Volunteer Force, brought into being by a member of this House and yet no action has ever been taken. Are we to see such a cavalier disregard for the law in England too?
§ Mr. O'GRADY
Concerns that an event such as this might occur have been raised with the right honourable member on many occasions and he has dismissed them as hypothetical. It has now happened, in even worse manner than was predicted. Will the right honourable Member now accept responsibility for his past failures?
§ Mr. McKENNA
I repeat, such investigations are a matter for the relevant Police Force.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
How long will the right honourable Member hide behind such statements? He must accept responsibilty and take action, or resign.
§ Mr. W. THORNE
Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to an organisation of labour forces in a similar way, to be armed with similar weapons?
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman will see the perils and dangers anybody must run who attempts to enrol an organisation of this sort. If there is any breach of the law then the police authorities are only too resolute to put a stop to any such breach.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I will raise the whole question on the Adjournment.

 

[IanBertram]

Last one out of sequence - I missed it. It follows directly on from the Battle of Tilbury

 

[IanBertram]

Curragh Mutiny

In two or three days time I'm hoping to have a post on this TL version of the Curragh mutiny. This involves some back tracking to tie things together - and to keep the screws turning ever tighter - but should tie most threads of the TL together for the lead up to the July Crisis and WW1.

EDIT 3/12

Well that was optimistic! The alt-Curragh post is still on track, but there will need to be several other posts in addition to bring all the thread up to the outbreak of war. The suffrage side of things has been neglected and to a degree the labour movement aspect too. It's very complex keeping all the balls in the air. I've already made some errors in plotting which I'm hoping to get past by relying on the 'unreliable observer' rather than making any retrospective changes.

 

[IanBertram]

The Curragh 'Incident'

'The Curragh Incident' by Andrew Charles McGregor, first published in "Politics and the British Military" Edinburgh, 1999, edited by A. C. McGregor and J.H. Telford.

By early 1913 the continued violence by the UVF, against Republicans and Trades Unionists alike, had began to impact on 'mainland' affairs. While the Lords would be unable to prevent the passage of the Home Rule Bill into law if it was reintroduced, Asquith was concerned that in the event of Home Rule going ahead, the UVF would turn that violence against the government and bring about a full blown Civil War in Ireland, with potential to spread to English cities like Liverpool.

Nor did the advent of the Liberal-Labour coalition make matters any easier for Asquith. He had retained Birrell as Secretary for Ireland, but the Labour Party was not especially sympathetic to the Unionist cause, especially since the UVF had shown itself to be rabidly anti-Trade Union. Keir Hardie, and the party's former leader Ramsay Macdonald were both especially outspoken on the idea of Home Rule for Ireland and for the broader idea of 'Home Rule all Round'. Even within his own party he could not be entirely sure of support – Churchill was an implacable opponent of everything Carson stood for, especially after his treatment by the Unionists in Belfast and only a couple of years before had made a major speech in support of a Federal Britain.

Just before the election, in August 1913, John French, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) was asked by the King for his views on the Irish situation (the King had also written to the Prime Minister.) In reply he wrote that the army would obey "the absolute commands of the King", but added that some might think "that they were best serving their King and country either by refusing to march against the Ulstermen or by openly joining their ranks" although he stressed that he wanted to act firmly against dissidents within the army. Later in the year, French went further and recommended that Captain Spender, who was openly assisting the UVF, be cashiered, although this was not acted upon.

By January 1914, Asquith was increasingly pessimistic about the outcome of the Constitutional Convention. Faced with intelligence that the Ulster Volunteers (now 100,000 strong) might be about to raid the armoury at Carrickfergus Castle, he asked French to prepare plans for the use of the Army to forestall such an event or if the threatened declaration of a Provisional Government went ahead. French did not oppose the deployment of troops in principle but told Wilson, the Director of Military Operations at the War Office, that the government were talking of "scattering troops all over Ulster as if it were a Pontypool coal strike". Wilson however was a highly political officer. He supported Ulster Unionist opponents of Irish Home Rule and approved of the Unionist plans to form a Provisional Government in Ulster in the event of the Bill going through. Indeed he expressed the view to his brother Jemmy that the proposals were “all very sensible.” He was already leaking information to the Unionists, although it is unclear whether he actually envisaged armed insurrection or simply hoped that the Government would back off. He had also been sounded out by Lord Roberts on his becoming chief of staff for the UVF. Although he declined he told Roberts that if necessary he would fight for Ulster rather than against her. He passed information about the new planning to George Richardson, a former Lieutenant General in the Indian Army, who had been appointed as UVF Chief of Staff after Wilson declined.

Arthur Paget, Commander in Chief, Ireland had also been warned, by the secretary of the Army Council, of possible attempts by unspecified persons to seize weapons and ammunition. In his reply he warned that large-scale mobilisation of the Army into Ulster would exacerbate the situation. Moving specifically against the UVF would be very different to the deployments that had taken place at the height of the confrontations between the UVF and Republicans. Paget was summoned to London in late January at which Seely informed him that the government was intending to introduce the Home Rule Bill and had no intention of allowing the UVF to start a civil war. The UVF must be crushed if they attempted to do so.

Asquith also set up a Cabinet Committee, chaired by Viscount Crewe, Lord Privy Seal (who soon fell ill), and consisting of John Simon (Attorney General), Augustine Birrell (Chief Secretary for Ireland), John Seely, (Secretary of State for War) and Winston Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty). Churchill and Seely both seemed eager to directly confront the UVF, even at the risk of bloodshed. At a meeting earlier in the year Churchill had said that there were "worse things than bloodshed, even on an extended scale" and "Let us go forward together and put these grave matters to the proof," The failure to include a Labour member on the committee was to prove critical in later months.

Paget's orders were to occupy government buildings, to repel any assaults by the UVF and to guard the armouries at Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh, Dundalk and Carrickfergus to prevent thefts of weapons. He was also told to send troops to Newry (an old, empty barracks with no stores) and Dundalk, both in nationalist areas and so unlikely to be seized by the UVF, but of strategic importance in any move to bring Ulster under military control. Numerous contingencies were discussed, including armed resistance to the troops as they moved to protect the arms depots. In the event of a railway strike, or other obstacle, Churchill offered transport of forces by the Royal Navy. All movements were to be completed by dawn on Sunday 1 March. The 3rd Battle Squadron was ordered to the Firth of Clyde while other vessels were made ready to help deploy troops to Ulster (in case of a strike by loyalist railwaymen). It is possible that the move to deploy troops may have been a ploy by Churchill and Seely to goad the loyalists into a rebellion which would then be put down. Such a rebellion would have placed the government in a much stronger position at the Convention.
On the evening of 12th February, Carson stormed out of a Commons debate and travelled to Ulster. Asquith, Seely, Churchill, Birrell, Field Marshal French, and General Paget held an emergency meeting at 10 Downing Street where Seely claimed to have intelligence of an imminent unionist coup in Ulster when Carson would declare a Provisional Government.

Paget returned to Dublin the same night. He had no written orders, probably because there were things which the politicians were reluctant to put in writing. From his subsequent actions, it seems he was not clear on what was expected of him. On the morning of Friday 13th February, Paget addressed senior officers at his headquarters in Dublin. He began by saying that "active operations were to commence against Ulster," a provocative choice of words. He then claimed that with French’s assistance he had obtained “concessions” from Seely, namely that officers who lived in Ulster would be permitted to “disappear” for the duration, but that other officers who refused to serve against Ulster would be dismissed rather than being permitted to resign. He added that Gough – who had a family connection with Ulster but did not live there – could expect no mercy from his "old friend at the War Office" (French). This was not the case - French and Seely had actually agreed with Paget that officers with “direct family connections” to Ulster should be left behind in any mobilisations against the UVF. By presenting his officers with an ultimatum, Paget showed poor judgement. Had the order been given simply to move north, with the let out for those with Ulster connections, the majority would probably simply have obeyed.

Paget's presentation led to a split in his command. Maj-Gen Sir Charles Fergusson, GOC 5th Infantry Division, warned Gough, GOC 3rd Cavalry Brigade that the Army must hold together at all costs, and that he himself would obey orders. Gough's reply was that he would not and he would not fire on his fellow countrymen, before going off to speak to the officers of the 5th Lancers (one of the regiments under his command). Gough did not attend a second meeting with Paget in the afternoon, at which he (Paget) confirmed that the purpose of the move was to overawe Ulster rather than fight.

Gough offered the officers under his command at nearby Marlborough Barracks the choice of resignation rather than fighting against the Ulster Volunteers. The same choice was also passed on to the rest of Gough's 3rd Cavalry Brigade 25 miles away at the Curragh Camp.

On the evening of 13th February Paget sent a telegram to the War Office in London announcing that almost all the officers of 5th Lancers intended to resign and the same was probably true of 16th Lancers. Seely replied, telling Paget to suspend any senior officer who had offered to resign. A second telegram just before midnight confirmed 57 officers preferred to accept dismissal (it was actually 61 including Gough):

Officer Commanding 5th Lancers states that all officers, except two and one doubtful, are resigning their commissions today. I much fear same conditions in the 16th Lancers. Fear men will refuse to move. Regret to report Brigadier-General Gough and fifty-seven officers 3rd Cavalry Brigade prefer to accept dismissal if ordered North.​

This was not technically a mutiny, as the officers concerned had resigned before refusing to carry out a direct order. As all were in Gough's brigade, and as they were informed of his reservations about Seely's orders, he was seen as central to the whole incident.Gough and 2 of his 3 colonels (the attitude of the third was unclear) were summoned to report to the War Office.

Colonel Philip Chetwode was offered command of Gough's Brigade. He later wrote that he knew he would be “looked upon by all his brother officers as a scab” but thought it “his duty as a soldier to do as he was ordered & not to meddle in politics”.

Fergusson toured the units under his command on the morning of Saturday 14th February to ensure their future compliance with government policy. One of his officers said later that "He [Fergusson] reminded us that although we must naturally hold private political views, officially we should not be on the side of any one political party. It was our duty to obey orders, to go wherever we were sent and to comply with instructions of any political party that happened to be in power. There was no sloppy sentiment; it was good stuff straight from the shoulder and just what we wanted." Paget made efforts to do the same but his speech was described by an officer who heard it as "absolutely unconvincing and inconclusive."

Gough, summoned to the War Office, confirmed (Sunday 15th February) that he would have obeyed a direct order to move against Ulster. Meanwhile French, in an audience with the King and advised by Haldane (Lord Chancellor) blamed Paget saying that he should not have asked officers about "hypothetical contingencies." He threatened to resign if Gough were not reinstated. Paget was then ordered to report to London and Macready was sent out to Belfast (but without official announcement) as General Officer Commanding Belfast District and as military governor-designate of Belfast in the event of civil war breaking out.

Asquith and his Liberal Ministers backed down, claiming an "honest misunderstanding." At French's suggestion Seely issued a document in the name of the Cabinet, stating that the Army Council were satisfied that the incident had been a misunderstanding, that it was "the duty of all soldiers to obey lawful commands." that the Government had the right to use "forces of the Crown" in Ireland or elsewhere, but had no intention of using force "to crush opposition to the Home Rule Bill." Gough insisted on adding a further paragraph clarifying that the Army would not be used to enforce Home Rule on Ulster, to which French concurred in writing. Gough promised to keep the “Cabinet” document confidential, but it soon leaked. Both Gough and French leaked it to the Morning Post, while Wilson leaked it to Bonar Law and others.

The matter was debated in the Commons, (24th and 25th February) where Asquith publicly repudiated the document which had been issued. French, the Adjutant-General Spencer Ewart and Seely all resigned. The Labour Party was especially outraged that the Army, apparently happy enough to suppress industrial unrest, had been allowed to prevent the use of force in Ulster. Under pressure from both Keir Hardie and the former leader Ramsay Macdonald, Henderson threatened to pull out of the Coalition. In the end though, realising that this was an area where Tories and many Liberals were in agreement, so making a Liberal-Conservative coalition possible, he did not press matters, arguing that Labour had a greater influence on affairs from within government. In return, he insisted on Labour membership of all Cabinet committees and reluctantly Asquith agreed.

No one emerged well from the incident, least of all Asquith, Gough and Wilson. The myth of an apolitical military had been exposed as had the willingness of at least some senior officers to use the power of the army in support of their political position. The event boosted unionist confidence and convinced nationalists that they could not expect support from either the Government or the army in the event of a UVF insurgence. Support for the separatist paramilitary forces the Irish Volunteer Army and the Irish Citizens' Army grew, putting even greater pressure on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.

 

[IanBertram]

Times 27th February 1914

Attempted assassination attempt on Police Commissioner

Yesterday evening, while at his home in Kensington, Sir Edward Henry, Metropolitan Police Commissioner was subjected to an assassination attempt by an as yet unidentified assailant. It is understood that a number of shots were fired from a pistol when Sir Edward opened his front door. At least one hit its intended target. Sir Edward's chauffeur then tackled his assailant and brought him to the ground.

No details of the assailant have been released, while attempts are made to ascertain his motive.

Sir Edward is now in hospital with a police guard. His injuries, while serious, do not appear to have been life threatening.

 

[IanBertram]

Editorial from "Thistle" Magazine January 1914
We regret to say that the position taken up by Mr Asquith, as representing the Cabinet toward the question of “Home Rule All Round”, is most unsatisfactory and deeply to be regretted. Evidently the matter has been discussed by the Ministry, and the decision arrived at is that Home Rule is to be considered by the Convention, but that the Scots and the Welsh shall have no say. What is given to Ireland in the form of place at the table, is to be denied to Scotland and to Wales. This is the old dirty and shameful policy, born of selfishness and national bigotry, which has been the policy of the English Liberals for the last thirty or forty years. Scotland and Wales are to be treated as a part of England, with the result that all their national peculiarities are to be levelled down to the English hum-drum standard, and their national interests are to be made subservient to those of England.

And why are Scotland and Wales in this matter to be treated differently from Ireland? It certainly is not that these two nationalities are unfitted for self- government. On the contrary they are more fit for it than either England or Ireland. No. It is because of their complete fitness for self-government; because of their orderliness, their high intelligence, and their indisposition to resort to violence, that their claim for the management of their own national affairs is denied to them. They don't throw bombs, they don't shoot the officers of the law, they don't resort to bribery and corruption in their electoral and other business, and hence, according to the policy of the brutal English majority — Liberal and Tory alike — they must be denied the blessings of Home Rule, and be treated as tributary and conquered peoples. That is, and has been, the policy alike of the Radical Lord Morley, and of the Tory Lord Salisbury, and their followers for the last thirty years. Ah well, that policy may be carried on too long, and if national and rational liberty is only to be gained by violent methods, even these may be possible to the Welsh and Scottish peoples if they are driven to extremity.

But what a disgraceful position for the English people to take up towards their fellow-citizens in Scotland and Wales. To the violence of Ireland they yield and say — you shall have what you demand, because we fear you and cannot do without your vote in Parliament, To the orderliness and law-abidingness of the Scots and the Welsh they refuse their desire for international justice, and say, you always vote " Liberal," and we can't do without your vote in Parliament ; you are Liberals, and were it not for your vote the Tories would control English legislation. This is the selfish position taken up by the English Liberals. The Tories, on the other hand, refuse any concession to the Scots and the Welsh, partly from their innate conservative stupidity, partly from national bigotry and their determination to Anglicise Scotland and Wales. Their policy is to grant no concessions to the reasonable and just demands of the three countries — Scotland, Ireland and Wales — for the management of their own affairs, unless these demands are accompanied by continuous defiance of the law, and by social violence and social outrage. It was only by such action that in the "eighties" of last century the Highland crofters gained a very moderate measure of relief, and we need not elaborate the case of Ireland. Any concessions she has obtained in the way of amelioration of the lot of her oppressed people has been "by battle, murder and sudden death.” That seems to be the only argument that can now obtain international justice from that Parliament in Westminster which is controlled by English votes.

The practical result, then, of this selfish action on the part of the English Liberals, and of the stupid and bigoted action of the English Tories, is that another policy — the policy of violence and of law-breaking — has now become the most potent factor in the working of the British constitution. The brutal English majority refuse to yield to international arguments on the part of the peoples of Scotland, Ireland and Wales for a fair and reasonable amount of Home Rule, for power to manage and control their own purely Scottish, Irish and Welsh affairs; but when Highland crofters resort to deforcement and defiance of the law; and when Irishmen, infuriated by the brutal tyranny of centuries, resort to fire-raising, to cattle driving, to assassination and to murder, then the English brutal majority hears reason; then it discovers that English ways and English ideas are not exactly heaven born, and that it is desirable to make concessions to outraged feeling and to the desperate sentiment of the peoples whom they have so long misgoverned. In other words, the bomb and the action of violence and of destruction which it represents, take the place of argument, of reason and of constitutional agitation in the very heart and core of the British Empire. Did not the Clerkenwell bomb outrage induce Mr Gladstone to take up the question of the wrongs of Ireland, and introduce and carry through Parliament land legislation, which has gone a long way to lessen disturbance and to create prosperity in that "distressful country"?

Do English people ever consider the disgrace and the infamy which they have brought on their good name, as a civilised people, by allowing the existence of this foul blot to spring up and to continue in the working of their much vaunted parliamentary system? Their apologists say that the evil is owing to the congestion of business at Westminster ; that it is impossible to push the most necessary measures through the Commons and the Lords, owing to the many petty measures which have to be discussed and dealt with in some form or another. But who is to blame for this, but the English majority in Parliament? That majority has the power to pass measures of " Home Rule All Round," which would effectually put an end to congestion in the Imperial Parliament. But the House of Lords stands in the way, it is said. Have the English Liberals or the English Tories ever shown any disposition to make this question of the devolution of the international legislation of the United Kingdom — not of Ireland merely — the question of questions, as it undoubtedly is? No. As we have already pointed out, it has been denied by the stupidity of the English Tories, and trifled with and put aside by the selfishness and hypocrisy of the English Liberals. And now, the Liberal Premier comes before the country with the miserable, halting statement that the Ministry propose to give Home Rule to Ireland; but that the position of Scotland and Wales will be considered by a Convention at which the Scots nor the Welsh will be admitted. For that is the inevitable deduction from Mr Asquith's utterance. This is not statesmanship. It is mere political patchwork; and, moreover, it is doomed to failure, as the Ministry will find out when they come to unfold their measure to the British people.

It is curious that while Anglo-British ministers are so blind to the necessities of constitutional reform in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the ministers who control the policy of the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, and of the Commonwealth of Australia, see clearly what should be done to give the British peoples a good working Constitution. When the Premier of Queensland was in Scotland about a year or more ago, he pointed out the necessity for the establishment of sub-national parliaments in the four nationalities of the United Kingdom. And at a later date, on the 27th of October last, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister of Canada, concluded a brilliant speech to the Women's Canadian Club at Montreal with the following remarks : —

"God forbid that I should interfere in British politics. But it seems astonishing to me that Mr Gladstone did not act on the federated principle, which I believe would be a remedy for the Irish question. The British Parliament is now overloaded with petty details; one day discussing the greatest of problems, and the next day roads and ditches, or a piece of bog in Ireland. Such petty details ought not to impede the action of the Imperial Parliament. Perhaps sometime or other the federated principle will be applied to Scotland, England, and Ireland in a new form of constitution for the British Empire." ​

​

These are weighty words, and wise ones, and embody a policy which would be advocated and endorsed, we venture to say, by every Premier who is at the head of affairs in the British self-governing states beyond the seas. It is a policy which would give peace and contentment to all the four peoples of the British Isles — a portion of English Jingoes and blustering "John Bullies" perhaps excepted. Why, then, is it not adopted by the present Ministry? Does Mr Asquith hold the opinion that the Scottish and Welsh peoples are less capable of managing purely Scottish and Welsh affairs than the English parliamentary majority? In Germany, Prussia does not interfere with the purely national affairs of Bavaria, of Saxony, of Baden-Baden, or indeed of any of the minor German states. Why, then, should the English majority in Parliament refuse the same power to Scotland and to Wales? The spirit of English liberty, of which we hear so many boasts, seems to have departed, and is now replaced by a spirit of "Bullyism" and of "Jingoism," which resents any interference with English predominance in Westminster. But when "a bomb bursts," and violence is resorted to, then this "Bullying" policy gives way. In other words, violence and law-breaking have become an essential feature in the working of the British Constitution!

 

[IanBertram]

The Thistle

The 'Thistle' was an interesting magazine published in two volumes between 1908 and 1910. This editorial was created out of numerous articles and editorials on the issue of Home Rule, edited together with additional material to recognise the changed context, but retaining as much as possible of its distinct, verbose, style.

 

[IanBertram]

Coming soon...

Forthcoming posts seem likely to include:

• The Constitutional Convention finally meets (almost finished)
• Suffrage violence returns
• More from John Telford
• Ramsay Macdonald speaks out (in progress)
• More from the Thistle
• Fall out from the Convention
• Election 1914

Others may occur to me, but this seems the minimum to take us up to the outbreak of war.

 

[kung Zog]

Forthcoming posts seem likely to include:

• The Constitutional Convention finally meets (almost finished)
• Suffrage violence returns
• More from John Telford
• Ramsay Macdonald speaks out (in progress)
• More from the Thistle
• Fall out from the Convention
• Election 1914

Others may occur to me, but this seems the minimum to take us up to the outbreak of war.

Nice, looking forward to the suffrage post.

 

[IanBertram]

Delays

Sorry for the delay - I got stricken by a story idea that simply insisted on being written...

Normal service will be resumed in early 2016

 

[kung Zog]

Sorry for the delay - I got stricken by a story idea that simply insisted on being written...

Normal service will be resumed in early 2016

No problem, looking forward to it.

 

[Vornado]

I hope there will be more updates!

 

[IanBertram]

Thread in suspension

More delays I'm afraid. Continued health issues make it difficult to maintain progress. I've also written myself into a corner on a couple of points because I haven't thought far enough ahead.

Its probably best to view this as being in suspension. I'm going to try, when I can, to write more, but without the episodic format caused by posting here. If that works and I can get far enough ahead, I will consider resuming posting.

 

[IanBertram]

Just a note to say I'm still here, although with little substantive progress caused by a mixture of health issues (not just mine), commitments elsewhere and something of a creative block. Health hasn't changed, but as some things become physically less possible I'm hoping I'll find some time to write.

 

[IanBertram]

I'm making no promises but I'm reviewing what I've written so far and the unpublished material still sitting on my computer. It's possible I will restart, but there are lots of other things to consider before I commit myself.

 

[IanBertram]

I still haven't decided how to move things forward. I have however been through the whole thread and corrected a few typos and also edited the posts to remove the stray formatting code that appeared in many and the problems with font size that also popped up from time to time. Everything should now at least be readable.

My next step is rereading the unposted material to see if I can pick up the threads. I'll also be adding threadmarks to the actual TL posts.

A question however for my reader. I'm thinking of back tracking on the thread and rewriting, perhaps even completely replacing, some of the later post. Is there an accepted etiquette about such major revisions?

 

[kung Zog]

I'm happy to see this timeline alive again. It was a long time since I read it, and lately I find that I have a hard time finding the time and mood for reading updates on timelines in general. That being said, I will try to find time to re-read this timeline, which I remember as engaging and interesting.

As to your question, feel free to rework and edit your work. Maybe if you do major revisions make a note of it in the post to avoid confusion.

I'm looking forward to reading this timeline, but it might take me some time to do it.

-KZ

 

[IanBertram]

I have found a few short posts that I missed first time around. I'm editing various 'still here' type posts of mine to get them in the correct place (with a note to that effect added) Threadmarks have now been added to substantive posts in the TL so that's the best way in and avoid missing any 'new old' posts