The New Irish Constitution Part 24

"It is clear," said Mr. Chamberlain, "that suggested land reform must precede the political change; and until the long-standing quarrel between land-owners and land-occupiers has been compounded, it will not be safe to trust the latter with full control over the property of the former.... But, a.s.suming that the social war which now exists in Ireland were terminated by a reasonable settlement, there are strong reasons for desiring, on the one hand, to relieve the Imperial Parliament of some of the constantly increasing burden of its local work, and, on the other hand, to open up to Irishmen in their own country a larger field of local ambition, together with greater liberty of action and greater personal responsibility."

The Duke of Devons.h.i.+re also expressed himself in favour of devolution, provided that "the powers which may be conferred on local bodies should be delegated-not surrendered-by Parliament"; that "the subjects to be delegated should be clearly defined; and the right of Parliament to control and revise the action of legislative or administrative authorities should be quite clearly reserved"; but he urged that "the administration of justice ought to remain in the hands of an authority which is responsible to Parliament."

As recently as April, 1893, in the course of an article in _The Nineteenth Century_ Mr. Chamberlain stated that "every Liberal Unionist will readily agree" with a desire "to give to Ireland the management of such of its affairs as can be handed over to an Irish a.s.sembly without any risk or danger to this country, and, I hope that I may add, without the loss of honour that would be involved if the property and the liberties of all Her Majesty's subjects were not fully safeguarded." It is evident that the Liberal Unionist seceders drew a sharp distinction between separation and devolution. They objected to Mr. Gladstone's Bills because rightly or wrongly they were convinced that they involved separation; but while opposing them on that ground they held fast to their belief in the efficacy of devolution.

After 1893 devolution was little heard of, but about ten years later the theory was revived in the movement with which I became a.s.sociated. This modern suggestion of devolution was an offspring of the Conference on the land question which was held during the winter of 1902. That Conference produced a profound impression not only on the individuals composing it, but also, with a few exceptions of a retrogressive or perverted type, upon the cla.s.ses represented, and consequently upon the whole community. The land had been for generations, and for centuries, the cause of bitter strife. The parties represented-indeed some of the individuals representing them had come straight out of the firing line to confer upon a question bristling with difficulties and overlain with pa.s.sion and prejudice. The Landlords' Convention not unnaturally laughed to scorn the idea of a settlement or even of amicable discussion; but they were wrong-prejudice and pa.s.sion were put aside and the difficulties were overcome.

The Land Conference-an inspiration of the inarticulate moderate opinion existing in Ireland-proved that frank and honest discussion between Irishmen holding opposing views could be productive of good results, and it naturally occurred to many of those interested that the tolerance, good feeling and good sense displayed in settling so vexed a question might be utilised to find a solution for other problems, social, economic and political, presenting difficulties of a less formidable character.

On March 3rd, 1903, five members of the Land Conference Committee issued a circular stating that it was "now becoming evident that only in a reasonable system of devolution of legislative powers is to be found the solution of the problem that demands such urgent consideration. In no other way can Parliament be relieved from the ever-increasing strain of public business or the legitimate aspirations of Ireland for some definite form of self-government be met."

The idea was a good one, but somewhat premature. The Land Conference Committee having been appointed for a definite purpose-the settlement of the land question, which had not then been fulfilled, had no authority to deal with any other matter. All men's minds were still occupied with the consideration of the land purchase problem, and obviously the moment was not suitable for a further step forward. The matter was therefore allowed to drop; but in the summer of 1904, the way for the new-but yet old-policy seemed open. The Land Conference had fulfilled its purpose. The Committee was about to dissolve, and it occurred to some of us that a meeting should be held in Dublin with a view to inaugurating a general policy for the betterment of Ireland. In preparation for the meeting I sketched out roughly what I thought our objects should be, and among them was a larger control for Ireland over her local affairs. The Committee met on August 25th, and two resolutions were pa.s.sed, one dissolving the Committee and another forming the Irish Reform a.s.sociation. We then set to work to consider a programme, and on August 26th we adopted the following as setting forth the objects of the a.s.sociation:

"Believing, as we do, that the prosperity of the people of Ireland, the development of the resources of the country, and the satisfactory settlement of the land and other questions, depend upon the pursuance of a policy of conciliation and goodwill and of reform, we desire to do everything in our power to promote a union of all moderate and progressive opinion, irrespective of creed or cla.s.s; to discourage sectarian strife and cla.s.s animosities from whatever source arising; to co-operate in re-creating and promoting industrial enterprises; and to advocate all practical measures of reform.

"While firmly maintaining that the parliamentary union between Great Britain and Ireland is essential to the political stability of the Empire, and to the prosperity of the two islands, we believe that such union is compatible with the devolution to Ireland of a larger measure of local government than she now possesses.

"We consider that this devolution, while avoiding matters of Imperial concern, and subjects of common interest to the Kingdom as a whole, would be beneficial to Ireland, and would relieve the Imperial Parliament of a ma.s.s of business with which it cannot now deal satisfactorily, and which occupies its time to the detriment of much more important concerns. In particular, we consider the present system of financial administration to be wasteful and inappreciative of the needs of the country.

"We think it possible to devise a system of Irish finance whereby the expenditure could be conducted in a more efficient and economic manner, and whereby the sources of revenue might be expanded. We believe that a remedy for the present unsatisfactory system can be found in such a decentralisation or localisation of Irish finance as will secure to its administration the application of local knowledge, interest and ability, without in any way sacrificing the ultimate control over the estimates presented, or in respect of the audit of money expended, at present possessed by the Imperial Parliament. All moneys derived from administrative reform, together with whatever proportion of the general revenue is allocated to Irish purposes, should be administered subject to the above conditions.

"We think that the time has come to extend to Ireland the system of Private Bill Legislation which has been so successfully worked in Scotland, with such modifications as Scotch experience may suggest, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this country.

"We are of opinion that a settlement of the question of higher education is urgently needed, and that the whole system of education in this country requires remodelling and co-ordinating.

"We desire to do all in our power to further the policy of land purchase in the spirit of, and on the general lines laid down in, the Land Conference Report.

"We consider that suitable provision for the housing of the labouring cla.s.ses is of the utmost importance, and we shall be prepared to co-operate in any practical proposals having the betterment of this cla.s.s in view.

"Among many other problems already existing, or which may arise in the future, the above-mentioned appear to us to comprise those most deserving of immediate attention, and which afford the most reasonable prospect of attaining practical results; towards their solution we earnestly invite the co-operation of all Irishmen who have the highest interests of their country at heart."

The programme was, as will be seen, socially and economically a comprehensive one; but, so far as political reform was concerned, limited to the devolution of administrative functions and reform of Private Bill procedure.

Shortly afterwards we explained our views more in detail, and made a further suggestion in recommending a delegation, not only of administrative, but also of legislative functions to the Irish body. On this point, and after giving our reasons for desiring a Private Bill Procedure Act for Ireland, we said:

"... But the disabilities under which Ireland labours are not confined to Private Bill procedure. The problems that affect her well-being, the peculiarities of her position and requirements are such that similarity of treatment does not always involve equal justice ... under existing circ.u.mstances the special needs of Ireland do not, and cannot receive, adequate attention. Sufficient relief cannot, in our opinion, be afforded by mere amendment in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Some delegation of authority is necessary. We believe that power to deal with much of the business relating to Irish affairs which Parliament is at present unable to cope with, might, with perfect safety and with advantage both to Ireland and Parliament, be delegated to an Irish body to be const.i.tuted for the purpose.... Parliament should take power to refer to the Statutory Body not only business connected with Private Bill Legislation, but also such other matters as in its wisdom it may deem suitable for reference, under prescribed conditions. The experience gained by this method of _ad hoc_ reference would materially a.s.sist Parliament in the ultimate grouping into distinct cla.s.ses of matters to be referred to the Statutory Body."

The doc.u.ment is far too long to quote in full. We dealt critically with the Irish problem as it presented itself to us then, and concluded with a recommendation which, if it had been acted upon, would by now have borne fruit in the shape of information of great value, to the public.

"... We do not consider it now opportune," we said, "to make more definite proposals on the points herein raised. We are prepared to inquire fully into them if the a.s.sociation so desire, but we submit that inquiry can be best conducted by means of a Royal Commission, and that the proper function of this a.s.sociation is to place its opinions and propositions before such a Commission. We therefore recommend the a.s.sociation to use its best endeavours to secure the appointment of a Commission, and to instruct this or some other Committee to prepare a detailed report for its consideration, with a view to placing the same in evidence before the Commission...."

In preparing this second programme we had the invaluable a.s.sistance of Sir Antony MacDonnell (now Lord MacDonnell of Swynford) who occupied the position of Under-Secretary, but on somewhat peculiar terms. Our proposals, which are to be found in full in "The Outlook in Ireland,"

published for me by Mr. John Murray in 1907, may be considered as cramped and limited in character, but the circ.u.mstances in which we found ourselves must be considered. We had to deal with existing conditions. A Unionist administration was in power. Home Rule was in abeyance, by many looked upon as dead and decently buried out of sight for ever. But the Chief Secretary and Under-Secretary were pledged to a policy of administrative and economic reform, and the latter was known to be in favour of some modification of the terms of the legislative union.

It is not necessary to re-open the controversy as to the connivance of the Unionist party, or any of its members, with the early work of myself and others.(158) No ministerial or official comment was made on our first programme published on August 31st, 1904. Mr. Wyndham was away at the time and in his absence I consulted with the Permanent Under-Secretary for Ireland, a proceeding which I felt sure, would meet with the Chief Secretary's approval. The Unionist Lord-Lieutenant, the Earl of Dudley, was also cognisant of the movement. The second programme was published on September 26th of that year, and on the following day a letter from Mr.

Wyndham commenting upon it appeared in _The Times_. After criticising our proposals he said "without reserve or qualification that the Unionist Government is opposed to the multiplication of legislative bodies within the United Kingdom," and declared that such of our "aspirations" as were "unimpeachable" were "prejudiced and not enhanced when they are confused with any plan, however tentative, for the multiplication of legislative a.s.semblies within the limits of the United Kingdom." Mr. George Wyndham, in order not to embarra.s.s his party, resigned his office, but Lord Dudley remained Lord-Lieutenant after Mr. Walter Long had become Chief Secretary.

In some later correspondence, published in the spring of 1906, with Sir Edward Carson, Lord Dudley after relinquis.h.i.+ng his office stated:

"(1) That though I fully explained to the late Prime Minister the nature of my connection with what you describe as Sir A.

MacDonnell's Home Rule scheme, he never conveyed to me any intimation that he or the Government disapproved, strongly or otherwise, of my conduct, though, of course, I can well believe that you and a few other Ministers disapproved not only of the devolution proposals, but also of any attempt at governing Ireland in sympathy with Irish ideas.

"(2) That I was never asked for and never gave any a.s.surance that it was no longer my intention to act in a manner at variance with my position as a Unionist Lord-Lieutenant. It was not my opinion then, nor is it now, that I ever so acted, and I do not consider that my knowledge of the devolution proposal, still less my conviction that Ireland should be governed according to Irish ideas, is inconsistent with the position which I occupied."

Devolution held the field when a Liberal administration came into power in 1906 and found expression in the Councils Bill. That Bill practically gave to an Irish body control over the great spending departments. It embodied devolution on a large scale, but entirely confined to administration. The Liberal party had pa.s.sed a self-denying ordinance in respect to Home Rule while still in opposition. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, speaking at Stirling on November 23rd, 1905, said it was "his desire to see the effective management of Irish affairs in the hands of a representative Irish authority"; but he advised Irish Nationalists thankfully to take "an instalment of representative control" ... "or any administrative improvement" ... "provided it was consistent, and led up to their larger policy." We have it on the authority of Mr. T. P. O'Connor that this declaration "was all that the Irish Nationalist party could have expected at that moment, and it enabled them to give their full support at the elections to the Liberal party"; and, in alluding to the private breakfast-table conference between himself, a friend and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, he informs us that "the exchange of views was brief, for there was complete agreement as to both policy and tactics." Mr.

Redmond also, speaking at Motherwell a couple of days after the Stirling speech, announced his readiness to accept any concession "which would shorten and smooth the way to Home Rule."

Notwithstanding these plain declarations Mr. Redmond, having accepted the Councils Bill in the House of Commons, moved its rejection at the National Convention and endeavoured to justify his action at the expense of devolutionists by protesting "that the responsibility for this Bill largely rests upon those who first encouraged this idea of devolution"-a protest in which Mr. T. P. O'Connor joined him. The truth is that in their Councils Bill the Government went in principle as far as they could under the circ.u.mstances. The idea that they, or the Irish Reform a.s.sociation in general, and I myself in particular, were actuated by a desire to shelve Home Rule by subst.i.tuting a measure of administrative reform, is pre-eminently absurd. The tactics pursued by the Nationalist party towards the Irish Reform a.s.sociation and the Government were most unwise. The a.s.sociation would, had it received the support it deserved, have certainly organised and rendered articulate a body of moderate opinion strong enough to neutralise any immoderate demonstration against the principle of Home Rule on religious, racial, or social grounds. Had the Councils Bill been amended and accepted by Ireland, and, as is probable, had it been pa.s.sed into law, Ireland would have had an opportunity, which she would have availed herself of, of proving her apt.i.tude to manage her own affairs, and she would be now in a position of inestimable advantage to her. But neither I nor the Reform a.s.sociation considered the Bill as satisfying Ireland's reasonable demands. We looked upon it as valuable in itself _pro tanto_ and as the honest effort of a Government with self-imposed limits to do justice to Ireland. The a.s.sociation having considered the matter, pa.s.sed and published a series of resolutions which s.p.a.ce forbids me from quoting in full. To summarise, we criticised the limited transfer of departmental authority, and considered the financial proposals of the Bill insufficient. We regretted "that the Bill entirely excludes consideration of any powers of a legislative character." But, as we thought the Bill const.i.tuted an advance towards necessary reforms and was capable of amendment in Committee, we expressed our regret at its summary rejection by the National Convention.

Such is the story of the devolution movement in its modern expression.

Devolution is an elastic though not a vague term. As I have already said, it is incompatible with repeal of the Union. It predicates a union of some sort-connection with a superior delegating authority, but under that union and subject to that authority its powers of expansion are unlimited. If I may be allowed to quote from myself, an evil habit, I thus defined my position in 1907. I then declared it was:

"... my ambition to see:-

"(1) Cordial, honest co-operation among Irishmen for their country's good. A true, living sense of Irish nationality is necessary. Ireland united can accomplish anything in reason.

"(2) The exercise of moderation and common-sense on the part of Irishmen.

"(3) The creation of friendly, fraternal relations between Great Britain and Ireland on both sides-'let the dead bury their dead.'

"(4) Recognition by Ireland of: (_a_) Her Imperial mission, her share in the larger nationality covered by the Flag, and her consequent duties and responsibilities; and (_b_) of the political necessities of Great Britain.

"(5) Recognition by Great Britain of: (_a_) Irish nationality; and (_b_) of the economic and social requirements of Ireland, and of her just claim for exceptional treatment."

and I concluded by saying:

"... My political creed is clear and simple. One Parliament is my centre; its ultimate effective supremacy is my circ.u.mference; but, emanating from that centre, and within that circ.u.mscribing limit, I desire to see the largest possible freedom of action and self-governing power delegated to Ireland."

That was the opinion I then held and, in its general principles, that is the opinion I hold now. I have endeavoured to obtain such a measure of devolution as was at the time practical of attainment. My ideal is devolution on federal lines-that is to say, devolution of a character as nearly a.n.a.logous as circ.u.mstances permit, to such an arrangement as would be come to between co-ordinate legislatures federating for their mutual advantages.

It has been necessary to recall the public declarations of statesmen of the Victorian period in order to get a true conception of the devolution movement in proper perspective. Among English statesmen of the front rank we find Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re, Mr.

Chamberlain and Mr. Gladstone all admitting the great fact that both for British and for Irish purposes, some scheme of devolution was necessary.

It would be easy to multiply instances and to give quotations in profusion, but I have said enough to show that for the last half century statesmen have, for various reasons, advocated devolution. Upon some the necessity has been impressed by deliberate obstruction in the House of Commons, others have been actuated by a desire to relieve congestion and to restore dignity and efficiency to the Commons House of Parliament. Upon others again the conviction has been forced that, under the system created by the Act of Union, Ireland cannot be well governed or contented; and a few have foreseen that both for domestic and Imperial purposes reconstruction on federal lines is desirable. Yet, in spite of this remarkable expression of opinion, nothing has been done, though the necessity for action has become more and more urgent with every pa.s.sing year, and though many of the objections felt in former days can no longer be entertained. The doubts felt by the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re as to the fitness of the Irish people to exercise self-governing power have been dispelled by experience of the working of the Act of 1898. The settlement of the land question rightly deemed by Mr. Chamberlain an essential preliminary to, or accompaniment of, political reform, has been half accomplished under the Act of 1903, and can be fully accomplished by reverting to the principles of that Act.

Many attempts have been made to reform procedure within the House of Commons and all of them have proved inadequate. Owing to an actual increase of business, and to the growing complexity of domestic affairs, Parliament is over-burdened with work to a far greater extent to-day than it was in the seventies and eighties. Since those days the idea of union on federal lines in the Mother Country, as not only desirable in her interest, but as also indicating the path to some larger form of union, has become prevalent. It has become more and more evident that some scheme of devolution is necessary to enable the Parliamentary machine to deal with the great industrial questions that perplex us, and to give adequate consideration to the problems of Imperial policy which press for consideration. Under these circ.u.mstances it is indeed extraordinary that this great question has not been settled in the only way by which, in my humble opinion, it can be settled satisfactorily and permanently, namely, by consent of both the great parties in the State; and it is pa.s.sing strange to see the leaders of one of the great parties, despite the opinions of their predecessors in t.i.tle, taking up an irreconcilable att.i.tude towards devolution of any kind. It would be most interesting, but impossible, within the scope of this article to consider how far contemporaneous events in Ireland, faulty tactics on the part of Irish politicians, and the exigencies of party political warfare are respectively chargeable with this lamentable legislative default. The fact is the question has never been considered on its merits. The party system is probably the princ.i.p.al offender, but impatience on the part of the Irish people, vagueness in the demands put forward by their leaders, inconvenient alliances, vacillating counsels, a short-sighted policy, and mistaken tactics are much to blame.

It is a curious circ.u.mstance in the historical development of this policy, that Devolutionists in going forward have come back to the standpoint of the greatest leader the Tory party ever had. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1844, Mr. Disraeli is reported in _Hansard_ as saying: