A “Lingering Diminuendo”? The Conference on Devolution 1919-1920 Adam B. Evans School of Law and Politics Thesis submitted to Cardiff University in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 DECLARATION This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of …………………………(insert MCh, MD, MPhil, PhD etc, as appropriate) Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed are my own. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… STATEMENT 4: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BAR ON ACCESS I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available online in the University’s Open Access repository and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access previously approved by the Academic Standards & Quality Committee. Signed ………………………………………… (candidate) Date ………………………… 3 Summary This thesis offers the first detailed assessment of an event that has hitherto been consigned to the margins of the literature on devolution and territorial reform in the United Kingdom, the Conference on Devolution, 1919-1920. Sitting between October 1919 and April 1920, the Conference on Devolution was arguably one of the two moments in the UK’s constitutional history when the territorial constitution was approached in a holistic fashion by policy makers and political elites (the other occasion being the Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1969-1973). The primary aim of this thesis is to provide the first detailed analysis of the Conference on Devolution, to develop a fuller understanding of why it was established, what it debated and why it failed. Secondary to that objective, this thesis will also assess what relevance the Conference has for students of territorial governance in the UK today, at a time when the UK’s constitution is in flux. In pursuit of these objectives, the thesis utilises the ideas and insights on territorial governance of James Bulpitt and James Mitchell, alongside an extensive catalogue of archival evidence, including the previously unstudied (in the context of the Conference on Devolution) personal papers of the Conference’s Secretary, Gilbert Campion. Using this methodology and archival sources, the thesis offers a considerable revision to previous understandings of the Conference on Devolution. It demonstrates that the Conference’s fatal disagreement on how the devolved legislatures should be composed, was not, as has been previously portrayed, just a disagreement at the latter stages of the Conference’s work, but was instead a cleavage that undercut the entirety of the Conference on Devolution. Finally, the thesis highlights the clear resonance between the issues deliberated by the Conference and many of today’s territorial governance debates. 4 Acknowledgements There are many debts that an individual can accrue in the course of their PhD studies and that has certainly been the case in this instance. Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to the assistance and patience displayed by members of staff at the various archives I’ve visited in the course of my research. Many thanks have to go to Colin Harris and his team at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University and the staff at the Parliamentary Archives, the National Library of Wales, the National Archives and the British Library. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to the fifth Baron Gorell for his kind permission to the use the personal papers of Ronald Barnes, the third Baron Gorell. I have been incredibly fortunate to have had a close network of friends, their support and humour have helped in good days and bad. While this is not an exhaustive list, particular thanks have to go to Steffan Evans, Matt Francis, Rob Jones, Jac Larner, Ed Poole and Lleu Williams. In a similar vein I would like to thank the patience and emotional (and financial) support of my family, in particular my parents and grandparents. During the darker days of this thesis, their love and wisdom proved crucial. I am left with three particularly important people to thank. Firstly, my supervisors, Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully. I am incredibly indebted to their perseverance, good sense and commitment. That they have stuck around after some of the earlier chapters they had to read is a testament to their indefatigability. Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my girlfriend, Shaan. If Richard and Roger have had to endure some mixed days as supervisors, Shaan has had to put up with an even more mixed bag as a partner. Her love, support and patience helped steer me from throwing in the towel during some difficult days and she has been at my side throughout this incredibly intense process. I couldn’t have done this without her. 5 Contents Summary 3 Acknowledgements 4 1 Introduction 7 Part One: Methods and Context Studying the Conference on Devolution 2 26 3 A system in crisis? The background to the Conference on 73 Devolution Part Two: The Conference on Devolution 4 Consensus: the powers to be devolved to the subordinate 149 legislatures 5 A little local difficulty: national or regional devolution and the 174 English Question 6 Wales: a nation, or region? The Conference on Devolution’s 193 Judiciary Sub-Committee 7 Keeping it in the family? The composition of devolution and 231 the relationship between subordinate legislatures and Whitehall. 263 Postscript to Part Two: “That body was not fruitful of useful results”. Responses to the Conference and why it failed. Conclusion: ‘a lingering diminuendo’? The Conference on 8 279 Devolution, 1919-1920 Bibliography 312 Appendices Appendix 1: Members of the Conference on Devolution 336 Appendix 2: Allocation of Powers 349 6 1.1. Introduction: The Conference on Devolution, the case for a re-appraisal. On 3rd February 1920, a draft of the coalition government’s King’s speech concluded with the following words, The Report of the Devolution Committee is anxiously awaited and should it prove favourable to the idea [of devolution to English, Scottish and Welsh subordinate legislatures] immediate steps will be taken to prepare the legislation necessary to give effect to its recommendations (CAB 24/97/48). Britain appeared a week away from a fundamental shift in her constitutional order. A polity that has traditionally been seen as an archetypal unitary state seemed to be on the verge of Home Rule All Round (the North and South of Ireland being dealt with separately with the Government of Ireland Bill that was then completing its final stages in Parliament). Seven days later, however, this commitment had disappeared from the final speech delivered by the Monarch when he re-opened Parliament (HC Deb (5th Series) 10th February 1920 Vol.125 c.5-9); it was never to resurface in any serious way. The “Devolution Committee” referenced in the draft speech was the ‘Conference on Devolution’ which met 32 times between October 1919 and April 1920 (Lowther 1920: 3). Established by the UK Government following a successful resolution calling for the creation of a body to draw up proposals for subordinate legislatures (HC Deb (5th Series) 4th June 1919 Vol.116 c.2126), the Conference debated three key questions (Lowther 1920: 3-6). Firstly, the question of unit size: would devolution be based on regional or national lines, a debate which proved particularly problematic when it came to England. Secondly, it discussed the powers that would be devolved to these legislatures. Thirdly, the Conference grappled with the dilemma of the composition of 7 the subordinate legislatures and their relationship with the Imperial Parliament. While the Conference resolved internal differences to agree that devolution would be on national lines, and to agree the powers to be devolved to these subordinate national legislatures, the Conference ended its work evenly divided on the question of how the subordinate legislatures should be constituted (Lowther 1920: 6-7). In the one camp were advocates of the ‘Grand Council’ plan proposed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, James Lowther. This was an intra-Parliamentary approach to devolution, with the proposed bicameral Grand Councils (each Grand Council would consist of a Council of the Commons and a Council of Peers) for England, Scotland and Wales constituted from existing Parliamentarians (Conference on Devolution 1920: 9). In the case of the lower chambers, the Councils of the Commons, its membership would consist of the MPs from each of those respective nations (Conference on Devolution 1920: 9). As for the upper chambers, the Councils of Peers, they would be composed of Peers, the number in each case being equal to half the number of MPs from their respective nation, selected by the Committee of Selection in the House of Lords (Conference on Devolution 1920: 9). These subordinate legislatures would sit for an initial five year period in a transitory state, with each Grand Council expected by the end of this period to decide whether to move to a system of direct election and become separate institutions from Parliament, to remain as presently constituted or to abolish themselves and return to former Parliamentary arrangements (Conference on Devolution 1920: 11). Unlike Lowther’s intra-Parliamentary approach to devolution, the alternative, proposed by the Liberal MP Murray Macdonald, was far more radical in nature.