Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:58:04.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI. The Round Table Movement and ‘Home Rule All Round’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. E. Kendle
J. E. Kendle
Affiliation:
St John's College, University of Manitoba
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before 1914 one of the methods often suggested as a solution of the Home Rule problem and the more general one of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom was ‘Home Rule all round’, known also as ‘Devolution’ or ‘Federalism’ dependent on the occasion or the party affiliation of the would-be reformer. The concept was by no means a new one; it had been broached as early as the 1830s and had received much attention in the eighties and nineties at the time of Gladstone's two Home Rule bills. At best it meant the erection of four provincial Parliaments with separate executives for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, responsible for essentially local matters, and an overall Parliament sitting in London, elected on a population basis, responsible for general United Kingdom affairs such as postal services, customs, trade, defence and foreign policy; at the very least the scheme meant the devolution onto local government bodies, possibly provincial councils, of many of the more parochial problems considered at Westminster. ‘Home Rule all round’ attracted considerable interest in 1910 at the time of the Constitutional Conference and again during the tempestuous months of 1913–14 when the United Kingdom hovered on the brink of civil war and any and all compromise solutions were of necessity being explored. The role played by the Round Table Movement in these proposals and subsequent manoeuvres has only partially been recognized.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1968, pp. 332 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 For the early discussions see an undated ‘Memorandum of conversations which took place between a few English and South African friends at intervals during the summer of 1909’; also the ‘Minutes of a meeting held at Plas Newydd, September 4–6, 1909' and an undated memorandum entitled ‘Main and Subsidiary Objects’ probably written shortly after the September 4–6 meetings, Lothian Papers. I am grateful to the present Lord Lothian for permission to use the Lothian material.

2 Grey to Laurier, 12 February 1907, copy, Grey Papers; and Grey, to Wrong, G., 22 February 1910, Wrong Papers.Google Scholar

3 Grey to Lord Brassey, 5 March 1910, copy, enclosed in Grey to Richard Jebb, 14 March 1910, Jebb Papers. Jebb, himself an influential student of imperial organisation and an acquaintance of the Round Table, replied: ‘On the general question of federal government for the United Kingdom, as a final solution of the Home Rule trouble and as a step towards Imperial Federation, I am in substantial agreement with you.’ Jebb to Grey, 24 March 1910, copy, Jebb Papers.

4 Grey to Curtis, 14 December 1909, copy, Grey Papers. John Stephen Willison was a Canadian journalist and author. A conservative in politics and a strong Imperialist he was later a founding member of the Toronto Round Table group. He was editor of the Toronto News 1902–10 and became Canadian correspondent of The Times in 1910.

5 Curtis to Kerr, 19 September 1910, Lothian Papers.

6 For these January meetings see ‘Minutes of a meeting held at Ledbury January 15/18, 1910’ and ‘Minutes of a meeting held in London on January 23, 1910, 4–5 p.m.’, Lothian Papers.

7 Known initially as the ‘Green Memorandum’ and then as the ‘Annotated Memorandum’ it was officially entitled for publication, Round Table Studies, 1.

8 This analysis and argument is in chapter vn of the ‘Green Memorandum’.

9 Details of the meetings in South Africa and the decisions taken are contained in Hichens to Milner, 21 March 1910, copy, Lothian Papers.

10 Kerr to Selborne, 18 June 1910, copy, ibid.

11 Kerr to Curtis, 29 July 1910, copy, ibid.

12 For the articles see ‘Colonial Neutrality’, The Round Table (August, 1911), pp. 435–42; and ‘The Congestion of Business in the House of Commons’, The Round Table (December, 1911), pp. 58–95.Google Scholar

13 Kerr to Curtis, 10 August 1910, copy, Lothian Papers.

14 Kerr to Curtis, 31 August 1910, copy, ibid.

15 Kerr to Curtis, 30 September 1910, copy, Lothian Papers. This letter took the form of a memorandum which was circulated to Milner, Oliver and Brand before finally being sent to Curtis on 7 October. Kerr planned to distribute an abbreviated and corrected edition to a larger Moot scheduled for mid-November at Blackmoor, the home of Lord and Lady Selborne. Kerr to Curtis, 7 October 1910, copy, ibid.

16 Curtis to Kerr, 19 September 1910. ibid.

17 Oliver's intermediary with the Unionist peers was Lord Salisbury, another intimate of the Round Table. See Gollin, A. M., J. L. Garvin and the Observer (London, 1960), pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

18 By this time ‘federalism’ was being advocated in a number of influential quarters. In late July the Master of Elibank, outlined a plan to federalize the constitution to Harold Harmsworth, who in turn spoke to J. L. Garvin, editor of The Observer. An article favouring a federal solution of United Kingdom difficulties first appeared in The Observer on 31 July and was succeeded by many others in following months. Garvin was not content to work solely through the medium of the newspaper, but continuously bombarded leading Unionists with lengthy letters and memoranda on the question of Ireland and ‘Home Rule all round’. He also corresponded with Oliver, and to some degree the Round Table and Garvin pursued parallel courses with considerable effect; however, they never integrated their efforts. For a full account of Garvin's activities in 1910 see Gollin, , op. cit. pp. 168–234.Google Scholar

19 The memorandum, dated 28 September 1910, was enclosed in Oliver to Balfour, 11 October 1910, Balfour Papers.

20 Here Balfour had underlined ‘visionary’ and noted ‘Visionary not in a bad sense. I see this vision and believe in it.’

21 Balfour to Garvin, 22 October 1910, Balfbur Papers. Garvin's letter to Balfour of 17 October 1910 is quoted extensively in Gollin, A. M., op. cit. pp. 213–15.Google Scholar

22 See The Times, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 31 October and 2 November 1910.

23 Those present were Milner, Kerr, Brand, Hichens, R. Martin Holland, Oliver, Lord Robert Cecil, G. L. Craik, Steel-Maitland, Amery, Lord Howick and Lord and Lady Selborne. Entry for 12–13 November 1910, Milner Diary. Also Lady Selborne to Curtis, 17 November [n.d.], Curtis Papers.

24 Kerr to Curtis, 22 December 1910, copy, Lothian Papers. This was marked letter I to distinguish it from another to Curtis of the same date. See also an unsigned and undated ‘Memorandum’, written by Kerr after the ‘Moot’, enclosed in letter 1. Articles on the subject of congestion appeared in the August and December 1911 issues of The Round Table and a book entitled An Analysts of the System of Government Throughout the British Empire was published in 1912. See footnote 12 above.

25 For Amery's views see L. S. Amery to the Editor, The Times, 1 November 1910; for Hichens' see Hichens to Curtis, 19 December 1910, Curtis Papers; and for Milner's, Milner to Balfour, 5 November 1910, copy, Milner Papers.

26 See Hichens to Curtis, 19 December 1910, Curtis Papers.

27 See unsigned and undated ‘Memorandum’ enclosed in Kerr to Curtis 1, 22 December 1910, copy, Lothian Papers. A few weeks after this meeting Oliver's letters to The Times were published in book form under the title Federalism and Home Rule and were dedicated to ‘Young Men who see Visions’ but as the decision to publish had been taken before the Blackmoor meeting and since there was no way of connecting ‘Pacificus’ with the Round Table Movement Oliver's action was not the direct rebuff to the counsel of the ‘Moot’ as would at first appear.

28 See particularly ‘United Kingdom. The Revival of Home Rule’, The Round Table (11 1910), pp. 63–70Google Scholar; ‘British Politics’, The Round Table (02, 1911), pp. 154–67Google Scholar; and [F. S. Oliver], ‘United Kingdom. Home Rule’, The Round Table (12, 1911), pp. 112–29. For proof of Oliver's authorship of the December article see Oliver to J. S. Willison, December [n.d.], 1911, O.C. Series, file 44, Borden Papers.Google Scholar

29 For the dates of these meetings and those in attendance see Milner Diary 1911, Milner Papers.

30 Curtis to Waldorf Astor, 14 August 1911, copy, Curtis Papers. It was also at this time that the movement published its findings on the congestion in Parliament.

31 5 Hansard (H. of C.), xxxvi, 11 04 1912 (1399–1426).Google Scholar

32 ‘Pacificus’ to the Editor, The Times, 30 04 1912. See also 8 May 1912.Google Scholar

33 See ‘Home Rule’, The Round Table (06, 1912), pp. 422–46Google Scholar; and Steel-Maitland, A., ‘Finance of the Home Rule Bill’, The National Review (06, 1912), pp. 620–36.Google Scholar

34 He also contributed two chapters on the ‘Finance of Home Rule’ and the ‘Colonial Analogy’ to a book on Home Rule written by leading Unionists and published to coincide with the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. Amery, L. S., My Political Life (London, 1953). 1. 398–9.Google Scholar

36 For Amery's parliamentary comments see 5 Hansard (H. of C.), XXXVII, 30 04 1912 (1772–88)Google Scholar; XLI, 25 July 1912 (1442–8); XLII, 17 October 1912 (1526–30); XLIII, 28 October 1912 (142–5); XLIV, 25 November 1912 (930–7); and XLVI 8 January 1913 (1218–27). Lord Robert Cecil also spoke caustically of the bill. See 5 Hansard (H. of C.), XLII, 16 10 1912Google Scholar (1308-II); 23 October 1912 (2280–1); 24 October 1912 (2443–6) and LX, 6 April 1914 (1698–1706).

36 Curtis to Churchill, 17 April 1912, copy, Curtis Papers.

37 Curtis to Churchill, 12 August 1912, copy ibid.

38 Grigg to Willison, 5 September 1912, Willison Papers.

39 Lady Selborne to Curtis, September [n.d.], Curtis Papers.

40 For an account of Churchill's Dundee speech see The Times, 13 September 1912.

41 A particularly important ‘Moot’ on the Irish question was held on 30 October 1913. For that and other such meetings see Milner Diary 1913, Milner Papers.

42 ‘United kingdom. The Horm Rule Bill’, The Round Table (12, 1912), pp. 98–133Google Scholar; see also ‘United Kingdom. The Home Rule Bill’, The Round Table (03, 1913), pp. 318–29.Google Scholar

43 Grigg to Willison, 18 October 1913, Willison Papers; and The Times, 11 November and 3 December 1913.

44 See ‘The Irish Question’, The Round Table (12 1913), pp. 1–67.Google Scholar

46 Amery to Bonar Law, 27 December 1913, quoted in Amery, op. cit. pp. 437–9.Google Scholar

46 See [Amery, L. S.], ‘The Home Rule Crisis and a National Settlement’, Quarterly Review (01, 1914), pp. 266–90Google Scholar; [Amery, L. S.], ‘The Home Rule Crisis’, Quarterly Review (04, 1914), pp. 570–90Google Scholar; and [Amery, L. S.], ‘The Home Rule Crisis’, Quarterly Review (07, 1914), pp. 275–294.Google Scholar Also 5 Hansard (H. of C.), LVIII, 11 02 1914Google Scholar (237–46) and LX, 6 April 1914 (1730–8); and Amery, , op cit. p. 439.Google Scholar

47 Oliver, F. S., What Federalism is Not (London, 9 02 1914)Google Scholar; also Gollin, , op. cit. pp. 416–19. An important Round Table ‘Moot’ on the Irish problem was held at Oliver's home on 12 February 1914 (Milner Diary, Milner Papers).Google Scholar

48 [Grigg, Edward], ‘The Irish Crisis’, The Round Table (03, 1914), pp. 201–39.Google Scholar

49 Grigg's memorandum is enclosed in Roberts to Milner, 2 April 1914, Milner Papers.

50 See entry for 8 April 1914, Milner Diary; Lady Selborne to Curtis, 21 April [1914], Curtis Papers; also Chamberlain, A., Politics From Inside (London, 1936), p. 637. In recent months Chamberlain had been the one leading Unionist to consider federalism seriouslyGoogle Scholar

51 See Colvin, Ian, The Life of Lord Carson (Toronto, 1935), p. 383Google Scholar; Hyde, H. Montgomery, Carson (London, 1953), p. 366Google Scholar; and Chamberlain, , op. cit. p. 639.Google Scholar

52 See Colvin, , op. cit, pp. 382–3Google Scholar; and Hyde, , op. cit. p. 366.Google Scholar

53 5 Hansard (H. of C), LXI, 28 04 1914Google Scholar (1591); and 29 April 1914 (1747–53).

54 Hyde, , op. cit, p. 367.Google Scholar

55 See entries for 5 and 11 May 1914, Milner Diary, Milner Papers; also Chamberlain, , op. cit. pp. 646-7. Oliver had begun to lose heart at the end of March and had taken very little part in the efforts made by his friends of the Round Table. See ‘Pacificus’ to the Editor, The Times, 27 March 1914.Google Scholar

56 Lord Lovat, an associate of the movement, did speak briefly in July in favour of a compromise. See 5 Hansard (H. of L.), xvi, 2 07 1914 (654–6).Google Scholar

57 Curtis to Feetham, 24 June 1914, copy, Curtis Papers. Also Curtis to Feetham, 4 June 1914, copy, ibid.