A Frozen Spring (relaunched version)

[IanBertram]

Comments/suggestions wanted please on next steps for this TL

Story so far: A General Election in 1913 leads to a Liberal/Labour Coalition government. That Coalition is fragile and still requires the support of the Irish Parliamentary Party to survive, or at least for them not to vote against the coalition government. The IPP price for this is Home Rule for the entire island of Ireland, with full responsibility for all internal affairs to be handed to the new Irish Parliament including:

a) a guarantee from the British government to maintain Irish national spending at current levels,

b) the abolition of the Dublin Castle administration and its replacement by one responsible to the new Parliament,

c) No change in the number of Irish MPs in the London Parliament and,

d) Immediate legislation to control the activities of the UVF.

The Liberal position is however undercut by Keir Hardie for Labour. He demands that any Home Rule Bill should also include provision for Scotland and perhaps Wales, including proposals to disestablish the Scottish and Welsh Churches. He supports the controls on the UVF, but wants them extended to cover similar bodies on the mainland – in other words the burgeoning Civilian Force in England.

Finally it is agreed in Cabinet to offer the possibility of Home Rule for Ireland, but for it first to be considered by a Constitutional Convention, which would consider the position of all the Home Nations. This would include representatives from all the major parties. On the question of controlling the UVF and like bodies, no agreement was reached.

This takes us up to post #110 (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-frozeun-spring-relaunched-version.231963/page-6#post-11643993)
and post #121 (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...elaunched-version.231963/page-7#post-11648457)

I’m unsure about the next steps. The Convention, which is struggling from day 1 could go several ways:-

• complete failure
• some sort of deal on a Federal UK – which seems unlikely except perhaps in “we’ve tried everything else to get a deal” sense
• Home Rule for island of Ireland as per OTL
• Home Rule with separate Ulster

Each of these would have very different implications for the UK, especially in the light of WW1 which we know is coming but they don’t. (This is February 1914)

Failure probably means yet another election – the fourth since 1910 – and if WW1 follows OTL timetable probably just before, or during the run up to war.

Federalism seems the most likely to lead to a peaceful solution, although probably only postpones Irish Independence and may trigger the same demands for Scotland. However if England is excluded, (a distinct possibility if the Tories and Unionists have their way) it would probably fail. The others, especially the Irish would just see it as a backdoor to maintaining English dominance of the Union/Federation. In the short term though probably puts the UK in a better position to respond to beginning of war.

Home Rule for the whole island would mean the Unionists kick off instead of the Republicans, probably even worse violence because ITTL they are better armed and willing to be brutal. Probably would lose Ulster Brigades for British Army. An alt-Easter Rising could well be in Ulster. British Army in this context would probably be less reticent since such a rebellion would be taking place if not in war time, at least under the threat of war.

Home Rule with separate Ulster remaining in the Union would probably have similar outcomes for Ireland. as in 1921 . No Easter Rising, but probable Civil War and Ireland leaving the Union.

Any thoughts, further Ideas and comments welcome please. All of these lead to 'interesting' outcomes. I'm also interested in views on how this might be viewed in Germany and France as things grind on in the rest of Europe.

 

[IanBertram]

Still plotting out the next stages before I post further. I have several posts written but I've written myself into a corner before so I need to get further ahead with writing before I commit myself. The TL will continue though.

In the meantime, I've gone through the bibliography and repaired the broken links. There are a couple I haven't found yet. It is attached in pdf format.

 

[IanBertram]

The opening of the Constitutional Convention
Editorial in The Spectator

The event of the week which eclipses all others in interest and importance is the opening of the Constitutional Convention which assembled at Buckingham Palace on Monday. We have recorded already the various steps – and missteps – in the identification of the membership. We must now state here our belief that the linking of the long established question of Irish Home Rule to the much less clear issues surrounding the matter in Scotland was a mistake. Extending it further to that so-called country of Wales merely compounds the error. Nevertheless the fact that the King endorsed it and agreed to open it undoubtedly rendered it easier for the Unionist members to take part in the proceedings.

That first meeting was opened by the King in person. We must quote in full the King's speech on this memorable occasion:—

‘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 events, not just in Ireland but across the Realm. 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 in the past endeavoured to act as a civilizing example to the world, and 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. 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.'​

As we write on Friday morning the Convention is stated to be "hanging by a thread." We do not intend, even at this eleventh hour to give up hope, even though only the vaguest rumours have reached the outside world as to what has gone on. We must hope that pursuit of the nebulous concept of ‘Home Rule All Round’ does not prevent the reaching of a solution for Ireland. It is, we think, safe to say that a settlement on Ireland could at any moment be reached if the Nationalists agreed to the six Plantation Counties being treated as "the Ulster area "—i.e., the area to be excluded. It is true of course that Sir Edward Carson would probably have very considerable difficulty in persuading the Ulster Covenanters to agree to the six counties instead of the whole Province being the excluded area. Mr. Redmond and Mr Dillon will have similar difficulties in the matter, but we should have thought that circumstances must make Sir Edward, Mr Redmond and Mr Dillon alike, recognize that they must ask the necessary sacrifice of their followers, telling them, what assuredly is the fact, that if they are not willing to accept the six counties as the Ulster area, the prospect before us is one of strife and disorder. .

It might have been supposed that the King's very striking speech, in which there is not a word which can fairly be said to encourage party feeling or to indicate that the King is taking sides, would have been accepted with satisfaction by all reasonable people. Strange as it may seem, however, it was greeted with what can only be described as an outburst of angry recrimination by a large section of the Radical Press, the Daily News, the Daily Chronicle, and the Manchester Guardian being exceptionally vehement. As if they desired to give proof of the truth of Bacon's luciferous saying, that "suspicion clouds the mind," they seized hold of the words in the King's speech : "To-day the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and sober-minded of my people," and made this plain and perfectly legitimate statement of an obvious fact the excuse for an attack upon the Sovereign for having exceeded his constitutional rights. The Unionists are the people who have had "the cry of civil war on their lips." Therefore the King has described the Unionists as the most responsible and sober-minded of his people. Therefore the King is taking sides with the Unionists and is attacking his own Ministers. Such was the amazing logic of the Radical publicists.

The orgy of futile jealousy and shrewish vituperation did not last long. In the first place the Unionist evening papers of Wednesday pointed out that Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Winston Churchill, Lord Loreburn, and, indeed, almost every Liberal who had spoken or written on the subject, had talked about the dangers of civil war or civil strife. It was indeed preposterous to abuse the King because he had not followed the ostrich policy of a section of the Liberal Press, and insisted on putting his head into the sand and pretending that anybody who talked about the danger of civil war— invisible from that posture—was a traitor. If to name civil war was to break a specially sacred taboo, then nobody was more guilty than Ministers.

In truth the King is becoming what Lord. Salisbury once described Queen Victoria as being—namely, "the adviser of his advisers "—a personality whose words of weight and good counsel may save politicians inflamed by party zeal from great blunders or even great crimes. All men, however eminent and however cautious, are, as they would themselves readily admit, the better for cool advice given by one who has trained himself to regard national politics as a whole, and from the top and not from a side view. We do not, of course, say for a moment that the King's advice to his advisers should, or even could, always be followed. by those advisers. But, again to quote Lord Salisbury, no Ministers would ever reject such advice lightly or without a sense that they were thereby taking an added responsibility.

In our opinion the King's intervention in the crisis, what- ever may be its ultimate result, has been as wise as it is timely. His action is in every way appropriate to the place held by the Kingship in our Constitution and our national life, and the fatuous jealousy which it appears to have inspired in certain members of the House of Commons will, we are certain, be condemned by the nation as a whole.

Later in the day on Wednesday the disillusionment of the Radicals was completed by Mr. Asquith's very firm and sensible statements in Parliament. He not only declared in emphatic words that he took entire responsibility for the King's speech, but mentioned what every man who knew anything about the procedure in such matters had guessed already, that the King had shown his speech to the Prime Minister before it was made. Mr. Asquith added that after it was made it had been the unanimous wish of the whole Conference that it should be given to the Press. The fact that the King showed his speech to his advisers and that they did not object was, of course, tantamount to its endorsement by them. Had they regarded its words as censuring them or as being otherwise unacceptable, they would, we may feel sure, have considered a determination to maintain the speech as involving their dismissal, and they would at once have resigned their offices. Mr. Asquith stated that his Majesty throughout the crisis bad "followed the strictest constitutional precedents, and had taken no steps up till now except in consultation with and on the advice of his Ministers." The whole supposed unconstitutional and partisan action of the King was, in fact, the wildest mare's nest.

"When in doubt or difficulty abuse the King, and say it was his fault," seems to be rapidly becoming the rule of the advanced Radical Press.

As English journalists we are ashamed of the fatuity, ineptitude and injustice of our contemporaries, though as Unionists we cannot profess to be greatly concerned. The English people are a rough people, but they are just. Nothing excites their sympathy more than to see a man, whether highly or lowly placed, unfairly traduced. "He may be right or he may be wrong, but you've no cause to hit him below the belt." That is the invariable comment of Englishmen when face to face with a situation like that which we have described. The Radical Press hit below the belt, and their party will have to pay the penalty.

To make the position of the Radical assailants of the King even more ridiculous, Mr. Asquith on Thursday, on the demand of Sir Henry Dalziel, gave his interpretation of the much debated sentence in the King's Speech in regard to "the cry of civil war." Though deprecating the question (amid loud cheers from the Unionists), he declared that, in the special circumstances, he would answer it, and he did so in the following terms :—

"In my understanding the sentence in question was not intended, and ought not to be construed, as saying more than what is obviously true, that the apprehension of civil strife has been widely entertained and expressed by responsible and sober- minded persons, among whom I may perhaps include myself."

In his comment the Parliamentary correspondent of the Times tells us that "the King's critics, stung by the last seven words of the reply, could scarcely conceal their mortification. They sat in uncomfortable silence, while the Opposition cheered." We do not wonder.

 

[IanBertram]

This has been edited together from real editorials in the Spectator, largely about the Speakers Conference on Devolution in 1919, modified to make it relevant in the ATL setting. I have several more ready and I'm almost up to the date of the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. Obviously things will be different...

 

[IanBertram]

Ramsay Macdonald on the first day of the convention.

The Ulster "Loyalists" are in armed rebellion against the State and the King's authority with the open encouragement of the Tory Party. Another private army, created by yet another Tory peer is given a free hand to beat and murder Trade Unionists in England. And how does the King react? He casts in his lot with the reactionary peers and those same rebellious Ulsterites. He joins his influence with the forces which are working against and seeking to destroy the House of Commons and our Constitutional forms of Parliamentary Government.

Needless to say, he and his servile upholders, Liberal and Unionist, in the Press and in Parliament, will seek to conceal this naked truth from the public gaze. But the point is not open to dispute. The Liberal party did not ask for his interference, whatever the Cabinet may have done. The Irish party had no need for his services, and Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon only consented to attend the conference because the King "commanded" their presence. The Labour party resents his interference. These three sections of the Parliament stood loyally together on Home Rule for Ireland though; the Tories and the Unionists objected, and, therefore, the King, in interfering, can have no other object than to assist his friends the Tories and the Unionists. The hypocritical assurance which is being spread abroad that the House of Commons will have the last word is a mere blind. If an agreement be reached it will come to us with the combined weight and authority of the King, the Tory party, the House of Lords, and the Liberal Party behind it. Under such circumstances the House of Commons will be paralysed. I have never for a moment doubted that part of any settlement come to will be an immediate dissolution, regardless of the views of the Coalition. We now begin to see why the Royal crowd have been visiting Merthyr and so many other industrial centres during the past two or three years. They desired to popularise themselves with the mob so that they might rivet the chains of their iron rule more firmly upon them.

King George is not a statesman. He is not the pleasure loving scapegrace which his father was before him, but, like his father, he is destitute of even ordinary ability. Born in the ranks of the working class his most likely fate would have been that of a street-corner loafer. And this is the man who is being made a tool of by the reactionary classes to break the power of Democracy and weaken and finally destroy the power of Parliament. But Democracy will accept the challenge. The rights our fathers won by sacrifice shall be maintained.

 

[IanBertram]

As ever based on Macdonald's real words edited to suit the changed context.

 

[IanBertram]

Even without the divisive impact of the King's speech at the opening of the Convention, the first full day on 6th March was an unmitigated disaster. The official aim, to consider the Constitutional arrangements not just for Ireland but for the other constituent nations of the UK, disappeared under a welter of recrimination and abuse on all sides. Even agreement on which nations should be included proved impossible. While the woeful lack of preparation by the Liberals was a factor, the sheer bloody mindedness of the others compounded the difficulties.

The Tories, under the Canadian Bonar Law, (with Willoughby de Broke constantly at his ear) were opposed in any case to all Home Rule, especially for Ireland, despite also holding fast to the idea that Ulster had the right to decide its own fate. They flatly refused to consider the inclusion of England in any proposals. For them, England was Britain and to create an English Parliament was to destroy the idea of a Great Britain. De Broke was, at face value, no more than a genial and sporting young peer. His influence on Bonar Law, even though not an official delegate, was however pernicious.

The Unionists were like the Tories equally opposed to Home Rule in any form. Britain and the Empire were what mattered. Home Rule All Round, whether as extended arrangements for local government or as a more fundamental Federal Britain was anathema – but if it was coming it would be to Ulster!

The Liberals were more sympathetic. The Scottish Liberal Association had been supportive of the idea of a Scottish Parliament for some 30 years. It would have been hard to deny the same option to the English, although they were fearful that any English Parliament would always be lost to them.

Labour was ambivalent. They had similar concerns to the Liberals over England and were unsure if the strong possibility of taking control of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments was worth surrendering a smaller chance of taking power under the present arrangements, especially since in their view the Liberals were in decline as the party of the working classes, perhaps even as a party.

The Irish Parliamentary Party were, as ever, only interested in Ireland. They were reluctant participants in the first place and were unwilling to run the slightest risk of delay in securing Irish Home Rule. Home Rule was merely a step on the path to full independence, so the government of Wales or Scotland was of no interest to them.

All attendees represented their party, not their nation, although both Lloyd George and Keir Hardie were known to be sympathetic to Welsh Home Rule. In general they expressed a party position not a constitutional one

Despite the best efforts of the Speaker, James Lowther, interminable and bad tempered arguments continued throughout the day until at 6.30 in the evening the Convention broke up with with no agreement on the attendance of national representatives, on the order of business or even a date for another meeting. Immediately, Asquith was summoned to met the King to report on achievements of the day. Exhausted and in despair, he was forced to admit not just failure of the day but the real prospect of total breakdown. The King urged Asquith to persevere. Asquith then returned to Downing Street to be faced with separate demands for meetings from Bonar Law, Henderson and Carson. Probably wishing he could turn them all away, he agreed to meet his Coalition partner, Henderson, later in the evening and scheduled a meeting with Bonar Law for the next morning. Carson he simply ignored, which proved another damaging error.

Henderson offered an olive branch. He proposed that four additional delegates be invited, two each for Scotland and Wales, to be chosen from MPs in those countries. They would nominally attend on the invitation of the Prime Minister, but he (Henderson) expected that they would be selected for their sympathy with the idea of Home Rule rather than their Party affiliation, although he also expected as least one of these to be from Labour. He saw no reason to add any additional Irish delegates. He also suggested that the next meeting begin with an address from a constitutional expert who could outline the range of options for change and who might, as an outsider, be allowed a hearing. Asquith seized the opportunity and agreed to inform Bonar Law at his meeting in the morning. He asked Henderson to submit some names for consideration in the meantime. Bonar Law of course did not agree. Despite the fact that Home Rule for England, Scotland and Wales, would strengthen the argument for a separate Ulster, he remained committed to a single British State, even if that meant losing the southern Irish. He threatened to withdraw from the Convention if Asquith continued on this path and warned that Carson too would withdraw. This ultimatum created something of a dilemma. Asquith's party were in a minority and in addition were split over the coalition with Labour. If Bonar Law managed to lay the blame for failure of the Convention at Asquith's door, it would divert attention away from the role of the Tories in creating the problem in the first place. After a fractious meeting with senior party members on 25th February it was decided that Bonar Law should be presented with a fait accompli. The additional participants would be invited by Asquith on behalf of the Coalition, thus with the agreement and most importantly the public support of the Labour Party. The Speaker would be asked to identify a suitable expert or experts and issue the invitation. With a united front from the Government it was believed Bonar Law would have to back down or be blamed for the failure of the Convention. Carson had still not been consulted.

On 26th February the announcement was made that the next meeting of the Convention would be on Monday 2nd March and that four additional participants had been invited. Representing Scottish interests would be William Cowan and Duncan Pirie, both Liberals and both well known 'Home Rulers', having introduced Scottish Home Rule Bills to the Commons in the past. Representing Welsh interests would be E T John, a Liberal who had in the past advocated that Welsh and Scots supporters of Home Rule should make common cause. The second would be William Abraham universally known by his bardic name, Mabon, a former Liberal, now a member of the Labour Party, and an active Trade Unionist.

The announcement was met with fury by Carson. Neither Asquith nor Bonar Law had given any indication of what was going on, and for once his usual informants in the Tory party had failed him. He immediately left for discussions with the Unionist Council in Belfast. Nor were the new Ulster Socialists much happier, since as a group they almost matched the Unionists in size, having pretty much split the Unionist vote but had not been given a voice. Asquith, by now desperate to see the Convention move forward, agreed that they could send one person to the next meeting. This was accepted, with bad grace, and Edward Straughan, the Party leader, agreed to attend. This further concession did nothing to calm Carson, who wanted to withdraw entirely, but was convinced by the Unionist Council that to do so would leave them too vulnerable, especially since Bonar Law had failed to keep them abreast of what was happening.

So, balanced on a knife edge, the Convention met for the second time on 2 March 1914, again under the chairmanship of the Speaker. In opening the session, he tried to avoid confrontation, but despite his best efforts, this second day was no improvement on the first. Lowther attempted to present an agenda which would form the basis of future discussion but Carson would have none of it. He insisted, loudly and often, that the unity of the Kingdom could not be dismantled. Lowther then asked those present for suggestions on how the discussions might be organised. Despite all Carson's effort a series of questions to be addressed were gradually identified. First: was there a case for significantly increased levels of devolution? Second: should devolution be based on regional or national lines? This was a debate which proved particularly problematic when it came to England. Third: what powers should be devolved to these legislatures? Fourth: how would these subordinate legislatures be elected and what would be their relationship with the existing Parliament?

With these four questions identified, the Speaker closed the session with a final plea.

“Gentlemen. I have accepted the task of chairing this conference at the request of the King. His Majesty has asked me to convey to you all his heartfelt desire that we should move forward with, if not total agreement, then at least a willingness to listen to each other and to the country so that we might extricate ourselves from our present difficulties. He is under no illusion that this task we have undertaken will be arduous. There is no broad and easy road ahead, but that is no bad thing. On the broad road every man may chose a path suited to his inclinations, shift about to avoid difficulties, or accommodate himself to circumstances; and he will be sure of company agreeable to his taste. This Nation faces a multitude of challenges. If it is to come through we must follow one another on the narrow way, along the same track, surmounting difficulties, facing enemies, and bearing hardships, without any room to evade them.​

I ask you now to join me in prayer.​

God of ages, in your sight nations rise and fall, and pass through times of peril. We beseech you now, when our land is troubled to give us your light and your truth to guide us. Grant us the understanding to put an end to strife, grant us mercy so that we can quench hatred and forgiveness so that we can overcome vengeance.​

Amen”​

 

[IanBertram]

Bristibh bannan bhur cuinge (Break the cords of your bondage)
Editorial from 'The Thistle'

The great obstacle to reform in British legislation hitherto has been the House of Lords and the selfishness of the English Liberal party. For that reason Scotland has long suffered, and will continue to suffer from the denial of legislation in many matters most essential to the comfort and well-being of her people. The oppressive powers of the former have been limited but the selfishness of the Liberals - and the Tories, for in their treatment of the Scots they are inseparable – remains. Now, the head of the British Empire—he whose duty it is to hold the scales of justice even, as between the three kingdoms and the four peoples over whom he rules—England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales—has thought fit to sully his high position by taking part in the unjust aggressions of England against the people of Ireland. In such action he has violated the constitution of the United Kingdom, and has thus proved himself to be a creator of disaffection to his person, and even of disloyalty to the British throne.

Every true Scot must hail the political crisis thus engendered with the utmost satisfaction. The hypocrisy by which the Scots, who have at least doubly done their duty as builders of the British Empire, have found themselves checked and maltreated at every turn by their English fellow-subjects despite our Treaty rights and the solemnly pledged faith of the Parliament of England, has been exposed. A Constitutional Convention, convened to discuss the governance of the entire Kingdom fails to include any representative of the Scots or the Welsh peoples. And while this glaring measure of injustice is dealt out to the Scots – and the Welsh, not merely in the matter of national sentiment, but also in grossly material affairs, a very different policy is adopted by the English majority in the British Parliament towards the people of Ireland.

Scotland has to fight for years to get even her most urgent needs attended to, yet the demands of the Irish members of Parliament, in almost every question but the granting of Home Rule, are most obsequiously granted, whether the party in power be Liberal or Conservative. How then arises this difference of treatment? The answer is a sad one, but it is plain and undeniable. The brutal English majority in Parliament turns all but a deaf ear to the manifold requirements of Scotland, because the Scottish people are peaceful and law-abiding—but it truckles to the remonstrances and complaints—civil and religious—of the Irish people, because they resort to violent means if their demands are refused. The inference then is obvious and inevitable. That the English people have to be, so to speak, kicked into fair play if the exercise of fair play in the slightest degree interferes with their national interest or their national vanity. They are quite ready—indeed go out of their way —to back up and cry out for justice to the Poles and fair play to the Danes, the Finns, the Slovaks or to any of the minor and oppressed peoples under the sun so long as it is safe to do so. But when justice and fair play are demanded in the British Parliament for the Scots and the Welsh it is found that a deaf ear is turned to the demands of these two peoples because they are law-abiding, while the two political parties, which are controlled by and give the full voice of Englishmen—the Conservatives and the Liberals—tumble over each other in endeavouring to meet the demands of the turbulent and unruly Irish members. In other words, the policy of the English people is the policy of the bully, which only yields to fear.

It is well then that the Scottish democracy should realise the facts of the political situation, and act accordingly. Scotland should refuse any longer to be dragged at the heels of the two English political parties. We have for the first time a Member of Parliament pledged to securing the independence of the Scots Nation but it is now time for a Scottish party, a party devoted only to the furtherance of the interests of Scotland and the Scots. Let that Party forge alliances with the Irish and Welsh parties in Parliament, let there be a Celtic League, bringing together, for the sole purpose of compelling England to do justice, the minor nationalities of Britain. Hitherto England has acted the part of a big political bully, who has taken advantage of his brutal majority to over-ride the reasonable wants and wishes of Scotland and Wales. And when she has yielded to Ireland, as in the case of the land question, she has only done so through fear. At present we do not have popular government. We have only government by a privileged class. And it is only when that class becomes afraid—not when it becomes convinced— that it yields to popular pressure. Must we establish terrorism as a leading feature of the British Constitution? Or will the English, at last, see sense? Against a united front of all Celts, the English usurper cannot stand. Let England see what she will have to reckon with and she may at last begin to treat Scotland with respect and with justice.

We must break the cords of our bondage.​

 

[IanBertram]

Extract from “Documents on The Great Unrest 1893-1920”
George F Sykes & Annabel Macmillan

New York 2011

A partial version of these notes, written in Charles Blenkinsopp's hand, was found, purely by chance, inside a book purchased from a second hand bookshop in Shrewsbury in 2002. Had the purchaser not been one of the editors of this volume (AM) it is likely that their significance would not have been recognised and they would have been lost. As it was, it was clear that they represented some missing pages from an existing item in the Arrow Agency Archives held by Durham University.

Even in their reunited form the notes are disjointed, partially illegible and still incomplete. It is not clear if they were based on meetings between Arrow and Blenkinsopp or were simply Blenkinsopp's own notes as an aide memoire for his meetings with Carson. Whatever their genesis they reveal hitherto unknown links between Arrow's Inquiry Agency and the growth of uniformed paramilitary organisations in Britain in the first quarter of the 20th century.

The notes as found

***

• riots and unions threaten Union
• desertions from Territorials
• indecisive and weak gov
• {illegible}
• {illegible}
• UUC and Covenant positive
• UVF firm control & willing to act
• need strong hand to take control
• CF can do same (Tilbury!) but must grow
• Agreement CF/UVF? Or UUC?
• UUC too narrow? - British Union movement? Council of British Unionists similar to UUC?

Propose:

• Create Council of British Unionists – UUC involved but {illegible} right of independent action
• CBU and UUC agree memorandum of understanding
• CBU launch new Covenant for Union and Empire – swear allegiance to King, Empire and {illegible}
• CF places itself under CBU in same manner as UVF/UUC – must recruit!! - A[rrow – Ed] has some good men
• More delicate work also needed - use UVF – or A's men?

No time to lose.​

The discovery of Blenkinsopp's notes prompted fresh trawls through the correspondence of the principal architects of Unionism – in particular Carson in Ireland, but also Crawford and others associated with the gunrunning into Ulster and the establishment of the UVF and in England Arrow, Blenkinsopp and others involved in the senior echelons of the CF. Archives of the Conservative Party at the time remain closed, but access was given to numerous family archives.

Timeline

Insights gained from the notes has enabled the construction of a timeline, based on material found in these diverse archives.

Blenkinsopp to Arrow
17th December 1911

...I believe we need to become much more active in recruiting to the Civilian Force. I am very concerned about the rise of rabid Communist agitators such as Mann. Asquith and his crew seem willing to give way at every turn. Mann and others like him need to be handled firmly if the integrity of the Union is not to be put at risk. The Unionists in Ireland are showing us how this can be done and they are unafraid to act when necessary.

(Blenkinsopp personal papers held by family)
…

Arrow to Blenkinsopp
3rd January 1912

...I confess I am in full agreement with you on the need to stamp out the evil of Communism. I have not met with Abercorn recently but my impression was that he is not a man for firm action and while he is President of the Civilian Force I see no chance of it growing and developing as it needs to. In particular he has never understood that without adequate funding for men and equipment, the Force can never become more than a pinprick.

(Arrow Archive, University of Durham)
…

Blenkinsopp to Arrow
28th January 1913

...I think we may be on the verge of progress. I have no wish to speak ill of the dead, but Abercorn's death and his replacement as President by de Broke gives us the opportunity to make the Civilian Force something to be reckoned with. I have prevailed on de Broke that we need to reorganise on similar military lines as the UVF. He has also agreed that we should open up channels of communication with them.

(Arrow archive, University of Durham)
…

de Broke to Carson
17th May 1913

...I have spoken to you before about Blenkinsopp. Thank you for now agreeing to meet him. He has my full confidence in the matters on which we last spoke.

(Carson Collection UC Dublin)…

Carson to Blenkinsopp
21st May 1913

… I found our recent meeting most useful and look forward to continuing to work with you. I will be in Dublin again on the 15th prox. when I hope to have more for you.

(Carson Collection)

Blenkinsopp to Arrow
27th July 1913

...Matters are proceeding apace. We will soon I think not be required to stand by and see our Nation fall into chaos.

(Blenkinsopp personal papers)
…

Blenkinsopp to de Broke
2nd August 1913

...I think I am close to agreement with C[arson] on both our current needs and our future. In particular he will be sending half a dozen able men to aid in training and to bolster the organisation so that we can begin to take the initiative in the areas we have discussed. He understands the need to be discreet.

(Blenkinsopp papers)
…

Arrow to Blenkinsopp
18th September 1913

...I am pleased to hear from you about developments with the CF. When the time comes I can let you have some half dozen very discreet and very capable men to tackle the more intractable issues we discussed.

(Arrow Archive)
…

 

[IanBertram]

Mann on the Civilian Force
The growing strength and influence of the CF eventually began to worry even the traditionalists at the head of the Trades Unions. It is true that they were worried as much for their position as anything, but faced with the risk of widespread defections from the craft unions and the growth of industrially based competitors even they had to rouse themselves and respond. As a response it left a great deal to be desired. At the peak of the unrest in the NE, they issued a statement professing their patriotism at great length and calling on 'the authorities' to step in and prevent attacks on loyal trade unionists going about their lawful business. That was it.

Of course Mann seized the opportunity offered with both hands. Still in prison, he managed to smuggle out a long article for the Syndicalist in which he set out his revolutionary position, denounced the Trade Union officials and their 'vacuous statement' and argued in strong terms for the workers to seize their opportunity and to self organise both at work and in the wider world.

Today the major force for social transformation is found in the labour movement. It is through the organisations set up for the defence of their interests that the workers have developed an understanding of the oppression they suffer and the antagonism against them on the part of the bosses. As a result they become accustomed to collective struggle and solidarity and are enabled to win those improvements that are possible within the capitalist and state regime​

​

However, it would be a great and a fatal mistake to believe, as many do, that the labour movement can and should, of its own volition, and by its very nature, be in the vanguard of the revolution. The union officials often have more to lose by supporting the workers they supposedly represent than by taking the Bosses' side against the workers. Their desire to protect their material gains lead them inevitably to conservatism since they have more to gain from upholding and consolidating the system they should be seeking to bring down.​

​

To win power, whether legally or illegally, one needs qualities that are not exactly those that are needed to ensure that justice and well-being will triumph in the world. And then, once in power, the big problem is how to stay there. One needs to leave by the roadside a large part of one’s ideological baggage and to have got rid of all one’s moral scruples. One needs to create a joint interest in the new state of affairs and attach to those in government a new privileged class, and suppressing any kind of opposition by all possible means. Nor can they even claim to be acting for the “majority”, since in reality the so-called democratic system is a lie, a lie which serves to deceive the mass of the people, keeping them docile with an outward show of sovereignty, while consolidating the rule of the privileged and dominant class. This is the truth of democracy as it always has been in a capitalist structure, whatever form it takes, from constitutional monarchy to so-called direct rule.​

To be in Government means the right to make the law and to impose it on everyone by force: without a police force there is no government. By aligning themselves with the boss class, Union Officials become themselves government policemen and a part of the system of oppression.​

Any small coterie, bound together by some interest which other men dislike or ignore, tends to develop inside itself a hothouse mutual admiration, and towards the outer world, a great deal of pride and hatred which is entertained without shame because the ‘Cause’ is its sponsor and it is thought to be impersonal.​

​

Nothing demonstrates these facts so clearly as the recent vacuous outpourings from the so-called leaders of the main unions, clinging as they do to the rapidly eroding trappings of power and influence. ​

To say that the Trades Union leadership is failing their membership is not to deny the need to organise. Organisation, which after all only means cooperation and solidarity in practice, is a natural condition, necessary to the running of society; and it is an unavoidable fact which involves everyone, whether in human society in general or in any grouping of people joined by a common aim. It is the true form of that organisation that matters. It must be founded on true freedom of association. In order to achieve their ends, worker' organisations must, in their constitution and operation, remain in harmony with the principles of mutual aid underpinning syndicalism. They must allow full autonomy and full independence and therefore full responsibility of individuals and groups. They must allow free accord between those who believe it useful to unite in cooperating for a common aim. Members must however accept the moral duty to see through commitments undertaken and to do nothing that would contradict the accepted programme. It is on these bases that the practical structures, and the right tools to give life to the organisation should be built and designed. Then the groups, the federations of groups, the federations of federations, the meetings, the congresses, the correspondence committees and so forth. But all this must be done freely, in such a way that the thought and initiative of individuals is not obstructed, and with the sole view of giving greater effect to efforts which, in isolation, would be either impossible or ineffective. ​

Thus congresses of a syndicalist organisation, though suffering as representative bodies from all the inevitable imperfections inherent in them, are free from any kind of authoritarianism, because they do not lay down the law; they do not impose their own resolutions on others and their decisions are not obligatory rules but suggestions, recommendations, proposals to be submitted to all involved, and do not become binding and enforceable except on those who accept them, and for as long as they accept them.​

​

What does that mean? It means we have to prove our determination to win this long and terrible battle against the employing classes and the state. It means an end to craft unions and their replacement by industry based unions organised on syndicalist principles. Now though, faced with the combined efforts of Government, of Police and the Army, of the Union boss class and now by the private armies of Lord de Broke and Mr Carson, all united in their goal of breaking the working men and women once and for all, it means we must prepare ourselves to fight back. Our message always has been peaceful – let us be, let us look after ourselves without interference. The response has been brutality – Mr Carson's gangs have broken the heads or even killed workers and their families in Ireland. Now Lord de Broke is preparing to do the same in England. We saw the beginnings at Tilbury. We can be sure that was nothing to what we might expect in the future. We see the so-called Civilian Force walking our streets daily, posturing in their fancy uniforms, bludgeoning working men and their families. We know that at their head is a former policeman fresh from the oppression and murder of Spanish comrades and a former soldier, cashiered because his methods were too brutal even for the Bosses to publicly endorse. We know that what they have already done in the name of the 'Law' they will do again tenfold. The time has come to stop them. STOP them. If we do not then we may as well take to our beds, turn our heads to the wall and expire. ​

In practice a lot of this is derived from the writings of Errico Malatesta

Errico Malatesta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IanBertram]

Update bibliography.

 

[IanBertram]

The rise of English Unionism

The so-called 'Battle of Tilbury' had significant consequences. Trade unionists felt themselves increasingly under pressure as emboldened Employer's groups began to target activists. The Civilian Force became more and more overt in its strike breaking activities, whether called in by employers or not. Faced with this, workers groups in towns and cities across the country began to organise self-protection militias.

The CF President, de Broke was a committed Unionist with many contacts in Ulster and with unionist groups on the mainland, particularly in Liverpool and Glasgow. In his eyes the fight back being organised by workers groups represented as great a threat to the Union as anything going on in Ulster. The prominent role taken by activists like Mann and others on both sides of the Irish Sea convinced him that the CF needed to make common cause with Unionism if the Union was to survive. Unsurprisingly he was equally antagonistic to the growing suffrage movement. Blenkinsopp was of the same view and between them they began to make plans to significantly increase the size of the CF, to organise it on military lines in a similar fashion to the UVF and critically, to arm it. Most significantly though, de Broke used his Unionist contacts to open up discussion with the UVF command.

In February 1912, the UVF had acquired some 50,000 rifles, 100 Maxim machine guns, 1500 Webley pistols and 2 batteries of field artillery from a dealer in Birmingham. Some of this had been successfully smuggled to Ulster with the weapons bought in Germany and some had been seized by customs when used as decoys in the 'shell game' that enabled the successful landings. Much of the purchase still remained in England however, including all of the Maxims, all the Webley pistols, about 35,000 rifles and amazingly all but 2 of the field guns. Using his contacts, de Broke arranged for these all to be released, discreetly, to the Civilian Force.

By the end of 1913, the CF only had a membership of at most 2-3000, concentrated in London and the Midlands. Now Blenkinsopp set up a small group of recruiters, who began to travel the country interviewing responses to discreet advertisements in local newspapers and making contact with signatories to the British Covenant. Membership grew rapidly, so that by the end of February 1914, it had reached over 10,000 men. At this point de Broke and Carson announced the creation of the Council of British Unionists committed to safeguard ‘the King, the British Union and the British Empire.’ De Broke also announced that the Civilian Force would be renamed as the British Volunteer Force. The next day, the UVF, represented by its Commander Lt General Sir George Richardson (Roberts having resigned in December 1911, officially on account of his age) and the BVF, represented by Blenkinsopp, signed an agreement in which they both pledged to support the UUC and CBU in their defence of the Union.

The timing of these announcements was not entirely random. The Speaker’s Convention on the Constitution was seen to be struggling and de Broke and Carson were each for their own reasons keen to keep it that way.

 

[IanBertram]

I've suddenly realised that this TL is coming close, if not the end, but to a reasonable break point as Britain faces an uncertain future with a major war about to break out again in Europe. It will be very different situation to the one in which it found itself in OTL. So, Part 1 will take us up to the outbreak of war. I'm not saying yet how Britain will be involved but clearly whatever happens we will be affected in one way or another. I'm plotting out Part 2, but I don't know yet how far to take it. I'm sticking to my idea of winding up in 1947, so there is a chance there will be a Part 3.

 

[IanBertram]

The Current Social Unrest - Ramsay Macdonald, 1914

Someone in authority is punishing men for the offence of being active Trade Unionists. A day porter is degraded permanently because some luggage is delayed, though it has been proved he is not responsible; another is suspended because he cannot perform duties given to him by two independent foremen at the same time and because he asked for his usual supper hour; men interfered with in their usual work are accused of trivial offences against those who interfere with them, and are dismissed; in violation of the terms which ended the strike, unionists are not advanced when vacancies take place, and non-unionists are promoted over their heads; accusations of theft, proved to have been false, are made and the accused dismissed; certain men have not been paid their usual advances in wages and others are being paid less than colleagues employed at exactly the same work and having exactly the same qualifications; unexplained dismissals and degradations are taking place. In every case the victims of this policy are members of their Union. Who can wonder that unrest is spreading and that there are rumours of fresh troubles passing up and down the railways? Men are being goaded into revolt. When they seek to defend themselves they are thrown into jail.

This is more than the usual attempts to keep down the working class. There is a developing conspiracy to suppress the Trades Unions. The increasing, brazen parading by the so called Civilian Force in England and the Ulster Volunteer Force in Ireland are bad enough. Now they seek to combine and bring the the worst of both to bear on the working men of these islands. The spectacle of the so-called Convention is just that. It is a spectacle designed to divert attention from the ever-tightening grip of those in power on the windpipe of the working class.

 

[Vornado]

Hi Ian,
I wanted to let you know that I am here and enjoying your story. I have read it a few times over the years and have always found it an interesting look into a part of history I know little about. I am very excited to read how all of this changes WW1.

Best,
Andrew

 

[IanBertram]

Hi Ian,
I wanted to let you know that I am here and enjoying your story. I have read it a few times over the years and have always found it an interesting look into a part of history I know little about. I am very excited to read how all of this changes WW1.

Best,
Andrew

Thank you. I've at last got up to the run up to WW1, with the Consitutional Convention still arguing as the rest of Europe grinds on towards Sarajevo. It is all going to be a matter of timing...

 

[IanBertram]

Even without the divisive impact of the King's speech at the opening of the Convention, the first full day was an unmitigated disaster. The official aim, to consider the Constitutional arrangements not just for Ireland but for the other constituent nations of the UK, disappeared under a welter of recrimination and abuse on all sides. Even agreement on which nations should be included proved impossible. While the woeful lack of preparation by the Liberals was a factor, the sheer bloody mindedness of the others compounded the difficulties.

The Tories, under the Canadian Bonar Law, (with Willoughby de Broke constantly at his ear) were opposed in any case to all Home Rule, especially for Ireland, despite also holding fast to the idea that Ulster had the right to decide its own fate. They flatly refused to consider the inclusion of England in any proposals. For them, England was Britain and to create an English Parliament was to destroy the idea of a Great Britain. De Broke’s influence on Bonar Law, even though not an official delegate, was particularly pernicious, given his involvement with the Civilian Force.

The Unionists were like the Tories equally opposed to Home Rule in any form. Britain and the Empire were what mattered. Home Rule All Round, whether as extended arrangements for local government or as a more fundamental Federal Britain was anathema – but if it was coming it would be to Ulster!

The Liberals were more sympathetic. The Scottish Liberal Association had been supportive of the idea of a Scottish Parliament for some 30 years. It would have been hard to deny the same option to the English, although they were fearful that any English Parliament would always be lost to them.

Labour was ambivalent. They had similar concerns to the Liberals over England and were unsure if the strong possibility of taking control of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments was worth surrendering a smaller chance of taking power under the present arrangements, especially since in their view the Liberals were in decline as the party of the working classes, perhaps even as a party.

The Irish Parliamentary Party were, as ever, only interested in Ireland. They were reluctant participants in the first place and were unwilling to run the slightest risk of delay in securing Irish Home Rule. Home Rule was merely a step on the path to full independence, so the government of Wales or Scotland was of no interest to them.

All attendees represented their party, not their nation, although both Lloyd George and Keir Hardie were known to be sympathetic to Welsh Home Rule. In general they expressed a party position not a constitutional one

Despite the best efforts of the Speaker, James Lowther, interminable and bad tempered arguments continued throughout the day until at 6.30 in the evening the Convention broke up with with no agreement on the attendance of national representatives, on the order of business or even a date for another meeting. Immediately, Asquith was summoned to met the King to report on achievements of the day. Exhausted and in despair, he was forced to admit not just failure of the day but the real prospect of total breakdown. The King urged Asquith to persevere. Asquith then returned to Downing Street to be faced with separate demands for meetings from Bonar Law, Henderson and Carson. Probably wishing he could turn them all away, he agreed to meet his Coalition partner, Henderson, later in the evening and scheduled a meeting with Bonar Law for the next morning. Carson he simply ignored, which proved another damaging error.

Henderson offered an olive branch. He proposed that four additional delegates be invited, two each for Scotland and Wales, to be chosen from MPs in those countries. They would nominally attend on the invitation of the Prime Minister, but he (Henderson) expected that they would be selected for their sympathy with the idea of Home Rule rather than their Party affiliation, although he also expected as least one of these to be from Labour. He saw no reason to add any additional Irish delegates. He also suggested that the next meeting begin with an address from a constitutional expert who could outline the range of options for change and who might, as an outsider, be allowed a hearing. Asquith seized the opportunity and agreed to inform Bonar Law at his meeting in the morning. He asked Henderson to submit some names for consideration in the meantime. Bonar Law of course did not agree. Despite the fact that Home Rule for England, Scotland and Wales, would strengthen the argument for a separate Ulster, he remained committed to a single British State, even if that meant losing the southern Irish. He threatened to withdraw from the Convention if Asquith continued on this path and warned that Carson too would withdraw. This ultimatum created something of a dilemma. Asquith's party were in a minority and in addition were split over the coalition with Labour. If Bonar Law managed to lay the blame for failure of the Convention at Asquith's door, it would divert attention away from the role of the Tories in creating the problem in the first place. After a fractious meeting with senior party members on 11th March it was decided that Bonar Law should be presented with a fait accompli. The additional participants would be invited by Asquith on behalf of the Coalition, thus with the agreement and most importantly the public support of the Labour Party. The Speaker would be asked to identify a suitable expert or experts and issue the invitation. With a united front from the Government it was believed Bonar Law would have to back down or be blamed for the failure of the Convention. Carson had still not been consulted.

On 26th February the announcement was made that the next meeting of the Convention would be on 20th March and that four additional participants had been invited. Representing Scottish interests would be William Cowan and Duncan Pirie, both Liberals and both well known 'Home Rulers', having introduced Scottish Home Rule Bills to the Commons in the past. Representing Welsh interests would be E T John, a Liberal who had in the past advocated that Welsh and Scots supporters of Home Rule should make common cause. The second would be William Abraham universally known by his bardic name, Mabon, a former Liberal, now a member of the Labour Party, and an active Trade Unionist.

The announcement was met with fury by Carson. Neither Asquith nor Bonar Law had given any indication of what was going on, and for once his usual informants in the Tory party had failed him. He immediately left for discussions with the Unionist Council in Belfast. Nor were the new Ulster Socialists much happier, since as a group they almost matched the Unionists in size, having pretty much split the Unionist vote but had not been given a voice. Asquith, by now desperate to see the Convention move forward, agreed that they could send one person to the next meeting. This was accepted, with bad grace, and Edward Straughan, the Party leader, agreed to attend. This further concession did nothing to calm Carson, who wanted to withdraw entirely, but was convinced by the Unionist Council that to do so would leave them too vulnerable, especially since Bonar Law had failed to keep them abreast of what was happening.

So, balanced on a knife edge, the Convention met for the second time on 20th March 1914, again under the chairmanship of the Speaker. In opening the session, he tried to avoid confrontation, but despite his best efforts, this second day was no improvement on the first. Lowther attempted to present an agenda which would form the basis of future discussion but Carson would have none of it. He insisted, loudly and often, that the unity of the Kingdom could not be dismantled. Lowther then asked those present for suggestions on how the discussions might be organised. Despite all Carson's effort a series of questions to be addressed were gradually identified. First: was there a case for significantly increased levels of devolution. Second: should devolution be based on regional or national lines, a debate which proved particularly problematic when it came to England. Third: what powers should be devolved to these legislatures. Fourth: how would these subordinate legislatures be elected and what would be their relationship with the existing Parliament.

With these four questions identified, the Speaker closed the session with a final plea.

“Gentlemen. I have accepted the task of chairing this conference at the request of the King. His Majesty has asked me to convey to you all his heartfelt desire that we should move forward with, if not total agreement, then at least a willingness to listen to each other and to the country so that we might extricate ourselves from our present difficulties. He is under no illusion that this task we have undertaken will be arduous. There is no broad and easy road ahead, but that is no bad thing. On the broad road every man may chose a path suited to his inclinations, shift about to avoid difficulties, or accommodate himself to circumstances; and he will be sure of company agreeable to his taste. This Nation faces a multitude of challenges. If it is to come through we must follow one another on the narrow way, along the same track, surmounting difficulties, facing enemies, and bearing hardships, without any room to evade them.

I ask you now to join me in prayer.

God of ages, in your sight nations rise and fall, and pass through times of peril. We beseech you now, when our land is troubled to give us your light and your truth to guide us. Grant us the understanding to put an end to strife, grant us mercy so that we can quench hatred and forgiveness so that we can overcome vengeance.

Amen”

 

[IanBertram]

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.

 

[IanBertram]

Editorial in 'The Thistle'
June 1914

Tory stupidity has assumed a new phase. The Convention on the Constitution has, despite the best efforts of the Tory grandees to prevent it, finally reached if not a conclusion, then at least, in the words of the Speaker, a way forward. The various papers and summaries of the discussion having been published in the form of a ‘Blue Book’ the destructiveness of the Tories and their Unionist cronies is now laid bare for all to see. At the Convention the English Tories, acted as if they had the sole claim to be representatives of the Empire. Even before it opened we had already seen the rankest statements of disloyalty, even threats of armed resistance, from Tory and Ulster Unionists alike. It is clear that at the Convention they showed that any loyalty is to themselves alone.

It is curious that they should be so blind to the necessities of constitutional reform in the Parliament of the United Kingdom when ministers who control the policy of the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, and of the Commonwealth of Australia, can see clearly what should be done to give the British peoples a good working Constitution. Had the Tories and Unionists even the most limited knowledge of what shape democracy has taken in Australia, in Canada, and in South Africa, they never would have dared to provoke a contest which must end in their utter destruction.

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 similar remarks.

Their wise words 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 bigoted Orangemen perhaps excepted. Why, then, should the Tories try to refuse the same power to Scotland and to Wales? Surely the Tory party has at last in its stupidity committed political suicide.

The Scots and Welsh two nationalities are not unfitted for self- government. On the contrary they are more fit for it than either England or Ireland. 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 to now — 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. 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.

The greatest priority must now be the creation of separate parliaments for each of our Nations - even we say, the English. Only then will the English see the truth so long ignored that they are but one component of a greater Union. Whatever happens, the old dirty and shameful policy, born of selfishness and national bigotry, which treats Scotland and Wales as a part of England, with all their national peculiarities levelled down to the English hum-drum standard, and their national interests made subservient to those of England, this must cease. Scotland and Wales in this matter cannot be treated differently from Ireland.

It is without doubt the English majority in Parliament who are to blame for this. That majority had the power to pass measures of " Home Rule All Round," which would effectually put an end to congestion in the Imperial Parliament. Had the English Liberals or the English Tories shown any disposition in the past to make this question of the devolution of the internal legislation of the United Kingdom the question of questions, as it undoubtedly is, the disgrace and the infamy which they have brought on their good name, as a civilised people, would have been avoided. It is only now, faced with challenges by Labour in England and Wales, that the English Liberals have been brought face to face with the consequences of their past failures. Let us hope that the ‘way forward’ suggested by Mr Speaker is not blocked again by the intransigence and disloyalty of the traitorous Tories and Unionist. If the Tories prevent it and so national and rational liberty of the Scots and the Welsh is only to be gained by violent methods, even these may be possible if they are driven to extremity. But what a disgraceful position that would be for the English Tories and the Irish Unionists to take up towards their fellow-citizens in Scotland and Wales.

NOTE on this post: I've belatedly realised this uses much of the same material as another Thistle Editorial. Any rewrite will need to remove the duplication, although the Editor appears not to have been shy of repeating himself!

 

[IanBertram]

Over in England, there is talk of political changes – changes we are told that could restore our native Parliament. As a cold matter of fact all such talk is misreading history. Ireland never had an Irish Parliament - a Parliament representative of the Irish people. The assembly called by the name of an Irish Parliament was in reality as alien to the Irish people as the Council of the Governor-General of India is alien to the Indian people. And some of the laws passed by our so-called native Parliament against the poor Irish peasantry were absolutely revolting in their ferocity and class vindictiveness.

The fight which ended with the Act of Union in 1800 was not a fight for freedom, it was a fight to decide whether the English governing classes or the Irish governing classes should have the biggest share of the plunder of the Irish worker. Whichever side won made no difference to the worker; he was skinned, anyway.

For over a hundred years Ireland has looked outside her own shores for the means of her redemption. For over a hundred years Ireland through her "constitutional agitators" has centred her hopes upon the possibility of melting the heart or appealing to the sense of justice of her oppressors. In vain! England - the British Empire, was and is the bourgeoisie personified, the incarnate beast of capitalist property, and her heart was as tender as that of the tiger when he feels his victim helpless in his claws; her sense of justice was as acute as that of the same beast of prey when his jaws are wet with the warm blood of the feast.

For over a hundred years the majority of the Irish people begged for justice, and when ever and anon the hot blood of the best of her children would rise in rebellion at this mendicant posture Ireland turned her face from them and asked the enemy to forgive them.

When her rebel sons and daughters were dead, hunted, imprisoned, hanged or exiled she would weep for them, pray for them, sigh for them, cry for them, and when they were long enough out of the way, erect monuments to them.

But as long as they were virile, active and aggressive, Ireland regarded them only as disturbers who gave the country a bad name.

This attitude, whether it is exhibited by an oppressed nation or by an oppressed class, is the direct outcome of that frame of mind in either which teaches them to look outside their own ranks for the impulse towards emancipation. To believe that someone else than the slave is going to free the slave makes the slave impatient and intolerant of every effort at self-liberation on the part of his fellow bondsmen.

Now the course of action implied in the name Sinn Féin, in English Ourselves, is the reverse of all that. It teaches the Irish people to rely upon themselves, and upon themselves alone, and teaches them also that dependence upon forces outside themselves is emasculating in its tendency, and has been, and will ever be disastrous in its results. So far, so good. That is a part of Sinn Féinism I am most heartily in agreement with, and indeed with the spirit of Sinn Féin every thinking Irishman who knows anything about the history of his country must concur.

I have though heard some doctrinaire Socialists arguing that Socialists should not sympathize with oppressed nationalities, or with nationalities resisting conquest. They argue that the sooner these nationalities are suppressed the better, as it will be easier to conquer political power in a few big empires than in a number of small states. This is fallacious. It fallacious because the emancipation of the Working Class will function more through the economic power than through the political state. The first act of the workers will be through their economic organizations seizing the organized industries; the last act the conquest of political power.

The Working Class must perfect their economic organizations, and when such organizations are in a position to control, seize and operate the industries they will find their political power equal to the task. But the preparatory work of the revolutionary campaign must lie in the daily and hourly struggles in the workshop, the daily and hourly perfectioning of the industrial organization. Let the great truth be firmly fixed in your mind that the struggle for the conquest of the political state of the capitalist is not the battle, it is only the echo of the battle. The real battle is being fought out, and will be fought out, on the industrial field.

Sinn Féin. Ourselves. I wonder how long it will be until the Working Class realize the full significance of that principle! How long it will be until the Workers realize that the Socialist movement is a movement of the Working Class, and how long until the Socialists realize that the place of every other class in the movement is and must be a subordinate one.

We will get the Workers to have trust in their own power to achieve their own emancipation when we demonstrate our belief that there is no task incidental to that end that a worker can not accomplish; when we train the workers to look inward upon their own class for everything required, to have confidence in the ability of their own class to fill every position in the revolutionary army; when, in short, we of the Socialist Working Class take to heart the full meaning of the term Sinn Féin, Ourselves, and apply it to the work of Industrial Reconstruction, when we realize at last what was meant by Marx when he spoke of the revolt of those who
Have Nothing to Lose but their Chains.

Now the problem is to find a basis of union on which all these sections who owe allegiance to one or other conception of Socialism may unite. My position is that this union, or rapprochement, cannot be arrived at by discussing our differences. Let us rather find out and unite upon the things upon which we agree. Once we get together, we will find that our differences are not so insuperable as they appear whilst we are separated. What is necessary first is a simple platform around which to gather, with the understanding that as much as possible shall be left to future conditions to dictate and as little as possible settled now by rules or theories. As each section has complete confidence in their own doctrines, let them show their confidence by entering an organisation with those who differ from them in methods, and depend upon the development of events to prove the correctness of their position. Each person to have complete freedom of speech in conformity with the common object; the lecture platform to be common to all, and every lecture to be followed by questions and discussion. With mutual toleration on both sides, the Protestant worker may learn that the cooperation of the Catholic who works, suffers, votes and fights alongside him is more immediately vital to his cause and victory day by day than the co-operation of workers on the other side of the Channel; and that Socialists outside of Ireland are all in favour of that national independence which he rejects for the sake of a few worthless votes.

And the Catholic Sinn Feiners may learn that love of freedom beats strongly in the breasts of Protestant peasants and workmen who, because they have approached it from a different historical standpoint, regard the Nationalist conception with suspicion or even hostility.

We find that amongst a large section of the Irish in this country, and Irish Socialists here are included, it is tacitly assumed that Socialism cannot take root in Ireland, that the Home Rule press, the supposed conservative habits of thought of the people and, above all, the hostility of the clergy, make it impossible for Socialist thought to make headway amongst the Irish working class. This assumption is, of course, not to be reasoned with – you cannot reason with a thing that ignores facts – but is only to be combatted with a quiet presentation of facts to prove that which is assumed as impossible of existence, is already existent, and not only existent, but lusty, aggressive and powerful. The influence of the Home Rule Press is in reality nil amongst the intelligent working-class of Ireland: the conservative habits of thought supposed to be characteristically Irish are in reality the reflex of agricultural conditions in Ireland, as elsewhere, and do not prevail where the Irish worker lives and suffers in the industrial environment of a city and the hostility of the clergy has worn off its own edge by too frequent and indiscriminate use.

Let those who tell us that the Irish will never respond to the call of Socialism remember that five years ago the candidate of the Irish Socialist Republican Party, in contests against the nominees of the Home Rule and Unionist Parties, polled a vote which represented a third of the total electorate; let them remember this, and then, thinking of the frantic joy of the Socialist Parties of America when they succeed in polling the necessary three or five per cent to get on the official ballot let them stop trying to discourage the Irish in America by their foolish declarations that Socialism will never take root amongst the Irish.

Socialism in Ireland is now a force, influencing alike the political, economic and literary thought of the island. In other words, the Socialists of Ireland recognise that the world for the workers can only be realised by the people of each country seizing upon their own country and wresting it by one means or another from the hands of the present rulers or proprietors and restoring it with all its powers and potentialities to the people who inhabit it and labour upon it.

With the advent of self-government in any shape in Ireland, the question of the ownership and administration of the soil can, and will, be approached in a new spirit.

The genius of peasant proprietorship is essentially individualistic, and therefore exercises a disintegrating influence upon the political strength and influence of the peasant proprietor. The Land Acts, therefore, have, despite their faults, destroyed the slavery of the Irish tenantry, taken from agricultural questions their exclusive power over Irish affairs, and opened a way for the fundamental reorganisation of the social life of the community.

Then, two years ago, another Royal Commission investigating the question of Irish railways, reported in favour of Nationalisation. With the coming of self-government the almost unanimous expression of approval with which this was received in Ireland is likely to take concrete form in an legislative enactment.

And now another Commission reports, likewise, in favour of a State Medical Service. And this, also, is received with a chorus of approval.

Said I not that although the Irish have little regard for Socialist theories they have a strong bias in favour of action on lines that are in essence lines of Socialist activity?

Side by side with all this development of mere Government Socialism, those who know Ireland best know that there is also developing that strong and active spirit of industrial rebellion, that aggressive challenging of the rights and powers of the master class that is absolutely necessary to prevent such governmentalism degenerating into despotic paternalism.

I do not believe it to be possible to prevent a continual extension of the powers of government, even if it were desirable, but I look to the cultivation of the rebel spirit to secure that that extension of the functions of government shall connote a conquest of powers by the working-class instead of an invasion of our rights by the master class.

It is because of that defiant, rebel spirit in Ireland today, ever keeping step with, indeed outmarching, the trend of legislative experimenting with social problems that we Irish Socialists feel at last that we are leaving the stage of theorising and are seeing our principles becoming the faith that moves our class to action.

So let them create this Irish Parliament, let them create ten such. The Socialists of Ireland are ready.

NOTE: Based on various articles by James Connolly archived here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/index.htm