England's Greatest Needs

Mr. President and Gentlemen

I am here as a lover of England-and proud of my country--yet at the same time I am here as a critic and, I hope, a friendly critic of some of England's institutions, and of the trend of thought prevailing there today. We are suffering in Britain, I will not say from a decay of patriotism, but from what might be described as a slumberous condition of patriotism today. We are also suffering from a slumberous Imperialism-a loss of the Imperialistic sentiment by which the Empire was founded, and by which alone the Empire can subsist.

Now, in England, if one describes oneself as an Imperialist he is often met with considerable hostility and counter-charged with being a jingo and a militarist for attempting to take out of the sordid arena of party politics such questions as those of National Defence, and the relationship of England to her over-seas Dominions, to her colonies and dependencies, and that most important of questions, as to whether we shall pursue the policy of Free Trade or have Tariff Reform. To attempt to take any of these matters out of the political arena, is to be at once charged with self-seeking motives. Now the reason is, that the trend of thought in England today is leaning towards what has been termed the "policy of drift," and it is against this policy of drift in regard to these most important questions that I and others have been speaking, talking, and trying to induce individual Englishmen to arouse themselves from the apathy which is so apparent at the present time regarding those responsibilities to the Empire which they have almost forgotten.

The reason for this condition of things in England is not far to seek. It is not amiss to ascribe it to the evils that always surround party politics in the Government. In days gone by we had two great historic parties in the House of Commons. We had the Liberal Party and we had the Conservative Party-both driving, or thinking they were, toward one end for the benefit of Nation and Empire. Although their course was divergent, both were inspired by British patriotism and when England, or Great Britain, or the Empire was in danger they united against the common' foe-that spirit, Gentlemen, is not abroad today, for we have the evolution or devolution, whichever you like to call it, of party politics. We have got not only these two historic parties in the House of Commons but we have several subsidiary parties who claim they hold the fate of Government in the hollow of their hand. I always liken the members of these subsidiary parties to a character well known to readers of Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress"-The Man with the Muck Rake.

We have among them the Socialist party. I am not going to condemn all the Socialists. We have in England some Christian Socialists who are idealists, but whose views are not practicable. The great majority of Socialists in England, if you listen to their addresses in Hyde Park and other places, are no more concerned with the welfare of the Empire than they are with the inhabitants of Mars. Now the Socialist party appear to be looking for something by which they can destroy or uproot the foundation of the Christian faith and strike the 8th Commandment from the Decalogue, or they are looking for something by which they can annihilate the capitalists and by so doing lay hands on the accumulated results of industry and commerce and enterprise. And these men boast to you that they hold the fate of 'the Government in the hollow of their hand. Then we have the Labour Party, inspired altogether by selfish motives, workingmen through their leaders objecting, and daring to try and reverse what is known as the Osborne judgment, which takes its name from the man who had the courage to express his convictions regarding the principles of the Labour Party. Well, gentlemen, the Labour Party in the House of Commons today in seeking the support of the majority of the members of the House have no regard for the judgment given out by the highest legal authorities in the land, that no man a member of Trade Unions shall be compelled to support a Parliamentary representative with whose views he is not in accord; yet these men tell you they would be compelled to support the Socialists, whose claim is that they hold the fate of the Government in the hollow of their hand.

Then we have another party who certainly have more justification for their demands, because they are always preaching open hostility to English interests-that is the Irish Nationalist party; who are actuated by the same principles as their late leader, Mr. Parnell announced on one occasion. He said: "I have taken off my coat to this work, and will not put it on again until I have severed the last link that holds Ireland to England." Can anyone blame a man like myself if he take these words exactly as they are written? There is no other construction to be put upon them except that the policy of the Irish Nationalists is more than simply to have their own Parliament in Dublin. A Parliament in Dublin may be attributed to a little national vanity. But there are other things behind it to claim our consideration. If they had a Parliament of their own there would be snug emoluments attached. There would be the Speaker of the House with an adequate salary, and a multitude of offices created for place-hangers, with the idea that "To the victors belong the spoils." These are men, members of that party, who fought against England and have always sided with England's enemies. One of their most prominent leaders in the north of England said, not in my hearing, but in the hearing of friends of mine: "I will bless any hand--be it white or black--that strikes at the power of England." So again you have these men who claim that they hold the Government's welfare in the hollow of their hand.

Now, gentlemen, with these subsidiary parties making these claims-and they may get greater strength, or, there may be more of them-they may multiply as parties for the Irish Nationalist party today is split into two factions, and we do not know how many more maybe the result if we allow these elements to gain in the political life of our Representative Chamber. I maintain that the party system of Government should be abolished. And no man should be returned, in my opinion, to the British House of Commons because he is a henchman of any particular party. Personal fitness should be the claim to represent us in the councils of the nation, and that this is not impossible is shown by one of the largest and most progressive municipalities in the North of England, where they have a council chamber consisting of nearly 150 members. These people are most enlightened-it is a Lancashire constituency I am speaking of. One of their cities returned seven Conservative members to one Nationalist member to represent them in the House of Commons, yet they never have a great Conservative majority in municipal affairs.

Their policy is explained in the fact that of late years they have asked a Liberal Lord Mayor to take the chair and hold the high office of Chief Magistrate of the City; not because they were in sympathy with his political views but because they considered him the best citizen to represent their city irrespective of politics. Also this has been the rule for the last twenty years in that city that where a man, no matter what his politics, is considered fit to represent either commercial institutions, or residential sections, or one where the working classes live, and that man has proved faithful while in the Council Chamber, it has been the policy of the majority of Conservatives to say, we have no fault to find with him. This is the way they speak in Lancashire. There is an old adage, "What Lancashire thinks today, England will say tomorrow." And if this policy adopted by this municipality is followed by the rest of England, and spreads to the House of Commons, then we shall have an ideal system of government such as we have never known.

I will now show some anomalies (I hope we have no legal friends here who will take offence). The Prime Minister is a lawyer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a lawyer, the Secretary for Ireland is a lawyer, and the Secretary for the Colonies is a lawyer. This is one of the anomalies. We have got a barrister at the head of the Army. Another one in control of the Navy! Well, gentlemen, I believe you will agree with me the cup is getting pretty full. I do not criticize lawyers. I like to see our legal talent represented in the House of Commons, for I am proud of the high traditions of the English Bar; I am proud of the incorruptability of our judges and I am proud of the way even-handed justice is administered all round, irrespective of person and whether rich or poor.

I may say that I do not agree and never will agree to a policy of placing a man like Mr. Haldane at the head of the Army, when a great organizer like Lord Kitchener is sent away to a distance so that his voice cannot be heard. I object to men like Mr. McKenna attempting to control the Navy without having either sea-legs or a sea-stomach. He made one trip on the Admiralty Yacht and has never been afloat since! Well, gentlemen, there is another anomaly, I am very sorry to say I have to use this criticism, but I do not like a man to sit in a chair who cries out "All's well" when he sees danger ahead. I rather admire the man who in order to express true ideals gives his fellow-countrymen warning when he thinks warning is needful and, although you may not agree with all I may say, I think I have ideal views of what England should be today as regards home government; and if I say anything that you do not agree with I hope at any rate you will give me credit for the sincerity of the motive which impels me to use these words.

There is another anomaly-we have in the British House of Commons a Board of Trade. That Board of Trade will always exist, I presume, because there is a snug emolument attached to the position of President of the Board of Trade and that is in the gift of the Government. Under the last Conservative Government the position was held not by a merchant prince or a great ship-owner, but was held by a country squire. I do not know who is President of the Board of Trades today--it does not matter, but I presume he draws his salary with commendable regularity. To you, gentlemen, in this country with your practical views (I am no stranger to Canada and I know the character of this people), a Board of Trade suggests to you a body who might protect and control, or do something to advance the commerce of the country; but when you look at how the Board is constituted in England you wonder how the position could be created. The Board is composed of Mr. Haldane who is a lawyer, the Premier, also a lawyer (I should have mentioned him first), Mr. Lloyd-George, a lawyer, and Mr. Birrell, who is a lawyer; and in order to make that constellation of business capacity perfectly complete, the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury is added to the list! One other thing which makes the situation very comical-and we thank our stars for it, is this--that the Board has never met.

There is one other subject of a very important nature, to which I will ask you to allow me to call your attention, and that is the question of National Defence. This question has been seriously considered, because in 1893 a Royal Commission was formed to inquire into the state of the national defences--that is outside the Navy--the land forces. That Commission had 84 sittings, and it examined no less than 160 witnesses. The Board was composed of the Duke of Norfolk-it was called the Norfolk Commission; the Duke of Richmond, Lord Derby, Field Marshal Sir Evelyn Wood, Lord Granville, General Grove, who was 15 years in the War Office; Sir Ronald Knox, 15 years Adjutant-General, and others. Now what was the unanimous finding of this Commission after 84 meetings, and the examination of these 160 witnesses? This Commission was formed of men of every trend of thought-formed of men who thought our National defences were all right formed of men who had the conviction that they were all wrong; but it was the unanimous finding that the principles which had been adopted, in the old-tried methods, were disastrous and foolish. The recommendations were:--'First, as far as possible, the whole able-bodied male population should be trained to arms. Second, the training should be given in a period of continuous service-that does not mean service forever--it means that while they are in service it shall be continuous. Third, the instruction should be given by a body of specially educated and highly-trained officers.

We believe that only by the adoption of these principles can the defence of the Empire be properly maintained. The Home Defence Army is not capable, in the absence of the whole or greater portion of the regular forces, to protect our country against an invasion; and to raise and maintain enough members for this duty it is incumbent upon every citizen, mentally and physically fit, to train for national defence. This is the full finding of that Commission. And we have other evidence that effective steps are necessary for the welfare and safety of Great Britain. We have these experts-and surely experts' views are worth. something; we have Lord Roberts, Sir Wm. Nicholson, Lord Wolesley, Sir John French, who lately visited you in Canada, and Lord Esher. Now, these men all believe that we have insufficient military protection. In Mr. Haldane's Territorial scheme we are 40,000 men short of the complement. Then, in addition to this, Lord Esher has not only changed his former views, but had the courage of his convictions to write an article in one of the leading magazines, in which he stated that from his experience he had come to the conclusion that some other system rather than the volunteering system should be adopted in order to put the defence forces of the country, as against an invasion, in proper condition.

Now, gentlemen, you will notice that I have alluded to the fact that military service should be continuous. I know from experience the value of continuous as against spasmodic service. In other words, one month's training every day, and all the day, is worth six months if the men are allowed to come up for drill whenever it is their pleasure to do so. To illustrate this, suppose you introduce the same principle into your educational system--supposing you said this child must put in so many days training at school, we do not care whether it is crowded into one or two months, or whether he comes one week and stays away the next, so that the lessons learned a week back would not be fresh in the memory. How could you educate a child with a system like that? If that applies to the ordinary education of the country, important to us in England at the present time, surely it also applies to the military education equally. ' Therefore I would lay stress upon the necessity of every male of military age and sound physique being enrolled in the defence of his country, and, after putting in several months' ground work, being called up for a fortnight or three weeks every year in order to refresh his memory.

Regarding this question there are other gaps in our hedges. Supposing you have an inefficient force, you might as well not have any at all. In my opinion it is good money thrown away unless you achieve the object for which the force is instituted. Supposing you have a chain with a weak link in a battleship, that weak link becomes the strongest part of the chain, and for all practical purposes you had better have no chain at all. Or, if you have a hedge to keep out the neighbours' cattle from your garden--it is a very strong hedge, but you leave a few gaps-you might just as well have no hedge at all. Therefore, I give you these comparisons to show that in our opinion at home we must have universal service, men capable of performing what they may be called upon to do, and what we are paying for. If these results are not attained we might as well have no military service at all. For the past 12 months I have been working in the interests of the National Service League, with Lord Roberts at its head. It has been my duty to go round through the country, in the middle counties and the southern counties, trying to warn my fellow-countrymen of this imminent peril. I have preached to the miners in Wales, and to the hardy fisherman on the north sea-coast, have gone to Shropshire among the farmers, and into the East end of London to carry on this battle-where I did not always receive a cordial reception from the militant Socialists.

The idea is making progress, as evidenced by the fact that in 1902, when this scheme was first promulgated, we had only two members in the House of Commons; in 1906 we had 50; today there are 160, willing to do everything in their power to advance our claims. It is, gentlemen, not a new system. King Alfred the Great the man who founded the British Navy-drove back time after time the Danish invaders by the aid of men who had been trained to arms. In the days of Queen Elizabeth, with the population barely exceeding the population of London today, in the County of Devon there were no less than 2,600 men trained to arms, who were called to duty when the Armada threatened her shores. Today, with a population of 44 million and ten times that number outside our country, looking to the British flag for sympathy, help and protection, we have fewer Territorials there than were in Devon in the days of Queen Elizabeth.

A hundred years ago, when we were engaged in the wars with Napoleon-the greatest soldier of that or any other age-we had a population of 15 million and only 10 million outside; today, as I find, we have 44 million in the United Kingdom, and over 400 million outside in our overseas Dominions, in our Colonies and Dependencies; yet we have fewer men available for the defence of the country today than we had 100 years ago, when the population was so much smaller! Now, gentlemen, this is not a state of things that can be allowed to remain. What England is suffering from today is slumbering patriotism, a disregard or unwillingness to face Imperial responsibility. England is suffering from what Lord Tennyson described when he said

We sailed wherever ships could sail,

We founded many a nighty state.

Pray God, our greatness may not fail

Through craven fear of being great.

I feel, gentlemen, that if something is not done by the British people with regard to their responsibility for the defence of the country that the day may come when they will regret their shortsightedness.