Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

craft. As this is also my argument, I do not feel greatly concerned when he tells me that my assumptions are whimsical and my conclusions absurd. He ought to know best how to describe the views which he holds.

I have kept till the last a criticism which is certainly serious and deserves a serious answer. In the words of 'The Midland Evening News' my arguments "will be readily seized upon by those politicians whose sole concern is the reduction of naval and military expenditure at any cost whatever." This is quite true. They have been so used. I am plastered with Radical flatteries. To 'The Nation' I am "a diligent student of all warfare." To 'The Sheffield Independent' I am "one of our ablest strategists." To The Daily Chronicle' I am "a pre-eminent authority on problems of naval and military strategy," and I am even, for the nonce, in Mr H. W. Massingham's good books. All this is most alluring, and I can only hope that when I ask for one hundred 30-knot submarines, and as many dirigibles with 1500 miles range and

[merged small][ocr errors]

Naturally, I knew quite well that the anti-armament party would make play with my arguments and use them for its own ends. I thought it just as well that it should, so that our new problems might be more seriously thought out than they have been by our popular naval critics. It seemed to me that the hour had arrived for an examination of naval consciences. If there was nothing in the arguments that I used, I made sure that they would quickly be answered and disposed of. If there was anything in them, I hoped that adequate steps would be taken by the Admiralty to meet the new situation. I think that I have been criticised but not answered, and that in five years' time most people will hold the views which I have ventured, very inadequately, to express.

A BURLESQUE OF NATIONALISM.

this portentous Manifesto to the indifference and contempt with which it has generally been treated. But it is because we believe it to be a symptom of a state of feeling and of a political tendency thoroughly unsound and unwholesome, and one which may grow to dangerous dimensions if it is not carefully dealt with, that it seems well to examine in detail what the signatories put forward as grave political arguments, to see how little of cogency or even of logical sequence they can boast of, and to point out plainly what would be the result of treating with sympathy, or even with tolerance, such crude constitutional ideas as they dress up for our edification.

SOME weeks ago, just after Parliament was adjourned, the languid interest now felt in political discussion was gently stirred by the issue of an egregious Manifesto by the body which bears the highsounding title of "The Committee to Promote National Self-Government for Scotland." The thunderbolt has hardly answered the expectations of those who forged it. Where it was expected to produce consternation, it has only given rise to mild amusement. Where it was hoped that it might stimulate keen discussion, it has only produced bewilderment. It has utterly failed to arouse any echo even amongst the noisiest and most pretentious of Home Rule Patriots. But the unkindest cut of all was dealt by that doughty assertor of Scottish wrongs, the Reverend Malcolm MacCallum of Muckairn, who finds that to his unhappy country "the crowning insult has come in the Manifesto of the twentyone Asquithian members, constituting themselves a Committee of Public Safety, the very men who fainted in the fray, abandoned the interests of their country, and relinquished her glory into the enemy's hands." The plight of our one-and-twenty defenders is hard indeed, when even their own familiar friend is willing to break a stick over their heads. It might be enough to leave and is fully conscious of the

We

There is no need to introduce into the discussion of this matter any personal abuse of the worthy members who put themselves forward as the champions of Scotland. do not desire to say one word in derogation of their eminent ability or their Parliamentary weight. The list is headed by Mr Munro Ferguson, our most recent Privy Councillor, who had well earned that honour by long and assiduous Parliamentary work, and who has justly attained a high position amongst his fellow-members. There need be no doubt that each of his co-signatories believes in the constitutional orthodoxy of their proposals,

sincerity of his own aims. But unfortunately even Privy Councilship does not turn nonsense into sound argument, nor does any amount of sincerity compensate for muddlement.

Let us first of all analyse the Manifesto, very briefly, paragraph by paragraph.

say that Home Rule involves a revolution. Why should procedure that has lasted for two centuries necessarily be "antiquated"? One would have thought that what went before these two centuries was more antiquated still; and apparently it is to something like that, that Its promulgators have evi- the co-signatories wish us to dently obtained exceptional revert. The usage of two cenknowledge with regard to those turies, we are sagely informed, proceedings of the Conference began just two centuries ago, on the constitutional question with the Union-" when Scotwhich, it was believed, were land was practically delivered strictly confidential. The into the hands of bureaucracy. settlement of that question, we It would be flattery to say that are informed, "will offer an those who framed that sentence opportunity for reorganising had any clear idea to put into Parliamentary business on a words when they wrote it basis of Devolution." The con- down. A bureaucracy, in the nection between the two ques- modern sense, did not, and tions is perhaps not immediately could not, exist during the apparent; but we are bound, greater part of the last two of course, to accept the author- hundred years. A bureaucracy itative statement given us by involves the uniform routine of the twenty-one recipients of the an official class, following fixed confidences of the Conference. traditions and forms. As a "Ireland's claim to self-govern- fact, nothing has varied more ment is not likely to be over- markedly during that period looked." This is in the most than the methods of Scottish approved style of darkly hinted administration. At times it political prophesying. was almost entirely in the know a thing or two-these hands of some powerful intwenty-one co - signatories. dividual in Scotland, or of Home Rule for Ireland - we the law officers there : may take it from them-is- other times it was intrusted well not improbable; but but to the English Home Sec"mum's the word." Then retary, or to some prominent comes the chance for Scot- member of the Administration land. who happened to have connection with Scotland. A man who will describe such varying conditions as prevailed, let us say, under Forbes of Culloden : George, Duke of Argyll: his brother and successor, Archibald, long the Earl of Islay: under Newcastle and Pelham :

They

The next paragraph is really sublime as a piece of political clap-trap. "A policy of Devolution for Scottish affairs involves a break with the antiquated procedure of two centuries." It does not seem to require quite so many words to

at

under Henry Dundas, and, at creased that the conditions of a later day, under Jeffrey and to-day cannot cannot be compared Moncrieff-any one who classi- with those of fifty years fies all these under the easy ago." No doubt; but does it nickname of "a bureaucracy not occur to them that the

[ocr errors]

is either lamentably ignorant of Scottish history or is wilfully talking nonsense. As a fact, for a considerable portion of that time-down to 1746there was a Secretary of State for Scotland. Almost every device of administration has been tried. The revival of the post of Secretary for Scotland

not its creation, creation, as the Manifesto puts it aroused new hopes in their breasts. These, alas! have been disappointed. Indeed, under the old government of the Lord Advocate, we are now told, there was 66 more representative government than there is today." One would have thought that representative government in Scotland rested upon some more solid foundation than an official, however exalted. But the co-signatories know best what they mean. At all events, it appears that hopeful changes do not always have the results anticipated.

The logical sequence of the argument is here interrupted. Administrative conditions have injured us changes in these administrative conditions have not done all we wished; and now-so we would have supposed the argument would run -we must try more drastic remedies. But no: the Manifesto breaks off and shows that there has been something more potent at work. "Scottish legislative and administrative needs have so enormously in

inference from this is, that mere administrative change will not do what they want? Administrative conditions cannot control national development, nor deal with the changes which that development brings.

We are soon brought back to the sins of the Scottish Office, which, we are told, "centred in London, has been the closest of bureaucracies,”— the co-signatories have a marvellous liking for that mysterious word,-"and at present no machinery is available, and time and occasion are lacking, to enable Scottish members to have a real control over their affairs."

as

What, we may remark in passing, are "their" affairs? Do these eminent Members of Parliament assume that the affairs of Scotland are "their" affairs, to be controlled they think fit? Scotland, like the rest of Great Britain, is governed by Imperial Parliament, and her affairs are, fortunately, not intrusted entirely to the arbitrary will of sixty-one Radical Scotch members. By that Imperial Parliament her destinies are ruled ; and in that Parliament she claims to exert, and ought to exert, and has in the past exerted, wide and potent influence. But such influence is not likely to be exerted so long as twenty-one of these Radical members think it consistent

was

[ocr errors]

weight, which no reasonable man acquainted with the circumstances will for one moment

deny. To break that close touch with the great fiscal machinery of the State, and that

with their self-respect to issue a confession of impotence so abject as that contained in the words just quoted from this amazing Manifesto. Does it not occur to these gentle'immediate connection men that if they had the courage of their opinions, they with Parliament, would be would never need to whine the source of irreparable evil that a bureaucracy trampled to Scotland. To speak of it as on them, that "machinery out of touch with local authornot available to them, ities is the most flimsy misthat "time and occasion" were representation. Letters reach lacking in which to show their London from these local aumanhood and their power? It thorities just as quickly as is not machinery, nor time, nor they would reach Edinburgh. occasion, nor merciful officials There is a large and important that allow men to show their branch of the office in Edindetermination and their grit. burgh, and the Secretary is It is consciousness of the sup- there as frequently as his more port of their countrymen, care- pressing duties in ful and painful study of the permit. In every locality the conditions of the country, and Department has its own rea capacity for distinguishing sponsible officer in the Inbetween considered reform and spector. As a fact, there is reckless empiricism. not a local authority in Scotland that will calmly allege against the Department that lack of local touch which is so glibly asserted by those representatives in the House Commons who pretend speak on their behalf.

The next paragraph opens a new vein of wilful misrepresentation and amusing inconsistency. "The Scottish Education Department is as firmly rooted in London-practically out of reach of local education authorities,-whilst other Boards in Edinburgh, being detached from the Scottish Office and without Advisory Councils, are equally out of touch with the representative system.

[ocr errors]

The absurdities in this paragraph are almost as many as the words. The Scotch Education Department

to

give it its correct legal title, which the Manifesto for some sentimental reason discardshas its headquarters in London for reasons of insuperable

London

to

The truth is, that too many of the Scottish representatives in Parliament, however excellent in other respects, lack any practical experience in Scottish administration, and are unduly impressed by certain specious catchwords that have absolutely no relation to the facts. They are content to take statements on credit: to criticise an official policy which they have not studied, and to spare themselves the irksome labour of perusing the elaborate and uninviting documents which the

« PredošláPokračovať »