Speaking at Leicester, on November 30th, 1899, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN referred to the present position of Liberal Unionists. He said:

"You have drunk 'Success to the Unionist Cause.' I cannot think that there can be any man here present who now, at any rate, whatever he may have felt or done during the past 15 years, can entertain for one moment any regret that he for one refused to support Mr. Gladstone in the mistaken policy which in his old age he evolved, and which, had he succeeded, would have, I am firmly convinced, been the ruin of this country.

"There are persons now who tell us that, at all events, our objects have been secured. They continue to abuse us, the instruments by which the country has been saved from this danger. They say to our followers, 'Now, at any rate, you can desert those leaders who led you right and you can come back to the ancient fold, because there is no longer any danger of Home Rule, and you may resume your position without your leaders under the old flag.' I do not think that the invitation will be very warmly received, and for two reasons. In the first place, because we have not security that those gentlemen who failed us before will not fail us again. None of the leaders of the Radical party have up to the present time made a clear and definite demonstration upon that point. Not until not only the leaders of the party but the organizations of the party have made confession of their previous mistakes and have solemnly abandoned the policy to which they committed themselves-not until that has taken place will we have any security that we may not again have to fight for the unity of the Empire. In the second place, Liberal Unionists will have to think twice before they accept these invitations, because they will find that the fold to which they are invited to return is entirely changed. It is no longer the old fold; there is nothing in common between the Liberalism of John Bright, for instance, or of other Liberal leaders in the past, and what is called the Liberalism of the present day.

"I know we were told in those days that in pursuit of our objections to the Home Rule policy we were sacrificing what was to us of much greater importance-that we were sacrificing the old principles of Liberalism. and all hope of reform. Has there been the slightest foundation for that statement? To which party, since the Home Rule question,

do the people of this country owe their social reform? They owe it entirely to the Unionist party. What has followed is this-that in the period after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill a series of reforms, more important in themselves, more important in the advantages they have conferred upon masses of the people than were carried before in any similar time, have been passed into law. You have had, for instance, free education, the greatest direct boon given to the working classes of this country, not only because it relieved them of a great expense at a time when many of them were, by the nature of the circumstances, unable to provide the cost of the education of their children, who, being young, could not in any way assist the resources of the family-not only that, but because it has made easy the education of those children. You also had that legislation by which the agricultural labourer has been enabled to obtain small holdings and allotments, and thereby greatly to improve the position of himself and his family. You have also had local government in the counties, which was brought forward by a Conservative Government, and only completed subsequently by a Radical Government. In fact, throughout you will find that, while we have originated and carried out great reforms, all that the Radicals have been able to do-and they have done little of that has been to tinker with the details of the legislation, to add something to round off a corner here, or to remove a prominence somewhere else.”

MR. CHAMBERLAIN then referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act, and expressed his belief that the time was shortly coming when it would be applied to all other trades. He continued :—

"I must not spend too much time over the list of our performances, but I want to remind you that in other questions of social reform the Government has been active. We have endeavoured to deal, I do not say finally, but partially, at any rate, with the great question of the housing of the working classes, and that of enabling working men to become the owners of their own dwelling houses. We have introduced a Truck Act, and Acts which have reduced the loss of life in mines; there are a score of minor Acts of this kind, all of which have contributed greatly to the happiness and welfare of the working classes. If Liberal Unionists and workmen will look at the history of the two Governments-will consider, as I have said, what the Unionist party have done in the two Administrations which followed the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, what a mess the so-called Liberal party made of their business in the short Session between 1892 and 1895—I think they will have no difficulty in ascertaining where for their bread will be found the most butter."

Printed and Published by McCorquodale & Co. Ltd., "The Armoury," London, S. E.

THENEWYORK
HELIC LIBRARY

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

237

ON THE NECESSITY FOR

Liberal Unionist Organization.

On Nov. 17th, 1898, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, speaking at a Liberal Unionist Luncheon at Manchester, dwelt upon the necessity for maintaining the distinct organization of the Liberal Unionist Party. The following are some extracts from his speech:

"I remember Mr. Gladstone's prediction that as no third party had ever before, so our party never would, last over a general election. We have lasted over three general elections, and we are stronger now, I think, in public respect and authority than we ever have been in the course of our history. I say that is a satisfactory past to look back upon. What is to be our future? I want to see the Manchester Liberal Unionists a great force in the public life of their district. Remember, in urging this, and in urging you especially to greater efforts in the future, I am not suggesting that it is necessary to enter into any kind of competition with the other wing of the Unionist strength. That is not necessary. It would be ungracious. We do not want to take from the Conservatives one single member of their party, but we want to be missionaries in a field which, I believe, they cannot penetrate. The old traditions to which I have referred will always be strong, and men who have in the past called themselves Liberals, who

2

have descended from Liberals, and who have at one been actively opposed to Conservatives do not like to their colours. I am not certain that they are right not certain that the higher interests of the country have moved us should not in all cases be sufficient to their action. . . It is true it is said by some perso there is no longer need for the Liberal Unionist Associ that our distinctive work has been effectively perform Home Rule is dead, and that now, therefore, we may ourselves into other elements and be satisfied to bel either one or the other of the two great parties in th I think it would be impossible to ma more vital mistake than to yield to opinion. History shows that many a great bat been lost because the commander has prematurely as that he has won it.

"We have done well in the fight against Home We have not done all yet. The creature scotched; it is not killed. It is quite true th Home Rule the English Home Rule-party keep Rule in the background in by-elections, and no doub general election the policy would be the same. The forward some social reforms as their claims to suppor they say as little as possible about Home Rule. policy is :

'Oh no, we never mention it,

Its voice is never heard;
Our lips are now forbid to speak
The once familiar word.'

But please to bear in mind that, although Home Rule is in the background, you have the leaders of the party sa in terms that they have not abandoned any of their opin They do not discuss them, but they repeat them. Mr. Aso

for instance, has said: We have not apostatized from any of our opinions.' Mr. Morley is as strenuous an advocate of Home Rule as ever he was. Sir William Harcourt has never repudiated it. So I may go through all the leaders, and I believe you will find exactly the same in reference to all the rank and file.

"Remember what happened in 1892. Then, as now, Home Rule was kept in the background. A majority-a small majority-was elected distinctly on the Newcastle programme. At the moment the party came into power their taskmasters, the Nationalists, demanded payment of the bond-demanded their pound of flesh-and they got it in the shape of a Home Rule Bill; and, if we are not mindful of that experience, you may be as sure as we are here to-day that we shall once more have to go through the old business of 'ploughing the sands' and 'filling up the cup,' until once more an indignant nation turns on those who have deceived it.

"I want in this connexion to make one practical suggestion. I ask our friends everywhere, whenever there is an election, whether it be a by-election or a general election, to put to the candidate of the other party a simple question, and to demand an answer 'yes' or 'no' to that question. The question is this, 'Will you oppose the second reading of any Bill for establishing a separate Parliament in Dublin?' If to that simple question they answer 'No,' of course the constituency will be aware for what it is that they are voting. They are not voting for a social programme, but are voting for a separate Parliament in Dublin. If they answer that they will oppose it, then I am perfectly prepared to leave them to the tender mercies of their rather mixed lot of supporters.