562 



The Review of Reviews. 



Party say in the House of Commons practically this (I have 

 the exact words in my pocUet it anyone wou'd like to licar 

 them), I'l^t neither he nor his friends Icnew anylliing or cared 

 anything ahoui liriiiah political questions. Well, ladies and 

 gentlemen, if they know notliing and care nothing about British 

 politics, is ii not utterly intolerable that they should dominate 

 British politics? 



AGAINST HOME RULE. 

 The .sole ground on which, as it seems to me, Home Rule is 

 defended is the nationality of Ireland ; hut people do not 

 hetome a nation hecause they happen to live in the same island. 

 If tliere is one nation in Ireland, there are two ; and two 

 separated from each other far more acutely than cither is 

 separated from the people of Great Britain. To one of these 

 sections Home Rule may seem a boon; to the other it comes 

 rot merely as a grievance, but as an intolerable 4;urse. 

 The minority have deciaret-l tliat under existing circumstances 

 they «'iil not submit to such a Government (to wit, of the 

 m.ijority of Irishmen). Their moral force in taking up this 

 alii u le is incalculably increased by the fact that they will say, 

 and will be entitled to say, that this intolerable tyramiy, as they 

 regard it, is being forced upon them against the will of the 

 majority of their fellow-citizens in the United Kingdom. 

 (Cheers.) If the Government really attempt to carry out the 

 programme which they have so light-heartedly sketched, then 

 in my belief, and this will be my last word to you on this sub- 

 ject, they will stretch our Parliamentary institutions to the 

 breaking point. (Cheers.) ' 



" WE ARE NOT THE I'AirfY OF THE KICH." 

 We are not the piirty of privilege. It is our aim, as it was 

 Disraeli's consistent aim ihrotighout his long life, to belong to a 

 party not of a class, but of the nation. We are not the parly of 

 the rich. We realise as strongly as any man that the greatness 

 of a nation does not depend upon the number, but upon the 

 character of its people, and that character cannot be formed except 

 under good social conditi(jns. (Cheers.) During the last ten 

 years there has been a great increase in the total wealth of 

 this country, but, as we know from information supplied by the 

 Board of Trade, the position of the working classes has not 

 improved ; it has actua'iy deteriorated. During thai period 

 there has been a rise oi nearly 10 per cent, in the cost of living, 

 and there has been no rise in wages. That is in itself a sufiitient 

 explanation for discontent. 



TARIFF REFORM AS A WAGE-RAISER. 

 In \uy belief the greatest of all social reforms would be to 

 raise the general level of wages in this country, and in that way 

 not so much to help the working classes directly as to put them 

 in a position to help themselves. I believe that a change in our 

 fiscal system will tend to produce that result. I have defended 

 that change now for many years, and, however mistaken I may 

 have buen, 1 have never put forward any claim in which I tlid 

 not in my heart believe. I do nut preteiul that a change in our 

 fiscal system will cure all evils, but I do contend that it will 

 help the greatest of our social evils — chronic unemployment. 

 For this claim there is at least some justification. I believe 

 that a change in our fiscal system will tend to raise wages ; but 

 this at least is certain, that without such a change a general rise 

 is absolutely impossible. (Cheers.) 



THE VITAL UNION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. 

 T was born in Canada, and spent the early years of my life 

 there. Whatever may be my disqualifications for the post 

 which I now hold — and no one feels them so strongly as I do — 

 that at least is not a disqualification ; it is an ailvanlage. For 

 tueiity-five years (he determination to niainlain the Union of 

 the United Kingdom h.as given a name to our party — we are 



the Unionist Party. But ours is now a larger Unionism; it is 

 for us not only to preserve but 10 create ; it is for us to main- 

 tain, and we shall maintain, in spile of the lo«ering clouds wliith 

 now threaten us, the integrity i>i the United Kingdom, but it 

 is for us also to create a vital union of the British Empire. 

 (Loud cheers.) 



AGAINST THli PETROL TAX. 



At the overflow meeting Mr. Bonar Law supple- 

 mented his first .speech by attacking the petrol 

 tax :— 



This tax -was imposed, not merely on pleasure cars — it was 

 imposed on vehicles of all kinds employed in industry. You 

 know there was recently a strike in London of taxi-cab drivers. 

 The last time I was in a cab of that kind I asked the diiver 

 how much jjetrol he used each week.' He told me it was about 

 thirty gallons. That means, therefore, that this man — and, if 

 the others used the same quantity, every one of them — paid the 

 .State each week close on four sliiUings in taxation. Can. any 

 one imagine a form of taxation which is more absurd and more 

 unjust ? It is taxation, to begin with, on locomoiives, bu' it is 

 also ihe taxation of industry and, worst of all, it is the t.axation 

 of labour. 



luR THE COCOA DUrlES. 



Now consider the tax they propose to take off. It is the 

 cocoa duties. (Laughter.) Why do they do it? Nobody 

 pretends — at least I do not think anyone can hone.^tly pretend 

 — that the taking of) of these duties will benefit any man, 

 won an, or child in the United Kingdom. They cannot denj 

 that the existence of these duties has greatly helped thav 

 industry, and has enabled the men and women who wotk in it 

 to work under much better conditions than the average of labour 

 throughout the country. Why, then, do they take it oti ! 

 Because it is bad at election times. To them may be a|i[)lied 

 the words — as well as I can remember they were once used by 

 Carlyle about a Chancellor of the Exchequer in France just 

 before the Revolution — " Unhappy only Ihat so much talent 

 and industry were necessary to gain the post, that neither talent 

 nor industry were left over to quilify for the post." (Laughter 

 and cheers.) Ladies and gentlemen, if this Government were 

 as good at fulfilling the duties of their office afier they h.id 

 secured it, as ihey are in securing it, we should now have been 

 living under the best of Governments instead ol under his 

 Majesty's present officers. (Loud cheers.) 



On the whole a good party speech from a good 

 parly man, who judiciously refrained from saying a 

 word more than it was absolutely necessary for iiim 

 to i-ay upon any topic exce])t those upon which it was 

 impossible for him to keep silent. Note, for instance, 

 his absolute silence aijout foreign affairs, his cautious 

 reserve in speaking about the reform of the House ol 

 Lords, his avoidance of all allusion either to food 

 taxes or to tlie Referendum. Mr. Law promises to be 

 a leader of the W. H. .Smith type, who, coniixired to 

 leaders like Disraeli and Balfour, are as the ox is to 

 Pegasus. 



[.So I had written before Mr. Bonar Law spoke in 

 Monday's debate on Foreign Affairs in the House of 

 Commons. I take it back. Mr. W. H. Smith could 

 never have made a speech like that. It was, in some 

 respects, belter than anything Mr. B-ilfoiir has 

 given us. J 



