UC-NRLF 
 
 B M D71 no 
 
 
 W<x 
 
 '''''111;' 
 
 
 <<j<xI{W<»<<'(<X 
 
 ;«5«<x««S.>';<. 
 
 
 
 8;i&^^<K<»4{$^»«ssai^^ 
 
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL'S 
 SPEECHES 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
TRIXTED BY 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE AXD CO., XEW-STKEET SQUARE 
 
 LOKDOX 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, M.P. 
 
 1880— 1888 
 
 COLLECTED, WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION 
 BY 
 
 LOUIS J. JENNINGS, M.P. 
 
 EDITOR OF ' THE CROKER PAPERS ' ETC. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES 
 
 VOL. XL 
 
 LONDON 
 LOXGMAXS, GEEEN, AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YOEK : 15 EAST 16'" STREET 
 1889 
 
 All riijhts reserved 
 
ft' 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 THE SECOND VOLUME. 
 
 THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER. 
 Belfast, February 23, 1886. 
 
 Proposed Repeal of the Union — The Results of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Policy 
 — Responsibilities and Duties of the Irish Loyalists — Extension of 
 the Franchise in Ireland, and its Effects — The great Want of Ireland — 
 Evils produced by the National League — A Parnellite Ministry — 
 Appeal to the Loyal Catholics — Sympathy of the English People for 
 the Loyal Party in Ireland 
 
 THE 'UNION PARTY' SUGGESTED. 
 Manchester, March 3, 1886. 
 
 Critical Negotiations with Russia under Mr. Gladstone's Administration — 
 Opening of a New Market for British Industries — Tibet and 
 Burmah — Lord Ripon's Viceroyalty — The Unemploj'ed in England — 
 ' Rule Britannia ' — Old Party Differences — Proposal to Independent 
 Liberals — First Suggestion of the ' Union Party ' . 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S HOME RULE BILL. 
 House of Commons, April 12, 1886. 
 
 Review of Mr. Gladstone's Scheme — Essentially a Policy of Repeal — The 
 Visionary ' Safeguards ' — Proposed Constitution of the New Irish 
 Parliament — Financial Arrangements under tlie Bill — ' Not Re- 
 peal ! ' — Treatment of Ulster — The Parnellite Party — Threats of 
 Dynamite — Mr. Gladstone's former Predictions and Failures — Certain 
 Results of the Scheme if adopted . . ' 
 
 250869 
 
SPKECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION. 
 I'ADDixtiTON, June 2(5, 1886. 
 
 TAGE 
 
 Dissolution of Parliament after the Rejection of the Home Rule Bill — 
 The tjuestion before the Electors — A Delusive Issue presented by 
 Mr. Gladstone — What are ' Irish Affairs ' ? — No Middle Class in 
 Ireland— State of the Country before the Union — Can Ireland be 
 governed by a Celtic Parliament .' — Why the Union wascarried^ — The 
 ' Unbridgeable Chasm '—Mr. Gladstone's Demand— The Union not 
 a Failure—' Justice to Ireland ' — The Policy of ' Scuttle ' — The 
 •Almighty Dollar' in British Politics— The Forces opposed to 
 Loyalty 42 
 
 CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND. 
 House of Commons, August 19, 1886. 
 
 Lord Salisbury's Second Administration — Biirmah — Material Change in 
 the Irish Question— Social Order — Local Government— Crime in 
 Kerr}' — Appointment of Sir Redvers Buller — Working of the Land 
 Act — Lord Cowper's Commission — Irish Fisheries and Railways — 
 ' Simultaneity ' in Local Government— Position of the Cabinet in 
 1886 56 
 
 POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY. 
 Dartfoed, October 2, 1886. 
 
 Policy of Lord Salisbury's Second Government — Kent a Tory Strong- 
 hold-Mr. Gladstones 'Whole Civilised World '—Politics Not a 
 Science of the Past — Large Majorities for Government in the New 
 Parliament— The Royal Commissions — The ' Union of the Unionist 
 Party ' — Future Legislation : Small Holdings, Tithes, Railway 
 Rates— Reform in Local Government— The New BiU foreshadowed— 
 Retrenchment and Reform in the Public Departments— Condition 
 of Trade— Two Dark Clouds : Ireland and Foreign Affairs— The 
 Bulgarian DifSculty — General Sjnpp "f y^,-gfrrr, Policy ... 68 
 
 THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY^ 
 Beadfoed, October 26, 1886. 
 
 Attacks on the Dartford Speech — Payment of Rent in Ireland-^Plcdges 
 given for Maintenance of Order— Dislocation of the Gladstonian 
 Party— Comparison between the Unionists and Gladstouians— Local 
 
CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME 
 
 Government for Ireland— To be based on Plan of Local Government 
 for England— Parliamentary Procedure— Keforms Indispensable- 
 Work before the Conservative Party 
 
 RESIGJ^ATION AS CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER. 
 House of Commons, Januaey 27, 1887. 
 
 Reasons for Resignation— The Estimates and ' Other Matters of Grave 
 Importance ' — Supplementary Estimates— Increase of 6,000,000Z. in 
 the Military and Naval Expenditure— No Demand for Large Re- 
 duction — Opposition made to Economy and Reform— Questions of 
 Foreign Policy — Departmental Scandals — Not a Sudden Resigna- 
 tion — Ministry could not have been Taken by Surprise— Repeated 
 Statements to Colleagues — Driven ' into a Corner' — Lord Salisbury's 
 Immovable Attitude — Repeatedly Pledged to Economy and Reform — 
 Correspondence with the Prime IMinister— No Opportunity given for 
 Discussion in the Cabinet — Other Allusions to Foreign Policy in 
 1886 
 
 PERILS OF THE UNION PARTY. 
 House of Commons, January 31, 1887. 
 
 Where the Battle of the Union must be fought out — The only Safe 
 Course — A Warning — ' Precarious Parliamentary Alliances ' — ' The 
 Crutch ' — Tory Party must Maintain the Union — The 'Round Table' 
 Conferences — Mr. Chamberlain's Dubious Negotiation — The Dart- 
 ford Programme carried out by the Ministry — Financial Reforms- 
 Indications of Change in the Prime Minister's Opinions — How Dis- 
 cussions on the Estimates are Managed — Two Suggestions — The 
 Coaling Stations — Did not Resign upon that Question — Tactics of 
 the Prime Minister — Expenditure and Increased Taxation — Previous 
 Contests with the Tory Party — Issue submitted to the People . .117 
 
 ON < HIS RESIGNATION. 
 Paddington, Apeil 2, 1887. 
 
 Responsibilities as Chancellor of the Exchequer — Could not Evade them — 
 State of Affairs in the War Office and the Admiralty — Never Aimed 
 at a ' Popular Budget ' — Is Determined to Secure Departmental 
 Reform — Immediate Result of the Resignation— Saving of 1,400,000?. 
 — Why not effected before the Resignation ? — The Union Party not 
 endangered — Two Methods of Maintaining the Union — A Retro- 
 spect of 1880— The Election of 1885- Pending Legislation— The 
 Struggle in Ireland not Ended 
 
^rEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 THE r.ATTLK OF THE UNION. 
 BiKMlNGHAM, Al'UlL 14, 1887. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 I'arlianicntary Obstruction — Position of the Con.scrvative Party in 1886 — 
 Wliai were the Conservatives Pledged to ? — The IMaintenancQ of the 
 Union-- Movement to Weaken the Authority of the Speaker — Object 
 of the New Agitation — Necessity of 'Holding on and Plodding on' — 
 The Question before the English Democracy— Their great Responsi- 
 bilities — The Practical Side of the Irish Question — Full Freedom of 
 the Irish People — Two Antagonistic Positions — The only safe Solu- 
 tion of the Difficulty 114 
 
 THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY IN IRELAND. 
 Nottingham, April 19, 18S7. 
 
 The Unionist Party in Nottingham— Rebellion in Ireland — The Irish 
 Parliament Merged, not Extinguished — The Fenian Movement of 
 1866 — Extension of the Irish Franchise in 1884 — Mr. Gladstone's 
 Position — Should the Union Party Fail?^Moral of the American 
 Civil War 157 
 
 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. 
 House of Commons, April 21, 1887. 
 
 State of the National Finances — Increase of 3,O0O,O0OZ. in the Cost of 
 Army and Navy since 1883 — No Explanation given by Mr. Goschen — 
 Suspension of the Sinking Fmid — Objections to that Course . . 165 
 
 ECONOMICAL 'FEROCITY.' 
 House of Commons, April 25, 1887. 
 
 Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer — Mr. Goschen's Views in 
 1885 — How Reconcilable with Suspension of the Sinking Fund? — 
 Suspending Payment of Debt is not Economy — An Evil Precedent — 
 A Golden Opportunity Lost 169 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT. 
 Wolverhampton, June 3, 1887. 
 
 How docs the Money Go ? — Expenditure on the Army and Navy— Com- 
 parison between 1875 and 1887 — The German Army — State of Our 
 Own Forces — The House of Commons not to Blame — A Hopelessly 
 
CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME ix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bad System — The English Fleet at Alexandria — No Shells, no Am- 
 munition — Blundering of the Ordnance Department — The 110-ton 
 Gun — Cost, 20,OOOZ. each — Affairs at the Admiralty — Armour-clad 
 Ships with Armour under Water— The ' Belted Cruisers ' — 10,000,000^ 
 Misapplied— From 5,000,000Z. to 7,000,000^. a year for Pensions— 
 ' Reorganisation ' at the Admiralty — Clerks at the Admiralty and 
 War Office— Salaries of from 800Z. to 1,200Z. a year— Pleasant Con- 
 tracts — Increase of Cost, without Additional Charges for Labour or 
 Machinery — The 'Official Ring' — The Deception about the Coaling 
 Stations — Opposition to Retrenchment — Difficulty of getting even 
 an Inquiry — What will the People do about it ? — Sweeping Reform 
 necessary at the Admiralty and War Office — True and False 
 Finance — Encroaching upon the Sinking Fund — ' Don't get into 
 Debt ' — Great Opportunity of the Tory Party — A Warning . .178 
 
 OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS. 
 House of Commons, July 18, 1887. 
 
 General Increase of Expenditure — Home and Foreign Dockyards- 
 Admiralty Administration condemned by official Reports— Larger 
 Cost of Ships built in Dockyards than by private Contract — Estimated 
 Cost largely exceeded — Delusion of Parliamentary Control — Increase 
 of Salaries — Sheerness Dockyard — Depots in North America — System 
 of Education in the Navy — Large Sums spent in Repairs of Ships . 202 
 
 ECONOMY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. 
 Whitby, September 23, 1887. 
 
 Public Opinion in Favour of Retrenchment and Reform — The only true 
 Economy — How Efficiency might be secured — The Pension List — A 
 Democratic Parliament — A Lesson for Permanent Officials . . 217 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY. 
 Sunderland, October 20, 1887. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Speeches in the Autumn of 1 887 — ' One Man, one Vote ' — 
 The System of Registration— Reform of the Land Laws — Entailed 
 Estates— Interference in Matters of Contract — The Cry for Protec- 
 tion — The Liquor Laws — The Sale of Drink — 'Eight per Cent.' — 
 The Question of Compensation — Waste of Money in Drink — Evil 
 Effects upon the People — Temperance would promote the national 
 Welfare — The Question of Disestablishment — Mr. Gladstone's un- 
 certain Policy — Work of the EnglisFChurch — Danger of destroying it 
 — Mr. Gladstone silent on the Economical Question — Free Education 
 and Voluntary Schools— The Union Question — Laying ' Traps ' — 
 Judgment of the ' Old Pilot ' — A Demand for a plain Statement of 
 what is meant by ' Home Rule ' . . , 222 
 
.SPEECHES OF LOUD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 THE 'REVOLUTIONARY PARTY.' 
 Newcastle, October 22, 1887. 
 
 Tories and ' Coercion '—Two things the Tory Government of 188") could 
 not have foreseen — Power of the National League — No precipitate 
 Return to Coercion — The 'Plan of Campaign ' — No-Rent Manifesto — 
 The Land League and the National League the same Bodj'^— Mr. 
 ^lichael Davitt — Administration of the Law in Ireland Freedom 
 of Speech — The Police in London— Unjust Attacks upon them — 
 Mr. Gladstone's Alliance with the Liberal Party — England not 
 beyond reach of Danger and Decay — What might happen — A 
 Warning 242 
 
 'FAIR TRADE.' 
 Stockton, October 24, 1887. 
 
 Attack on the Integrity of the Empire— Attempts to Preserve Public 
 Order — How Disorder was quelled in New York — Riotous Crowds in 
 London — Mr. Gladstone's Discouragement of Police Action — British 
 Trade— Review of the Free-Trade r. Fair-Trade Controversy . 
 
 THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION PARTY. 
 Stockport, December 16, 1887. 
 
 Progress of the Union Party in 1887 — Reasons for Congratulation— Posi- 
 tion of the National League — ' Blanc-mange ' — Mr. Gladstone's Asser- 
 tions as to the State of Ireland — Approach of a Critical Session — 
 Saving in Expenditure — The War Office — Importance of sound 
 Finance— The Flag of Repeal 269 
 
 HOME RULE. 
 O.XFORD Union, February 22, 1888. 
 
 The Question stated — Mr. Gladstone's Condemnation of Mr. Pitt — Suc- 
 cessive Irish Agitations — What is meant by the ' just Aspirations ' 
 of the Irish People ? — The Minority in Ireland— What is a Statutory 
 Parliament ? — Dr. Ball quoted — Wolfe Tone's Opinion of Grattan's 
 Parliament — The Birth of Home Rule in its present Form — Mr. Butt 
 and his Motion — Lord Hartington's Reply — A singular Prophecy — 
 ISIr. Gladstone's Conversion — Reasons which probably influenced 
 him — Misled by delusive Reports about Conservative Surrender — 
 What are the Chances of Repeal being carried ? — Dissensions in 
 the Repeal Party — When Parnellite ' Home Rule ' is likely to be 
 granted 280 
 
CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME 
 
 COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY. 
 House of Commons, March 8, 1888. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Strength of the ' Ser^dces ' in the House of Commons — Present System 
 of Military Organisation — -Some partial Reforms — Where is the 
 ' Financial Control ' ? — Lord Wolseley's Evidence — How the Prussian 
 Army works — Lord Wolseley on Waste of Labour, bad Tools, &c. — 
 No Transport System — Guns and Gunpowder — Cost of the German 
 Army— Want of Cavalry Horses— The Magazine Rifle— Confusion 
 of Rifles and Ammunition 302 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 
 Birmingham, April 9, 1888. 
 
 Disadvantage of a Government being too strong— Happy Mixture of 
 Loyalty and Independence — The new Tory Party — A truly Repre- 
 sentative Parliament — The State of Ireland — Danger of relying too 
 much on a Coercion Policy — Remedial Legislation for Ireland 
 necessary — The English Local Government Bill — County Councils— 
 Position of the Licensed Victuallers— The Tory Democracy . . 320 
 
 REFORMED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND. 
 House op Commons, April 25, 1888. 
 
 The Question of Local Government for Ireland — Opinion of Lord Salis- 
 bury's Government in 1886 — A written Declaration laid before the 
 House of Commons— The Liberal Unionists Concur — Distinct 
 Pledges given for Reform — Probable Consequence of indefinite 
 Postponement — Unfulfilled Promises — Why Repeal was defeated at 
 the Polls— Watchful Attitude of the English People . . .332 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.— PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. 
 Preston, May 16, 1888. 
 
 Influence of Lancashire on Public Opinion— The IMainspring of the 
 Tory Party in England— Change in Situation of the Party— State of 
 Ireland in 1880 and 1888 compared— The Vatican Decree on the 
 ' Plan of Campaign ' — The Errington Mission — Irish Local Govern- 
 ment — Should be Reformed — Repeated Pledges given to that 
 Effect — Forgotten by many who gave them— A Section of the Tory 
 Party greatly incensed — Ploughing with borrowed Oxen — Efltect of 
 the Crimes Act — A Policy of Generosity now needed — Departmental 
 Reform — Not making substantial Progress — Tendency to multiply 
 Offices— Proposed Minister of Agriculture — Army and Navy Expen- 
 ditm-e — Bad System, and no Remedies attempted— Further Expen- 
 diture useless without Reform 338 
 
SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 I'OLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS. 
 PADDINGTON, NOVEMIIKR 17, 1888. 
 
 TAOK 
 
 Forciirn Policy — Delay in sending a new Minister to Washington — Im- 
 portance of preserving friendly Relations with the United States — 
 The Fisheries Question — Recent Discussion on the Law Courts in 
 the House of Commons— State of the Army and Navy — Social Ques- 
 tions— ' Sanitas Sanitatum ' — Tlio Drink Problem — Drunkenness 
 the Curse of the Nation— Overcrowding in our great Towns— The 
 Sweating System — Laws of Health — The only true Source of Popu- 
 larity 362 
 
 EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM. 
 House of Commons, December 2, 4, & 17, 1888. 
 
 The English at Suakim— Financial Aspect of the Question— The ' Kill 
 and Retire ' Policy — Previous Events at Suakim — Folly of running 
 unnecessary Risks — Enough Lives already lost in the Soudan — What 
 is the Policy of England ? — Fight and go away — ' A silly and stupid 
 Policy' — A final Protest against it 374 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER. 
 
 Belfast, February 23, 1886. 
 
 [Lord Randolph ChurchiU was the first of the leaders of the 
 ' Unionist Party ' — the name, as a subsequent speech wiU show, 
 which he himself gave to the opponents of Mr. Gladstone's Repeal 
 schemes — who visited Ulster. Many things were said in this speech 
 which did not give unalloyed satisfaction to either party, chiefly 
 because they happened to be true.] 
 
 I HAVE accepted the invitatiou of a gentleman who enjoys 
 your confidence to come over to Belfa&t to confer with 
 you at a crisis big with fate to you and yours ; and I am more 
 anxious to ascertain how you propose to face and deal with 
 the crisis, than to endeavour to dictate to you any special 
 political action. There can be no doubt that the policy towards 
 Ireland denoted by Mr. Gladstone's accession to office, by the 
 Hawarden Manifesto, by the nomination of Mr. John Morley 
 to the most responsible post in the Irish Government, by the 
 refusal of Lord Hartington to join Mr. Gladstone's Govern- 
 ment — there can be no doubt that the policy indicated by all 
 these facts is one which involves, more or less, and probably 
 more than less, the Repeal of the legislative Union. The Tory 
 party in England are determined to offer to any such policy, or 
 VOL. II. B 
 
i'-' •■'"• ••&PEECHTS'O*P"'l0RD RANDOLPIT CTTURCIIILL 
 
 anytliing in tlio nature of sucli a policy, llie most determined 
 resistance ; and no doubt in that resistance we shall have the 
 sympathy of many persons of position in the Liberal ranks. But, 
 my lords and gentlemen, it is essential for us to know to what 
 extent — do not be vexed with me for saying this — we can 
 count on support of this resolution from Ireland. I have 
 only come here as an Englishman to place before you as best I 
 can what public opinion is in England ; and, therefore, be not 
 impatient with me when I say that a good deal of uncertainty 
 on this point exists in England ; and I think it is not unnatural 
 that there should be a good deal of ignorance in the public 
 mind of England as to the powers of resistance to the policy 
 of Repeal which the Loyalists of Ireland might offer, because we 
 have fancied for some years that the power of the Loyalists in 
 Ireland would seem to have been on the wane. Let us calmly 
 examine into recent history. We shall find things a little 
 changed since the days of 1818, when the Government in 
 Dublin, knowing who its best friends were, and being alarmed 
 for the safety of Ireland, served out arms to the Loyalists of the 
 North. Things are changed since those days, and the change 
 took place with Mr. Gladstone's accession to office in 1869. All 
 Mr. Gladstone's policy has been directed, from that time to the 
 present day, to the strengthening of the party of Repeal and 
 to the weakening of the party of the L^nion in Ireland. In 
 18G9 Mr. Gladstone made his first attack on what he called the 
 upas-tree of Loyalist ascendancy b}- the disestablishment of the 
 Church of Ireland ; and whatever else may be urged in support 
 of that policy, there can be no doubt that in the disestablish- 
 ment of the Church of Ireland one of the chief bulwarks of the 
 Union was sacrificed. No doubt there was a sharp fight over 
 the Act of Disestablishment, but the result was acquiesced in 
 by the Loyalists of Ireland with unexpected resignation. The 
 next step of Mr. Gladstones policy was to break the power of 
 the Irish landlords. The Irish landlords are the natural 
 leaders of the Loyalists in Ireland. But by Mr. Gladstone's 
 policy the power of the Irish landlords was greatly broken. 
 Another link in the same chain was the policy of giving over 
 the practical administration of criminal justice into the hands 
 
THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER 3 
 
 of the peasantry of tlie three provinces of Leinster, Minister, 
 and Connaught, under the Act which was called Lord O'Hagan's 
 Juries Act. That Act put the administration of justice into 
 the hands of a class who are under the control and direction 
 of the leaders of sedition, and has been the most serious cause 
 of the impunity of crime in recent years. After this there was 
 a desire on Mr. Gladstone's part to destroy the University of 
 Dublin, one of the most renowned seats of learning in the world. 
 Mr. Gladstone contemplated the destruction of that University, 
 and its conversion into a Roman Catholic seminary. But in this 
 effort he failed ; his power collapsed for six years, till in 1 880 
 Mr. Gladstone contrived again to become the head of the Govern- 
 ment, and again he showed his policy in Ireland to be to 
 strengthen the hands of the party of Repeal. 
 
 I ask your attention to this review of Mr. Gladstone's policy. 
 You know that his policy since 1880 has been a policy of con- 
 cession to the party of Mr. Parnell — a policy framed to weaken 
 the power of the Loyalists and to strengthen that of the disloyal 
 party. Some of his measures, I am prepared to admit, were 
 plausible enough ; but take his policy as a whole, and you will 
 find that it has been directed to the weakening of the party of 
 the Union, to the increasing of the party of disloyalty. This 
 most insidious process has been spread over a long period, and 
 has, no doubt, produced the effect which it was intended it 
 should produce upon the Loyalists of Ireland and upon the 
 public mind in England, and has been the cause of correspond- 
 ing encouragement and triumph to the party of Repeal. For the 
 last twelve years England has heard of nothing else but the 
 Nationalists or Separatists in Ireland. The attention of Par- 
 liament has been concentrated upon their action, and the time of 
 Parliament has been monopolised by their proceedings. In the 
 struggle which has been going on the Loyalists have lost much 
 of their Parliamentary influence. All the corporations, the 
 municipal bodies, and the local boards of guardians out of 
 Ulster have fallen into the hands of the enemy, and in these 
 bodies the Loyalists have scarcely any longer any representation. 
 All that shows a very serious diminution of strength. No doubt 
 it is very unpleasant for us to record it, but you will agree 
 
 B 2 
 
4 PrEECIIES OF LOJIT) RANDOLriT CTIURCIIILL 
 
 that, at a nioinoiit like the present, when we are called upon to 
 face a fresli crisis, it is wise on our part to look into the liistory 
 of recent years, to examine our position, to take stock of it, to 
 count up our gains and losses; and I fear that you will find, in 
 looking over recent years, that you T.oyalists have very few 
 gains. 
 
 I cannot conceal from you — it would he wrong if I concealed 
 from you — my opinion as to the dangerous and deadly nature 
 of the combination which is now arrayed against the interests 
 which you hold dear — the combination of Mr. Gladstone with 
 his personal following, supported by the Radical party, and 
 supported by the party which follows Mr. Parnell. I believe — 
 and I say it with some amount of shame as an Englishman — 
 that the success of the resistance to this policy meditated by this 
 combination primarily rests with you. The vast bulk of our 
 modern English electoral body has begotten apathy and uncon- 
 cern. The glamour of Mr. Gladstone's prestige and the spell of 
 jSIr. Gladstone's oratory are still powerful in England over the 
 minds of men, and it is only by demonstrations the most im- 
 posing, by energy the most striking, and by action the most 
 emphatic that you can rivet the attention of the democracy of 
 England on any particular part of public affairs, or that you 
 can enable them to entertain doubts in their minds as to the 
 personal infallibility of Mr. Gladstone, who has been for so long 
 a time with a great portion of them their most venerated and 
 adored idol. You are, gentlemen, I believe, in this great crisis 
 the first line of defence, the second line of defence, and the last 
 line of defence. With you it primarily rests whether Ireland 
 shall remain an integral portion of this great empire, sharing in 
 all its glory, partaking of all its strength, benefiting by all its 
 wealth, and helping to maintain its burdens ; or whether, on the 
 other hand, Ireland shall become a focus and a centre of foreign 
 intrigue and deadly conspiracy directed against a dominion 
 with which is indissolubly connected the happiness not only 
 of the Western but also of the Eastern world. Upon you, 
 gentlemen, lies this most tremendous responsibility ; to you the 
 issue means everything. It means honour, religion, liberty, 
 and, I should say, when I think of the days of 1641, it means 
 
THE PKOPOSED ABANDONMENT OE ULSTER 5 
 
 possibly life itself. To me, as an Englishman, the issue of 
 this struggle seems without doubt to involve the fate of the 
 British Empire. If we cannot hold Ireland, obviously we 
 cannot hold India. We cannot hold our supremacy over our 
 colonies if we cannot govern this country. Commerce is 
 founded on dominion, and British commerce and British domi- 
 nion must stand or fall together. Our commercial prosperity and 
 supremacy depend upon our holding India and upon our union 
 with the colonies. Therefore I say — and I hope I shall not be 
 supposed to be guilty of exaggeration — that upon the issues of 
 this contest the fate of the empire rests ; and yet the duty of 
 suppressing this movement for the Repeal of the Legislative 
 ITnion seems to depend mainly upon jon. In 1844 one of the 
 greatest ornaments that the Liberal party ever possessed was 
 Lord Macaulay ; and what did he say about the value of the con- 
 nection between England and Ireland and the value of that Union ? 
 He said, ' Britain can do many things which are beyond the power 
 of many other nations in the world : she has dictated peace to 
 China ; she rules Africa and Australia ; she can sweep from the 
 seas all commerce but her own ; she can blockade every port 
 from the Baltic to the Adriatic ; she is able to guard her vast 
 Indian dominions from all hostilities either by land or sea: but 
 in this gigantic body there is one vulnerable spot. At that 
 spot in '98 a blow was aimed which narrowly missed, but which, 
 if it had not missed, must have been a deadly blow.' Those were 
 the words of Lord Macaulay in 1844 ; they apply to the present 
 moment. The question I have to ask you, gentlemen, is this : 
 Are you the same men as your forefathers were in '98 ? Because 
 now, in this nineteenth century — in this age of progress and 
 civilisation — another deadly blow is aimed at the vulnerable spot. 
 It is not the same as in '98. It is a blow aimed by different 
 men. It is by a weapon forged in a different furnace. It is not a 
 blow aimed by armed men rising in rebellion, and spreading 
 murder and massacre and terror on every side. It is a blow, 
 I am sorry to say, aimed by a Minister of the Crown, and 
 which is smothered by all the glittering tinsel, by the artificial 
 trappings, of constitutional and of Parliamentary action ; but a 
 blow, nevertheless, far more dangerous, far more difficult to 
 
6 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 tk'iil with, cvt-'U tlian tlic oue your forofatlicrs had to meet 
 in "08. 
 
 Jt mav be useful to inquire wliy tliis danger lias so suddenly 
 come upon you in Ireland. Six months ago, I venture to say, 
 there was hardly a single practical politician who imagined that, 
 by any possibility, the question of Repeal could come within 
 the range of practical politics. Why has it come so suddenly 
 upnn you ? Is it because the circumstances of Ireland are in any 
 way changed ? If the circumstances of Ireland have changed, 
 it has been in such a manner as to make it all the more neces- 
 sary to defend the Union. Irish grievances have been removed 
 one after another ; and I do not believe that, at the present mo- 
 ment, Ireland can point to a real grievance peculiar to herself 
 which is not shared in also by England and Scotland, or to one 
 which is of so desperate and intolerable a nature that the people 
 should clamour for the Repeal of the Union. No : the cause of 
 this movement is much more remote and much more indirect. 
 The cause is — the attitude taken at the last election by the new 
 electoral body in the English counties. If the new element in- 
 troduced into the electorate by the last Reform Bill had not 
 been seduced from the paths of common-sense and reason by 
 the worthless bribes of Radical agitators, the Tory party would 
 have been so strong in this Parliament that your honour, and 
 liberty, and all that you hold dear, would have been safe at 
 least for a generation. The great English towns went for the 
 Tories, but the counties fell away ; and consequently your liberty, 
 your religion, all that you value, are in danger ; the Loyalists are 
 to be sacrificed, and the Union is to be dissolved. Why ? For 
 this reason, and for no other — because the agricultural labourer 
 of England has persuaded himself that the only road to happiness 
 is the possession of three acres and a cow, and that the only 
 men to help him well along that road are Mr. Gladstone and 
 the Radical party. Of course that is not the reason which Mr. 
 Gladstone would acknowledge. He would put forward much 
 higher and loftier reasons than that which is the real reason. 
 One of the reasons which Mr. Gladstone and Mr. John Morley 
 put forward is this — they say that the cause of Repeal of the 
 Union is the cause of five-sixths of the Parliamentary representa- 
 
THE PEOPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER 7 
 
 tives of Irelaucl. Well, I do not believe that a more insincere 
 reason was ever assigned for any legislative project before. 
 When the franchise was extended it was known that the party 
 of Mr. Parnell would be numerically increased. It was openly 
 acknowledged by everybody; but it never entered into the 
 imagination of any member of Parliament that the consequence 
 of the extension of the franchise to Ireland was to be the Repeal 
 of the Union between the two countries. The extension of the 
 franchise was not for the benefit of Ireland only, but for the 
 whole of the United Kingdom. But the franchise was extended 
 under the belief that it would tend to the progress of the United 
 Kingdom as a whole, of the empire generally. We never 
 intended in Parliament that the franchise should be extended 
 in order that the Irish people might obtain a Parliament in 
 Dublin, or that the franchise should be extended for the purpose 
 of dismembering the united empire. Do not think, gentlemen, 
 that I regret the extension of the franchise in Ireland. I do not 
 regret it. I supported it in the House of Commons, for I 
 thought that the Legislative Union would be cemented thereby. 
 Whether right or wrong in that action, I deny the right of Mr. 
 Parnell with eighty followers, as I denied the right of Mr. 
 Parnell with forty followers, to use the extension of the franchise 
 for the purpose of destroying the British Empire, or for the 
 purpose of ruining and scattering, or driving into exile a 
 million or more of persons who, for two hundred years, have 
 adhered to the British Empire. My lords and gentlemen, I 
 told you that there was no doubt whatever that a Minister 
 at the present time is meditating a deadly blow at the Union. 
 Who is helping him ? Who is at the back of that Minister 
 in this destructive policy ? He has, no doubt, with him the 
 Radical party in England ; but I do not think the Radical party 
 in England, or even the Radical party in Scotland, of 
 much consequence. If he had only such help, I do not think, 
 gentlemen, he would progress very far. But he has behind 
 him a force far more formidable : he has the party and the 
 organisation of Mr. Parnell. Mr. Parnell aspires to obtain the 
 government of Ireland for his party ; and on what title do 
 they base their claim ? Do they base it on a long sequence of 
 
8 SPEECHE<=; OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 acts of heroisnu endurance, or sacrifice ? Do tliey l>ase it on 
 liard-fout^lit actions in the field ? Tt was thus tliat the Italians 
 won tlieir liberty ; it was thus that the Greeks won theirs ; it 
 was thus that the Bulgarians gained theirs ; it was thus that 
 the hardy mountaineers of ]\Iontenogro won their indepen- 
 dence. Mr. Parnell's claim is founded on widely different 
 grounds ; it is based on Parliamentary action of a very peculiar 
 and discreditable nature. Are the Irish people who are under 
 his control bound to him by love ? Is it not rather by terror ? 
 Is there anything in the way in which Mr. Parnell deals \\dth 
 the Irish people which would appeal to the higher aspirations of 
 a community ? The forces which Mr. Parnell elicits and directs 
 emanate from the basest prejudices of class and sect — they are 
 forces which are kept together by means of appeals to covetous- 
 ness and greed, and by promises held out to them of the acquisi- 
 tion of property by plunder, violence, and fraud. Is it not a 
 matter of common knowledge that the forces which Mr. Parnell 
 controls are brought into action by the most extraordinary system 
 of organised intimidation which history can record, which makes 
 the lives of those who have to submit to it almost intolerable ? 
 Such are the forces Avhich Mr. Parnell directly controls. There 
 are other forces, which I do not say Mr. Parnell controls, and 
 for the exercise of which I do not assert he is personally re- 
 sponsible. Those forces are bred by foreign agencies and 
 nourished by foreign gold, forces which act by murder, by 
 assassination, and by dynamite, forces which terrorise the 
 peasantry by moonlight marauding and midnight massacre ; 
 forces wliich do not confine their outrages to men, but, in order 
 to injure and terrify men, mutilate and torture, with every cir- 
 cumstance of ingenious atrocity, harmless and unoffending dumb 
 animals. It is by forces such as these that the boasted five- 
 sixths of the Irish people have been coerced into putting forward 
 this demand for Repeal. Does that entitle them to national 
 independence ? Was there ever in the history of the w^orld 
 any record of a permanent structure of liberty built upon 
 foundations so terrible and so foul ? 
 
 Let me draw your attention to another point. Mr. Parnell 
 and his party claim to govern Ireland through their own Parlia- 
 
THE PEOPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER 9 
 
 ment. What capacity have these persons shown for the wise 
 and humane government of a people ? Have they shown any 
 burning- desire for civil and religious liberty ? But let us go 
 more- into detail. What is the great want, would you say, of 
 Ireland at the present moment ? Somebody in the audience 
 said 'peace,' and I agree with him. But, next to that, and 
 leaving out the North of Ireland, and taking the other three 
 provinces, I will say that the great want of Ireland at the 
 present moment is capital and credit, and in addition to these 
 the diffusion among the people of a liberal learning. How does 
 Mr. Paruell attract capital into Ireland ? You saw a singular 
 example of his efforts in that direction the other day. For some 
 reason or other a very prosperous and powerful and wealthy 
 company, an Irish Steam Packet Company, displeased Mr. 
 Parnell's organisation the National League ; and the moment 
 that took place, on a pretext which was perfectly flimsy and 
 frivolous, Mr. Parnell and the National League set themselves 
 to work the ruin of that Irish company. Well, that is a clever 
 way of attracting capital into Ireland. But how did Mr. 
 Parnell go to work for the purpose of confirming Irish credit ? 
 He again set to work in a most peculiar way. During the 
 last six months there have been two deliberate and sustained 
 attempts on the part of the National League to break the Bank 
 of Ireland — that is how they seek to confirm credit. In 
 December I happened to be in Dublin when the ' Freeman's 
 Journal ' wrote a series of articles which had the effect of bring- 
 ing down the Bank of Ireland stock 40 or 50 points in the 
 market. And I believe that the ' Freeman's Journal ' would have 
 persisted in that course but that, as I was told on the highest 
 authority, the ' Freeman's Journal ' got a most significant intima- 
 tion from persons in high position in the Roman Catholic 
 Church that a very large amount of Roman Catholic charitable 
 funds were invested in Bank of Ireland stock, and that the 
 movement which was undoubtedly set on foot by the ' Freeman's 
 Journal ' was calculated greatly to cripple, and possibly alto- 
 gether to destroy, those charitable funds. However, that is a 
 very useful instance of the capacity of Mr. Parnell and his 
 party for the purposes of government. They have almost 
 
10 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLrH CHURCHILL 
 
 ruiiiod one of the most prosperous commercial companies in 
 Ireland, and for tlie past six months they have done their best 
 to break one of the greatest financial establishments in the 
 country. How does ^fr. Parnell endeavour to diffuse liberal learn- 
 ing among the people of Ireland ? Why, you saw the other 
 day from a speech of Archbishop Walsh— and he is one of 
 ]\Ir, Parnells closest allies —that nothing would satisfy him until 
 Trinity College was utterly destroyed, or at any rate changed 
 beyond all recognition. Trinity College is perhaps as bright 
 a centre of liberal learning as the world can show. That insti- 
 tution was to be swept away — the last trace, as he called it, of 
 Protestant ascendancy. I think you will find that, whether you 
 try this party of ]\Ir. Parnell by title or capacity, you will come 
 to the conclusion that they have lamentably failed in making 
 out their case. Mr. Gladstone contemplates the establishment 
 of an Irish Parliament in Dublin, and not only an Irish Parlia- 
 ment, but an Irish Ministry. AVho, do you think, would compose 
 that Irish Ministry ? I do not imagine that Mr. Parnell would 
 have the composition of that Ministry entirely in his own hands. 
 Greater powers than his would compose it, and I should have very 
 little doubt that in that Ministry, after a short time, the Chan- 
 cellor of the Irish Exchequer would be Mr. Patrick Egan. The 
 Home Secretary would probably be Mr. Sheridan of Tubber- 
 curry ; and other persons such as Messrs. Frank Byrne, Patrick 
 Ford, or O'Douovan Eossa would hold high places in the 
 Administration. Because, depend upon it, the first act of an 
 Irish Parliament in Dublin must be to pass a general act of 
 political amnesty, under which all these worthies whom I have 
 named to you would immediately return, and would glorify and 
 adorn by their presence the streets of Dublin and of Cork, and 
 would be able by the record of their patriotic services, and b}' 
 the fact of their having been compelled, owing to the intrusive 
 attentions of the police, 'to pass a lingering exile in a foreign 
 land, to make out an irresistible claim to the holding high office 
 in an Irish Ministry. But am I to be told, at this time of day, 
 that we are to call upon the Loyalists of Ireland — upon the 
 citizens of this great and wealthy city — to submit themselves to 
 the power of, and to obej* laws which are framed and promul- 
 
THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF ULSTER 11 
 
 gated by, miscreauts such as these ? But that is the logical 
 meaning, that is the inevitable result, of a Parliament in 
 College Green. That is the real result of Mr. Gladstone's policy, 
 and the forces which I have described to you are the forces with 
 which Mr. Gladstone is going to work. I do not think I was 
 wrong when I said that it was a monstrous and a formidable 
 combination which now menaces your interests — one which 
 might well strike terror into the stoutest heart ; and it is not 
 at all out of place that we should inquire to-night, with all 
 seriousness and earnestness, what resources we can count upon 
 to meet this danger. 
 
 Now, I would not say anything, and I would not for the 
 world ask you to say anything, against the Roman Catholics of 
 Ireland. To meet and overcome this formidable combination 
 which is rampant against us, I would like to appeal to all the 
 Loyalists of Ireland, to all loyal subjects of the Queen, no matter 
 to what class or creed they may belong. Heaven forbid that I 
 should say anything that would reflect upon the Catholics or 
 indispose them towards our cause ! I know, my lords and gen- 
 tlemen, that there are hundreds and thousands of Roman 
 Catholics in England and in Ireland whose sympathies are for 
 tlie Unionist party — who hope and long for the success of the 
 Loyalists in Ireland. But at the present crisis I have a right 
 to appeal to the loyal Roman Catholics of Ireland to come 
 forward and declare themselves openly, to show publicly and un- 
 mistakably which side they are on. I believe they regret to see 
 the chiefs of their Church allying themselves with the party which 
 has diffused and maintained doctrines at variance with the tenets 
 of the Catholic Church, and that they must seriously condemn 
 the connection between Catholic clergymen and the branches of 
 the National League. Many of the priests who take an active 
 part in this agitation can hardly be ignorant of the complicity of 
 some of the local branches of the League with some of the most 
 frightful forms of crime and outrage. The loyal Catholics see 
 this formidable organisation receiving additional strength from 
 the consecration almost that it seems to receive from the Church 
 of Rome in Ireland. They see half of Mr. Parnell's power is 
 derived fi-om the support of the hierarchy of Ireland. They see 
 
12 sri-:ECii?:s of lord Randolph ciiurciiill 
 
 uU this and they deplore it ; tlie}- raouni over it. No one liere 
 can doubt the sincerity of their feelings in this matter ; but I 
 say that in tliese times no practical politician can be content 
 with mere negative support or action. He that is not with us 
 is against us ; and I have a right to call on those loyal Catholics 
 whose existence we know of, whose motives we appreciate, and 
 whose assistance we would gladly welcome — to stand forth 
 publicly and pronounce in favour of that empire and that legis- 
 lative Union under which they and their religion have enjoyed 
 more toleration and more perfect liberty than their community 
 have enjoyed in any other country in the world. I call on them 
 to declare in favour of that legislative Union. I call on them 
 to come forth and effectively protest against the offensive and 
 defensive alliance which now apparently exists between the 
 hierarchy of their Church and the machinery of rebellion 
 and lawlessness and crime. I make this appeal with all sin- 
 cerity, hoping and trusting that it may succeed ; but if, from 
 one cause or another, from motives which I cannot appreciate, 
 or from calculations which I cannot fathom or grasp, if this 
 appeal should fail in its effect or should fall upon deaf ears, 
 then I will be no party to any undue sacrifice in support of 
 that cause w^hich I am anxious to defend. If my appeal to 
 the loyal Roman Catholics, made thus publicly, remains neg- 
 lected or unanswered, then, as an Englishman having filled 
 a position which cannot be divested of responsibility, I would 
 not hesitate, in such untoward circumstances, to confide all 
 my hopes of the salvation of the nation and the security of the 
 United Kingdom to the efforts of the Protestants in Ireland, 
 and especially to the efforts of the Protestants of Ulster. I 
 would not refrain from reviving and relying upon great historic 
 memories. For nearly two hundred years your motto, your 
 password, your watchword, and your cry has been ' No sur- 
 render ! ' For nearly two hundred years you have kept bright 
 and burning the lamp of civil and religious liberty, and the 
 flame of that lamp has been piously tended during succeeding 
 generations. These memories have been handed down in Ulster 
 families and Ulster homes. I ask you most solemnly, are these 
 memories dead or living memories ? The time may be ap- 
 
THE PROPOSED AEANDONMENT OF ULSTER 13 
 
 proacliing when jou will Lave to show practically whether 
 you are worthy guardians of the traditions committed to you. 
 Now may be the time to show whether all those ceremonies 
 and forms which are practised in Orange Lodges are really 
 living symbols, or only idle and meaningless ceremonies ; whether 
 that which you have so carefully fostered is really the lamp of 
 liberty — whether that flame is the undying and unquenchable 
 fire of freedom. The time may be at hand when you will 
 have to demonstrate this faith in a practical manner — when 
 you will have to show that the path of honour and safety is 
 still illuminated by the light of other days. It may be that 
 this dark cloud which now is impending over Ireland will 
 pass away without breaking. If it does, I believe you and 
 your descendants will be safe for a long time to come. Her 
 Majesty's Government hesitates. ]\Ir. Gladstone asks for time, 
 like Macbeth before the murder of Duncan. Mr. Gladstone, be- 
 fore he plunges the knife into the heart of the British Empire, 
 reflects ; he hesitates. Nor do I think there is any one of sufiicient 
 influence and authority who can urge him on by saying, ' Give 
 me the dagger.' I have no doubt that the demonstrations of 
 to-day in Belfast will have a very useful effect not only on the 
 public mind in England, but also on the ministerial mind, and 
 many more of them must be held. And those demonstrations 
 ought to be imposing, not only from their numbers, but also for 
 their orderly character. We are essentially a party of law and 
 order, and any violent action resorted to prematurely or without 
 the most obvious and overwhelming necessity might have the 
 most fatal and damaging effect upon the cause which we so dearly 
 value, and might alienate forces whose assistance would be be- 
 yond all price. The Loyalists in Ulster should wait and watch — 
 organise and prepare. Diligence and vigilance ought to be your 
 watchword, so that the blow, if it does come, may not come upon 
 you as a thief in the night, and may not find you unready and 
 taken by surprise. I believe that this storm will blow over, 
 and that the vessel of the Union will emerge with her Loyalist 
 crew stronger than before ; but it is right and useful that I 
 should add, that if the struggle should continue, and if my con- y 
 elusions should turn out to be wrong, then I am of opinion that the 
 
14 SPKECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CITURCIIILL 
 
 strnf2:gle is not likely to remain within the lines of what we are 
 accustomed to look upon as constitutional action. No portentous 
 change such as the Repeal of the Union, no change so gigantic, 
 could be accomplished by the mere passing of a law. The his- 
 tory of the United States will teach us a different lesson, and if 
 it should turn out that the Parliament of the United Kingdom 
 was so recreant from all its high duties, and that the British 
 nation was so apostate to traditions of honour and courage, 
 as to hand over the Loyalists of Ireland to the domination of 
 an Assembly in Dublin which must be to them a foreign and 
 an alien assembly, if it should be within the design of Providence 
 to place upon you and your fellow-Loyalists so heavy a trial, 
 then, gentlemen, I do not hesitate to tell you most truly that 
 in that dark hour there will not be wanting to you those in 
 England who would be willing to cast in their lot with you, 
 and who, whatever the result, will share your fortunes and your 
 fate. 
 
15 
 
 THE 'UNION PARTY' SUGGESTED. 
 Manchester, March 3, 1886. 
 
 [In this speech Lord Randolph Churchill reviewed the chief 
 incidents connected with the Government of India during his period 
 of office, and again discussed the Irish question. Some abridgment 
 has been necessary, but the very interesting part of the speech in 
 which Lord Randolph hrst gave the name of the ' Union Party ' 
 to the coalition opposed to separation is retained.] 
 
 NO doubt my tenure of oflSce in the India Department was 
 a very short one — only, I think, about seven months ; 
 but I can say, with some amount of personal pride, that a 
 good deal was crammed into those seven months. Allusion 
 has been made to most critical negotiations with Russia in 
 respect of the frontier of Afghanistan, which were going on 
 when Lord Salisbury acceded to office. I will tell you why they 
 were critical — because the Government of Russia did not respect 
 the Government of Mr. Gladstone ; because the Government of 
 Russia found the Government of Mr. Gladstone to be a Govern- 
 ment which would yield, not only British territory, but, naturally 
 enough, the territory of British allies ; and because the Govern- 
 ment of Russia thought that so long as the Government of Mr. 
 Gladstone was in power they had only to ask and to receive. 
 That is what made the negotiations with Russia critical. But 
 when Lord Salisbury and his colleagues acceded to office, though 
 the Government of Russia knew quite well that Lord Salisbury 
 and his colleagues were not animated by the smallest spark of 
 hostility to the great Russian Empire, but that they were de- 
 termined that England should possess her just rights, and 
 that the allies of England who were under the guardianship of 
 
16 .SPEECHES OF LORD llANDOLPH CHUKCHILL 
 
 England sliould be protected ut all costs, the Government of 
 Eussia respected the Government of Lord Salisbury, and persons 
 who respect each other always remain friends. These negotia 
 tions were almost immediately put into peaceful training, and the 
 state of things which was so dangerous at one time that you 
 actually had to vote eleven millions of money for preparations 
 for war with Russia was dealt with and ameliorated, and danger 
 of war with Russia passed away. The policy of protecting the 
 Ameer of Afghanistan and of bringing the might of England 
 to the defence of his territories is a policy which unites both 
 parties in this country. Not only were those difficult negotia- 
 tions brought to a close, but the policy of protecting the Indian 
 frontier, of constructing fortifications and railways, was actively 
 initiated and pushed forward ; not only that, but, I am happy 
 to say, arrangements were made for very large and extensive 
 military manoeuvres in India — manoeuvres which have not ex- 
 cited quite so much attention as they deserve to excite in this 
 country, but which brought together a larger British army than 
 India has ever seen, and which have been most valuable to the 
 officers engaged, and have been a theme of admiration to the 
 agents of many foreign Powers who were invited to witness 
 them. It was not only in war that the policy of the late 
 Government towards India was exhibited. I am thankful to 
 say that the construction of two most important Indian railways 
 was sanctioned, and is now being actively proceeded with ; and 
 there is nothing more satisfactory in the state of India, nothing 
 more promising for her future, than the development of the rail- 
 way system and the profits which the present railway systems 
 pay to the shareholders. 
 
 There is another matter which, I think, would interest you 
 in Lancashire, and which has not, as far as I am aware, 
 attracted any amount of public attention. It fell to my lot 
 to be able to take up, with a very great amount of success, 
 aided most cordially by I>ord Salisbury, a project for opening 
 up a new market to British industry. I allude to the open- 
 ing up of the great market of Tibet, There is a population 
 in Tibet which is capable of absorbing a very large amount of 
 English goods, and especially Lancashire goods. But, owing 
 
THE 'UNION PARTY' SUGGESTED 17 
 
 to the jealousy of the Chinese, that market was completely 
 closed for many years to British commerce. I am happy to 
 inform you that a mission, which I originated, to Pekin, has 
 removed almost entirely all the jealousies of the Chinese with 
 regard to the commerce between England and Tibet. Of 
 course the Tory party is always taunted with being a party of 
 annexation. It is always being taunted with being a party 
 which wishes unduly to extend the territory and the liability of 
 the British Empire. But I imagine that if you were to com- 
 pare the annexations which have been made by the Liberals 
 and the annexations made by the Tories in the last fifty years 
 you would find the balance of prudence very much on the side 
 of the Tory party. With regard to Burmah, we literally had 
 no option. Not only was the conduct of King Thebaw utterly 
 beyond all the limits of toleration, but there were undoubtedly 
 certain subjects of France who, with or without the supjDort or 
 connivance of the French authorities, were establishing rights 
 in that country which, if they had not been nipped in the bud, 
 would have been rights which would have entitled them at a 
 future time to the forcible and the armed protection of France. 
 That was a state of things which no prudent Indian Government 
 would tolerate for a moment. Thebaw had thrown himself into 
 the hands of certain French adventurers. These adventurers were 
 dealt with while they remained adventurers ; we did not delay 
 until they had become French subjects, acting with the support 
 of France, and possessing legitimate claims on the protection of 
 that country. That was why it was not possible to delay, and 
 therefore King Thebaw's territories were invaded on the most 
 legitimate ground that any Government ever had for invasion. 
 Thebaw was deposed and the territory of Upper Burmah has 
 been annexed to the British Crown. I believe that territory is 
 capable of vast development, and that it is a territory abounding 
 in riches of one kind or another — that it offers a fertile field for 
 British enterprise and commerce. At the same time I would 
 not have you build too sanguine expectations upon the imme- 
 diate development of trade with Upper Burmah. It will pro- 
 bably take some years before order is thoroughly established in 
 the country, and before life and jDroperty are completely secure. 
 VOL. II. C 
 
18 SPEECHES OF LOliD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 It will probably take some years before the revenues of" the 
 couutry meet the expenses of administration. I had one enor- 
 mous advantage. I had to deal with a Viceroy (Lord DufFerin) 
 who, 1 have no hesitation in saying, has proved himself to be 
 one of the most enlightened statesmen who ever left these shores 
 for India. I was fortunate indeed that I had not to deal with 
 a Viceroy like Lord Ripon — a foolish and arrogant doctrinaire 
 Radical, who, in all the various phases of public life in which he 
 has taken part, has betrayed an extravagant amount of mental 
 instability. I have no hesitation in saying here, what I sus- 
 pected before and what I told before, but I say it now with all 
 the knowledge which I acquired during my stay at the India 
 Office, that you cannot exaggerate, you can hardly overestimate, 
 the harm which Lord Ripon did to the interests of your Indian 
 Empire. By his folly and by his blindness, he not only brought 
 the Russian army almost to the gates of India, but, for some 
 inscrutable cause which I have never been able to understand, 
 he carefully fomented with every circumstance of small in- 
 genuity all those hatreds of race and religion and of dynasty 
 which are so rife in India, and which it has been the object of 
 the British Government since the days of the Indian Mutiny, 
 if possible, to mitigate and to wipe away. All I would say 
 before I leave Indian matters is this. There is no reason why 
 you should be alarmed for the safety of your Indian Empire. 
 The frontier has been put in a state of defence. The army has 
 been increased. You have a viceroy who is capable of guarding 
 all the best interests of India in the wisest possible manner. 
 The only subject which, if I had remained at the India Office, 
 w^ould have continued to fill me with anxiety is the subject of 
 Indian finance. Not that India is not perfectly solvent, not that 
 India does not possess an elastic revenue ; but there is a feature 
 in Indian finance of a most mysterious and unaccountable nature, 
 and one which few people are at all able to understand or to 
 give any explanation of, and that is the continued fall in the 
 value of silver. The continued fall in the price of the rupee is 
 undoubtedly a source of extreme anxiety to Indian governors, 
 and it will be for you in Lancashire, great as your trade is with 
 India, enormous as your exports are, invaluable to you as that 
 
THE 'UNION PARTY' SUGGESTED l9 
 
 possession is — it will be for you in Lancashire to turn your 
 attention most anxiously to the most dark and apparently un- 
 fathomable question of the relative value of silver and gold, and 
 to endeavour to ascertain by your ingenuity and by your ex- 
 perience whether some policy, in the nature of fixing perma- 
 nently the relative value of those two metals, may not possibly 
 not only bring security to the Indian finances, but may be a 
 real remedy for our decaying trade, and may be a means for 
 reviving British enterprise and British commerce. 
 
 There is another subject which I cannot pass by to-night. 
 I allude to the depression of British trade, and in connection 
 with the question of British trade I cannot help bringing be- 
 fore you the serious question of the unemployed in England. 
 Vast numbers of British artisans — I regret to say greatly in- 
 creasing numbers — from competition, free imports, and one 
 cause or another, are unable by their skill and intelligence 
 to earn their daily bread. That is perhaps one of the most 
 serious questions which we in this generation have to consider. 
 As to the numbers of the unemployed, I do not know what 
 they may be in Manchester, but I know that in London and. 
 many other large towns they are very vast. It is a hard 
 thing that a man who has brains and education and tech- 
 nical skill should not be able to utilise those talents so as to 
 support himself and those who depend upon him, and it is 
 a desperate and dangerous thing when the number of those 
 persons has reached the proportions that it has to-day. Since 
 1832 you have had, as Mr. Gladstone is fond of reminding the 
 public, thirteen Parliaments ; and in two of those Parliaments 
 only have the Tory party had a majority, and been able to work 
 their way. In eleven Parliaments out of those thirteen the 
 Liberal party had a majority, and in every one of those Parlia- 
 ments the Liberal party has come forward with great promises 
 of what they would do for the prosperity of English trade and 
 commerce ; but what is the ultimate result of it all ? It is that 
 you have such numbers of unemployed at the present day in 
 almost every English large town as to constitute a most alarm- 
 ing social danger. That, I say, is worth your consideration. 
 There was no object whatever which was nearer to the heart of 
 
20 yPEECHES 01- LORD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 the late Government, to the heart of its members individually 
 and collectively, there was no object on which they spent more 
 time and study, than how they might use their powers so as to 
 do something to revive British trade. Ilie moment they came 
 into office they determined to appoint a lloyal Commission com- 
 posed of all those men of ' light and leading ' who would be 
 willing to serve on it, so as if possible not only to investigate 
 the causes of our decaying industry, but if possible to suggest 
 remedies, and to find new sources and new markets for British 
 industry. And they did more. Lord Salisbury, setting aside 
 altogether a Treasury minute of Mr. Childers's, which to a great 
 extent cramped the efforts of our agents abroad for fostering and 
 encouraging British enterprise, sent special instructions to all 
 our agents abroad that they w^ere on every occasion to lose no 
 opportunity of assisting British commerce either in the person 
 of individuals or in the form of co-operative effort. More than 
 that : it would probably have been the policy of Lord Salis- 
 bury and his colleagues, as will be seen from Avhat he said the 
 other day, to deal specially out of the reserves of the State by 
 means of public works with the exceptional distress which now 
 exists. At any rate, we would not have folded our hands and 
 looked idly on. We would have tried to do something. What 
 is the policy of the present Government ? I do not think they 
 have got any. They are so occupied with other matters that I 
 do not think the question of the unemployed ever comes before 
 them, except when certain violent persons choose to make riots 
 in our streets. 
 
 [A review of election results followed, and Lord Eandolph 
 Churchill concluded thus : — ] 
 
 I notice that in your programme it is stated that after these 
 remarks of mine have been brought to a close the organ is to 
 play ' Rule Britannia,' and I have no doubt that you will join 
 in the chorus and that you will sing the classic words that 
 ' Britons never shall be slaves.' It is of very little use the 
 organ playing ' Eule Britannia,' and it is of very little use your 
 singing that Britons never will be slaves, when at the present 
 moment Britannia is not ruling, and when you who are here 
 to-night, together wath hundreds and thousands of your country- 
 
THE 'UNION PARTY' SUGGESTED 21 
 
 men, are slaves, the political slaves, of the party of Mr. Parnell 
 and of the portion of Ireland which is filled with deadly hatred 
 of the Britannia of which you sing. It may be argued that I 
 have pursued a somewhat dangerous line of argument, the natural 
 answer to which, and one that might be put forward by Ireland, 
 or that portion of Ireland which follows Mr. Parnell, might be, 
 ' If you do not like our interference, we ask for nothing better 
 than for a Parliament of our own. We do not want to interfere 
 in English politics.' It might be that there are Scotch Radicals 
 who will say, ' We do not want to interfere with your English 
 policy, and we shall be very happy with a Parliament in Edin- 
 burgh.' The Welsh Radicals might say, ' Nothing would con- 
 tent us more than a Welsh Parliament at Carnarvon, where 
 everybody should speak Welsh.' And they might all unite in 
 saying, ' If you English do not like to be overruled, let us all 
 have Parliaments of our own and we will leave you alone.' That 
 undoubtedly would be an answer, but I think it would be a very 
 superficial answer, and foolish advice to give to the people, and a 
 very foolish policy for the English people to adopt. I think, to 
 adopt a policy like that because we did not succeed in obtaining 
 that predominance in the British Parliament we had a right to, 
 we should be in the position of a person who cuts off his nose 
 to spite his face. No : there is a much better remedy than that, 
 and by adopting it England can undoubtedly claim her just 
 rights in the Parliament of the United Kingdom ; and that j)olicy 
 is that England should unite. Let all party differences, let 
 records and traditions of party conflict be forgotten. Is it not 
 obvious, is it not within your knowledge, that there is not the 
 smallest perceptible difference of opinion between the moderate 
 Liberal and the modern Tory ? None whatever. Has not the 
 time come when, in the face of these great dangers, those 
 old differences and old quarrels and traditions should be for- 
 gotten ? What is the position taken up by Sir Henry James 
 and Lord Hartington ? They say, ' We will join no cave, we 
 will make no opposition to Mr. Gladstone ' ; and Sir Henry 
 James intimated very clearly, ' We distrust the Tory party, and 
 will not enter into any relations with them, and will consider no 
 action with them for the common welfare of the country.' Is 
 
22 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 tliat a rational or logical position ? Is it not a childish position, 
 a perpetuation of old feuds and old contests which now, though 
 in old days of great meaning, are as senseless and stupid as the 
 contest and tumult which seven centuries ago used to divide 
 the circus at Constantinople between the Greens and the Blues, 
 and which at the present day in the counties of Limerick and 
 Tipperary divide the Irish on the merits of what are called 
 respectively three-year-olds and four-years-olds. Is not the 
 difference only in the name ? Is there any rhyme or reason, 
 when the highest interests of the empire are at stake, and the 
 future fortunes of the country hang almost on the line these 
 men may take— is it not foolish and imbecile to perpetuate 
 these meaningless differences, which perhaps originated in old 
 family quarrels, or perhaps are nf)W perpetuated by mere per- 
 sonal dislike ? That is not the attitude of the Tory party, that 
 is not the attitude of Lord Salisbury and his late colleagues. 
 Our position is this : we care nothing for office in itself except 
 as a means to benefit the country. We do care for this — that 
 there shall be a Government of England that shall conduct the 
 policy of England on lines that commend themselves to reason 
 and to common sense. If a Government is formed and carried 
 on on these lines we care not who compose it. To that Govern- 
 ment we give not only a party but a general support. That is 
 how we approach those influential politicians who differ with 
 Mr. Gladstone at the present time. We say : ' Tell us what you 
 want ; dictate your terms. We believe in your hearts you are 
 animated only by a desire for the welfare of the country ; we 
 believe you possess the capacity, mental and otherwise, for con- 
 tributing to that welfare. If you like to form a Government 
 yourselves we will support you. If, on the other hand, you 
 wish for our personal co-operation in that Government, we will 
 give it you. If there are persons to whom you object and whom 
 you do not wish to serve with, those persons will stand aside 
 cheerfully. Our object, and our one object, at the present time, in 
 this time of enormous peril, is that the government of the Queen 
 may be wisely carried on.' 
 
 I am glad to have this opportunity of asking you men of 
 
THE 'UNION PAETY" SUGGESTED 23 
 
 Manchester, gathered together in this great hall, which has seen 
 many famous and historic gatherings — I am glad to have this 
 opportunity of asking you, who are perhaps as capable of giving 
 a political opinion as any political community in the country : 
 Do you not think that the time has arrived — and fully arrived 
 — when we might seriously consider together how we might 
 form a new political party in England ? Do you not think that 
 that party might be an essentially English party ? I say English 
 from no spirit of prejudice whatever. I mean a party which 
 shall be essentially English in all those ideas of justice, of 
 moderation, of freedom from prejudice, and of resolution which 
 are the peculiarities of the English race. Do you not think 
 that such a party might be formed which might combine all 
 that is best of the politics of the Tory, the Whig, or the Liberal ? 
 — a party which should combine all that is best of what is 
 denominated under those various headings ; combine them all, 
 whether they be principles or whether they be men ; and might 
 not we call that party by a new name — might not we call it 
 the party of the Union ? Members of that party might be known 
 as Unionists. Our opponents are the party of Separation, and 
 they may be known as ' Separatists,' because they are a party- ■ 
 I do not care whether you take Mr. Gladstone's scheme, or Mr. 
 John Morley's scheme, or Mr. Chamberlain's scheme — who, in 
 one form or another, would adopt a policy which would be 
 equivalent to the restoration of the Heptarch}- — a policy which 
 would throw back our civilisation for centuries, and a policy 
 which must inevitably destroy that great fabric of empire 
 which those ten centuries have laboriously erected. I ask j^ou 
 to answer that proposition seriously. Let us go in for a party 
 of Union, and it is not only to be a party of union of the United 
 Kingdom, but it is also to be a party which supports as its great 
 and main and leading principle union with our colonies and union 
 with our Indian Empire. I offer this without further elaboration 
 to your most earnest attention, because I believe that it is only 
 by the union of all the subjects of the Queen in all parts of the 
 world — that it is only by the re-invigorated co-operation, cohe- 
 sion, and consolidation of all parts of the widely scattered British 
 
24 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Empire — tliat it is only by such a polic}' of union that you can 
 liope to restore to your commerce and to your industries their 
 lost prosperity. It is only by such a policy of union effectively 
 and perseveringly carried out tliat you can hope to discharge 
 successfully that gigantic duty of maintaining and of diffusing 
 freedom, civilisation, and Christianity which an all-wise Pro- 
 vidence has devolved upon the English-speaking millions of 
 mankind. 
 
25 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME RULE' BILL. 
 
 House op Commons, April 12, 1886. 
 
 [Mr. Gladstone introduced his famous Home Rule Bill, in a 
 speech of marvellous power, on April 8, 1886, and the Land Pur- 
 chase Bill— which was then declared to be an inseparable part of the 
 scheme— eight days afterwards. The following speech was delivered 
 in the first week of the debate,] 
 
 I DO not believe that if the youngest member of this House 
 were to live as long as the oldest member of this House, and 
 were during all that long period to have a seat in Parliament, 
 he would ever be called upon to consider matters more momen- 
 tous than are now before the House of Commons. A debate 
 upon the relations — harmonious or otherwise — which exist, or 
 ought to exist, between races, between peoples, between nations, 
 cannot fail to be of a character most interesting, most exciting. 
 It belongs essentially to the highest order of topics which can 
 come under the notice of a free Parliament. It ought to be 
 approached with caution and after exhaustive study. Such a 
 debate is seldom carried on without a large admixture of 
 passion and prejudice ; but if these forces can to any extent be 
 eliminated, the prospect of arriving at a possible solution of the 
 problems that may be raised will be brighter and more assured. 
 It is not my intention to weary the House by any close exami- 
 nation of the details of this measure, because I do not think any 
 such examination would be at all suitable to a first-reading debate ; 
 because, in the second place, there is so much, even after the 
 marvellous exposition of the First Lord of the Treasury,' which is 
 left in doubt and mystery ; and, in the third place, I must say that, 
 after consideration and reconsideration of the Prime Minister's 
 ' Mr, Gladstone. 
 
26 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 speech, I am led irresistibly to the conclusion that the scheme now 
 before the House appears, so far as I am informed, to involve such 
 complicated, such inexplicable, such a multitudinous mass of 
 contradictions and absurdities, that I feel certain, if it had not 
 been proposed to the House by the high and illustrious authority 
 of the First Lord of the Treasury, it would not have .been for 
 one moment seriousl}^ considered. There are to be found in the 
 Bill, by a careful student, a great quantity of what I must call 
 fanciful and eccentric guarantees and safeguards. I own I was 
 a little astonished, and somewhat alarmed, by the apparent light- 
 hearted acquiescence of the Irish party in the proposed guarantees 
 and safeguards. Their attitude, so far as it has been represented 
 hitherto, reminded me of the well-known story of Theodore Hook. 
 AVhen he went up to the University the yice-Chancellor asked him 
 whether he was prepared to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 ' Certainly,' he replied, ' forty, if you like.' That extraordinary 
 manifestation of frivolity to some extent discomposed the Uni- 
 versity authorities. I take, as an illustration of those safeguards 
 and guarantees, a very remarkable example. I would draw the 
 attention of the House to the proposed composition of the new 
 Irish Parliament. It is proposed by the Prime Minister that 
 the new Irish Parliament shall be composed of two orders of 
 members, elected by different constituencies. I have taken a 
 great deal of trouble since Thursday night to consult the highest 
 authorities I could get access to ; and I believe I am right in 
 saying, that if you search ancient and modern history through 
 and through, you will find no precedent in the records of con- 
 stitutional government for such a proposal. There is perhaps a 
 precedent, but I doubt whether it is one which will be at all 
 flattering to the dignity of the Irish Parliament. There is the 
 synod of the Disestablished Church in Ireland that does, I 
 believe, consist of two orders, acting separately and at times 
 together. But, first, I do not think there is any connection or 
 analogy between the synod of a disestablished Church and a 
 deliberative and legislative secular assembly. Secondly, I have 
 the authority of a distinguished member of the synod for stating 
 that the separation of the two orders leads to the most constant 
 deadlock and the most . protracted discussion. However, the 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME RULE' BILL 27 
 
 first order in this new Parliament is intended by the First 
 Lord of the Treasury specially to represent property ; and it is 
 a remarkable thing, and one well worthy of the attention of 
 the Radical party below the gangway, that the leader of the 
 Liberal party — a leader who certainly approximates on many 
 occasions to the more advanced tendencies of that party — should 
 at this time propose for the constitution of a representative 
 assembly so reactionary and so discarded a machinery as pro- 
 perty qualifications. I would also remark in passing that the 
 peculiar rating and property qualification which is proposed for 
 the electors does not necessarily protect the Protestant minorities. 
 I have it on authority that I can trust that there are many 
 hundreds of the farmers of Ulster who would not be entitled to 
 vote for the order which is intended specially to represent the 
 minority, whereas there would be hundreds of the cattle graziers 
 of Limerick, Cork, Tipperary, and Meath who would vote in 
 the election of that order. 
 
 The second order of the proposed House of Commons 
 certainly does not represent property, and the arrangement is 
 that these orders are to sit and vote together, but that either 
 order can at any time demand separate voting, and that either 
 order can veto the action of the other order. May I be allowed 
 to put that into operation ? I suppose the meeting of the Irish 
 Parliament, and I test this curious arrangement on three points. 
 I take first the election of the Speaker. Obviously, the election 
 of a Speaker may have a great deal to do with the protection of 
 minorities ; and it is also perfectly possible that one order may 
 prefer one person as Speaker and the other order may prefer 
 another. As far as I can make out, this would be .the result. 
 The popular order would carry their Speaker. The property 
 order would veto the election, and the election of a Speaker 
 would be suspended for three or five years. I test it from 
 another point of view, deeply interesting to the members of the 
 Irish party. I test it on the point of procedure and the rules 
 of debate. It is quite possible that a certain portion of the 
 Irish Parliament in the second order might prefer certain pro- 
 cedare and rules of debate — they might support the rule of 
 closure of debate. On the other hand, it is quite possible that 
 
28 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 tlip first order might object. A<^ain tlie veto conies in, and the 
 procedure regulations and the rules of debate are suspended for 
 three or live years. I test it by one more instance. I take the 
 question of the Budget. 1 can well imagine the hon. member 
 for Cork, as Irish ^Minister, placing before an Irish Parliament 
 the financial arrangements for 1887 ; I can, without any great 
 stretch of imagination, suppose that those arrangements may 
 not possibly be altogether agreeable to the order specially 
 representing property. That order demands separate voting, 
 vetoes the Budget for three or five years, and thus the financial 
 arrangements are suspended. 
 
 I come to another point, which, I think, is of the utmost 
 importance. The Prime Minister took great credit to himself 
 for maintaining what he called the fiscal unity of the United 
 Kingdom, How has that been effected ? It has been effected 
 by retaining the power of voting the customs and excise in the 
 hands of the British Government and the British Parliament ; 
 but this is to be done by the violation as regards Ireland of the 
 most ancient British right, that taxation and representation 
 should go together. What has been the reason for that change ?' 
 The Prime Minister told us that it was because he was so 
 extremely anxious to maintain the fiscal unity of the United 
 Kingdom. It may be so. No doubt it was his desire ; but I 
 think there were other reasons not altogether independent of 
 electioneering considerations. It would obviously be most im- 
 prudent that customs and excise should be handed over to an 
 Irish Parliament, because the prospect of duties being placed 
 on English manufactures and goods might not be viewed with 
 favour by English electors. The arrangement appears to be 
 this — that, if it is agreed to, the hon. member for Cork ' and 
 his party, acting on behalf of Ireland, and representing Ireland, 
 sell to the British Government and the British Parliament for 
 1,400,000L a year the inalienable right of a free people that 
 representation and taxation should go together. The hon. 
 member for Cork stated in interruption of the right hon. member 
 for West Birmingham^ that he considered the 1,400,000?. a year 
 a valuable quid pro quo, and therefore he was not disposed to 
 ' Mr. Parnell. - Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
ME. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME EULE ' 13ILL 29 
 
 press the claim on behalf of the Irish Parliament. But the lion, 
 member for Cork and his party, as I think I can show, do more 
 than that. They selj for 1,400,000/. a year the power of the 
 purse in the Irish Parliament. The arrangement is this. There 
 are customs and excise in Ireland collected to the amount of 
 6,100,000/. a year, and out of that sum 3,500,000/. will be taken 
 for the obligations to the Imperial Exchequer, leaving a balance 
 of over 3,000,000/. which is to be paid over by the Imperial officials 
 into the Irish Treasury, beyond the control of the Irish Parlia- 
 ment, not voted by the Irish Parliament, and, for all I know, 
 not controlled, even indirectly, by the Irish Parliament, but 
 absolutely in the power of the Irish Government. In addition 
 to that, there will be also in the hands of the Irish Government 
 a non-tax revenue amounting to just over 1,000,000/. a year. 
 Therefore, I make out that under the proposed arrangement 
 the Irish Government will have in their hands, practically 
 independent of the Irish Parliament, something a little over 
 3,000,000/. a year, and in good years considerably more. Now, 
 is that not an extraordinary constitution to propose ? The cost 
 of civil government in Ireland is estimated by the Prime 
 Minister at two and a half millions ; so that it comes to this — 
 that the Irish Government will have at their undisputed control 
 more than enough money to carry on the government of Ireland 
 without the aid of the Parliament at all; and it would be per- 
 fectly open to the Irish Government to dismiss the Parliament 
 and never summon it at all. I shall be glad to know what is 
 the view the Radical and Irish members take of the proposal 
 that the customs and the excise should be voted for a period of 
 years and should be handed over absolutely to the control of the 
 Irish Treasury. I would also point out to the hon. member for 
 Cork, that the 1,400,000/. a year which he proposes to obtain 
 as the price for the considerable sacrifice on his part is of an 
 extremely illusory and precarious character. It may be largely 
 affected by the importation to England of spirits in bond. It 
 may be largely affected by the diminution in the excise receipts 
 — a diminution which, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, 
 is going on very rapidly at the present moment. It would also 
 be largely affected by temperance legislation, not necessarily in 
 
30 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Irelam!, but in England and Scotland. That is the price which 
 the Irish pay for this ari'angement, under which fiscal unity is 
 maintained ; but what is the price which the English people pay 
 for this arrangement ? I think it will be found that the price of 
 the English ])eople is fur heavier. The effect of this arrangement, 
 so far as I can make out, will be, if it is carried into effect, that 
 the customs and excise duties of the whole of Great Britain will 
 be stereoty|ied. It is possible that I may be wrong, but it 
 appears to me that the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 in England will be very much cramped, if not altogether tied. 
 What arises from this bargain ? The customs and the excise 
 are to remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and 
 Ireland is to pay so much to England, and no more. I do not 
 see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England can ever 
 lower the customs and excise duties ; because if he does so he 
 depletes and diminishes the resources out of which Ireland has 
 got to pay her way and her tribute to England, and he takes 
 that course without the Irish being represented in Parliament. 
 But, further, I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 can raise the customs and the excise duties ; because if he does so 
 he forces on the Irish a taxation which they do not want and a 
 surplus revenue which possibly they will not require. I may be 
 told, 'Oh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that case will enter 
 into negotiations with the Irish Government and the Irish Parlia- 
 ment and come to an agreement with them.' But what does 
 that come to? It comes to this — that the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, and the Imperial Parliament at Westminster, wish- 
 ing to deal with revenue amounting to one-half of the whole of 
 our resources, cannot really deal with the revenue with any free- 
 dom, or indeed with freedom at all, unless he goes to Dublin 
 and sues for permission from the Irish Government and the 
 Irish Parliament. I want to know, in that case, what becomes 
 of the supremacy of the British Parliament. 
 
 So much at present for the details of the Bill, and I come now 
 to its great principle. What is the principle of this Bill ? I hold, 
 with a good deal of confidence, that the principle of the Bill is 
 Repeal. The Prime Minister on Thursday afternoon stated that 
 it was not the intention or desire of the Government to repeal 
 
ME. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME RULE' BILL 31 
 
 the Act of Union. He said that lie only meant to modify it in 
 certain particulars. If it had not been the Prime Minister who 
 made that statement, if it had been any ordinary person, I could 
 hardly have prevented myself from interrupting to ask whether 
 he had read the Act of Union. It is possible that many hon. 
 members have not been able to refer to the text of the Act of 
 Union ; anyhow, as the Act of Union is called in question, the 
 House will allow me to direct its attention to its articles. The 
 first article of the Union is : ' That it be the first article of the 
 Union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland that the 
 said kingdoms shall, on the 1st day of January, which shall be 
 in the year of our Lord 180], and for ever after, be united into 
 one kingdom by the name of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland.' Well, sir, but what does that expression 
 mean ? What did the framers of this Act mean by the unity 
 of the United Kingdom ? Was it to be a union of the United 
 Kingdom for no practical purpose whatever, or was it to be a union 
 of the United Kingdom for all those practical purposes for which 
 England and Ireland entered into it ? How will you maintain 
 the unity of the United Kingdom now if you pass this Bill into 
 law ? In a most singular and curious way. You will maintain 
 it by excluding summarily one portion — a portion which, under 
 certain circumstances, might be very prosperous — a portion in- 
 habited by five millions of people — from any share and any voice, 
 and for all time, in the discussion of any foreign, any colonial, any 
 commercial, and any imperial affairs. And then I am told that 
 the unity of the United Kingdom is maintained and that the 
 Act of Union is not repealed ! But I go on to the next article, 
 the second, which provides for the succession to the Crown ; 
 and I would only point out on that matter that if, in the course 
 of time, the House of Commons should be called on to face a 
 great crisis as regards the succession to the Crown, as it had to 
 do in the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ireland will 
 under this Bill have no voice in that important matter. The 
 Imperial Parliament can impose — if such a crisis were to arise 
 — any monarch upon Ireland which it chooses, and Ireland has 
 nothing to say to it ; and yet I am told that the unity of the 
 United Kingdom is maintained ! I proceed to the most impor- 
 
32 sPEi:cHi-:s of lord Randolph churchill 
 
 taut article of the Act of Union. The third article is as follows; 
 it is very short, and it is the main article of the Act : ' That it 
 be the third article of 1-he Union that the said United Kingdom 
 be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be called the 
 Parlianieiit of the United Kingdom of Clreat Britain and Ire- 
 land." It is provided by the Act of Union that Ireland is to be 
 represented in the same Parliament as the people of England 
 and Scotland, and under this Bill it is provided that the Irish 
 people, for all purposes whatever, and for all time, shall not be 
 represented at Westminster. And yet we are told by the Prime 
 Minister that this is not Repeal ! The Prime Minister declared 
 in his speech that the supremacy of Parliament would not be 
 impaired in the slightest degree. But I do not understand what 
 is really meant by ' Parliament ' in this case. Does he mean 
 the Parliament that remains at Westminster ? Because, after 
 this Bill comes into operation, the Parliament that remains at 
 Westminster, and which will be for all intents and purposes 
 the Imperial Parliament, can no longer make any laws for 
 Ireland except on certain limited and specified points. It 
 cannot, with these exceptions, make a law pr repeal a law for 
 Ireland. Suppose that the Irish Government and the Irish 
 Parliament encounter some little difficulty — which may pos- 
 sibly be the case — in asserting their authority or in main- 
 taining their authority in certain parts of Ulster ; suppose that 
 the Government of the hon. member for Cork is compelled by 
 this diflaculty to bring in some measure for the disarmament of 
 Ulster, or for the abolition of trial by jury in Ulster, or for the 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus in that part of the country. 
 The Imperial Parliament cannot say one word. Even the pre- 
 rogatives of the Crown of assent or veto may be delegated to 
 the Viceroy, and the Imperial Parliament will have no official 
 knowledge of such a strange and alarming state of things. Not 
 a word can the Imperial Parliament say ; and the grand result 
 of all this turns out to be that the protection of the lives, the 
 liberties, and the property of every man, woman, and child in 
 Ireland passes absolutely and for ever from the jurisdiction of 
 the Imperial Parliament. And yet I am told, and the House 
 of Commons is told, and we are expected to believe with the 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S ' HOME RULE ' BILL 33 
 
 unreasoning- blind credulity of an African negro, who may 
 possibly think he is listening to the voice of divine infalli- 
 bility — we are expected to believe and to receive without 
 question the statement that the supremacy of the Imperial 
 Parliament is not impaired in the smallest degree ! There 
 is another aspect, looking at the scheme as a whole, in 
 which it is most strangely illogical. You find, if you look at 
 the scheme carefully, an enormous amount of giving with one 
 hand and taking away with the other. You find the most 
 curious manifestation of exuberant confidence combined simul- 
 taneously with the manifestation of the most profound distrust. 
 We are told to trust Ireland, and yet the Government tells us 
 that Ireland is so irritated, so estranged from, so hostile to this 
 country, that the very fact of that hostility forces us to give her 
 this new Irish Government with an independent Parliament ! 
 Could there be a stronger exhibition of confidence when Ireland 
 is in such a frame of mind ? and ought not that perfect confidence 
 to carry with it logically almost everything else that can be con- 
 ceived ? But what do we find ? It really appears to me, if I 
 may say it without rousing the impatience of hon. members 
 below the gangway, that if I were an Irishman, looking at the 
 scheme from a patriotic point of view as they claim to do, I 
 could not help feeling that the honour and dignity of my coun- 
 try, which had asserted its right and won its claim to have an 
 independent Parliament, was deeply wounded and affronted by 
 the fact that this independent Parliament, under this Magna 
 Charta of m}- country's liberties, was not to be trusted to deal 
 with any matter arising out of several specified and most impor- 
 tant points. It is not to be trusted to deal with any of the laws 
 relating to trade and navigation. That would seem to betray 
 ignorance of Irish history on the part of the Government. The 
 cause of almost every dispute that arose between the Irish and 
 the British Parliaments dui'ing the last five hundred years was 
 the right claimed by the latter to legislate on matters relating 
 to trade and navigation in Ireland ; and it was that ques- 
 tion, perhaps, more than anything else, that led to the move- 
 ment of 1781. It was the concession of that right which 
 procured the independence of the Grattan Parliament in 1782. 
 VOL. II. D 
 
34 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CIIURCITILL 
 
 Notwitlistamling tliiit the CTOVcninicnt had this historical know- 
 ledge before them, they deliberately refuse to trust the Irish 
 Parliament with the control of any single matter relating to 
 trade and navigation. What would be the effect of this ? The 
 principal exports of Ireland are cattle, sheep, and pigs ; but if 
 it were i-eported that pleuro-pneumonia or foot-and-mouth dis- 
 ease existed in Ireland, the British Government, under the new 
 law, would be able to prohibit the export of any cattle from 
 Ireland into England — an act which would probably bring im- 
 mediate ruin to a large number of Irish farmers ; and yet not 
 a single Irish member would be able in any ^^■ay to raise his 
 voice against that act, or to give the Government representative 
 information on the subject. 
 
 I now come to the last point relating to the Irish Parliament 
 — I mean the question of Ulster. Some people call it loyal 
 Ulster, some Protestant Ulster, but all will call it prosperous 
 Ulster. I think that, looking at it from the revenue point of 
 view alone, I should be justified in calling Ulster the heart of 
 Ireland. Hon. members below the gangway cheer ironically ; 
 but I wish to know whether, in their opinion, the Irish Govern- 
 ment would be able to pay their way if Ulster were withdrawn 
 from the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. But, positively, 
 we are informed that the Government have not been able to 
 come to a decision as to the fate of Ulster — it is left, as the 
 Prime Minister said, for careful, unprejudiced future considera- 
 tion. The fate of Ulster is left to the scramble of Committee. 
 Although the Government have pondered over this matter for 
 weeks, and although they have had every kind of information 
 before them, they have been unable to arrive at a conclusion on 
 the subject. That is one of the most convincing proofs of the 
 almost hopelessly insoluble character of this problem of Home 
 Rule. 
 
 Finally, I ask the House to consider how the measure is 
 proposed, and in what manner it comes before us. The Prime 
 jNIinister said on Thursday that it would be necessary to place 
 this proposal for extensive change on the most broad and solid 
 grounds. In that we all agree ; but what were the grounds which 
 were put forward by the Prime Minister as broad and solid ? If 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME RULE' I'.ILL 35 
 
 we judge tliem solely b}- the wealth of eloquence, exposition, and 
 illustration with which they were presented, then I admit their 
 claim to breadth and solidity ; but if we strip them of their 
 rhetorical ornamentations and analyse them as they stand by 
 themselves, then I think the House will be surprised to find 
 how incredibly slender they are on which to base so vast an 
 organic change. The right hon. gentleman put forward four 
 grounds in support of his proposal. The first was the non- 
 renewal of the Crimes Act by the late Government. That 
 ground particularly recommends itself to the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer,' I know. (The Chancellor of the Exchequer : ' Yes.' 
 Cheers and laughter.) Heaven forbid that I should weary the 
 House by re-opening that endless controversy ! I will content 
 myself with one remark. The Prime Minister said the fact that 
 that Act was not renewed was one of immeasurable historical sig- 
 nificance. But why was it of more historical significance than the 
 fact that the right hon. gentleman's Government did not renew 
 the Crimes Act which expired in 1880 ? Why was our action 
 in not renewing the Act in 1885 of such historical significance 
 that you were to base the Repeal of the Union upon it, when 
 your conduct in not renewing the Act in 1880 was of no signi- 
 ficance whatever ? The second ground put forward by the 
 right hon. gentleman is stronger — it is the presence in this 
 House of 86 members belonging to the Irish National party. 
 In the first place, it does not appear to be absolutely demon- 
 strated why 8G members should on any single proposition 
 prevail over the voices of 58 1 members. In the second jolace, 
 while I fully admit to any extent within reason the formidable 
 character of that party, and the power which it can exercise in 
 the Imperial Parliament, I take leave to doubt the permanence 
 of that formidable character. Any study of Irish history will 
 show that no Irish political party has ever held together for long. 
 Resistance to any Irish political party has always strained it, 
 and has ultimately destroyed it. I take the party of Mr. 
 O'Connell in 1835. Nothing could have appeared more formid- 
 able than that party at that time ; and yet it broke up, and Mr. 
 O'Connell died abroad, as some said, of a broken heart. Then 
 
 • Sir W. Harcourt. 
 
 P 2 
 
36 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPH CIIUIiCIIILL 
 
 take the party of Mr. Butt. In 1871 he came back to Parlia- 
 ment nominally at the head of a party 50 or 60 strong, and the 
 hou. member for Cork can tell the House what the fate of that 
 party was. I had the honour of knowing ]\Ir. Butt personally. 
 I saw him not long before he died, and I can affirm that he, 
 like Mr. O'Connell, died in the deepest distress of mind with 
 regard to the political fate of his party. I now take what I will 
 call the first party of the hon. member for Cork, which made its 
 appearance in 1880. Before that Parliament met that party 
 came together and elected the hon. member for Cork to be their 
 leader. (Mr. Parnell : 'After Mr. Butt's death.") Yes, and 
 they came back to this Parliament apparently united, and num- 
 bering some sixty votes. But the Parliament had not been 
 six months in session before that party was sharply divided — 
 and sharply divided it remained during the whole of the last 
 Parliament. The present party of the hou. member for Cork is 
 a formidable and numerous party ; but it seems to me that the 
 hon. member for Cork is himself aware of the great danger of 
 disunion, because he has taken a step hitherto unknown to the 
 Parliamentary life of the United Kingdom. Every member of 
 the hon. member's party takes a solemn and binding pledge that 
 he will vote in a particular mannei'. (Cries of ' No ' from some 
 Irish members.) Hon. members will have an opportunity of 
 answering me if I am wrong ; but, speaking from the knowledge 
 which I possess, I affirm that a pledge never given before has 
 been given by every Irish member ; and the fact that such a 
 pledge has been exacted makes it impossible to suppose that the 
 party of the hon. member for Cork is free from the hereditary 
 tendency to disunion. That party has not yet been tried. It 
 has only just appeared, and I cannot admit that the mere 
 clamour of this party in Parliament is sufiicient, before they 
 have even formulated any clear demands, to cause the fabric of 
 that Union which was constructed by Mr. Pitt, and which has 
 been maintained without alteration by every succeeding Minis- 
 ter down to the present day, to fall to pieces as the walls of 
 Jericho fell before the migrating masses of the Jews. 
 
 The third ground upon which the Prime Minister based his 
 proposal was undoubtedly original. He based his third argu- 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S ' HOME EULE ' BILL 37 
 
 ment for repeal upon the existence of St. George's Channel. I 
 remember an occasion some time ago when tlie Prime Minister 
 visited Ireland, and when I had the honour of being presented 
 to him. I remember that the weather was boisterous and 
 tempestuous, and the right hon. gentleman had most excellent 
 reasons for conceiving an undying animosity against St, George's 
 Channel, and for inaking it, as it were, the scapegoat of his 
 future Irish policy. I may remind the House that there have 
 been many and long debates about the principle of the Union, 
 when every argument for and against it has been used ; but this 
 is the very first time when the argument of geography has been 
 summoned to the aid of Repeal. The Prime Minister has con- 
 verted the geographical argument from a weapon of defence, 
 which it has hitherto always been in the hands of Unionists, 
 into a weapon of offence. If the House will recollect the 
 difiiculties which attended the transit between Dublin and 
 London in the year 1800, when it took a man sometimes six weeks 
 to make the journey, and compare them with the ease and the 
 rapidity of the transit now, hon. members will be slow to admit 
 that the arguments which were good enough for the construction 
 of the Union in 1800 have been weakened by the invention of 
 the steam-engine, the railway, and the telegraph. But the 
 fourth ground taken up by the Prime Minister was the most 
 curious of all. He said that we could not govern Ireland any 
 longer because our law was discredited in that country, and 
 reached the Irish people in a foreign aspect and a foreign 
 garb. It is sad to hear the Prime Minister of this country pro- 
 claim that the Irish are alien to the English and Scotch, and that 
 the English and Scotch are alien to the Irish. The Eirst Lord 
 of the Treasury was in Parliament when Lord Lyndhurst de- 
 nounced the Irish as aliens in race, religion, and language ; and 
 when Mr.Sheil in this House, pointing to Lord Lyndhurst 
 sitting under the gallery, created the most extraordinary scene, 
 speaking on behalf of the whole Irish nation, by repudiating with 
 the utmost vigour the construction which was then put upon Lord 
 Lyndhurst's words, and which I can now legitimately draw from 
 the arguments of the Prime Minister. But is it not still more 
 melancholy when the First Minister of the Crown, who makes this 
 
38 SPEECHES OF LORD HANDOLl'H CHURCHILL 
 
 despairing confession, is one who has striven for so many years to 
 remove all grounds of alienation ? Is not this the most complete 
 confession of utter and hopeless failure of efforts which may be 
 called without exaggeration the efforts of a lifetime ? If the 
 confession were limited merely to a confession it would be sad 
 enough, but when it is accompanied by a new policy it is a con- 
 fession of a nature to cause the House to pause. The Prime 
 Minister seemed to me to forget how fatal a confession it was 
 for his own proposal. In what aspect and in what garb will 
 this Magna Charta go to Ireland ? Surely, it will have the 
 same aspect and the same garb which the Prime Minister ascribes 
 to the measures for municipal reform, Parliamentary reform, the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church, and for the alteration of 
 the land laws, all of which, the Prime Minister tells us, are dis- 
 credited in Ireland. Assuming that the present Bill were to 
 pass into law, the relations between the two countries would 
 depend upon the faithful execution of the compact ; but, according 
 to the Prime Minister, speaking with an experience of fifty years, 
 this Magna Charta is likely to be discredited and repudiated be- 
 cause it goes to Ireland in a foreign aspect and foreign garb. These 
 were the four main grounds put forward by the Prime Minister. 
 But the Chief Secretary^ supplied a fifth. He said, 'If you 
 reject this Bill and turn us out of office you will be doing that 
 which the desperadoes whom you fear most desire.' He intimated 
 that the consequences would be a no-reut manifesto, dynamite 
 explosions, and a great outbreak of crime and outrage. That 
 is a tremendous intimation made by a Minister of the Crown 
 responsible for the government of Ireland. The very fact of 
 such an intimation being made might be held by ill-disposed 
 persons to justify the fulfilment of the prophecy. Not only 
 might it be so held by ill-disposed persons, but it might to some 
 extent lead the House to the conclusion that what the Prime 
 Minister called the motor muscle of the policy now before the 
 House is fear of these things, and that the Magna Charta which 
 is to have such beneficent effects on the future of Ireland — this 
 Magna Charta in the disguise of an act of grace — is in reality 
 an act of terror. This prophecy of the right hon. gentleman 
 ' Mr. John Morle3\ 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME RULE' RILL 39 
 
 having been made to tlie House of Commons, and having been 
 made a gi'ound for passing this Bill, just let me for a moment 
 deal with it. Let us see if these dangers are so very alarming 
 that they ought in any way to influence our actions. Are these 
 new dangers .? Has the House of Commons had no experience 
 of them? Have we never known of a 'no-rent manifesto'? 
 Why, the First Lord of the Treasury himself had to encounter 
 a no-rent manifesto in 1881, and the statesman^ whose body 
 on Friday last passed thi'ough Westminster Abbey on the way 
 to its grave in the North encountered successfully a no-rent 
 manifesto. Well, sir, let us deal with dynamite explosions. 
 Have we had no experience of dynamite explosions? I see 
 sitting opposite me the right hon. and learned gentleman the 
 member for Bury,'^ who can tell the House that, with regard to 
 dynamite explosions, we certainly were most providentially and 
 almost miraculously preserved from an awful disaster. But the 
 dynamiters, the people who were inculpated in these atrocities, 
 are now undergoing what has been called a living death. Well, 
 sir, an outburst of crime and outrage — has the House had no 
 experience of that ? I always understood that it was one of the 
 great glories of the Government — of Lord Spencer — that he 
 rapidly, successfully, and summarily put down a great outburst 
 of crime and outrage in Ireland. Then, sir, as to assassination. 
 I cannot forget that assassination in 1882 cost Ireland the life 
 of one of her most faithful sons, and the House of Commons the 
 life of one of its most valuable and respected members.^ But, 
 sir, the House of Commons ought not to be influenced with 
 regard to its future policy by any such arguments. Assassina- 
 tion is one of the rarest incidents of modern political life. It 
 used to be a common method of political warfare ; but the 
 growth and progress of civilisation have demonstrated its utter 
 folly and inutility. A man in public life ought not to be de- 
 terred from any public action by the knowledge that by some 
 mischance some day or other he might be the mark of a lunatic 
 or criminal, any more than anybody contemplating a railway 
 journey would be deterred by the fear of an accident. Therefore, 
 
 ' Mr. Forster. - Sir Henry James. 
 
 ^ Mr. Burke and Lord Frederick Cavendish. 
 
40 SPEECH i:S OF LOKD UAKDOLPII CIIUUCIllLL 
 
 of all the grounds of polic}' put forward in support of this Bill, 
 the ground advanced by the Chief Secretary I consider to be 
 the weakest of all. There is only one argument for this policy 
 which has any claim to breadth and solidity, and that is the 
 argument that this measure has been produced by the Govern- 
 ment of the Queen, of which the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for ]\[id-I^othian is the head. That is an argument the 
 breadth and solidity of which I am. not prepared to recognise ; 
 but I do recognise the enormous advantage which is given to 
 the Irish National party. I consider it to have been my good 
 fortune to have heard and to have read many speeches and 
 orations of the JMnie Minister with regard to Ireland. Many 
 of his most confident predictions, vaticinations and declarations 
 are fresh in my mind. I have been more than once under 
 what may be called the wand of the magician, and I know of no 
 experience to which I can compare it except perhaps the taking 
 of morphia. The sensations, while the operation is going on, are 
 transcendent, but the recovery is bitter beyond conception. Well, 
 sir, bringing the light of my experience of these declarations 
 and vaticinations to bear on this policy, I challenge any one 
 of the most devoted admirers or of the most ardent supporters of 
 the Prime Minister to point out one single prediction of his with 
 regard to Ireland which has been verified, or one single declara- 
 tion of his which has been maintained. But if the light of 
 that experience is not bright enough for us, if our blindness 
 requires that the darkness of the future should be illumined 
 by some friendly flash of light, I find the warning beacon in the 
 speech of the Chief Secretary on Friday night. In alluding to 
 the reminiscence called up by the right hon. member for West 
 Birmingham ^ in regard to an expression of opinion by the Prime 
 Minister at Newcastle many years ago, that Jefferson Davis had 
 made a nation — the Chief Secretary admitted the error, but 
 chided the cruelty of the recollection — and declared that in his 
 opinion, speaking as an historian, history would deal leniently 
 with the error of the Prime Minister, because when the annals 
 of the century came to be written, they would show that in 
 Italy, in Bulgaria, and also in Ireland the Prime Minister had 
 ' Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S 'HOME EULE' BILL 41 
 
 made nations. That describes exactly tlie position which the 
 opponents of this Bill take up. We believe that if this measure 
 passes into law, when the history of this century comes to be 
 written — and it may not be many years hence, some of us even 
 may live to read it — the result of this act will be decided to be 
 that, as is the position of Italy towards Austria having been freed 
 from the yoke of the Austrian — as is the position of Bulgaria 
 towards Turkey having been freed from the yoke of the Sultan — 
 so is the position of Ireland towards Great Britain having been 
 freed from the supremacy of Parliament and from the sovereignty 
 of the Queen. For my own part, I confidently declare I shall 
 cheerfully raise my voice and give my vote against a policy which 
 has, in my opinion, been unconstitutionally sprung upon an 
 unprepared, an unwarned, and a justly startled people — against 
 a measure so desperate and so insane. 
 
42 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPH CHUIICIIILL 
 
 CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION. 
 
 Paddington, June 26, 1886. 
 
 [This speech was delivered shortly after the rejection of Mr. 
 Gladstone's Home Rule Bill, on its second reading, by a majority 
 of 30 (June 7). It presented an analysis of the Irish question from 
 an historical point of view, and although some abridgment is indis- 
 pensable here, the main portions of the argument are preserved. The 
 results of the general election which followed in July are summar- 
 ised in the general introduction to this work.] 
 
 PARLIAMENT has been to-day dissolved ; that Parliament 
 which you took your part in electing in November last ; that 
 I'arliaraent which fully, more fully than any former Parliament, 
 represented the British democracy ; that Parliament from which 
 you justly expected so much, after a few weeks' existence has 
 been scattered to the winds ; and again you are called upon, in 
 the exercise of the highest rights of citizenship, to take your 
 part in electing a new Parliament. Mr. Gladstone has dissolved 
 Parliament, and he has appealed to the nation. He has put a 
 question to the country — a question which you, in common with 
 the five million voters of the United Kingdom, are called upon 
 to answer. Mr. Gladstone says of that question that it raises 
 the simplest issue which was ever put before the people. That 
 is the only opinion during the whole of this controversy which 
 Mr. Gladstone has uttered in which I entirely agree with him. 
 It is, gentlemen, I assure you, the simplest issue — intensely 
 grave, intensely momentous — on the decision of which the 
 destinies of empires hang ; but it is a simple question. It may 
 be put in many ways with equal simplicity. You may put it 
 in this way. Will you, the electors of Great Britain, who are 
 now entrusted with supreme political power, maintain in its 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION 4? 
 
 present fonn, with all its present attributes, and in all its present 
 might and majesty, the Imperial Parliament of your country, 
 or will you break it up ? Will you divide it into two parts ? 
 Will you create another Parliament, which may be subordinate 
 or co-ordinate, as the case may be, and will you remove a por- 
 tion, and an essential portion, of the Queen's dominions from 
 under the supremacy of your ancient Imperial Parliament ? 
 That is one way of putting the question. You may put it in 
 another way. Will you maintain the effective, practical unity 
 of the United Kingdom, or will you divide the United Kingdom 
 into two, as a house may be divided against itself? That is 
 another way, and an equally simple way, of putting the question. 
 There is yet a third way. Will you maintain your present 
 arrangement of one supreme executive Government, responsible 
 to one supreme legislative body for the whole of the United 
 Kingdom, or will you have two executive Governments, indepen- 
 dent of each other, in all probability opposed to each other — 
 certainly rivals, and responsible to two separate legislative 
 bodies ? Now these are all simple ways of putting this simple 
 question, upon which the country has to decide. And, for my 
 own part, I confess freely that I cannot understand how any 
 human being possessing an ordinary modicum of rational intelli- 
 gence can have the smallest doubt as to how that simple ques- 
 tion ought to be answered ; but, unfortunately, we have to do 
 with a man who, although he states the country has to decide 
 on a simple issue, uses his extraordinary powers of argument and 
 rhetoric for the purpose of confusing tiiat issue, for the purpose 
 of bewildering the mind of the country, and for the purpose of 
 keeping back from the people the real nature of the issue which 
 is submitted to them. That is the danger of the present 
 political situation. The great authority on this matter, the 
 man who appeals to the confidence of his country, the man who 
 says he trusts his countrymen, and who denounces and despises 
 his opponents for not trusting his countrymen — that man above 
 all others leaves no artifice unresorted to for concealing the real 
 truth of the matter from the mind of the country. 
 
 Now, how does Mr. Gladstone put this great question to the 
 country ? These are practically the words in which he appeals 
 
44 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 to the constituencies — this is the manner in which he puts this 
 simple question ; and 1 pray your best attention. ' Will you 
 allow Ireland to manage exclusively Irish affairs by herself in 
 luT own way, and for her own interest, withput being inter- 
 fered with and overridden by England and by Scotland ? ' ]\Ir. 
 Gladstone adds that if you do not answer that question in the 
 affirmative, there is only one alternative and no other : that you 
 must have twenty years of what he calls Cromwell ian coercion 
 in Ireland. He says that it wall not be any use to resort to 
 what he calls ' bastard coercion.' Well, now, bastard coercion is 
 a very ugly j)hrase ; but what does ' bastard coercion ' mean ? It 
 merely means this — that in Ireland, as in every other portion of 
 the civilised world, if certain persons choose to resort to murder, 
 to assassination, to robbery, and to intimidation, those persons 
 shall be brought to justice. That is all that it means. But 
 Mr. Gladstone says that lie will have no more of that. That, 
 says Mr. Gladstone, is a bastard coercion ; ' the only alternative 
 to my policy is what I call Cromwellian coercion.' That is a 
 startling statement, and it is very easy to use adjectives. 
 I'eople condemn me for using adjectives, but I never use an 
 adjective without thinking of the meaning of that adjective. 
 Let us examine this adjective Cromwellian, wbich he applies to 
 coercion. Cromwellian coercion in Ireland means the method 
 of governing Ireland which was pursued by Oliver Cromwell, 
 the Lord Protector. What was that method ? It was a method 
 of governing Ireland by the utter and total extermination of 
 the Celtic peasantry by massacre and by starvation. That was 
 the deliberate object which the Lord Protector Cromwell put 
 before himself when he went into Ireland to suppress Irish 
 disaffection. But it was not original on the part of the Lord 
 I'rotector. That was the method which had been tried by 
 Queen Elizabeth when she suppressed the rebellion of the great 
 Irish earls. It was the extermination utter and complete of 
 the Celtic peasantry by massacre and by starvation. Mark you, 
 Mr. Gladstone deliberately states in this nineteenth century 
 that the only alternative to his statutory Parliament in Dublin, 
 if you refuse to grant that Parliament, will be Cromwellian 
 and Ji^lizabethau coercion. That is the adjective Cromwellian 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION 45 
 
 exarainecl. What can be the condition of mind of a statesman 
 who comes before his countrymen and says, ' If you do not 
 adopt my method of governing Ireland there is nothing for 
 you to do but to exterminate the Irish people ' ? 
 
 So much for the alternative coercive policy ; and now if we 
 go back to Mr. Gladstone's own policy — that Ireland is to manage 
 exclusively Irish affairs by herself, in her own way, and in her 
 own interests, without being interfered with or overridden by 
 England or by Scotland — I do not suppose it is possible to put 
 before the English people a more confused and complicated 
 proposition. The question instantly arises, What is Ireland, 
 and what are Irish affairs ? I believe I am accurate in saying 
 this, that there is no important political affair which can be 
 legitimately or accurately called an exclusively Irish affair. The 
 relations between Great Britain and Ireland are so close, they 
 are so based on the arrangements and the customs of so many 
 hundreds of years, that there is no Irish affair which could 
 be dealt with by an Irish body that would not more orjess 
 directly affect British affairs and interests. However, leaving 
 that point for a moment — the definition of Irish affairs — let ns 
 examine the question. What is Ireland ? Ireland is an island. 
 That may seem a truism, but it is absolutely necessary for me to 
 lay that down at starting, for I believe that if Mr. Gladstone 
 were to say to-morrow that Ireland is not an island, the whole 
 of his followers would passionately repeat that Ireland was not 
 an island, that it never had been an island, and that anybody 
 who said it was an island was a liar and a slanderer, who ought 
 to be immediately turned out of Parliament. Therefore I will 
 lay that down at starting. I take it out of the range of Mr. 
 Gladstone's destructive oratory. Ireland is separated from this 
 country by a channel which at its narrowest part only measures 
 fifteen miles. That geographical fact utterly disposes of all the 
 analogies for purposes of constructive politics which are some- 
 times drawn from the case of Canada, which is distant from this 
 country 3,000 miles, and from the case of Australia, which is 
 distant from this country nearly 12,000 miles. It disposes of 
 the ingenious analogy which one of the leading speakers on the 
 part of the Government drew between Iceland and its relations to 
 
46 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPTT CIIURCHILL 
 
 Denmark, and Ireland and its relation to England. Iceland is 
 distant from Denmark 1,200 miles, and you may asprofitably 
 say that the only difference between Ireland and Iceland is the 
 difference between the consonant ' c ' and the consonant ' r,' as 
 to argue, for political purposes, that the distance of 1,200 miles 
 is exactly the same as a distance of fifteen miles. Therefore I 
 utterly put aside for all practical purposes the analogy which 
 Government speakers draw from Canada, from Australia, and from 
 Iceland. What is the population of Ireland ? That is extremely 
 important. The population of Ireland is ver}' curiously com- 
 posed. There is no analogy that I know of between the popu- 
 lation of Ireland and the population of any other distinct com- 
 munity in the world. In Ireland we have, in the first place, a 
 population divided into two most important classes. We have 
 a gentry mainly Protestant, owners of the land mainly of 
 Anglo-Saxon extraction, and with that gentry we have a power- 
 ful class of persons engaged in commerce who are also mainly 
 Protestant, and mainly of Anglo-Saxon extraction. We find 
 as a second class the peasantry, almost entirely Catholic, and 
 largely of Celtic origin. That is one extraordinary peculiarity 
 about Ireland. I know no analogy for it in any other country 
 in the world. In Ireland we have no large or powerful middle 
 class. It would be impossible to describe what the middle 
 class of England has done for England. The middle class of 
 England has sustained England through many great national 
 perils. The middle class of England has carried the English 
 Government forward on a path of progress and reform. But 
 more than that : the middle class of England, by its power, by 
 its spreading branches in all directions, and by its gradations, 
 has fused into one great harmonious whole the classes who are 
 able by their circumstances in life to enjoy themselves at leisure 
 and the classes who are compelled by their circumstances of life 
 to depend upon daily labour. It has made the English nation 
 one great united indivisible community. Remember this when 
 thinking about Ireland — there is there no great, powerful middle 
 class. For political purposes, that element does not exist. 
 Therefore in Ireland we find the gentry and the persons who 
 are engaged in commerce, who are the possessors of the wealth 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION 47 
 
 of Ireland, and who are extremel}' powerful from their liistor}', 
 and from their traditions, and their position ; and in the next 
 place, sharply opposed to them, we find the Catholic peasantry, 
 who are extremely powerful from one point of view — that of 
 numbers. They outnumber the former class in the proportion 
 of three or four to one. That is the composition of the popula- 
 tion of Ireland ; and we must not forget that the first class — 
 the gentry, and the persons who are engaged in commerce — 
 are those who have generally been known to us as the English 
 garrison in Ireland. 
 
 Now up. to the time of the Union those two forces were sharply 
 divided from each other. They were animated towards each 
 other by the bitterest hostility and the most intense animosity. 
 Up to the time of the Legislative Union there was in Ireland 
 constantly recurring civil war, or commotions which almost at- 
 tained to the dignity of civil war ; but since the Legislative Union 
 these two classes have been gradually coming together, gradually 
 approaching each other. There has been since that union no civil 
 war in Ireland, or anything approaching civil war. We have had 
 from time to time disturbances in parts of Ireland, sporadic 
 agrarian agitation, accompanied by outbursts of crime of a very 
 serious nature ; but the moment the British Government has 
 put out its arm these outbursts of crime have speedily dis- 
 appeared. We have had nothing since the time of the Legisla- 
 tive Union approaching to the civil commotion that existed 
 before that time. [Here followed some quotations from Mr. 
 Gladstone's speeches in support of this position, and TiOrd 
 Randolph then continued : — ] I have quoted the opinions of 
 Mr. Gladstone at two great crises of Irish history in order to 
 support my assertion that since the Union there has been an 
 improvement in the social condition of Ireland, and that the 
 two great parties in the population who had been so sharply 
 divided were coming together. And why ? What was the 
 effect of the Legislative Union ? We brought over the Par- 
 liamentary representatives of these two great classes of the 
 population, and mixed them up in Westminster with our 
 English, Scotch, and Welsh representatives, who together formed 
 a great mediating influence and a great balancing power, which 
 
48 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 pivveiited tliese two classes of the population from tyrannising 
 own- and oppressing each other. That was the real effect of 
 the Legislative Union of Mr. Pitt. The balancing power was 
 provided between two great opposing forces in Ireland, and the 
 constant effect of that power, used with patience and perse- 
 verance, was to fuse tliese two classes into one. What is the 
 proposal that ^fr. Gladstone now makes to the country? He 
 proposes to abolish and remove that great balancing power, 
 that impartial judgment — to take the Irish members away from 
 the influence of the English, Scotch, and Welsh members, and 
 to send them back to their own country. And in. reality this 
 is the meaning of Mr. Gladstone's policy — to go back to the 
 state of things which existed at the time of the Union, to 
 remove the great buffer Avhich exists between these two great 
 powerful forces in Ireland, and to leave them face to face with 
 each other. That is the meaning of the expression that Ireland 
 is to manage her own affairs exclusively. 
 
 The question arises, What do you mean by Ireland managing 
 her own affairs ? Do you mean the Protestant gentry, the 
 Protestant commercial classes, or do you mean the Catholic 
 peasantr}^ ? Instantly the problem arises. It is no good to 
 talk in this general way about Ireland managing her own 
 affairs. If you are practical Englishmen you must examine 
 what this means. Remember that it is absolutely impossible, 
 if we withdraw our controlling, our mediating, and our 
 balancing influence over these two forces, for them to unite 
 together. They never can. You might just as w^ell try to mix 
 oil and water. Either one or the other will get the upper hand, 
 and in either case you will have injustice, oppression, tyranny, 
 and national misery. But it is really hard upon us that we 
 should have to decide this question. One would think it was a 
 new question — that it had never been presented to the English 
 people before. The question has been presented to our fore- 
 fathers before on two great occasions. Two hundred years ago 
 the English tried the experiment of governing Ireland mainly 
 by the Catholic classes of that country. The Parliament of 
 Tyrconnel, the Parliament of James the Second, had a splendid 
 chance of seizing hold upon the affections and the loyalty of the 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION 49 
 
 Irisli people. If the Parliament of Tyrconuel — which was a 
 Catholic Parliament, which represented almost exclusively the 
 Catholic population — if that Parliament had been animated by a 
 spark of justice or a spark of wisdom or of common sense, the 
 battle of the Boyne would in all probability never have been 
 fought ; but it was because that Parliament excelled every 
 legislative assembly the world has ever seen in tyranny, in op- 
 pression, in injustice, and in cruelty, that the North of Ireland 
 rebelled against that Parliament of Tyrconnel, which tried to 
 put down the North of Ireland, and sent forth its armies, over- 
 ran the North of Ireland, and oppressed the North of Ireland 
 with military cruelty of every kind. But the city of London- 
 derry held out. It resisted ; and the North of Ireland called in 
 "William of Orange, and he came over to Ireland, he fought the 
 battle of the Boyne, he swept away the Parliament of Tyrconnel, 
 and he brought on that Catholic Celtic Parliament the fate it 
 richly merited. Therefore our forefathers tried in Ireland two 
 hundred years ago the experiment of governing Ireland by a 
 Celtic Parliament, and that experiment utterly failed and broke 
 down. What succeeded it? It was attempted to govern 
 Ireland by a Government of Anglo-Saxon Protestants ; a Pro- 
 testant Parliament was established in Iieland, and with it at the 
 same time a purely British Government. How did that experi- 
 ment succeed ? It succeeded indifferently w^ell as long as the 
 Protestant Parliament of Ireland was not a real Parliament, as 
 long as it was kept in complete subjection and had little real 
 Parliamentary power; but from the year 1782, when England, 
 at a moment of great national calamity and danger, was not 
 able to resist the demands of the Protestant Parliament, and 
 gave to it full and complete Parliamentary independence — from 
 that year 1782 to the year 1800 the experiment of governing 
 Ireland by an Anglo-Saxon Protestant Parliament utterly failed 
 and broke down, so great was the incapacity and the incompe- 
 tence and the bigotry of the Parliament of Grattan. There was 
 never a greater delusion or a more false historical statement 
 than to say that the Parliament of Grattan was a Parliament of 
 religious tolerance. It passed Catholic emancipation, because 
 that was absolutely forced on the Irish Parliament by the 
 VOL. II. E 
 
50 SPEECHES OF LolW JiANDOLPlI CHURCHILL 
 
 IJritisli Govt-ninuMit, and one of the great reasons which inJucfd 
 Mr, Pitt to favour the Union was because he knew that till that 
 Parliament was abolished there would be no religious toleration 
 in Ireland ; so that the real reason and cause of the Legislative 
 Union of Mr. Pitt was the incapacity and incompetence for the 
 government of Ireland and for the protection of Ireland which 
 was displayed by the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Parliament — an 
 incapacity and incompetence which culminated in the bloody 
 rebellion of 1798. People talk about the fraud, and the force, 
 and the bribery which carried the Union. They were small 
 causes, they were the oil on the wheels which made the project 
 go through. The real cause was the fearful and bloody rebellion 
 of 1798 and the terror of French invasion, both of which 
 dangers the Anglo-Saxon Parliament was utterly unable to cope 
 with. This is an historical aspect of the question which Mr. 
 Gladstone never glances at. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone proposes to recur to the experiment of 
 governing Ireland by the Celtic Catholics. He proposes to place 
 the government of Ireland in the hands of the Celtic Catholic 
 peasantry of Ireland ; because, mark you, Mr. Gladstone's Ire- 
 land is the Ireland of the National League, and the National 
 League, if it represents anything at all except crime and outrage 
 and terror, if it has any popular element about it at all, repre- 
 sents the Catholic agricultural Celtic peasantry of Ireland. The 
 argument which I wish to bring before you is this : if governing 
 by Protestant ascendancy — which after all was governing Ire- 
 land by the wealthy, loyal, and educated classes — if that system 
 of government utterly broke down, utterly failed, and to such an 
 extent that in order to preserve our national existence we had 
 to put a stop to it and to abolish it — if that was so, what is 
 likely to be the result of government by Catholic ascendancy, 
 which means government placed in the hands of the Celtic 
 Catholic peasantry, possessing many fine qualities, but at the 
 same time imperfectly educated, prone to superstition, a peasantry, 
 moreover, which for a time has placed itself under the guidance 
 of American adventurers, and which has for a time abandoned 
 itself to the control of an unenlightened priesthood ? We have 
 tried the one and the other, and we are asked to o-o back 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OF THE UNION 51 
 
 to an experiment made two hundred years ago. If our J?i-o- 
 testant Government failed, is our Catholic Government likely 
 to succeed ? One or the other of these classes must govern 
 Ireland if we come away. One or the other must have the 
 upper hand. It must either be the Celtic Catholics or the 
 Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They cannot possibly unite if they 
 are left alone. We are told, and I entirely agree in the injunc- 
 tion, that we must not infuse religious bigotry into this question. 
 God forbid that I should infuse religious bigotry into Ireland ! 
 There is plenty of religious bigotry in Ireland already, and the 
 one thing which keeps down religious bigotry, which restrains it, 
 which prevents its running to most frightful excesses, is the 
 power of the Union and the power of the Imperial Parliament. 
 In bringing before you the actual state of affairs, the true 
 state of aifairs in Ireland, I am not infusing religious bigotry 
 into the question. I admire, I respect the Catholics of 
 Ireland. I believe that the Catholics of Ireland, under good 
 guidance, if thej were let alone and had fair treatment, 
 would.be the most loyal of all the Queen's subjects. I respect 
 the Protestants of Ireland, I respect their history, I respect 
 their services and their loyalty to this country under immense 
 difficulties ; and in dwelling upon the fact that these two classes 
 form the population of Ireland, I am not infusing religious 
 bigotry into the Irish question. I am doing that which I 
 respectfully ask you to do, and which Mr. Gladstone and his 
 colleagues refuse to do — looking facts in the face. That is the 
 great fact about Ireland, the fact which overwhelms the whole 
 of this question — the unbridgeable chasm which exists in 
 Ireland between two large portions of the population, the 
 Anglo-Saxon Protestant and the Celtic Catholic. That is the 
 Irish question. You have heard of the Irish question from 
 time immemorial. Ever since we began to study politics we 
 have heard of the Irish question. That is the Irish question, 
 and there is no other. I recently was told by an Irish judge of 
 an occasion some twenty years ago when Mr. Disraeli, in the 
 course of a stormy Irish debate, taunted by Irish members 
 with remaining silent, at length rose and with great gravity 
 said, ' The Irish question is insoluble.' Then he sat down. 
 
52 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Mr. J^israeli meant that tlie Irisli question was insoluble by 
 1 Parliamentary debate or rapid legislation. But it is not in reality 
 insoluble. It only demands from you the qualities of patience 
 and perseverance. The great solution of the Irish question is 
 the efflux of time. What is Mr. Gladstone's present demand to 
 Englishmen and Scotchmen ? That they should give up alto- 
 gether the struggle upon which they have been so long engaged, 
 and that they should proclaim to the world their impotence to 
 govern this island of Ireland with its five million population. 
 That is the demand. We govern India, we govern Australia, we 
 govern Canada, we govern altogether three hundred millions of 
 mankind, and Mr. Gladstone demands that we shall proclaim to 
 the whole civilised world that the Anglo-Saxon race are unable to 
 govern with any approach to decency or tranquillity five millions 
 of the Irish people. And mark you, gentlemen, it is worse than 
 that. Among the five millions of people whom Mr. Gladstone 
 calls upon us to declare our inability to govern are no less 
 than two millions who cling to us with a tenacity which 
 surpasses loyalty, and who call upon us under no circum- 
 stances to surrender them to their foes. Positively it comes to 
 this — that thirty millions of the inhabitants of Great Britain 
 added to two millions of the inhabitants of Ireland are, if 
 they yield to Mr, Gladstone's demands, to proclaim to the world 
 their utter impotence to bring peace or tranquillity or prosperity 
 to the remaining three millions of the Irish people. Was there 
 ever a more ludicrous or absurd proposition ? It only requires 
 to be looked at in the right way. Mr. Gladstone asks us to 
 abandon altogether, confessing our hopeless failure, the effort 
 which for eighty-five years has been in operation, of holding the 
 balance, the peaceful and trauquillising balance, between the 
 two great forces of the population which I have described. 
 On that effort we and our forefathers have spent millions of 
 British taxes ; to that effort our Parliament has devoted weeks, 
 months, sessions, years of its time, years of its industry and 
 application ; to that effort many of our brightest and best 
 statesmen have devoted — ay, some even have sacrificed — their 
 lives: but our millions are to be thrown away utterly; the 
 labours of our Parliament are to be treated as if thev had never 
 
CAUSES AND OBJECTS OE THE UNION 53 
 
 been ; the lives of our best statesmen are to liave been in vain ; 
 all that effort, and all its results are to be abandoned. That is 
 what Mr. Gladstone demands. Was there ever such a demand 
 made upon the people before ? And what to my mind makes 
 it all the more disgraceful and despicable — this demand is 
 made, in all human probability, just at the moment when we 
 are on the eve of a great and notorious success. For eighty-five 
 years we have laboured, and we have poured out on Ireland 
 all that we possess of common-sense, of wisdom, of liberality, of 
 benevolence, and generosity. The seed has been sown ; the 
 seed is struggling up among the stones, the boulders, and the 
 rocks of faction and prejudice in Ireland, and with a modicum 
 of patience we should reap a harvest the bounty of which you 
 have no idea of. But we are asked now, on the eve of success, 
 as I believe from my knowledge of Ireland, to fling away all 
 that chance of success, to give it up for ever, and to treat Ire- 
 land as if our work had never taken place. We are passing 
 through a very great crisis in the liistor}" of Ireland and Eng- 
 land; but if that crisis is safely passed, if these wild demands 
 are firmly resisted, if the English people show only a percent- 
 age of the dogged perseverance of their forefathers, I am certain 
 as I stand here that there lies before us an ocean of smooth 
 sailing, of calm waters, and an era of peaceful and tranquil pro- 
 gress in Ireland. 
 
 We are told that the Legislative Union has been an utter 
 failure. I deny that proposition. To judge of its merits you 
 must compare it with the Government of the Celtic Catholic 
 Parliament, and also of the Protestant Parliament. So com- 
 pared, instead of being a failure, it has been a conspicuous and 
 glorious success. The government of Ireland by any method 
 which human ingenuity can conceive has been, and will always 
 be, a work of marvellous difficulty ; but it has surely progressed, 
 and Ireland has increased since the Union more rapidl}^ in 
 material prosperity than England or Scotland. If Lord Clare, 
 the great champion of the Union, could come to life, he would 
 indeed be surprised at the different appearance and state of 
 the country now to what it was after a hundred years of the 
 Protestant Parliament in Ireland. I know Ireland wt-ll, I liave 
 
54 SPEECHES OF LOUD KANDOI.iMI riirRCHlLL 
 
 lived for some years there, and have travelled in almost every 
 county. You would be suqDrised if you could have any idea 
 of its material prosperity. Compared with the state of the rural 
 districts in Eiig^land, I am certain that your verdict would be 
 that the prosperity in most parts of Ireland is greater than tliat 
 of England. There are parts of Ireland inhabited by a pauper 
 population — a result springing from no fault of any political 
 system, but from causes beyond the control of any political 
 system — parts of Munster and Connaught where there is over- 
 population, a tempestuous climate, and an ungrateful soil, all 
 those constituting a disease which no political remedy can cure. 
 But it is precisely in these parts that the National League has 
 the leasl hold. Out of Ulster there is not a population more loyal 
 and possessed of better qualities than that of the west coast of Ire- 
 land, and one more deserving of British benevolence and gene- 
 rosity. Besides her material progress, Ireland has made a re- 
 markable advance in social and intellectual matters ; and I protest 
 against the Repeal of the Union, as it would ruin and utterly 
 destroy the work we have been carrying on. If, in the name of 
 'justice to Ireland ' — which has covered many a crime and many 
 a blunder — we were to withdraw from Ireland our controlling 
 power, we would commit the greatest injustice that has ever been 
 committed by one people upon another, and compared with it 
 the Penal Laws and all the other wrongs would be microscopic. 
 There is an Irish difficulty — a very grave difficulty — which will 
 tax Parliaments and Governments, and may terminate Parlia- 
 ments and Governments. But have the English nation never 
 had difficulties before ? Mr. Gladstone's mode of meetiug the 
 difficulty is that which was so admirably described by Lord 
 Salisbury as the policy of ' scuttle.' That was his policy in regard 
 to the Afghan, the South African, and the Soudan difficulties. 
 It is his old remedy, which the people of England have con- 
 demned over and over again. We do not believe in a policy of 
 ' scuttle.' We believe in patience and perseverance. I know 
 of no reason for scuttling out of Ireland except that there are 
 eighty-five members in the House of Commons representing this 
 Irish demand, and that these eighty-five members are absolutely 
 necessary to keep Mr. Gladstone in office. In October last he 
 
CAUSES ANU OBJECTS OF THE UNION 55 
 
 appealed to the country to give him a majority large enough to 
 be independent of the eighty-five Irish members ; now you hear 
 of no such appeal ; he now says he is going to fight shoulder 
 to shoulder with eighty-five individuals who could not have got 
 into the House of Commons, and could not remain there, unless 
 they were supported by Yankee gold. It comes, therefore, to 
 this : that Yankee gold is to decide the future destinies of Great 
 Britain. Was it for this you passed three great Reform Bills 
 and extended the circle of the suffrage to all classes of capable 
 citizens ? I cannot believe that the ' almighty dollar ' is suffi- 
 ciently almighty and omnipotent to destroy the power, might, 
 and unity of the British Empire. But if it should, it will be 
 time for those who take a higher view of politics to retire and 
 give place to persons who are suited to these meaner and more 
 despicable circumstances. We have heard a gi-eat deal about 
 alternative proposals. What is wanted in Ireland is wonderfully 
 little, and marvellously easy of attainment — only obedience to 
 the ordinary law which binds every civilised society together ; 
 but between law and obedience to law stand eighty-five 
 members of Parliament, the National League, and the reckless 
 conspirators of America. These are the forces which prevent 
 your attaining the one thing necessary to the prosperity of Ire- 
 land. These are the forces with which vou have to contend. 
 
56 spi:i':cuES of lord Randolph churchill 
 
 CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND. 
 
 House op Commons, August 19, 1886. 
 
 [j\Ii'. Gladstone's Government having been defeated on the second 
 reading of the ' Home Rule' Bill, by a vote of 341 to 311 (June 7), 
 Parliament, in the ninth month of its existence, was dissolved, and the 
 new elections were held in July. The final returns gave the following 
 results: Consei'vatives, 316 ; Union Liberals, 78 ; Gladstonians, 191 ; 
 Parnellites, 85 : Unionist majority, 118. Mr. Gladstone's resignation 
 was announced on July 19, and Lord Salisbury was sent for by the 
 Queen on the 22nd.. In the course of the next ten days he succeeded 
 in forming his second Administration, Lord Randolph occupying the 
 post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and leader of the House of 
 Commons. The new Parliament was opened on August 19, and 
 the following speech was delivered on the first night, in reply to 
 Mr. Gladstone.] 
 
 THE right liou. gentleman (]\[r. Gladstone) alluded to the affairs 
 of Burmah, and lie appeared to imagine that the Govern- 
 ment were experiencing greater difficulty in bringing that 
 country into order than they anticipated when they assumed the 
 responsibility of recommending its annexation. I have been 
 somewhat responsible for recommending the annexation of that 
 country, and I can say I never imagined that Burmah would be 
 reduced to order till after a considerable period. It took no less 
 than ten years to reduce Lower Burmah to order, though its 
 state of civilisation was more advanced, aud no doubt we must 
 look forward to a long period before public order is established 
 in the country recently annexed. On another point, the infer- 
 ence which the right lion, gentleman drew as to the omission 
 from the speech of any reference to foreign affairs, that no 
 grave or alarming question was now under the notice of her 
 
CONSEEVATIVE POLICY IN lEELAND 57 
 
 Majesty's Government with regard to those matters, is a cor- 
 rect inference. 
 
 I will now proceed, if the House will allow me, to state the 
 views of the Government on what the right hon. gentleman 
 called rightly and properly the question of the day — the ques- 
 tion of Ireland. But before doing this, I may be permitted 
 to remark upon the somewhat doubtful compliment which 
 the right hon. gentleman permitted himself to offer to the 
 Government and gentlemen on this side of the House. The 
 right hon. gentleman congratulated us on the different attitude 
 which we held now and last January. He said there was a 
 remarkable difference between the attitude we now held and 
 the attitude > which the late Conservative Government took up 
 on January 26. He said that as far as the figures of crime 
 go there is no reason for the change, and he could not imagine 
 any satisfactory explanation of it. Well, has there been no 
 change in the position of the Irish question since January last ? 
 Why, the largest and most momentous change which could 
 take place has come over the Irish question since that date. 
 Since January 26, the right hon. gentleman has taken the lead 
 9f the National party in Ireland, and to the cause of the Repeal 
 of the Union the right hon. gentleman has brought over for 
 the first time a very large majority of a great historic party. 
 Is that no change ? How does that affect, and how may the 
 Government consider that it affects, the state of social order 
 in Ireland ? There has been long an organisation in Ireland 
 which aims at the Repeal of the Union, and that organisation is 
 worked from time to time by methods which this House has 
 regarded as treasonable and criminal. But since the right hon. 
 gentleman and his friends assumed the lead of the National 
 party in Ireland, are not the Government right in presuming, 
 at any rate for the time, that the methods of political agitation 
 which are familiar to the right hon. gentleman, and are regarded 
 as constitutional in this country, may be adopted by the party 
 in Ireland hitherto unaccustomed to them ? I hold that the 
 Government are justified in assuming that the close, intimate, 
 and indissoluble connection which now exists between the right 
 hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Cork warrants that 
 
58 SPKKrllRS OF LORD IJANDOI.I'II CIUTRCHILL 
 
 presuiuptioii. The right hon. gentleman welcomed what he called 
 our readiness for the first time to depart from the constant resort 
 to coercion. The readiness of the right lion, gentleman to move 
 away from the course of coercion is very recent. I have never 
 observed, nor have the Irish members, I believe, observed, any 
 reluctance heretofore on the right hon. gentleman's part to resort 
 to coercion. Indeed, it was admitted by the Irish members that 
 there was a gi'eater reluctance among the Tories to resort to 
 coercive legislation than had been displayed by the party to 
 which the right hon. gentleman belongs. I cannot pass by 
 without notice the tendency of the remarks of the right hon. 
 gentleman as to the possible non-payment of rents in Ireland. 
 
 I regret he should have thought it his duty to make those 
 remarks. I do not think that the making of them squared 
 altogether with the rest of his speech, and certainly such remarks 
 are extremely curious when we consider that they fell from the 
 author of the Land Act of 1881 — an Act which the right hon. 
 gentleman, as the head of the Government and his party, solemnly 
 guaranteed as a final settlement of the land question in Ireland. 
 The right hon. gentleman anticipates that the judicial rents may 
 not be paid by the tenants of Ireland. Having offered that remark 
 to the House, he states that he is not qualified to give an opinion 
 on the subject. If that is so, it is greatly to be regretted that 
 he should have touched on the subject at all. Why anticipate 
 a state of things which would be most foi'midable, when the 
 very anticipation from such an authorit}" as the right hon. 
 gentleman might assist to produce those very results which we 
 should all so deeply deplore ? And now I will ask the House to 
 attend while I explain the views of the Government on the Irish 
 question. I will deal with that question in a manner which has 
 become familiar to members of Parliament. I will deal with it 
 as it presents itself to the Government under the three aspects 
 — social order, the land question, and local government. There 
 is this difference between the late Government and the present 
 Government. The late Government were of opinion that these 
 three questions were indissolubly connected, and their policy 
 was to deal with them all by one measure. The present 
 Government do not believe that the three questions are indisso- 
 
CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND 59 
 
 lubly connected , and tliey propose to treat them to a very large 
 extent as totally separate and distinct. Social order we intend 
 to treat as a question absolutely by itself. The Government 
 are distinctly of opinion, and will not shrink from expressing it, 
 that there is nothing in the law or in the government or the 
 administration of Ireland which would w\arrant or excuse any- 
 serious disturbance of social order. I go to the land question, 
 and I would remind the right hon. gentleman that it has only 
 recently been the subject of large legislation, which we certainly 
 have been led to hope would be a final settlement of the 
 question. With regard to the question of local government, 
 we wish to treat it as a question for the United Kingdom 
 as a whole. But I come back to the first branch of the 
 subject — namely, the present state of social order in Ireland. 
 The House might be interested with some figures as to crime 
 in Ireland generally. The right hon. gentleman himself quoted 
 a few, but they were of a slightly misleading character. I take 
 the total agrarian crimes for the first six months of this year 
 and compare them with the total for the first six months 
 of last year, and I find, as the right hon. gentleman pointed 
 out, that there is an increase, not inconsiderable, of agrarian 
 crime. The total for the six months of this year is 551, while 
 the total for the first six months of last year was 399. But 
 that increase is almost entirely due to one part of Ireland 
 alone. I allude to the county of Kerry. If you subtract the 
 figures of crime in the county of Kerry from the total amount 
 of agrarian crime in Ireland, you will find that there has been 
 a reduction, or at any rate no increase ; but if I take the year 
 1881-82 — a period when the right hon. gentleman was in 
 power and was at the head of affairs — as a standard of acute 
 disturbance of social order in Ireland, I find that, whereas the 
 total of agrarian crimes for the first six months of this jea.v 
 is 551, in the first six months of 1881 it was 2,310. It is 
 necessary for the right comprehension of the question that 
 you should not only compare one period with another, but 
 take great periods of disturbance and compare the present 
 time with them. That is a general view ; and although I think 
 that many would agree — perhaps no one would deny — that the 
 
60 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 amount of general agrarian crime in Ireland is larger con- 
 siderably than it ought to be under a settled state of things, 
 still I do not know whether, considering all the crises that 
 Ireland has gone through, the present amount of agrarian 
 crime is as serious as might have been expected. 
 
 I now ask the House to allow me to direct its attention to 
 the disturbed districts in the south and west of Ireland. The 
 cause of those disturbances, which, as I have said, have become 
 chronic and acute, is due to intimidation, boycotting, and moon- 
 lighting. I will give to the House the figures relating to boy- 
 cotting and moonlighting in general. There has been a very 
 serious increase of crime in Kerry. It has increased in the first 
 sis months of this year as compared with the first six months of 
 last year from the total of sixty-five agrarian offences to a total 
 of 135 — more than double. Boycotting in Kerry and Clare, 
 which in July 1885 had only reached the number of sixty-two 
 cases, in the present July has reached 124. Boycotting all 
 over Ireland does not show the same serious augmentation. In 
 1886, the cases of whole or partial boycotting all over Ireland are 
 890, compared with 533 in 1885. But it is in Kerry where 
 this feature of boycotting shows itself in its most unpleasant 
 form, and the House will be curious to know the number of 
 persons who are under the special protection of the police in 
 Kerry, as it will illustrate very forcibly the state of terror which 
 prevails in that part of Ireland. In July 1886 there were 145 
 persons who required protection, and 292 policemen were em- 
 jjloyed in that duty. In July 1885 the number was only 
 fifty-six, the police occupied being 107. To show the number 
 of police who are taken away from their duties in order to 
 protect individuals, I may mention the case of Lord Kenmare, a 
 most amiable, estimable Irish nobleman, a late colleague of the 
 right hon. gentleman opposite. For the protection of his person, 
 his residence, farms, &c., thirty-eight constables are specially 
 employed. For the same purpose, in the case of another 
 landowner in Kerry, thirty-two constables are engaged. This 
 will reveal to the House pretty clearly what the state of affairs 
 is in that part of Ireland; and, judging from the small number 
 of arrests that have been made, and the srrowino- boldness of 
 
CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND 61 
 
 criminals, her Majesty's Government are unable to be absolutely- 
 certain that the executive machinery is as efficient as might be 
 wished for the detection and prevention of crime or as adequate 
 as the circumstances of the case require. In 1871 the right lion, 
 gentleman opposite had to deal with a similar state of things in 
 the county of Westmeath, and for that purpose he moved for 
 and obtained a Committee to take secret evidence, and on the 
 report of that Committee he suspended the Habeas Corpus Act 
 in that county, and the result was a very rapid diminution of the 
 crime and disorder in Westmeath. But her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment are anxious — in fact, are resolved — to satisfy their minds 
 fully on the point which I previously mentioned to the House 
 before resorting to extreme measures. They intend to make an 
 effort by means of the agencies within their power to force the 
 moonlighters and criminals to desist from their lawless courses, or 
 to take such measures as will bring them to speedy justice. With 
 that view, her Majesty's Government have decided to appoint a 
 special military officer of high rank to the command of the dis- 
 turbed districts, with such powers as we believe will enable him 
 to organise arrangements for the restoration of order and for the 
 cessation of the reign of terror which there prevails. This 
 general officer will be directly responsible to my right hon. 
 friend the Chief Secretary ; and the officer whom her Majesty's 
 Government have selected, and who has consented to undertake 
 the duty, is Sir Redvers Buller.^ Both with regard to the 
 disturbance of social order in those districts I have named, and 
 with regard to Belfast, it is the determination of the Govern- 
 ment to use to their very utmost all existing powers of the 
 ordinary law — all the machinery, whether magisterial, police, or 
 military, for the purpose of restoring or maintaining order — the 
 first duty of the Government of every civilised community. But, 
 this I can pledge the Government to : that at the very first 
 moment that the Government becomes conscious that they are 
 not fulfilling that which they regard as their highest duty, and 
 that further power and strength are necessary — at that moment 
 
 ' This appointment was condemned at the time by the Parnellite party ; 
 at a subsequent period they were never weary of summoning General Duller 
 into court as their best friend. 
 
62 • SPHKCIIES 01' LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 they will come to Parliament and lay their case before it, and 
 claim with all confidence from Parliament such legislation as 
 they may deem to be necessary. 
 
 I now come to the land question. AVith regard to the land 
 question in Ireland, the Government are aware that various 
 allegations are being put forward with great vigour and great 
 assurance from many quarters as to the condition of the Irish 
 land question. We are informed, or we hear it said, that 
 judicial rents under the Land Act were fixed at a great deal too 
 high a rate, and we also hear it alleged that the fall in the price 
 of produce has rendered tenants unable to pay those judicial 
 rents, and we are told that there is now, or will soon be, a 
 general failure to pay rent in Ireland. Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment are by no means satisfied that there is any serious reason 
 for any one of these allegations. Her Majesty's Government 
 are not prepared to admit that the judicial rents fixed by the 
 Commissioners were at too high a rate. The Government 
 are further of opinion that it is quite possible the fall in the 
 prices of produce — I allude especially to the fall in the staple 
 article of Irish produce, butter — may be due quite as much to 
 careless or defective manufacture as to any general deprecia- 
 tion in prices. Then her Majesty's Government assume, as I 
 think they are bound to assume, that the Commissioners under 
 the Land Act, in fixing judicial rents for so long a period as 
 fifteen years, left ample scope for any fall in prices. The view 
 the Government take of the present position of the land question 
 is that for all present purposes we take our stand on the Land 
 Act of 1881, which was declared by its authors to be, and 
 accepted by Parliament as, a final settlement of the land 
 question. That Act, as supplemented by the Arrears Act of 
 1882 and as amended by the Land Purchase Act of 1885, her 
 Majesty's Government regard as a very valid and binding 
 contract, which was made at that time between the State on the 
 one hand and the landlords and tenants of Ireland on the other, 
 and the policy of her Majesty's Government will be to see that 
 all legal obligations and all legal process arising out of that Act 
 are strictly enforced and perfectly carried out so far as such 
 action can come within the province of an executive Govern- 
 
CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND 63 
 
 ment. If there are any persons in this House who are of opinion 
 that there will be by the Government any interference with or 
 suspension, by legislation or by neglect of executive action, of 
 the right of landlords to recover their land in the event of the 
 non-payment of rent, they fall into error. We are told that if 
 we adopt a policy of that kind, there will be a general movement 
 all over Ireland of passive resistance to the payment of rent. I 
 take leave, in conjunction with my colleagues, to disbelieve that 
 statement altogether and to disregard that menace. With re- 
 gard to what the farmers have acquired under the Act of 1881, 
 tliey have obtained a right possessing a distinct money value, 
 which right the Government are equally bound to regard ; and we 
 do not believe that the farmers of Ireland would consent to take 
 part in any such scheme as is threatened, which would sacrifice 
 or imperil those rights. We think that the movement in favour 
 of non-payment of rent of 1881 has no chance under present 
 circumstances of being generally repeated, in consequence of the 
 great change of circumstances which the farmers of Ireland have 
 undergone since that time. That is the policy of the Govern- 
 ment with regard to the land question in Ireland at the j^resent 
 time. I would wish to add this. It has been brought to 
 the knowledge of her Majesty's present Government that a 
 very large number of members of Parliament on both sides 
 of the House and in both Houses have always entertained 
 very serious doubts as to the economical soundness of the 
 machinery for the valuation of rents provided by the Act of 
 1881. Doubts were expressed by many members of the Liberal 
 party as to the economical soundness of the system of double 
 ownership — doubts which were described with matchless force 
 and eloquence by the right hon. gentleman the member for 
 Mid-Lothian himself in 1870. Many members of his party 
 doubted this part of the Land Act of 1881. We hold that 
 the machinery of that Act was imperfect and of a rough and 
 ready character, and that if it did contain anything of good, 
 whatever good it did contain was damaged, impaired, and 
 tainted by the violence, outrage, and crime in the midst of 
 which, and in consequence of which, it was created and brought 
 into operation. Even the advocates of that Act looked upon 
 
64 si'KF.cnKs OF LORD ]^\NI)0^.p^ ciiuucniLL 
 
 it as being of a temporary cliaracter. The noble lord the 
 present member for Rossendale ' made a speech in Avhich he 
 described the character of the machinery for the valuation of 
 rent as most temporary, as being what he called amodusvivendi, 
 and as intended to tide over the period which was bound to 
 elapse between the disestablishment of the system of double 
 ownership and the establishment of a system of single ownership. 
 Now, sir, her Majesty's Grovernment are strongly of opinion — 
 after all that has passed in connection with this land question, 
 and in view of the very conflicting and strong opinions freely 
 expressed from many and various quarters — that the time has 
 arriv^ed when they ought to have at their command, for their 
 guidance in the future, authentic information of a distinctly 
 official and weighty character as to the working of the Land Act 
 and as to the present position of the land question in Ireland. 
 Her Majesty's Government are aware that a great and widespread 
 organisation has endeavoured, not without success, arbitrarily 
 to control the working of that Act for their own ends ; and they 
 are aware that, at any rate with regard to a great part of 
 Ireland, there does not exist at the present time perfect freedom 
 of action in the rural community with regard to the sale or 
 the cultivation or the hiring of land. For these and other rea- 
 sons, the Government have decided to appoint a Royal Commis- 
 sion which shall, during this coming autumn and winter, inves- 
 tigate with all care, and knowledge, and experience the land 
 system at present obtaining in Ireland.^ We confidently hope 
 that the report of this Commission may be furnished to the 
 Government before the close of next spring. But a mistake will 
 be made by any who hastily assume that the Government con- 
 template any further dealing with the land question in Ireland in 
 the direction of any revision of judicial rent by the interposition 
 of the State. We are rather bound to the other solution of 
 the land question in Ireland — single ownership — which was the 
 main object of the Act of 1881. It was the main object of the 
 Act of 1885, which was concurred in by all parties in the House ; 
 and it was the main object of the Land Bill introduced by the 
 
 ' Lord Hartington. 
 
 - This was the Commission presided over by Lord Cowper. 
 
CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND 65 
 
 right lion, gentleman opposite in the last Parliament. The 
 system of single ownership of land in Ireland, we believe, may 
 be the ultimate solution of most of the difficulties of the land 
 question ; and though her Majesty's Government will not be pre- 
 pared, as far as they are at present informed, to extend the 
 liabilities of the State as provided under the Act of 1885, they 
 may be prepared to submit to the House proposals, if additional 
 securities should be provided by local authorities, for a further 
 outlay of public money. 
 
 There is another matter on which the Government are also re- 
 solved to acquire full and authentic information. It is a matter 
 on which much has been said and written during many years. 
 I allude to the development of the material resources of Ireland. 
 The constant allegation made by men of all parties in Ire- 
 land has been that those resources have been neglected by 
 the people and by the State, and that the capacity of Ireland 
 for maintaining a much larger population even than she at 
 present maintains is undoubted, if those material resources 
 could be developed by the infusion of capital into Ireland, On 
 this question her Majesty's Government propose to utilise the 
 autumn and winter by procuring the very best information. 
 Our inquiries will divide themselves into three distinct heads. 
 The Commissioners will consider the possibility of the creation 
 of a deep-sea fishing industry on the west coast of Ireland, by the 
 construction of harbours of refuge, and the connection of those 
 harbours with the main lines of rapid communication. The 
 Government express no opinion as to the possibility of such a 
 work. But it is not a proposal to be derided. If such a thing 
 could be carried out, it would be worth a great effort and some 
 risk on the part of Parliament, for it would, if successful, remove 
 what has always been, and must always be, a source of intense 
 anxiety to an Irish Government — viz. the extremely precarious 
 position of the population on the west coast — a population, I will 
 say, than whom none is more deserving of the sympathy and 
 support of Parliament. In the second place, they would be 
 especially directed to examine the railways, tramways, and road 
 communication all over Ireland, and their extent and manage- 
 ment as compared Avith those of other countries. The third 
 
 VOL. II. F 
 
66 SPEECHES OF LOKD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Lmnch of the iiuiuiry will be the (|uestiou of arterial drainao-e, 
 and whether tliose great drainage works which modern agri- 
 culture requires, and which are too considerable for the resources 
 of particular localities, could be undertaken remuneratively by 
 the State for the benefit of the community at large. 
 
 I come to the thii'd question — that of the Irish local 
 government, on wkich I can only say that it is the intention of 
 her Majesty's Government to devote the recess, wliicli we hope 
 will be one of due length, to the careful consideration of the 
 question of local government for the three kingdoms. When 
 Parliament reassembles in the beginning of February next year 
 the Government are sanguine that they will be prepared with 
 definite proposals on that large question. Their object will be, 
 as far as possible, to eliminate party feeling and to secure for 
 the consideration of the question as large an amount of Parlia- 
 mentary co-operation as can be obtained, so that whatever 
 settlement may be arrived at it may not be claimed as a 
 triumph of either party. On this question of local government 
 I have nothing to add. We are perfectly certain to fall into 
 no errors on account of undue haste. No amount of taunts, or 
 jeers, or denunciation will make us budge one inch from that 
 resolution. The great signposts of our policy are equality, 
 similarity, and, if I may use such a word, simultaneity, as 
 far as is practicable in the development of a genuinely popular 
 system of local government in the four countries which form 
 the United Kingdom. I have stated fully and frankly the main 
 outlines of our polic3^ The basis of that policy is the restoration 
 and the maintenance of social order in Ireland, and of individual 
 freedom to the widest extent which social order will permit. To 
 that we are determined, at all costs to ourselves as individuals, 
 or as a Government, to adhere, relying on the support of a great 
 political party. On that foundation our policy rejjoses ; but there 
 is yet another, a deeper, stronger, and wider foundation— I mean 
 the verdict of the British people as delivered with no doubtful 
 sound at the recent general election. The verdict of the people we 
 take to have been unmistakably in favour of the maintenance of 
 the Legislative Union between the two countries, of the supremacy 
 of the Imperial Parliament, and of the full and effective sove- 
 
CONSEEVATIVE POLICY IN IRELAND 67 
 
 reiguty of the Queen over tlie whole of the Uiiiterl Kingdom. 
 That verdict, for the purposes of the Government, we take to be 
 what Lord Salisbury called it, a final and irreversible verdict, 
 the finality and irreversibility of which cannot be in the smallest 
 degree impugned except after another appeal to the country. 
 Upon it we base our policy, not only for Ireland, but for the 
 United Kingdom and the British Empire as a whole, and by 
 that policy so founded we, as a Government and as a party, will 
 stand or fall. 
 
68 SPEECHES OF LOKD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY. 
 Dartford, October 2, 1886. 
 
 [The principles advocated in the following speech — which soon 
 came to be known as the ' Dai'tf ord programme '— had the full approval 
 of Lord Randolph Churchill's colleagues, but that important fact did 
 not save the speech itself from attacks in various quarters which are 
 usually believed to derive their inspiration from official sources. 
 This singular repudiation before the public of a policy which in 
 private had met with a tacit, though perhaps reluctant, assent, must 
 still be regarded as one of the mysteries of contemporary politics. 
 It will be observed that in this address, the first delivered to a 
 general audience after Lord Randolph's appointment to the office of 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, great stress is again laid on the absolute 
 necessity of the nation getting its ' money's worth for the taxes ' 
 exacted from it, and of effecting reductions in the expenditure. It 
 will also be seen that an Allotments ^ill, a Local Government Bill, 
 and other measures which afterwards came before < Parliament, were 
 distinctly foreshadowed in this speech. It cannot, however, be said 
 that at this time the measures in question were by any means out 
 of reach of danger. Some passages on the necessity of reform in 
 Parliamentary procedure ai^e omitted, because similar arguments in 
 fuller detail were submitted at Bradford in the speech which follows 
 this.] 
 
 I HAVE to return you my very sincere and earnest thanks 
 for the kind welcome which j'ou have accorded to me this 
 afternoon ; and also I have to express my sense of the value 
 which I attach to those recorded expressions of confidence in 
 the form of addresses which the officers of your various associa- 
 tions have been kind enough to present to me. It has been my 
 lot to be called upon to perform duties of a most anxious and 
 difficult nature — duties which would be most anxious and diffi- 
 cult even to those who possessed a long experience and great 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY G9 
 
 knowledge of public life, but wliicli to one like me, who has no 
 great experience of public affairs, and who has not been many 
 years in Parliament, are, indeed, duties so anxious and so 
 difficult that they could not be at all adequately performed un- 
 less I thought that I was sustained by a considerable body of 
 public approval in this country. Undoubtedly addresses like 
 those which you have given me are of immense value in signifying 
 to me that I have not at any rate forfeited as yet any large 
 measure of public confidence. It is my most pleasing duty, not 
 only on my own behalf but on behalf of her Majesty's present 
 Government, to express to you Kentish men our cordial and sin- 
 cere congratulations on the signal and memorable victory which 
 your exertions gained for the constitutional party at the general 
 elections of 1885 and 1886. I do not know whether you have 
 studied the statistics of the growth of constitutional principles in 
 this great county of Kent. In the year 1868 — when Mr. Disraeli 
 appealed to the country after having passed a large measure of 
 electoral reform — there were returned to Parliament from this 
 county thirteen Liberals against eight Tories. In the year 1874 
 there was a slight improvement, because there were returned to 
 Parliament thirteen Tories against eight Liberals. In 1880 — 
 a very dark year for the Conservative party — Kent held her 
 own, for you returned sixteen Tories to Parliament against five 
 Liberals; and in 1885, out of nineteen constituencies in the 
 county of Kent, you did not return one single Gladstonian 
 candidate, but by large, by overwhelming, by crushing majori- 
 ties, you returned to Parliament eighteen Conservatives and one 
 Liberal Unionist, and that unequalled position jon managed to 
 sustain at the last general election. That is really only a sign of 
 what has been going on all over the country. There has been 
 going on over the whole country a steady and sure growth of 
 Constitutional principles, a steady and increasing indication of 
 a popular belief in the value of the British Constitution. But 
 I attach particular importance to this adhesion of the county of 
 Kent to the Constitutional cause. The county of Kent is a 
 county with many most interesting traditions — (A Voice : ' The 
 garden of England.') — a county which is well termed the 
 garden of England. It is a county of great wealth, a county 
 of great homogeneity, and it is a county, if I may use such 
 
70 SPEECHKS OF LORD RANDOI.PII ClirRCIIILL 
 
 au expression, of immense individuality, ^fr. Gladstone claims 
 that he has got on his side the whole of the civilised world. 
 Well, gentlemen, I reply that he is welcome to the whole of 
 the civilised world : but give mo the county of Kent. I am 
 not aware that the civilised world has any concrete voting 
 power in the House of Commons, but I am aware that the 
 county of Kent has a concrete voting power of nineteen 
 members on the Constitutional side, and I say to Mr. Gladstone, 
 ' You are perfectly welcome to the civilised world, and make as 
 much as you can out of it, as long as you leave us the nineteen 
 representatives of the county of Kent.' We must beware of one 
 thing, however : we must not dwell too fondly on the past. 
 Politics is not a science of the past ; politics is the science of the 
 future. You must use the past as a lever with which to manu- 
 facture the future. Politics is not a profession which consists in 
 looking back ; it is not a profession which consists in standing 
 still : it is in this country essentially a profession of progress. 
 Therefore, we must use our great victories in the past as a means 
 of attaining others in the future ; and I would warn xou most 
 earnestly against the dangers of over-confidence. It was over- 
 confidence more than anything else which ruined the Conserva- 
 tive party in the year 1880. Seat after seat was thrown away 
 at that time because members of the Conservative party and 
 Conservative organisations thought that their power was irresist- 
 ible, and that it was not necessary for them to make an effort. 
 We have before us now a long road to travel. We have many 
 ranges of political mountains of great difficulty to cross, and we 
 must remember that ' he that putteth on his harness must 
 not boast as he that taketh it off.' Our journey has only 
 just begun; but there is much which ought to encourage ns 
 along our road. They say that a good beginning makes a 
 good ending, and I think we have made a good beginning in 
 this last session of Parliament. It will interest you to know 
 that the present Government, which only commands a nominal 
 majority over the Separatist Opposition of 90 votes, has been 
 supported in forty-three divisions in the last session by an 
 average majority of 100 votes. That is a satisfactory com- 
 mencement. I do not know that we can look to maintaining that 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 71 
 
 majority tlirough the sessions that are to come ; but at anj^ rate 
 there we have got it up to now — an average recorded majority 
 in support of the present Government of 100 members of the 
 House of Commons. Undoubtedly, gentlemen, that has been 
 greatly due to the unparalleled sacrifices and to the unequalled 
 devotion of the Tory members to their duties in the House of 
 Commons, at a time of the year when the performance of those 
 duties was attended with every trial and every labour that you 
 can imagine. It has also been due to the loyal support which 
 we have received from the whole party of the Liberal Unionists. 
 Upon this fine autumn afternoon I do not propose to waste 
 your time by alluding at length to the Separatist Opposition in 
 the House of Commons. T really do not think they are worth 
 powder and shot. An Opposition — a Parliamentary Opposition 
 — more hopelessly demoralised, more hopelessly disintegrated, I 
 have never seen and I have never read of. They have no leader 
 and they have no policy. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that, and 
 I ought to have put it in another way — they suffer from having 
 too many leaders. The conduct of the Parliamentary Opposi- 
 tion reminds me of what used to be the conduct in the old days of 
 the Dutch army. There used to be in command of the Dutch army 
 a council of Dutch generals, and every day a new general took it 
 in turn to command, and the consequence was that the Dutch 
 army invariably suffered defeat. And so with the Parliamen- 
 tary Opposition in the House of Commons. You have one day 
 Mr. Paruell leading, and another day you have Mr. Labouchere, 
 and another day you have Mr. Conybeare leading, and every now 
 and then you have Sir William Harcourt leading, and occa- 
 sionally, as a great treat, Mr. Gladstone drops in from Bavaria. 
 They suffer from a plethora of leaders. Perhaps I was also 
 wrong in saying that they have no policy. They have a policy, 
 and their policy is this — to bring into discredit, to put a stop to, 
 and, if possible, to demolish and destroy all Parliamentary govern- 
 ment. That is their policy. I do not care how long they pursue 
 that policy, because it is a jDolicy which is doomed to failure. 
 It is a policy which the British constituencies will never support, 
 because they are attached to their Parliament, they are proud 
 of their Parliament, and they are determined that their Parlia- 
 
72 SPKKCIIi:s OF LORD KANDOLl'II CHrRCHILL 
 
 meut shall luaiutaiu the traditions which have been handed down 
 to it. So much for the Parliamentary Opposition. Let me 
 invite your attention to a more business-like question. Let me 
 ask you for your patience and your indulgence while I examine 
 with some detail the policy which the Government has pursued 
 and which it hopes to pursue. 
 
 The policy which the Govei-nmeut has pursued up to now 
 has been called by our opponents ' a policy of Royal Commis- 
 sions.' I do not in the least regard that taunt. There is a 
 very old proverb, ' Do not prophesy unless you know.' I will 
 tell you a much better proverb, and I will take out a patent for 
 it, and it is this : ' Do not legislate unless you know.' Now 
 Mr. Gladstone — (A Voice : ' We are sick of his name.') — I am 
 afraid that you will hear his name more than once in the course 
 of my remarks. But the great feature of the legislation of that 
 gentleman, whose name you are so sick of, was that he legislated 
 by intuition, whereas the Conservative party, or rather the 
 Unionist party, are determined to legislate only upon ascer- 
 tained facts. You are aware that we have a} pointed four prin- 
 cipal commissions to inquire into four great subjects. We have 
 appointed two commissions for Ireland — one to examine into 
 the operation of the recent land laws which have been passed 
 for that country— a subject of most bitter and conflicting con- 
 troversy — a subject upon w^hich, without sound information, it 
 would be impossible and insane for a Government to move. We 
 have also appointed a commission to investigate the capacity 
 of Ireland for development b}^ public works on a remunerative 
 scale and by the support of public credit. That is a commis- 
 sion from which I hope great things for the future of Ireland ; 
 and although the Parnellite party poured every kind of ridicule 
 upon it, you may depend upon it that there are resources in 
 Ireland wdiich may be scientifically developed by the use of 
 State credit, and the development of which must bring to the 
 people of that country a large measure of prosperity. Let us 
 take the United Kingdom. On two questions we have ap- 
 pointed commissions to inquire, and they are two questions of 
 great public interest. In the first place, we w^ant to know to 
 what extent this long commercial and agricultural depression 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALLSBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 73 
 
 may have been influenced, or caused, or aff*ected by the great 
 changes in the relative value of the precious metals. That is a 
 subject most complicated, most difficult, most mysterious and 
 dark. It is a subject upon which sound scientific information 
 is absolutely essential. Then there is another inquiry", in which 
 I take the greatest interest. We have appointed a Royal 
 Commission to investigate the scale and cost of our system of 
 government in this country. We know that the expenditure 
 of this country has been increasing rapidly, and we want to be 
 certain on one point — that we get our money's worth for the 
 taxes which we spend ; and we want to be perfectly certain that 
 it is not in our power to make consideral^le reductions and sim- 
 plifications of that expenditure. I do not know, gentlemen, 
 what your opinions may be, but I frankly own that I anticipate 
 much good from all these inquiries ; and I feel certain that before 
 long these inquiries will provide your Parliament with sound 
 material for beneficial legislation. 
 
 I turn to the policy of the future. The main princijDle of 
 that policy — and I pray you to bear this in mind, gentlemen — 
 the main principle and the guiding motive of the policy of the 
 Government in the future will be to maintain intact and un- 
 impaired the union of the Unionist party. We know how much 
 depends — how almost entirely" the future of England depends — 
 upon the union of the Unionist party ; how every institution 
 which we value, how all the liberties which we prize, are for the 
 time bound up in the union of that party ; and everything that 
 we do, either in domestic or foreign affairs, will be subordinated 
 to that cardinal principle, the union of the Unionist party. We 
 know this, gentlemen — and I am not ashamed to state it before 
 this great meeting — that we, the present Government, owe much 
 of our existence and much of our efficiency to the Unionist 
 Liberals. We recognise to the full the great sacrifices those 
 gentlemen made — political sacrifices such as none of us have 
 been called upon to undergo. We know well the odium they 
 have incurred among their former political f.-ieuds, and we con- 
 sider it is our duty as a Government so to adapt our policy as 
 to prove to the British people that the Unionist Liberals were 
 right in the course which they took, and were justified in the 
 
74 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPIf CIIURCHITJ. 
 
 great political sacrifices wliicli thoy matle. T wisli tliat they had 
 found it in their power to join us effectively in the heavy labours 
 of government. I regret that they have not yet found it in 
 their power to share with us ministerial responsibilities. But 
 at any rate it is our business to interpret their action on the best 
 and highest ground for them, to attribute to their action the 
 loftiest and most honourable motives, and to believe they are 
 animated by no other desire than to maintain pure and intact 
 their political power and independence, so as to rescue the great 
 Liberal party — which has so sadly gone astray — from all the 
 heresies and all the terrible errors into which Mr. Gladstone has 
 led them. Once more I repeat, so that you may bear it in your 
 memories, that the main, the guiding principles of the policy of 
 the Government will be to preserve the union of the Unionist 
 party. 
 
 Let us assume for the purpose of this meeting that the 
 Government have been successful in effecting reforms in Par- 
 liamentary procedure and in laying the foundation for future 
 legislation, and let us consider for a moment the various subjects 
 of legislation which the present Government ought, in justice 
 to the country, to undertake with honesty and energy. _I^ 
 think we ought to give a chief place to the legislative require- 
 ments of England and of Scotland. Ireland has occupied — ■ 
 I may say has monopolised — the time of Parliament during 
 the last ten years nearly, and the requirements of England 
 and Scotland have been much neglected, and great arrears 
 of legislation have accumulated ; and I think that it is the 
 business of the Government to commence at once dealing with 
 those arrears. There is one matter which seems to come first. 
 I think you will all be of opinion that the Government will 
 be justified in asking the attention of the House of Commons 
 to legislation which will enable them and their supporters to 
 redeem the promises and the pledges which they have made to 
 the agricultural labourers of England. And it is the decided 
 intention of the Government to introduce into Parliament a 
 measure which should provide facilities, through the operation 
 of local authorities, for the acquisition by the agricultural 
 labourer of freehold plots and allotments of land. I do not 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 7o 
 
 think that there ought to be much difficulty in passing such a 
 measure. There is a great agreement among all parties as to 
 the main lines of the measure, and I do not in the least wish to 
 detract from any credit which may be justl}' given to men like 
 Mr. Jesse Collings or Mr. Chamberlain, who were foremost 
 in bringing this subject before the public mind of ]^]ngland. 
 My hope is that that will be one of the first subjects dealt 
 with by the present Government in the next session. There 
 is another measure closely connected with that, and that is 
 legislation by which facilities should be afforded for the sale 
 of glebe lands. That is intimately connected with the allot- ^ 
 ment question. Not only would it, I think, have, a beneficial 
 effect upon the incomes of the clergy, as providing them with 
 incomes more regular and more secure than what they obtain 
 now from the cultivation or the letting of their glebe lands, but 
 also those glebe lands would in many villages and many parts 
 of England afford most convenient morsels of land to be divided 
 among the agricultviral labourers, either for freehold plots, or for 
 allotments, or for cottage gardens ; and that is a measure which 
 I hope the Government will be able to introduce early next 
 session. Now I come to a matter which is of great importance 
 to you in Kent. I come to the question of tithes. (A Voice : 
 ' Let the landlords pay them.') The good sense of the people of 
 Kent has settled, I understand, in an equitable and satisfactory 
 manner to all parties, the question which threatened in Kent 
 to be a somewhat thorny one — the question of extraordinary 
 tithes. And it will be necessary for the Government to give 
 its attention to the general question of tithes over the whole 
 of England and Wales. This much may perhaps be admitted, 
 that the settlement of the tithe question which Parliament 
 carried out about a generation ago has not proved, on the whole, 
 in its working, to be a complete settlement ; and it would appear 
 that the intentions of Parliament at that time with regard to 
 payment of tithe have not been altogether attained. I under- 
 stand, however, from those who are well a3quainted with the 
 question, and who represent the receivers of the tithe, that it 
 ought not to be difficult to provide a much more simple and 
 much more direct mode of payment of the tithe, and a method 
 
70 SI'EErUES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 which should not in any degrep prove to be a vexatious or 
 harassing method to the occupier of land. That is all I can say 
 upon the tithe question now, but 1 rather expect that by legis- 
 lation on the question, without doing any injustice to either the 
 landlord or the clergy, it may be possible for a great majorit}* 
 of the landlords of this country to take upon themselves the 
 direct burden of the incidence of tithe. 
 
 There is another measure which I hope the Government 
 may be able to deal with, and which, I believe, is one of great 
 interest to many here. It is of enormous interest to the agri- 
 cultural community — I mean the question of railway rates. I do 
 not think there ought to be very great difficulty in coming to an 
 agreement upon the question of the incidence of railway rates. 
 The late Government had a Bill in hand for dealing with the 
 question, and the present Government have a Bill in hand for 
 that purpose ; and my own belief is, that if the railway com- 
 panies are aj)proaclied fairly, if they are treated with justice 
 and with consideration, they would not be unwilling to co- 
 operate in a more equitable regulation of the railway rates as 
 regards the commercial and the agricultural interests of this 
 country. The railway rates at the present moment operate 
 in a way which Parliament did not intend when it gave the 
 railway companies their powers. Without doubt they somehow 
 manage to give to the foreign importer and to the foreign pro- 
 ducer unfair advantages over the home producer. It is a difficult 
 question, and the railway companies, like other corporations or 
 property- holders, have rights which have been conferred upon 
 them by Parliament, and ai'bitrary and unjust treatment of them 
 would strike a blow at all property in this country, and would 
 re-act on the very interest you desire to serve. But still, I 
 would say to the railway companies they had better bear in 
 mind the Scriptural text, ' Agree with your adversary quickly, 
 while you are in the way with him.' Because if the present 
 grievances which the commercial and the manufacturing and 
 agricultural community complain of with regard to the regula- 
 tion of railway rates are suffered to go on undealt with, and 
 growing and developing, then it is possible that the rights and 
 the property of railway companies may be placed in jeopardy. 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALLSEURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 77 
 
 Those measures which I have alluded to are all, I think, tliough 
 important, nevertheless minor measures— measures which ought 
 not to excite great party controversy, and which ought to be 
 passed without much difficulty through Parliament. And they 
 are measures which certainly are urgently demanded. There is 
 another measure which the country requires also, and that is a 
 measure which shall provide for a cheaper mode of land transfer 
 and for cheaper methods of acquiring landed property by the \ 
 individual, and for the registration of title. All I can say on 
 that point is this, that the Lord Chancellor of the present 
 Government is enthusiastic on the question, and I understand 
 that he has ideas. And you may depend upon it that when a 
 Lord Chancellor of England is enthusiastic on any question, and 
 has ideas with regard to that question, it would be a bold, 
 courageous, and clever man who will stop the Lord Chancellor's 
 way. Therefore I think you may look forward with some confi- 
 dence to a satisfactory measure upon this important question 
 being introduced in the House of Lords early next session. 
 
 Then there is the great question which overshadows all 
 others, and which will absorb all the time and energies of the 
 Government, and that is the establishment in our country v/ 
 districts__of a genuinely popular form of local government. 
 That is a question which we do not intend to trifle or to 
 tamper with. It is the decided intention of the Government 
 to take it up in earnest, and to endeavour to arrive at a settle- 
 ment of it. It includes two very large questions indeed. It 
 includes some comprehensive re-arrangement and re-adjustment 
 of the incidence of local taxation, and it includes some provision 
 by which personal property shall be brought into the area of 
 local taxation, and shall be called upon to contribute a far more / 
 equal share than it does now in the expenses of local govern- 
 ment. The question of local government also includes another 
 very large and thorny question — it includes the licensing 
 question. I will not now enter into the complexities of that 
 matter, but I believe it is possible for your local bodies, if 
 properly constituted, to settle most of the difficulties and most v 
 of the controversies which have arisen around the question of 
 licensing. At any rate I think the time has come when, by an 
 
78 SPKECIIES OF LOKI) RANDOLPH CIIUIICHILL 
 
 ugreenient of ull parties — except enthusiasts and fanatics— a 
 real and genuine move forward can be made. 
 
 There is another point in which 1 am specially interested, 
 which I cannot omit to notice. I am specially interested in it 
 from the office which I have the honour to hold. "l will not 
 conceal from you that my own special object, to which I hope to 
 devote whatever energy and strength or influence I may possess, 
 is to endeavour to attain some genuine and considerable re- 
 duction of public expenditure, and consequent reduction of tax- 
 ation, I have not the time, nor have I yet the information, 
 which would enable me to go further into this matter now ; but 
 I frankly confess that I shall be bitterly disappointed if it is not 
 in my power after one year, or at any rate two years, to show 
 to the public that a very honest and a very earnest effort has 
 been made in that direction, and that that effort has been 
 attended with practical and sensible results. I think you will all 
 agree with me that with regard to the programme of legislation 
 I have provided you with, it is a programme more than sufficient 
 for one session of Parliament. Indeed, I think I have probably 
 sketched out the work of two sessions of Parliament ; because 
 you must remember that in addition to all these matters you 
 will probably have to consider in a practical manner further 
 reforms of the land laws of Ireland. The laud laws of Ireland 
 were recently reformed in a hasty and impulsive manner. 
 There are many imperfections in the land system of Ireland at 
 present. The system of double ownership in Ireland is a system 
 which cannot last long. The process of change from double to 
 single ownership must somehow be accelerated if you wish to 
 produce peace in Ireland. But, in addition to that, you will 
 have to endeavour, in this Parliament at any rate, to lay the 
 foundation of a system of popular local government in Ireland 
 — a very large question to solve, very difficult on which to 
 obtain the co-operation of different parties, but a question 
 which no Government and no party can afford to shirk. 
 In addition to that there is another question which will very 
 shortly come up for consideration — a question affecting the 
 agricultural community. I refer to the question of popular 
 elementary education. That is now being examined into by 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALLSBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 79 
 
 a Royal Commission, and until that Commission reports no 
 Government can act. But when the report comes up, and 
 when it has been considered and digested, you will find that 
 legislation on popular elementary education is urgently de- 
 manded by very large masses of our people. 
 
 I have told you that the prospects of the Government are 
 very fair, but I have also told you that the work which is before 
 the Government is very heavy. It is so heavy that, if the pro- 
 spects of the Government were not fair, that work would be 
 almost appalling. But there are matters which are absolutely 
 outside the range of legislation, which no Parliament, and which, 
 to some extent, no Government, can touch. A nation does not 
 live by legislation alone ; there are other matters beyond the 
 control of Parliament and of Government, and in that area of 
 subjects which is outside the reach of Ministers or of parties I 
 find one most cheering and encouraging fact, which I feel it my 
 duty to bring to your notice. There are distinct and definite 
 symptoms, of a real revival of trade, and of commercial enter- 
 prise in this country. Now, if this revival is continued, you 
 may depend upon it, it will very soon re-act upon the agricultural 
 community and the agricultural interest, which is very dear to 
 some here, because if we can once more restore some measure 
 of prosperity and activity to our manufacturing towns, you will 
 have almost immediately a great demand for, and a great con- 
 sumption of, agricultural produce. If we can only get the town 
 population to work in this country, you may depend upon it we 
 shall soon have the rural districts busy and prosperous. This 
 revival of trade is shown by many trustworthy signs. It is 
 shown, in the first place, by great commercial activity in America. 
 Our American friends are always ahead of everybody else, and 
 what I hope is, that they may not, by their over-zeal and 
 activity, spoil what promises to be a good future, and that they 
 will not be led into over-speculation, which may produce panic 
 and further depression. But the revival is also shown by the 
 revenue returns. I prefer not to dwell upon those returns 
 in detail at present, for to some extent they would be illusory, 
 and my impression might be mistaken ; but still the revenue 
 returns do show signs of a revival of trade in this country ; 
 
80 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 and there is also tliis great fact, tliat the great merchants and 
 the great warehouse proprietors of this country are now begin- 
 ning to find that their accumuhations of stocks of manufactured 
 and of raw materials are becoming exhausted. Upon these 
 accumulations they have traded for some years, and they have 
 become exhausted, and their stocks require replenishing ; and 
 that being so, and nearly all being in the same position, they 
 are running into the market to replenish their stocks, and conse- 
 quently you have a healthy and natural rise in prices. It seems 
 certain that there is a revival of trade going on — a revival 
 which seems to be a real revival ; and it would not be rash or 
 premature to say that we have perhaps at last touched the 
 bottom of this terrible and protracted commercial and agri- 
 cultural depression under which we have been so many years 
 labouring. But there is one thing which is necessary to a i-eal 
 revival of trade which is to endure and which is to increase. 
 The people of this country must have a Government in which 
 they have confidence. Confidence is necessary — absolutely 
 vital — to till enterprise, agricultural or commercial. The people 
 of this country must know that they have a Government which 
 will preserve law and order. They must know that they have 
 a Government which does not intend to be squeezed, which does 
 not intend to be frightened by any passing or transitory 
 clamour, or by the noise of faction. They must have a Govern- 
 ment which will recall from their starry exile those laws of 
 political economy which Mr. Gladstone so summarily banished. 
 They must have a Government in office which will respect the 
 rights of property and which has consideration for the sanc- 
 titv of contract. For years in England you have had no such 
 Government, and the absence of such a Government has aggra- 
 vated the commercial depression. I do earnestly believe and 
 hope that you have such a Government now ; and if that belief 
 of mine becomes at all general and at all popular, this revival 
 of trade will progress speedily and merrily. 
 
 Now, you will be glad to hear that I am di-awing near to 
 the close of my remarks. There are on the political horizon 
 — otherwise an horizon as fair almost as that which stretches 
 before me this fine autumn afternoon — there are on the 
 
POLICY OF LOKD SALISBURY'S FIEST MINISTRY 81 
 
 political horizon two dark clouds, wJiicli may develop into storm 
 and hurricane, which may shatter the brightest prospects, and 
 destroy all the best and wisest calculations. I allude specially 
 to the social condition of Ireland and to the aspect of foreign 
 policy. In Ireland, I regret to say, you have the agitators 
 hard at work, determined to leave that country no peace, no 
 rest from political agitation. You have these agitators led by 
 Mr. Gladstone and by Mr. Parnell, who, you may be certain, will 
 stick at nothing, and will recoil from nothing which may make 
 the government of the Queen impossible in Ireland. They have 
 declared that it is not in the power of the British Government 
 and the British Parliament to govern Ireland, and they will do 
 all they know to make good their assertion. I believe their 
 iniquitous, their unscrupulous projects will fail. I believe, and 
 I hope, their plans will be utterly confounded : and I base my 
 hopes and belief upon two or three good reasons, which I will 
 give to you. In the first place, the difficulty of Ireland is 
 mainly an agrarian and agricultural difficulty. Whatever evils 
 the legislation of 1881 may have had, this much must be said for 
 it, that under it the tenantry of Ireland gained enormous advan- 
 tages. If Mr. Parnell were to lose the support of the tenantry 
 of Ireland, or if they became lukewarm in his support, or refused 
 to go in for acute agrarian disorder, the power of Mr. Parnell 
 would rapidly fade away. Now mark what the advantages are 
 which the tenantry of Ireland obtained under the Laud Act of 
 1881. Every farmer in Ireland, with the exception of the 
 leaseholder, could get his rent fixed before a court of law upon 
 a scale of prices, and obtain what is denominated a fair rent. 
 That generally turns out to be a reduction of rent by about 25 per 
 cent. He also gets fixity of tenure, which means a renewable 
 lease of fifteen years, during which he cannot be disturbed by 
 his landlord ; and, moreover, he gets the right to sell to any one 
 to whom he will, for the highest price he can get, the interest 
 in this lease. You who are acquainted with agricultural matters 
 know that these are enormous advantages, and that they re- 
 present a definite and considerable money value ; and I do 
 not think that the farmers of Ireland are so foolish or so short- 
 sighted as to risk the loss of these great pecuniary advantages, 
 VOL. II. G 
 
82 SPEl-XHES OF L01{I) KANDOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 as they would uudoubtetlly do if they indulged to any large 
 extent in acute agrarian disorder. There is a second reason 
 why 1 do not think Mr. Parnell's efforts will succeed. They 
 have this year an abundant harvest in Ireland. They have 
 had in Ireland every year since 1880 a bountiful and pro- 
 sperous harvest, which is more than we can say in England. 
 And they have consequently plenty of produce in Ireland, and 
 the quantity of the produce of the laud to a certain extent 
 counterbalances the low prices wliicli it fetches. The prices 
 are now recovering, and I learn, on authority, that the price 
 of butter and young stock has made a sensible rise within 
 the last few weeks in Ireland. That is another reason why, 
 I think, there ought not to be any great agrarian disorder in 
 Ireland. My third reason is that I have confidence in the 
 moderation of the Irish landlords. I do not believe that the 
 Irish landlords are so foolish as to play into the hands of Mr. 
 Parnell. I believe all the assertions of Mr. Parnell and liis 
 followers that there will be wholesale and unjust evictions in 
 Ireland, are utterly unfounded and untrue. I believe that the 
 landlords of Ireland are disposed to exercise their rights — the 
 little rights which your Parliament has left them — with all jus- 
 tice and moderation ; and you must receive with the greatest 
 caution the statements of the Irish party as to the cruelty of 
 the Irish landlords. Of course, if Mr. Parnell is successful, as 
 he and his party hope to be, in organising a general repudia- 
 tion of rent all over Ireland, there naturally will be a struggle. 
 But, after all, that is human nature ; and if one party chooses to 
 deny and repudiate the legal rights of another, the other party 
 is really justified in endeavouring to show that those legal rights 
 are supported and will be given effect to by the law of the 
 land. But if during the winter in Ireland we are not con- 
 fronted by any no-rent manifesto, if we are not confronted by 
 any general no-rent movement, then I am as certain as that I 
 am standing before you that the landlords of Ireland will by no 
 action of theirs provoke the anger of their tenantry, and will 
 not have recourse to harsh or unjust evictions, and will not, in 
 the great majority of cases, endeavour to exact rents which, 
 from one cause or another, it may be impossible to pay. For all 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIKST MINISTRY 83 
 
 those reasons I am of opinion that Mr. Parnell's programme 
 will probably fail — I hope it will. And I have great hopes of 
 the immediate future in Ireland. I think that the Irish people 
 know that they have a Government in power who are absolutely 
 determined at all costs and in spite of any danger — political or 
 otherwise — to preserve law, to maintain the law^, to assert the 
 rights of property, and to preserve order. From that duty on 
 no consideration whatever will we l)e made to shrink. No 
 longer Avill we tolerate that the state of Ireland shall continue 
 to be a disgrace to England, and a blot upon the fair fame and 
 character of the British Empire. Law and order must be made 
 to prevail in Ireland ; but the Irish people are very quick and 
 very shrewd. They know when a Government is in earnest ; 
 and my belief is that, directly or indirectly, large classes and 
 large bodies of the Irish people will co-operate with the Govern- 
 ment in their endeavours to restore order in Ireland, and there- 
 fore, although I go back to my original proposition and state 
 that tlie prospect in Ireland is gloomy and menacing to some 
 extent, yet I have great hopes for the future, and I do see real 
 and clear signs of daylight, which may lead one to expect a 
 better and brighter future in Ireland. 
 
 Of the state of foreign affairs I regret I am not able to speak 
 to you with such confidence. Far more serious perhaps than 
 any other matter is the state of things wdiich has arisen in Bul- 
 garia. In the autumn of last year, when Lord Salisbury was 
 at the Foreign Office, we liad every reason to hope that the union 
 of Eastern Boumelia with Bulgaria under the sovereignty of 
 Prince Alexander would develop a prosperous and independent 
 nation, in the growing strength of which might ultimately be 
 found a peaceful and true solution of the Eastern question. 
 Those hopes have been for the moment to a great extent dashed. 
 A brutal and cowardly conspiracy, consummated before the young 
 community had had time to consolidate itself, was successful 
 in this, that it paralysed the governing authority of the Prince 
 and deprived Bulgaria of an honoured and trusted leader.^ At 
 the present moment the freedom and independence of Bulgaria, 
 
 ' Referring to the ' kidnapping' and subsequent abdication of Prince 
 Alexander, King of Bulgaria. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 as well as of the kingdoms of Servia and Roumania, would appear 
 to be seriously compromised. This grave question is undoubtedly 
 attracting much public attention in this country. It has been 
 said by some, and even by persons of authority and influence, 
 that in the issues which are involved England has no material 
 interest. Such an assertion would appear to me to be far too 
 loose and general. The sympathy of England with liberty, and 
 with the freedom and independence of communities and nation- 
 alities, is of ancient origin, and has become the traditional direc- 
 tion of our foreign policy. The policy based on this strong 
 sympathy is not so purely sentimental as a careless critic might 
 suppose. It would be more correct, indeed, to describe such a 
 policy as particular, and, in a sense, as selfish, for the precious 
 liberties which we enjoy, and the freedom of Europe from 
 tyranny and despotism, are in reality indissolubly connected. 
 To England Europe owes much of her modern popular freedom. 
 It was mainly English effort which rescued Germany and the 
 Netherlands from the despotism of King Philip of Spain, and 
 after him from that of Louis XIV, of France. It was English 
 efl'ort which preserved the liberties of Europe from the deso- 
 lating tyranny of Napoleon. In our own times, our nation 
 has done much, either by direct intervention or by energetic 
 moral support, to establish upon firm foundations the freedom 
 of Italy and of Greece. The policy of Lord Beaconsfield in 
 1878, so much misrepresented, so much misunderstood, had 
 this for its most conspicuous characteristic, that it rescued 
 the young liberties of the peoples in the Balkan Peninsula, who, 
 having been saved from the frying-pan of Turkish misrule, were 
 in danger of falling into the fire of Hussian autocracy. Times 
 and circumstances alter, and the particular policy which may be 
 suitable for one set of circumstances may require to be modified 
 as those circumstances change. A generation ago Germany and 
 Austria were not so sensitive as they are now to the value of 
 political liberty. Nor did they appreciate to its full extent the 
 great stability of institutions which political liberty engenders ; 
 and on England devolved the duty — the honourable but danger- 
 ous duty — of setting an example and of leading the way. Those 
 were the days of Lord Palmerston ; but times have changed, 
 
POLICY OF LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 85 
 
 and it is eyideut, from the speech of the Hungarian Prime 
 Minister on Thursday, that the freedom and the independence of 
 the Danubian Principalities and of the Balkan nationalities are 
 a primary and vital object in the policy of the Austro-Hungarian 
 Empire. Those things being so, it may well be that England 
 can honourably and safely afford to view with satisfaction that 
 Power whose interests are most directly and vitally concerned 
 assuming the foremost part in this great international work. 
 We must, of course, take it for granted, as I am doing, that the 
 liberty-giving policy of the Treaty of Berlin will be carefully 
 and watchfully protected. Whatever modification this great 
 fact may enable us to make in our foreign policy, whatever dimi- 
 nution of isolated risk or sole responsibility this may enable us 
 to effect, you may be certain of one thing — that there will be no 
 sudden or violent departure by her Majesty's present Govern- 
 ment from those main principles of foreign policy which I have 
 before alluded to, and which for nearly three centuries mark in 
 strong, distinct, and clear lines the course of the British Empire 
 among the nations of the world. There are Powers in Europe 
 who earnestly and honestly desire to avoid war and to preserve 
 peace, to content themselves with their possessions and their 
 frontiers, and to concentrate their energies on commercial pro- 
 gress and on domestic development. There are other Powers 
 who do not appear to be so fortunately situated, and who, from 
 one cause or another which it is not necessary to analyse or 
 examine, betray from time to time a regrettable tendency to- 
 wards contentious and even aggressive action. It is the duty 
 of any British Government to exhaust itself in efforts to main- 
 tain the best and the most friendly relations with all foreign 
 States, and to lose no opportunity of offering friendly and con- 
 ciliatory counsels for the purpose of mitigating national rivalries 
 and of peacefully solving international disputes. But should 
 circumstances arise which, from their grave and dangerous 
 nature, should force the Government of the Queen to make a 
 choice, it cannot be doubted that the sympathy and, if necessarj^, 
 even the support, of England will be given to those Powers who 
 seek the peace of Europe and the liberty of peoples, and in 
 whose favour our timely adhesion would probably, and without 
 
86 SPEECHES OF LOED EANIJOLI'JI CHURCHILL 
 
 tlie use of force, decide the issue. Our policy in these anxious 
 times — subject always to the cardinal principle of maintaining 
 the union of the Unionist party — will be to pursue an even and 
 steady course, avoiding the dangers of officious interference and 
 unnecessary initiative on the one hand, and an attitude of 
 selfish and timid isolation on the other. And I earnestly hope 
 that we may be successful in contributing to the preservation of 
 that general peace and security which, however necessary and 
 advantageous it may be for other nations, is absolutely essen- 
 tial to the progress and prosperity of the British Empire. 
 
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY. 
 Bradford, October 26, 1886. 
 
 [The following speech was delivered to a large gathering of re- 
 presentatives of Conservative local organisations, who came from all 
 parts of the country. It was estimated that fully a million and a half 
 of electors were represented at this meeting.] 
 
 A QUIET autumn has certain disadvantages for unfortunate 
 people who, like myself, are called upon to address great 
 political meetings. It lias this disadvantage, that it is very diffi- 
 cult to find any succession of subjects which can from their nature 
 arouse for any length of time the attention of so great an audi- 
 ence as the present. I may say that I very much regret having 
 made that speech which I made at Dartford. That was only three 
 weeks ago, and yet I wish I had not made it, because, if I had 
 not made that speech at Dartford three weeks ago, I might have 
 made that speech here to-night.' My task this evening would 
 consequently have been much lighter and much easier. How- 
 ever, risking the chance of wearying you, and risking the chance 
 of travelling over subjects which are no doubt to some extent 
 familiar to you, I may find one or two others which may possibly 
 be of interest, and to which I should like to direct your atten- 
 tion this evening. I would first advert to the condition of Ire- 
 land, a country which has for the last six years been the source 
 of the most intense anxiety to your statesmen and to your 
 fellow-countrymen. On the whole, about Ireland I can allow 
 myself to say this much, that the accounts which the Ministers 
 
 ' An allusion was here made to the attacks upon the Dartford speech 
 which were kept up by the semi-official Conservative press, and to the denun- 
 ciation of a poHcy which afterwards was adopted by the entire Tory jiarty. 
 The declaration by Lord Randolph of his desire to repeat the * Dartford pro- 
 gramme ' was received with much laugliter and cheering by the meeting. 
 
88 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CIIURCniLL 
 
 receive, the oflicial intbrniatiou as to the social condition of tlie 
 country and as to the prospects of a restoration of tranquillity, 
 are encouraging. There is nothing whatever discouraging about 
 them. There has been in Ireland a good and abundant harvest, 
 and that harvest has been well gathered in. There has been in 
 Ireland, moreover, a marked and satisfactory recovery of prices ; 
 and we can learn, though of course exact and accurate information 
 on this subject is difiicult to obtain, that the rents are being fairly 
 paid all over the country. That great source of disturbance, the 
 non-payment of rent, does not seem to be in active operation in 
 Ireland at the present moment. But there is this to be said, 
 that large reductions have been made, very large and general 
 and liberal reductions of rent have been made, oy the Irish land- 
 lords. The Irish landlords have, I think, a great claim upon 
 your consideration and your sympathy. They are not a body 
 which have met with very much justice from public opinion in 
 England of late years. If ever there was a body which was 
 entitled to stand upon their strict legal rights to the letter of 
 the law, I say these Irish landlords were. The Irish landlords 
 have justified the confidence which her Majesty's Government 
 placed in them. They have shown themselves to be considerate 
 and liberal, and equal to the present crisis. The Irish land- 
 lords, by the general spirit of liberality and consideration with 
 w^hich they have treated the Irish tenantry, have co-operated 
 in a signal and a marked manner towards the great object of 
 restoring order and tranquillity in Ireland. There are, un- 
 doubtedly, a few districts in Ireland where the disease of social 
 disorder still lingers, where the emissaries of outrage and 
 assassination have fixed a tight grasp upon the people, and 
 where defiance of law seems to threaten to die hard. It is 
 possible that these districts may have to be specially treated. 
 There still remains in certain districts in Ireland — not, I am 
 happy to say, a wide area, and I hope it is a diminishing 
 area — a considerable amount of terror, of disorder, and of crime ; 
 and it is possible that Parliament may have to give special 
 consideration and special treatment to those districts. But, 
 on the whole, with this exception, I may say that there has 
 been a marked decrease of crime and outrage in Ireland, and 
 
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY 89 
 
 that the returns of crime for the last month are lower than they 
 have been, I believe, for the last five years. We are aware, of 
 course, that it is too soon to speak about the state of Ireland 
 with confidence. We have been only, I think, altogether three 
 months in office, and absolute confidence as regardc the future 
 of Ireland would be out of place. No doubt Ministers vv^ill soon 
 assemble in council in London for the annual winter delibera- 
 tions of the Government, and the state of Ireland will natu- 
 rally be fully and closely considered — considered with all that 
 valuable information which the knowledge and experience 
 and judgment of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach ' can supply. The 
 country will very shortly know whether the Government will 
 think themselves justified in allowing the winter to pass without 
 having special recourse to Parliament for measures with which 
 to assist the execution of the law. That is a matter on which I 
 cannot at present speak to you with absolute certainty. We 
 must recollect, you must recollect, that the present Govern- 
 ment are under very heavy and under very binding pledges — 
 pledges to Parliament, and pledges to you, the people — to 
 maintain decent order and security of life and property in Ire- 
 land. Those pledges were given very deliberately, and they 
 were not the mere words and phrases in which the former 
 Government used to be so f >nd of indulging. No ! Those pledges 
 when they were given indicated on the part of the Government 
 a settled determination and resolution from which nothing that 
 we know of is capable of turning us aside. No single soul in 
 this country would ever j)lace confidence in us again, nor shall 
 we expect to receive from any single soul in this country a 
 particle of confidence again, if those pledges which we have 
 given to the country in regard to the maintenance of order in 
 Ireland were not fully carried out. However, having said that, 
 I add this : that I know of nothing at the present moment to 
 indicate that the Government are not able to do their duty in 
 Ireland, and that they are not doing their duty. On the con- 
 trary, all indications would go the other way, and really, my 
 lords and gentlemen, when you come to consider through 
 what a terrible time of trial that unfortunate country has 
 ' Then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. 
 
90 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 passed during the past five years, I think you will agree that 
 the state of the country is on the whole not nearly so bad 
 as one might reasonably expect it to be. There is little doubt 
 of this, that the Irish people either have altogether appreciated 
 or are rapidly appreciating the full significance of the result of 
 the last general election, when the stern resolution of England 
 shivered and shattered into fragments that movement for the 
 Repeal of the Union that emanated from Ireland — a movement, 
 moreover, which was supported by a great majority of the 
 Liberal party, and which was led by, perhaps, the most powerful 
 politician of modern days. That movement was shivered, and 
 shattered into fragments, by the stern decision of England. 
 Tt is hardly probable that the same project will ever be at- 
 tempted again under circumstances so exceptionally favourable 
 to its success, and I think the Irish are too clever, too shrewd, 
 too intelligent, and too quick not to have appreciated at their 
 full value those great and glaring facts which are demonstrated 
 by the last election ; and we may reasonably hope that the Irish 
 people, either as a community or as individuals, will gradually 
 and without much delay shape their political and social action 
 in accordance with the result of that election. If the Unionists 
 as a party hold together — and 1 do not see why they should 
 not hold together — if they would take proper precaution for 
 the future, and if they will follow up the victory which they 
 have gained, boldly and energetically, then I think we may come 
 to the conclusion without much doubt or hesitation that the 
 question of the maintenance or the repeal of the Union has been 
 settled in our time for one and probably two generations. 
 
 I now ask you to examine with me a moment the condition of 
 our political opponents. What is that condition, looking at it now 
 fairly and without prejudice ? I think it is a very unhealthy con- 
 dition. It is, indeed, so bad a condition that I am inclined to 
 ask, have we any political opponents ? There is no doubt that our 
 political opponents are very sick. They would appear to me to be 
 sick unto death. So sick are they I hardly believe that they can 
 possibly recover from their sickness, and I will tell you why : 
 because they have got into such a terrible and hopeless state of 
 nervous prostration that they can do nothing else except con- 
 
THE NEW CONSEEVATIVE POLICY 91 
 
 template, examine, and moan over their various maladies and 
 diseases. Most of them, certainly the most prominent of them, 
 are keeping tolerably quiet, and no doubt that is the very best 
 thing they can do, for any physician will tell you that perfect 
 and absolute quiet and repose is the only cure for an exhausted 
 and diseased organism. Their renowned leader is apparently 
 occupied — to judge from the reports which appear in the news- 
 papers — in that reckless and ruthless devastation of the groves 
 and plantations of his paternal acres which so clearly proves to 
 the world that he holds those acres — to use the legal title — 
 without impeachment of waste, and also he finds time to study 
 the history of the Union, to study it closely, and to re-examine 
 it from every point of view. From all I can learn at the present 
 moment, he is vmable to decide positively which was tlie greatest 
 scoundrel or blackguard, Mr. Pitt or Lord Castlereagh, and no 
 doubt from time to time he will make to the public announcements 
 on that question. But, meanwhile, you wnll agree with me tliat 
 we have not the smallest right or title to complain of his being 
 engaged in that occupation. It is a perfectly innocent occupa- 
 tion. It cannot possibly do the smallest harm to anybody, least 
 of all to Mr. Pit): or to Lord Castlereagh. Only one Liberal 
 politician of any eminence has thought proper to address the 
 British public — Lord Rosebery — the man whom Mr. Gladstone 
 once designated, in a burst of enthusiasm, as the man of the 
 future — a very dim and distant future, I fear. I read Lord 
 Rosebery 's speech because it was my duty to do so, and I found 
 that Lord Rosebery, in that speech, was entirely occupied with 
 a kind of morbid analysis of the shrunken and attenuated form 
 of the once great Liberal party after a long course of Gladstonism. 
 Lord Rosebery mournfully ejaculated : ' We were once 350 in 
 the House of Commons ; now we are only 180. Once we were 
 supported by over two millions of voters out of an electorate of 
 only three millions and a half; now we are not supported by more 
 than one million two hundred thousand voters out of an electorate 
 of over five millions.' And so he went on, and that was the 
 burden of his song. He had nothing to suggest ; he had 
 nothing whatever to criticise in the policy of his opponents, and 
 he had nothing whatever to announce except that he, the man 
 
92 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 of tlie future, was going off on a long voyage to India, and that 
 lie sincerely hoped, though he did not much believe, that he 
 shouM Hnd things a little better wlien he came back. I have 
 given you in fairly correct, though, no doubt, in condensed form, a 
 review of the position of the Government and the Unionist party 
 and of their opponents. But you would be making great error 
 if you thought ;hat, because of and on account of that position, 
 which is in many respects, an encouraging and exhilarating 
 position — if you thought that the present GJovernment were in 
 the least bit carried away by the success which has been vouch- 
 safed to them, or were in the least bit intoxicateo with the 
 victory which they have gained. ('n the contrary, all this 
 success and all these advantages, which for the time surround 
 the Government and the Unionist party, only serve to stimu- 
 Hte the Government to fresh exertions, and, in one sense, to 
 determine them to do all which it may be in their power to do 
 so that the country may derive uhe utmost benefit and advan- 
 tage from the present political situation. We have placed before 
 the country, and, I think you will say, we have lost no dme in 
 placing before the country, a programme both for domestic and 
 foreign affairs; and as far as I can learn — and I have many 
 means of obtaining accurate information — the great mass of 
 opinion in the country is fairly well satisfied with that pro- 
 gramme and only desires one thing more, which is that the 
 programme should become an accomplished reality. I think it 
 is likely to become so, for all the opposition we are likely to meet 
 with, the effective opposition, the constitutional oppositior from 
 the Gladstonian Separatists. All they can do apparently is to 
 toss and writhe on their bed of sickness and pain, and to 
 exclaim with impotent rage, ' How unfair ! how shameful ! how 
 unprincipled ! you have stolen our programme.' These ejacula- 
 tions which they are making every day are, to ray mind, the 
 most glaring proofs of their hopelessly diseased mental condition. 
 Why -their programme ' I should like to knovr? Since 1880 
 they have been in office with a short interval, and they did not 
 make an attempt to carry out a single item of that programme, 
 excepting in one direction. They did attempt to reform Parlia- 
 mentary procedure, and they made such a mess of it that the 
 
THE NEAV CONSERVATIVE POLICY 93 
 
 whole work has to be clone over again. I never knew a claim, 
 and I have never read of a claim put forward by a political party, 
 which was at once more audacious or more ridiculous. They 
 tell us that our programme, such as I sketched at Dartford the 
 other day, is a Radical programme, that the Tory party have 
 turned their coats and abandoned their principles, and adopted 
 the principles of the Radical party, and quantities of sentences 
 of that kind and of equal stupidity. All I know about the 
 programme of policy, foreign and domestic, which I endeavoured 
 to sketch out at Dartford three weeks ago is this, that it was a 
 mere repetition of the programme which was sketched out by 
 Lord Salisbury in November last, in that speech which he made 
 at Newport in 1885. All I know about my speech at Dartford 
 which I can say in reply to what I am told as to its being a 
 total adoption of Radical principles and measures is this, that 
 it was a mere reiteration and elaboration of the Queen's Speech 
 of January last when Lord Salisbury's first Government was in 
 office. It was an elaboration and a reiteration of the speeches 
 of the Ministers who supported the policy which was contained 
 in that speech. At that time it was our intention, if we had^ 
 remained in office, to have invited Parliament to consider 
 practically the question of the reform of Parliamentaiy procedure, 
 and that we meant to ask Parliament to do first. At that time 
 it was the intention of the Government to have dealt with the 
 interesting question of providing facilities for the acquisition of 
 allotments for agricultural labourers, and the only difference 
 between then and now is this, that the Government at that time 
 thought they would do better to embody that question in the 
 Local Government Bill, and the Government now are of opinion 
 that they will do better to deal with it in a separate and special 
 measure. At that time it was the intention of the Government 
 to introduce a measure to facilitate the sale of glebe land in con- 
 nection with the question of the provision of allotments for agricul- 
 tural labourers. At that time my noble friend the Lord Chan- 
 cellor had in preparation a measure to provide for the cheaper 
 transfer of land, and for the registration and simplification of 
 title to real estate. At that time the Government had been for 
 long considering and had made great progress with a measure 
 
94 Srp-ECTTES OF LORD RANDOLIMI CHURCHILL 
 
 for the establishment of popular local ofovornmeut in our rural 
 districts. That measure would have been of a comprehensive 
 character, and would have included proposals for dealing with 
 local taxation and the question of licensing. In addition to 
 that, mv right honourable friend the present Colonial Secretarj- 
 was then President of the Board of Trade, and he had under 
 his most careful consideration a measure for the further regu- 
 lation of railway rates. Therefore nothing whatever has been 
 added to the programme which we put before the country in 
 November last and January last, and I never heard a single soul 
 say in November last, or January last, that we had adopted a 
 Radical programme. I was wrong in saying nothing had been 
 added. Two things have been added. One added question Is 
 that we hope to be able to legislate with a view to settle the 
 difficulty which has arisen about the payment of tithes, and 
 another addition to the programme has been this, that with 
 regard to procedure in the House of Commons we have come 
 to the conclusion that there must be some further power adopted 
 by Parliament for closing debate. That is an addition on which 
 I shall have to say something before I sit down But, except 
 those two additions, our programme has been the same since 
 November last, and our programme in November last, as it was 
 placed before the country by Lord Salisbury, merely summarised 
 what every sincere Conservative speaker of any position or 
 intelligence has been explaining to the country for the past six 
 years. This programme has practically been before the electors 
 for six vears, and it is because it has been before the electors 
 for six years, and because the electors now believe it is our 
 programme, and a genuine programme, that we are in office at 
 the present moment. 
 
 You ai*e aware that last January we w^ere prevented from 
 even making a beginning of carrying out that programme. 
 Mr. Gladstone, by a manoeuvre, perhaps the most artful, cer- 
 tainly the most unprincipled ever adopted by any Minister, 
 solely with the view of placing himself in office, turned us out 
 of power. We had to resign, and we were prevented from then 
 making a beginning of that programme, though I believe at 
 that time the general public feeling of the country was very 
 
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY 95 
 
 much in favour of our being allowed to make a beg-innino-. 
 However, we were turned out, and Mr. Glad.stoiu- came in. 
 And now Mv. Gladstone has beeu turned out, and we are going 
 to try again, and this time I think we are going to try with 
 every prospect of success. It is the fact that we have every 
 prospect of success which makes our opponents so malevo- 
 lent. They know they cannot prevent us now from making 
 an earnest and honest attempt to carry out our intentions. 
 They know that, whatever manoeuvres they adopt, however 
 artful or however unprincipled they may be, it is out of their 
 power to turn us out of office, and it is that which so excites 
 their malice. It is their impotence that drives them to fury. 
 The consequence is, they have nothing to do now except to 
 misrepresent our policy, and to ascribe to us the most injurious 
 and the most libellous and the most calumnious motives. Now 
 there are many forms of calumny which the Radical Separatists 
 adopt against the present Government. They are very fond of 
 saying, in the first place : ' The Government have produced a 
 great programme, but they have not the smallest intention of 
 attempting to carry it out. The Conservatives always like to 
 do nothing. Their idea is that there should be no legislation, 
 and you will see nothing will be done.' That is one form of 
 calumny they adopt, and to that I can only reply, ' Wait and 
 see ; time alone can decide whether they are right or wrong.' 
 But of this I am certain, that even if we did produce our in-o- 
 gramme in a practical form, and make an effort to carry it out, 
 Radical Separatists would at once say it was owing to them that 
 we had been forced to take that step. Another form of calumny 
 is this— they say : ' Oh yes ; very likely the Government will 
 produce some measures, but these measures will not be measures 
 of real reform.' Again to that I can only reply, ' Let us wait 
 and see.' Time, again, is the only power that can decide that 
 question. But of this I am perfectly certain, that if we did 
 provide really good reforming measures, and carry them into 
 law, Radical Separatists would at once claim that it was entirely 
 owing to their influence and cleverness that these measures were 
 carried. There is no pleasing these malevolent persons. There 
 is one special calumny, which I should like to deal with 
 
96 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 to-niglit. It is freely luutle. The Radicals go about saying that 
 the Tory party has been converted in the most unprincipled 
 manner to the policy of three acres and a cow. The accusation 
 is perfectly false. We, the members of the Tory party, are, I 
 believe — certainly, I can speak for myself with great assurance — 
 as opposed as ever we were to the policy of mortgaging the local 
 rates in order to provide every agricultural labourer in the country 
 with three acres and a cow. We are opposed to the policy be- 
 cause Ave think it an unsafe, an impracticable, ar imprudent, 
 and an unrealisable policy. This however is certain, that what 
 I may call the facilitating by legislation, so far as legislation 
 can facilitate such an object — the facilitating of the multiplica- 
 tion of owners and occupiers of land — has long been a cardinal 
 principle of Tory policy not only in Ireland, but over the whole 
 of Great Britain. On that basis we shall work, and of this I 
 feel no doubt whatever — that, with regard either to the allot- 
 ments question, or wdth regard to the much larger question of 
 land transfer and simplification of title of real estate, we shall 
 produce to Parliament measures which will be real improvements 
 and needed improvements on the existing state of things. 
 
 With regard to the question of local government in Ireland, 
 I will permit myself to say this, that there are three things 
 certain. It may be as well that I should state them. In the 
 first place, the present Government do not intend, in any 
 shape or form, to grant Home Rule to Ireland, nor to become 
 responsible for any legislation that contains the germs of Home 
 Rule. The second thing, w^hich is also certain, is this, that we 
 do intend, if we remain in office, to deal with the question of 
 local government in Ireland. And the third thing that is 
 certain is, that we do not mean to be hurried or hasty in 
 that dealing. We mean to be most extremely deliberate in 
 our consideration of what is a most difficult and compli- 
 cated subject. But this much I may say, that the proposals of 
 the Government for dealing with the local government of 
 Ireland, when they are produced to Parliament, will be found to 
 be based and drawn upon lines similar to and analogous to 
 those upon which we hope to build up the system of popular local 
 government in Great Britain. These three things are, I believe, 
 
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY 97 
 
 certain and immutable. But I am perfectly sure the Radical 
 Separatists, by tlieir speeches and through their press, will 
 recommence to state that they know as a positive fact that the 
 Government have in preparation a measure of Home Rule for 
 Ireland. 
 
 There is one matter to which I wish to ask your special 
 attention. It is a matter which has already excited, I am glad 
 to say, much public comment and attention. I allude to the 
 question of reform of Parliamentary procedure. I made some 
 allusion to this in my speech at Dartford, and there I stated 
 that, in my opinion, the main feature- — or, to borrow a very 
 good phrase from Mr. Gladstone, the motor muscle — of any 
 scheme of reform of Parliamentary procedure must contain 
 as its first article the adoption by the House of Commons of 
 a simple and effective form of closing debate, according to the 
 will of a majority. Without this all the other reforms of 
 your Parliamentary procedure will be absolutely useless and 
 unprofitable. With it there are many other wide reforms, 
 which may be in the highest degree beneficial to the transaction 
 of public business ; but the motor muscle, the power of closing 
 debate, is the foundation, not only of any reform of proce- 
 dure, but it is the essential aud vital principle of any pro- 
 gramme of practical legislation for the wants of the people of 
 this country. It is more than that — it is the foundation of 
 any hope or prospect of good executive and administrative 
 government under Parliamentary institutions. Without it, 
 I believe that all hope of legislative progress is vain ; without it, 
 your Parliamentary institutions will gradually become weakened, 
 impaired, ultimately destroyed ; without it, the gravest possible 
 dangers will certainly arise, if the Government in any time 
 of great emergency had to make sudden and unexpected de- 
 mands on Parliament. Of course on this point at once an 
 accusation is brought against those members of the Tory party 
 who advocate such a change as this that they have changed 
 their minds ; and that accusation is specially brought against 
 myself, and I am told that I have changed my mind, and, of 
 course, that I have changed it in a very unprincipled manner. 
 That follows naturally. Well, I might argue that question, 
 
 VOL. n. H 
 
98 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 particularly if I possessed anything like the dialectical ingenuity 
 of Mr. Gladstone, ad infinitum ; but I think it perfectly useless 
 to argue it and to waste the time of this meeting. I frankly 
 and fully admit that I have changed my mind upon this ques- 
 tion of the power of closing debate. Au unchanging mind is 
 an admirable possession so long as the circumstances with 
 regard to which that mind is made up do not themselves 
 change. But an unchanging mind, when the circumstances 
 on which that mind was made up are totally changed and 
 transformed — that is a possession which I sincerely hope will 
 never be mine. Allow yourselves to look with me at the total 
 change of circumstances which has arisen with regard to Par- 
 liament since the Conservative party as a party opposed the 
 power of closing debate. Compare that Parliament of 1880 
 when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister, with the Parliament 
 of the present day w^hen liord Salisbury is Prime Minister, 
 You will see there have been four great changes, of which the 
 last is the most important. When Mr. Gladstone was Prime 
 Minister both of the great parties in the State were solidly 
 united against Repeal, nor did it appear possible or probable 
 that that union could ever in our time pass away or be destroyed. 
 Further, both political parties in the State were united for 
 the purpose of suppressing wilful, general, and deliberate ob- 
 struction of public business. That was marvellously exem- 
 plified when, in the year 1881, Parliament in one night, and 
 hardly with any debate at all, agreed to Mr. Gladstone's rules 
 of urgency with regard to public business. But more than 
 that. In the Parliament of 1880 both political parties were 
 united in an unchangeable determination to support and to 
 strengthen the authority of the Chair. And now comes the 
 principal feature of that Parliament, comparing it with the 
 present. In that Parliament of 1880 Mr. Parnell's followers 
 only numbered, for effective purposes of obstruction, some twenty 
 or twenty-five votes. Under these circumstances, undoubtedly, 
 the Conservative party opposed the introduction of what was 
 called the cloture as a startling and unnecessary innovation. That 
 is so. I do not deny it. Those were the cn'cumstances. The Con- 
 servatives may have been right or they may have been wrong ; 
 
THE NEW CONSERVATIVE POLICY 90 
 
 with that we have nothing to do. What we have to do with is 
 the change that has come over the state of affairs. What have 
 you now ? You have the most tremendous change ! It is not 
 change : ic is absolute transformation of political circumstances. 
 Instead of the two parties being united against the Repeal of the 
 Union, the project of Repeal has been embraced and advocated 
 by a great majority of the Liberal party. They have embraced 
 it, and they advocate the policy of repeal passionately, violently, 
 desperately, and they are prepared to go to any length to attain 
 their end. Instead of the two great parties in the State being- 
 united for the purpose of putting down wilful and deliberate 
 obstruction, the great proportion of the Radical Separatists 
 not only tolerate wilful and deliberate obstruction and coun- 
 tenance it, but many of them take part in it, and some of them 
 lead it. The two great parties are no longer united in support 
 of, and to strengthen the authority of the Chair — so far from 
 that, the Chair can look for no support whatever from the 
 Radical Separatists or from their leaders. I come to the 
 greatest change of all. Mr. Parnell's party, which in the Par- V 
 liament of 1880 only numbered some twenty or twenty-five, 
 now numbers eighty to eighty-three or eighty-four votes. 
 Eighty-three or eighty-four votes for effective purposes of 
 general, wilful, and deliberate obstruction of all public business. 
 That is the great change, the greatest change of all, added on to 
 the other changes ; and Mr. Parnell has given you fair notice in 
 a speech in Dublin, which was received with enthusiasm by the 
 party which he leads, that it is their avowed determination, and 
 that they have it in their power, to render all legislation and 
 all transaction of public business impossible until you have 
 granted them the Irish Parliament which they claim. That is 
 the state of affairs. Those are the circumstances ; and I feel 
 certain that a very large body of persons in this country have 
 changed their minds about the cloture. These features of 
 your Parliament at the present are dangers to the State of 
 momentous importance. In your Parliament — the fortress of 
 your liberties, the citadel of all your privileges and all your rights 
 — you have a band of determined enemies, some two hundred 
 strong, who are determined, unless they attain their object, to 
 
100 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 destroy that Parliament, to degrade the authority and to paralyse 
 the etliciency of tliat House of Coramou.s wliich during eight 
 centuries has moulded your national life and guided your im7 
 perial career. Not only have they avowed their intention of 
 doing this, but they have already begun to put it into 
 practice, and they have already shown their power, I wish 
 you could read, all of you, a most admirable article in the 
 ' Quarterly Review ' of this last October, which gives a graphic 
 and truthful delineation of the scenes which took place in the 
 House of Commons in that short session which is just over — 
 scenes which never could be reported accurately in the public 
 press. I sat through that session steadily. I watched carefully 
 every event — small and great— -of that session, and as the 
 mask fell from the Irish countenances at times, and as the 
 Radical Separatists, recklessly sometimes, disclosed their real 
 intentions, I confess that, with respect to this closing of debate 
 the scales fell entirely from my eyes, and all doubt on the subject 
 was for ever removed from my mind. 
 
 What I have to ask you is this. You who have sustained 
 a tremendous struggle, and sustained that struggle victoriously 
 Jiitherto, upon you reposes the guardianship and the custody of 
 every institution which Englishmen have been accustomed to 
 hold dear. If you fail, if you are beaten, if you are dissipated, 
 then al> those institutions will rapidly go. What I want to 
 know is this. Are you, who have fought the battle of the 
 Union victoriously so far — are you going to recoil from measures 
 which are absolutely essential if you would carry that battle 
 to a successful issue, and if you would wish your posterity to 
 reap the fruits of your labour and of your endurance ? Speak- 
 ing broadly, my lords and gentlemen, this is the issue which is 
 before you. There are the proverbial three courses. You can, 
 in the first place, by your attitude encourage the House of 
 Commons to reform procedure in such a manner as shall give 
 to the House of Commons the power of closing debate at the 
 will of a majority. Or there is a second course. You can by 
 your attitude encourage the House of Commons to do no busi- 
 ness, to pass no legislation, to have constant disorderly scenes 
 in their midst, and to have repeated conflicts with the Chair 
 
THE NEW CONSEEVATIVE POWCY lOl 
 
 and discreditable wrangles of every sort and kind. That is the 
 second course which you can encourage the House of Com- 
 mons to take. And there is a third course. You can grant 
 Home Rule, and repeal the Union right away. You sav 
 ' Never ' ; but you are bound under the present circumstances 
 to look facts in the face ; you must not, if you would 
 act patriotically, if you would act fairly by your country, 
 you must not blind your eyes to glaring facts simply because 
 those facts are disagreeable to think of, and because they in- 
 volve measures which from some points of view you dislike. 
 You must choose, and you cannot help choosing, between those 
 three courses I have pointed out to you. Pray remember this, 
 that the second course of doing nothing, of passing no legisla- 
 tion, and of allowing your House of Commons to be degraded, 
 must inevitably lead to the third course — namely, the repeal of 
 the Union. I say this without fear of reproach, and without 
 fear of exciting your displeasure. If your representatives in 
 Parliament are not courageous enough to adopt this policy of 
 taking measures for strengthening the House of Commons and 
 for putting down obstruction in the House of Commons — if you 
 are not courageous enough for that, then you are not courageous 
 enough to sustain a successful fight against Repeal. Believe 
 me, it is only by a simple and effective form of closing debates 
 in the House of Commons, according to the will of a majority, 
 that Parliament can regain its lost eflSciency ; it is only in 
 that way that the character of Parliament, so much fallen and 
 so much lost, can be restored; and if you shrink from the 
 measures which are necessary — and I am not surprised that 
 many ingenious arguments should be advanced against such 
 proposals — if you are persuaded by those arguments, remember 
 you have to deal with enemies who will shrink from nothing, 
 who are absolutely unscrupulous, who are absolutely unprin- 
 cipled, and who hope and who intend, if they can, by the utter 
 smash-up of all your Parliamentary arrangements, to extort 
 from a disheartened, from a disappointed, from a wearied, and 
 from a sickened people that independent Irish Parliament 
 which is the summit of their ambition, and which, owing to 
 your action up to now, they have failed to obtain. It is mv 
 
102 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 business, it is my duty, to point out these facts to you — to 
 point out to you the danorers whicli lie ahead, and the nature 
 of the strucrgle you have still to undergfo, and the means where- 
 by those dantyers may be averted, and that struggle success- 
 fully terminated. More than that I cannot do. The decision 
 of questions like this lies first with your representatives in 
 Parliament and afterwards with you. I have done my duty 
 when I have placed the matter fairly, accurately, and fully 
 before you, and told you of tho measures which, in the opinion 
 of the Government, it is absolutely necessary to adopt. I feel 
 so seriously on this question, that I will not hesitate to run the 
 risk of the reproach of arrogance and conceit in reminding 
 yon — who are at any rate a patient and indulgent audience 
 — that it has alreadly been my lot, it has been granted to 
 me through what has been only a short political career, to 
 judge more than once rightly on i)olitical questions as regards 
 their import and their nature, an . 1 it is in the confidence — con- 
 fidence which I feel partly owin\^ to your kind reception of me 
 this evening and partly to other causes — that I can, without 
 arousing your displeasure, make that claim. I implore you to 
 face this great question, this question of Parliamentary proce- 
 dure — the state of your Parliament — to face it fully and frankly, 
 to deal with it without timidity and without doubt. Deal with 
 it now, when, so to speak, you are, from a Parliamentary and 
 political point of view, young ; deal with it while the golden 
 moments of youth remain to you, while you are strong, while 
 you are flushed with memories of victory, while inspired and 
 confident with hopes for the future ; deal with it while circum- 
 stances are favourable to you ; deal with it while your judg- 
 ment is sound, while your powers of decision remain unimpaired. 
 Do not allow yourselves to postpone this question. Do not 
 allow yourselves to be put off with half-measures and temporary 
 expedients such as are sure to be suggested by timid minds, 
 but such as you know or ought to know in your hearts will fail, 
 and such as I tell you must fail, to attain their purpose. If 
 you postpone the question, the result of such procrastinating 
 conduct will be that when you have been weakened by constant 
 failure, when you have been distracted by reiterated defeat, 
 
THE NEW CONSEEVATIVE POLICY 103 
 
 when tlie time for a general election again draws nigh, and 
 when the country has seen that all your promises or most of 
 them have been unredeemed, then I tell you you will ask, and 
 you will ask in vain, and you will ask too late, for those real 
 and proper remedies which you ought to have adopted eai-lier 
 and before. We, the Government, shall not be lial^le in this 
 matter, I think, to any reproach or responsibility as far a's we 
 are concerned. We have placed before the country a practical, 
 a genuine, and an honest programme of policy, both for domes- 
 tic and foreign affairs, and we have indicated to you clearly 
 and frankly and faithfully the preliminary measures we con- 
 sider indispensable if that programme is to be hopefully 
 taken in hand or successfully carried out. There is nothing in 
 that programme which could alienate or even alarm any reason- 
 able or moderate man. It is my unalterable conviction that if 
 the supporters of the present Government — not only those who 
 support them from ties of party, but those who give them an 
 independent support — if they are able to display the great 
 qualities of decision, courage, and united purpose — qualities 
 without which this difficult crisis cannot be safely traversed — 
 then I say it is my conviction that there are many long years 
 in store — for Great Britain and for Ireland — of peace, progress, 
 and prosperity. 
 
104 SPEECHES OF LOUD lUNDOLPII CHUItCUILL 
 
 RESIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR OF THE 
 EXCHEQUER. 
 
 House op Commons, January 27, 1887. 
 
 [The most important of the circumstances attending the resigna- 
 tion of Lord Randolph Churchill are dealt with in the introduction 
 to this work. It is only necessary to explain here that the 
 resignation was announced on December 23, 1886, and that on 
 the 31st Lord Hartington had a prolonged interview with Lord 
 Salisbury, the result of which was that, while Lord Hartington 
 himself declined to join the Ministry, he recommended Mr. Goschen 
 to do so. On January 3, Mr. Goshen accepted tlie post of Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, on the distinct understanding that ' he had 
 not become a Conservative' (Times, January 4, 1887). It was, 
 however, found absolutely necessary for tlie Conservative party to 
 procure a seat for Mr. Goschen. Earl Percy therefore retired from 
 the representation of St. George's, Hanover Square — the safest Tory 
 constituency in all London — and Mr. Goschen was returned.] 
 
 MR. SPEAKER, when a member of this House who has held 
 office in the Administration has been compelled to resign 
 that office, the House of Commons usually permits and expects 
 some explanation of the reasons and causes of that act. If 
 it should be the good pleasure of the House to-night to receive 
 such an explanation, I am informed by Lord Salisbury that I 
 am possessed of the gracious permission of the Sovereign to place 
 before the House certain facts bearing on my resignation of the 
 office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Speaker, I resigned 
 that office on the 20th of December last, because I was altogether 
 unable to become responsible for the estimates which were 
 presented by the departments for the support of the army and 
 the navy in the coming year. Of course, sir, it would be idle to 
 deny what has, I fancy, become fairly well known — that there were 
 
EESIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 105 
 
 other matters of grave importance on which it was my misfor- 
 tune to hold opinions differing from those of Lord Salisbury. 
 Those were matters, in my opinion, perfectly susceptible of 
 accommodation ; but this question of the estimates, on which I 
 resigned, was incapable of such accommodation, for the reason, 
 Sir, that I was deeply and repeatedly pledged by many a speech 
 which I had made in various parts of the country to a policy of 
 retrenchment and economy ; because I was convinced from what 
 I had learnt at the Treasury that such a policy was not only 
 necessary but perfectly feasible ; and because, viewing those 
 pledges, it was impossible for me usefully to retain the office of 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Government in whose policy 
 effective retrenchment found no place. It is not my intention 
 to analyse in any degree the expenditure of this country 
 at the present moment, and indeed it is my desire to make 
 my remarks on this occasion as brief and as concise as they 
 possibly can be ; because, in the first place, the patience of 
 the House has limits, and, in the second place, if I were to try 
 to make an explanation of an over-elaborate character, such an 
 explanation might tend to degenerate into a kind of indictment 
 of the Government which I think, on the whole, would be 
 neither useful nor becoming. But I may state this fact — that the 
 amount of the estimates which were presented to me by the two 
 departments as Chancellor of Exchequer exceeded 31,000,000?. 
 for the coming year for the support of the army and navy ; and 
 there is another fact which I must mention, because it influenced 
 me very materially. I had also to give my consent, and I 
 did give my consent, although a reluctant one, to unusually 
 large supplementary estimates for those two services. Before I 
 left the Government I consented that there should be presented 
 to Parliament supplementary estimates amounting to 300,000?. 
 for the navy, close upon half a million for the army, and another 
 half a million for expenses connected with the army in Egypt ; 
 and I thought that those unusually large supplementary 
 estimates formed an additional and grave reason for the reduc- 
 tion of the naval and military expenditure in the coming year. 
 T wish to put brief!}' before the House my view of that posi- 
 tion which I endeavoured to take up. My view of the position 
 
106 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 was this — tliat the expenditure for tlie year now expiring and 
 the expenditure for the preceding year, on armaments and on 
 naval and military purposes, was expenditure of a distinctly ab- 
 normal character, and that it was the duty of the Government to 
 make an effort to commence to return to what I will call more 
 normal expenditure. I will explain by two figures only what I 
 mean by normal and abnormal expenditure. If you take the 
 ten years from 1874 to 1884, you will find the average expendi- 
 ture on the Army and Navy amounted to 25,000,000^. a year ; 
 that standard was closely adhered to during those ten years. If 
 you take the three years 1885-6, 1886-7, and the coming year 
 1887-8, you will find that the average expenditure has risen 
 from 25,000,000Z. to over 31,000,000/.— an increase perfectly 
 sudden, of about 6,000,000/. That the House will see was no 
 light matter, and the honourable gentlemen who sit round me, 
 and who may naturally enough be disposed to take a somewhat 
 unfavourable view of my action, will admit that it is no small 
 matter and no small difference which divided me from Her 
 Majesty's Government. The right way to appreciate the mag- 
 nitude of that difference is to turn the 6,000,000/. into taxa- 
 tion. What does it mean in taxation ? Why, such an in- 
 crease means a sum exceeding by 1,600,000/. the entire produce 
 of the tea duty ; it means a sum equal to two-thirds of the 
 tobacco duty ; it means a sum equal to three-fourths of the 
 beer duty, and a sum equal to six-sevenths of the death duty. 
 If you like to look at the increase in another way, and place 
 on direct taxation this increase of 6,000,000/. — an increase, a 
 sudden jump, of taxation in time of peace — it will mean an 
 increase of 3cZ. in the income tax. I only mention that point in 
 order to show that it was upon a question of exceedingly large 
 magnitude on which I resigned, and one which, in my opinion, 
 went to the very root of government and policy. 
 
 There has been, I think, a good deal of misconception as to 
 the nature of the demand which I thought it my duty to make 
 upon the two departments. People supposed that I expected 
 that that large increase should be immediately reduced, but my 
 right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury and the 
 noble lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will bear me out in 
 
EESIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEE 107 
 
 saying that I made no such demand. I never expected that 
 any very large reduction could be immediately made, nor did I 
 even expect that we should be ever able to get back to the 
 average expenditure of the ten years I have quoted. My right 
 honourable friends will fully confirm me in this — that the only 
 request which I made was that they should make a sensible 
 and appreciable effort, which should be expressed in pounds, 
 shillings, and pence, to return, or to make a commencement to 
 return, to a more normal expenditure for military and naval 
 purposes. I named no figure ; I carefully avoided it. I left the 
 amount entirely to the discretion, and judgment, and superior 
 knowledge of my right honourable friends. In my mind — and 
 I may have mentioned it casually in conversation without insist- 
 ing upon it — I thought that a reduction of 1,000,000?. in a 
 time of peace upon the naval and military expenses of the 
 country would have been an adequate and satisfactory reduction ; 
 but my right honourable friends know perfectly well that I 
 should not have made any obstinate quarrel about 100,000?., 
 200,000?., or even 300,000?. In fact, I really believe, if the 
 worst came to the worst, I should have been satisfied with a 
 reduction of half a million. It was only when I found from the 
 views which my right honourable friends took of the position 
 that they were absolutely unable to make even the commence- 
 ment of an effort to return to a more normal state of expenditure 
 — it was only then, Sir, I was forced by a power greater than 
 party ties — forced by what I said in the country, forced by the 
 knowledge I acquired at the Treasury — to offer my resignation 
 to Lord Salisbury. I would mention two details which struck 
 me as most unsatisfactory. The Army Estimates showed a 
 reduction of 300,000?., connected with the expenses of the 
 military occupation in Egypt, and yet, in spite of that, the 
 total of the Army Estimates showed an increase of 300,000Z. 
 That I did not understand, and there was a detail in the 
 Admiralty Estimates which weighed with me very much. My 
 noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty showed a re- 
 duction of 500,000?. upon the total Estimates for the Navy ; 
 but the whole of that was taken off one vote — the important 
 vote for machinery ; and my argument was this — if so large a 
 
108 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 reduction were possible on one item, surely some reduction might 
 be made on other votes if they were carefully overhauled. I 
 know it has been said I made impossible demands. I cannot 
 pronounce whether they were possible or impossible. My own 
 belief is that where there is a will there is a way, and the 
 accuracy of the maxim may be proved by what took place in 
 1809, when the Government of the day and the Parliament 
 of the day were under the impression that the military and 
 naval expenditure of the country had reached an abnormal 
 levi'l. So strong was that impression, and so resolute was 
 the Government of the day, that the Estimates in 1870 for 
 these jinrposes, as compared with the Estimates of 1868, showed 
 a reduction of no less than 4,000,000/. I never asked for or 
 expected such a reduction as that. I thought I was reasonably 
 entitled to ask that some reduction should be made in time 
 of peace. There has been another misconception which I am 
 anxious to clear away, and that is that I was supposed to have 
 resigned upon the Budget. My resignation had nothing what- 
 ever to do with the Budget. I never should have thought of 
 resigning on the Budget. The Budget is a plan for providing 
 for the public services of the year, and my idea is that if the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer produces a plan which is not agree- 
 able to his colleagues, it is his business to modify it or alter it 
 until it is agreeable. But certainly he has no right to cram any 
 financial scheme of his down the throats of his colleagues. That 
 had nothing to do with my resignation. I resigned upon totally 
 different grounds — the expenditure of special departments of the 
 Government. My right honourable friend the First Lord of the 
 Treasury laid down in this House in 1883 a proposition with 
 Avhich I almost entirely agree. He then laid it down very 
 positively that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was primarily 
 and principally responsible for every figure in the Estimates. I 
 do not disagree with that proposition. I think the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer must satisfy himself in his own mind on two 
 points — first, that the demands put forward by the departments 
 do not exceed the necessities of the year ; and secondly, that 
 the money which is voted by Parliament shall be expended in 
 such a manner that the nation shall get full value for its money. 
 
EKSIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 109 
 
 Those, Sir, are two points which I think the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer ought to be satisfied upon, and it was upon those 
 two points I utterly and hopelessly broke down. I could not 
 satisfy myself as to these demands. I felt satisfied if the foreign 
 policy of this country was a peaceful foreign policy the Estimates 
 were too high. I felt quite certain that our foreign policy at 
 the present moment ought to be a peaceful policy. I do not 
 mean that kind of peace which is the flattering phrase of 
 platform orations ; but I mean a genuine, effective, peaceful 
 foreign policy which should be marked by the absence of un- 
 necessary initiative, by an indisposition to interfere too promptly 
 in European afl:airs, and, Sir, in fact, a policy of that character 
 which should approach more nearly to the domain of non-inter- 
 vention. Well, Sir, on this point I hold the strongest possible 
 opinions, and I do not see my way to alter those opinions. But 
 on the second point — namely, that the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer ought to be satisfied that the money Parliament votes is 
 properly spent — I could feel no satisfactory assurance. In fact I 
 had a suspicion — a feeling which I ought not to call a suspicion 
 because it amounted almost to conviction — that the reverse was 
 the case. 
 
 This is not the time, it would not be a proper occasion to 
 examine that matter more minutely ; but perhaps I may remind 
 the House summarily that since 1883 we have had a series of 
 what may be called departmental scandals, I believe, unpre- 
 cedented in the history of this country. I will only run them 
 over hastily on my fingers. In 1883 there was the expo- 
 sure of scandalous defects in the Commissariat Department in 
 Egypt in the first campaign. There was subsequently with re- 
 spect to the second Egyptian campaign the exposure of the brittle 
 swords, bent bayonets, and jamming cartridges. You then had 
 in connection with the financial management of the Admiralty 
 that grave scandal that attaches to the Government that left 
 ofiice in 1885, that the Admiralty was discovered to have spent 
 a large amount without the knowledge of the Treasury, and 
 apparently without its own knowledge. Then, Sir, you had the 
 very serious evidence which was given to the House and the 
 public by the total failure of three most expensive ships — the 
 
no SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Ajax, the Agamemnon, and the Tmperiense — to fulfil the 
 expectations of their designers, although they had cost no less 
 than a million and a half of mone}'. Then you had— all these 
 scandals following one upon another — the bursting of several 
 guns, and all the charges of inefficiency and worse than in- 
 efficiency which accompanied those incidents. I took no part 
 in the discussions in the House upon any of these subjects ; I 
 was not qualified to take part in such discussions, but I 
 listened to them attentively, and this series of rapidly suc- 
 ceeding departmental scandals produced a most unpleasant and 
 even worse effect upon my mind. I could not feel any assur- 
 ance whatever that that series of departmental scandals had 
 made the same deep impression upon the mind of my right 
 honourable friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), or upon the mind of my 
 noble friend (Lord G. Hamilton). I do not say that the least 
 bit to impute blame to them ; but these things did produce an 
 impression on my mind which I could not shake off. 
 
 There is only one more question I should like to clear up if 
 I may do so without trespassing on the time of the House. It 
 has been widely stated, and on authority apparently, that 1 re- 
 signed my office in haste ; in fact, I have seen it stated that I 
 resigned in a temper ; and I observed that my resignation was 
 designated by a Government organ as an escapade, whatever 
 that may be. I should like to tell the House exactly what the 
 facts are, because they should be known. This controversy 
 about expenditure has been going on between me, my right 
 honourable friend, my noble friend the First Lord of the Ad- 
 miralty, and the Prime Minister, almost since the commencement 
 of the Government. It has been going on in a perfectly friendly 
 manner, and, indeed, nothing has occurred to diminish the 
 friendly feeling which exists between my right honourable friends 
 and myself. But, as a matter of fact, I brought my views on 
 the questions of army and navy expenditure before Lord Salis- 
 bury as long ago as the month of August last, in a conversation 
 I had with him in Arlington vStreet. I expressed my views to 
 him and told him how strongly I felt upon this subject. The 
 House is aware that in a speech at Dartford I specially alluded 
 to the subject ; I alluded to it briefly but strongly ; and I think 
 
RESIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 111 
 
 that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the 
 Admiralty were aware how strong a meaning I attached to my 
 expressions on that occasion. In the month of October I went 
 down to address a meeting at Bradford. The morning before I 
 had another long conversation with the First Lord of the 
 Treasury and with Lord Salisbury, also in Arlington Street, and 
 again I indicated most clearly to thera that unless there was an 
 effort to reduce the expenditure it was impossible that I could 
 remain at the Exchequer. About the middle of October 1 wrote 
 to the First Lord of the Treasury and to the First Lord of the 
 Admiralty, requesting them as a particular favour to get the 
 Army and Navy Estimates prepared, so that they might be con- 
 sidered by the Government before Christmas, because not only 
 was I anxious that if these matters had to come before the 
 Cabinet they should be considered while there was time and 
 leisure to deal with them, but also that if the decision of the 
 Cabinet as to the amount of the Estimates was to be against me 
 I should not continue in my office, but should resign at such a 
 moment as to give Lord Salisbury the most ample margin of 
 time to make any appointment necessary before the meeting of 
 Parliament. On December 13 I wrote to Lord Salisbury that 
 from all I heard I feared he would have before long to decide 
 between the great spending departments and the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer. On Thursday, December 16, I had another 
 protracted conversation with Lord Salisbury upon the whole 
 question, in which I clearly indicated to him that the matter 
 was approaching a crisis. On Monday, December 20, the Esti- 
 mates were communicated to me — the Navy Estimates by my 
 noble friend in the morning, and the Army Estimates by my 
 right honourable friend in the afternoon. It appeared to me 
 that the position which they took up was one which admitted 
 of no modification, of no alteration. I was aware of what the 
 mind of the Prime Minister was on the subject. On Monday, 
 December 20, I was put in a corner ; I had no option but to 
 write to Lord vSalisbury to resign my office. 
 
 I have troubled the House with these facts because I want 
 to show the House that the idea that my action was taken in a 
 hurry is entirely wrong. I greatly doubt whether any Minister 
 
112 SPEECHES 01- LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 ever took action on any grave question more deliberately, after 
 longer and more anxious consideration. Those who suppose 
 that I could be capable of resigning the office of Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in a hurry or in a temper hardly do justice to 
 their own judgment. There is no position open to a private 
 individual prouder, or more honourable, than that of Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons. It is 
 not a position which any one is likely hastily to resign. I can 
 assure my right honourable friends around me, it was a very 
 hard and bitter thing for me to have to do, to sever my connec- 
 tion with the Government and to resign a position so honourable, 
 although so anxious and responsible. But I could not help it ; 
 I was pledged by speeches I had made. May I make this 
 remark ? The relations which exist between the Ministry and 
 the people are nowadays very direct and very close. Owing to 
 the practice of holding those large meetings, which have become 
 so general and so common, a Minister or a leader of the Opposi- 
 tion is brought into close contact with the people. He discourses 
 before them with the utmost freedom, and without much qualifi- 
 cation, on public affairs. The practice may have its advantages 
 or its disadvantages ; but the practice exists, and I cannot con- 
 ceive anything more disastrous or ruinous, more fatal to the 
 healthy tone of English public life, than that the people should 
 take it into their heads that a Minister or a leader of the Oppo- 
 sition, whoever he may be, who comes down to address them, 
 thinks of nothing but exciting a momentary and a passing cheer, 
 and leaves the meeting straightway forgetting what manner of 
 man he was. 1 hope it will not have to be imputed to me with 
 justice, or accuracy, that I, knowingly or intentionally, contributed 
 to produce such a belief. I have laid before the House as rapidly 
 as I could the various reasons which forced me on December 20 
 to write to Lord Salisbury a letter which I am permitted to read. 
 The House will understand that a further opportunity will arise 
 for a more exhaustive and analytical examination of the expendi- 
 ture of the country, and I will not anticipate that opportunity. 
 All I do is to lay briefly before the House the reasons which 
 forced me to leave the Government. On December 20 I wrote 
 to Lord Salisbury : — 
 
KESIGNATION AS CHAXCELLOK 01< THE EXCHEQUEE 113 
 
 ' Dear Lord Salisbury, — The approximate estimates for tlie 
 Army and Navy for next year have been to-day communicated 
 to me by George Hamilton and Smith. They amount to 
 31,000,000?.— 12,500,000/. for the Navy, and 18,500,000?. for 
 the Army. The Navy votes show a decrease of nearly 500,000?., 
 but this is to a great extent illusory, as there is a large increase 
 in the demand made by the Admiralty upon the War Office for 
 guns and ammunition. The Army estimates thus swollen show 
 an increase of about 300,000?. The total 31,000,000?. for the 
 two services, which will in all probability be exceeded, is very 
 greatly in excess of what I can consent to. I know that on this 
 subject I cannot look for any sympathy or effective support from 
 you, and I am certain that I shall find no supj)orters in the 
 Cabinet. I do not want to be wrangling and quarrelling in the 
 Cabinet, and therefore I must request to be allowed to give up 
 my office and retire from the Government. I am pledged up to 
 the eyes to large reductions of expenditure, and I cannot change 
 my mind ou this matter. If the foreign policy of this country 
 is conducted with skill and judgment our present huge and in- 
 creasing armaments are quite unnecessaiy, and the taxation 
 which they involve perfectly unjustifiable. The War Estimates 
 might be very considerably reduced if the policy of expenditure 
 on the fortifications and guns and garrisons of military ports, 
 mercantile ports, and coaling-stations were abandoned or modi- 
 fied. But of this I see no chance, and under these circumstances 
 I cannot continue to be responsible for the finances. I am sure 
 you will agree that I am right in being perfectly frank and 
 straightforward on this question, to which 1 attach the very 
 utmost importance ; and, after all, what I have written is only a 
 repetition of what I endeavoured to convey to you in conversa- 
 tion the other day. 
 
 ' Believe me to be yours most sincerely, 
 
 'Randolph S. Chukchill.' 
 
 I wrote that letter on December 20, and on December 22 
 — late in the evening — I received the following reply from Lord 
 Salisbury, which I am permitted to read to the House : — 
 
 VOL. II. I 
 
114 si'i-:i-:cHE.s OF lokd Randolph churchill 
 
 'llallida House, Hatlieltl, Herts: Uecumbei- 22, 1S8G. 
 • My dear Kamlol[)li, — I liave your letter of the 20tli from 
 Windsor. Vdu tell me, as you told me orally on Thursday, that 
 ol ,000,000/. for the two services is very greatly in excess of what 
 you can consent to ; that you are pledged up to the eyes to large 
 reductions of expenditure and cannot change your mind in the 
 matter ; and that, as you feel certain of receiving no support 
 from me or from the Cabinet in this view, you must resign your 
 office and withdraw from the Government. On the other hand, 
 I have a letter from Smith telling me that he feels bound to 
 adhere to the estimates which he showed you on Monday ; and 
 that he declines to postpone, as you had wished him to do, the 
 expenditure which he thinks necessary for the fortification of 
 coaling stations, military ports, and mercantile ports. In this 
 unfortunate state of things I have no choice but to express my 
 full concurrence with the views of Hamilton and Smith, and nn- 
 dissent from yours — though I say it, both on personal and public 
 grounds, with very deep regret. The outlook on the Continent is 
 very black. It is not too much to say that the chances are in 
 favour of war at an early date ; and, when war has once broken 
 out, we cannot be secure from the danger of being involved in it. 
 The undefended state of many of our ports and coaling stations 
 is notorious ; and the necessity of protecting them has been 
 urged by a strong Commission and has been admitted on both 
 sides in debate. To refuse to take measures for their protection 
 would be to incur the greatest possible responsibility. Speaking- 
 more generally, I should hesitate to refuse at this time any supplies 
 which men so moderate in their demands as Smith and Hamilton 
 declare to be necessary for the safety of the country. The issue 
 is so serious that it thrusts aside all personal and party con- 
 siderations. But I regret more than I can say the view you 
 take of it; for no one knows better than you how injurious to 
 the public interests at this juncture your withdrawal from the 
 Government may be. In the presence of your very strong and 
 decisive language I can only again express my very profound 
 regret. 
 
 ' Believe me, yours very sincerely, 
 
 ' Salisbury.' 
 
EESIGNATION AS CHANCELLOR Of THE EXCHEQUER 115 
 
 The House will see that that letter is absolutely final autl 
 conclusive. Lord Salisbury did not demur to my suggestion 
 that it was no use bringing the matter before the Cabinet. 
 Lord Salisbury did not request that the whole matter might 
 be placed before him as First Lord of the Treasury in order that 
 he might personally examine it. He expressed his entire con- 
 currence with the spending departments and his total dissent 
 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said that under 
 the circumstances he had nothing to propose and nothing to do 
 but to express his deep regret. The House will see that that 
 was a letter which brought things to a conclusion. Therefore, 
 on December 22, on the same evening, I thus wrote to Lord 
 Sahsbury : — 
 
 < Carlton Club : December 22, 1886. 
 
 ' Dear Lord Salisbury, — I have to acknowledge the receipt 
 of your letter of to-day's date accepting my resignation of the 
 Chancellorship of the Exchequer. I feel sure you will believe 
 me when I express my deep and abiding appreciation of the un- 
 varying kindness which you have shown me, and of the patience 
 and indulgence with which you have always listened to the 
 views on various public matters which I have from time to time 
 submitted to you. The great question of public expenditure is 
 not so technical or departmental as might be supposed by a 
 superficial critic. Foreign policy and free expenditure upon 
 armaments act and re- act upon one another. I believe myself 
 to be well-informed on the present state of Europe ; nor am I 
 aware that I am blind or careless to the probabilities of a great 
 conflict between European Powers in the coming year. A wise 
 foreign policy will extricate England from continental struggles, 
 and keep her outside of German, Russian, French, or Austrian 
 disputes. I have for some time observed a tendency in the 
 Government attitude to pursue a different line of action, which I 
 have not been able to modify or check. This tendency is certain 
 to be accentuated if large estimates are presented to and voted 
 by Parliament. The possession of a very sharp sword offers a 
 temptation which becomes irresistible to demonstrate the effi- 
 ciency of the weapon in a practical manner. I remember the vul- 
 nerable and scattered character of the empire, the universality 
 
 I 2 
 
IIG SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 of our commerce, the peaceful tendencies of our democratic 
 electorate, the hard times, the pressure of competition, and the 
 high taxation now imposed, and with these factors vividly before 
 me I decline to be a party to encouraging the military and 
 militant circle of the "War Office and Admiralty to join in the 
 high and desperate stakes which other nations seem to be forced 
 to risk. Believe me, I pray you, that it is not niggardly cheese- 
 paring or Treasury crabbedness, but only considerations of high 
 State policy which compel me to sever ties in naany ways most 
 binding and pleasant. A careful and continuous examination 
 and study of national finance, of the startling gro\\ th of expen- 
 diture, of national taxation resources, and endurance, has brought 
 me to the conclusion, from which nothing can turn me, that it 
 is only the sacrifice of a Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the 
 altar of thrift and economy which can rouse the people to take 
 stock of their leaders, their position, and their future. The cha- 
 racter of the domestic legislation which the Government contem- 
 plate, in my opinion, falls sadly short of what the Parliament 
 and the country expect and require. The foreign policy which 
 is being adopted appears to me at once dangerous and method- 
 less, but I take my stand on expenditure and finance, which 
 involve and determine all other matters, and, reviewing my former 
 public declarations on this question, and having no reason to 
 doubt their soundness, I take leave of your Government, and 
 especially of yourself, Avith pi'ofound regret, but without doubt 
 or hesitation. 
 
 ' Yours most sincerely, 
 
 ' EANDOLrH S. Churchill.' 
 
 I have now placed before the House the causes of my resig- 
 nation, a7id I have sincerely to thank the House for the indulgence 
 which has been accorded to me. 
 
117 
 
 THE PERILS OF THE UNION PARTY. 
 House op Commons, January 31, 1887. 
 
 [Some of the warnings contained in the following speech were 
 hotly resented at the time, but the justice of most of them was 
 admitted even before the close of the year. The celebrated ' Round 
 Table Conference ' was held at Sir William Harcourt's house — the 
 party consisting of Sir W. Harcourt himself, Mr. J. Morley, Mr. 
 Chamberlain, and Sir George Trevelyan. All attempts to reconcile 
 the Liberal Unionists with the bulk of the party utterly broke 
 down, but Sir George Trevelyan found it possible to satisfy himself 
 that Mr. Gladstone had made reasonable concessions, and was soon 
 afterwards rewarded with a Gladstonian seat in Parliament. Tlie 
 comparison of the Xiberal Unionists to a ' useful kind of crutch ' has 
 derived fresh significance from subsequent events. The history of 
 the ' Round Table Conference ' proves that even at this early period 
 the ' crutch ' was very nearly breaking down. 
 
 Some important suggestions with regard to the Estimates were 
 made in this speech, and the untruthfulness of the assertion that 
 Lord Randolph resigned on the question of arming the coaling 
 stations was exposed. But too many powerful persons were in- 
 terested in having the assertion continually repeated to admit of the 
 denial producing much effect at the moment.] 
 
 rpHE battle of the Union may be over in Ireland, but it is not 
 JL over in England. The battle of the Union has still to 
 be fought out iu England. There are various ways of maintain- 
 ing the Union. There is a certain school of Unionists who, I 
 think, are at the present moment imitating the conduct of the 
 old Ephesians, who thought they could resist and check the new 
 religion by perambulating the streets for hours, crying out, 
 ' Great is Diana of the Ephesians ! ' And there are some persons 
 at the present time who, by constantly clamouring and talking 
 
118 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPn CIirRCHILL 
 
 of the Union, and denouncing any one who they think is endan- 
 gering the Union, think that they can maintain the Union for all 
 time. That would not be the method that I would recommend 
 to honourable members on this side of the House. Honourable 
 members on this side of the House profess to be anxious to main- 
 tain the legislative union between England and Ireland. Op- 
 posite to them sits the party of Repeal. They are your opponents 
 now ; but if you fail to retain your hold on the English people 
 they and their policy will be your successors. I believe that the 
 right way to- maintain the Union is to identify the Government 
 of the Union— the party of the Union — in the minds of the 
 English people with good government, with efficient adminis- 
 tration, and with progressive legislation. But if, unfortunately, 
 it should happen that the Government and party of the Union 
 should become identified in the minds of the English people with 
 the reverse of those three factors, or should fall short of the 
 standard to which the English people in these respects are look- 
 ing, then I greatly fear that before long — possibly sooner than 
 some may expect— down will go your Government, down will go 
 your party, and, with them, down will go that Union to which 
 you profess to be so devoted. I notice a tendency on the part 
 of the party of the Union to attach too much importance to 
 precarious Parliamentary alliances which are as transient and 
 uncertain as the shifting wind, and too little to the far more 
 important question — how to keep the English people at the back 
 of the party of the Union. When I was in the Government I made 
 it my constant thought and desire to make things as easy as pos- 
 sible for the Liberal Unionists, to advocate the introduction of 
 such measures as they might conscientiously support as being 
 in accordance with their general principles, and to make such 
 electoral arrangements as might enable them to preserve their 
 seats. But I frankly admit that I regarded the Liberal Unionists 
 as a useful kind of cratch, and I looked forward to the time, and 
 no distant time, when the Tory party might walk alone, strong 
 in its own strength and conscious of its own merits ; and it was 
 to the Tory party, mainly, that I looked for the maintenance of 
 the Union. If the Tory party want to know the danger of their 
 position they have only to watch carefully the negotiations which 
 
THE PERILS OF THE UNION PARTY 119 
 
 the right honourable gentleman opposite ' is conducting at the 
 Round Table with the right honourable gentleman the member 
 for West Birmingham,^ who is acting, as far as I am aware, with 
 the knowledge and not without the consent of the noble lord oppo- 
 site.^ So greath- is the right honourable gentleman the member 
 for West Birmingham enamoured of the progress of the negotia- 
 tions, with such hope and confidence does he regard them, that he 
 is not satisfied with the Hound Table ; he purposes that it should 
 be a rounder and a larger table, at which Lord Salisbur}" is to meet 
 the right honourable gentleman the member for Mid-Lothian, and 
 the noble marquis opposite is to meet the honourable member 
 for Cork, and there, after sweet converse, devise a scheme for the 
 future government of Ireland. I do not know what are the 
 feelings of honourable members on this side of the House, but I 
 know that my own feeling with regard to these proceedings of 
 the right honourable member for West Birmingham is that he is 
 pursuing an erroneous and mistaken course. Honourable mem- 
 bers on this side of the House will, I think, never follow a line of 
 policy which by any reasonable construction can create in Dublin 
 anything in the nature of an Irish Parliament. That is the clear 
 position of the Tory party. That is the position from which 
 under no pretence of local self-government shall we depart, and 
 it would be well for the right honourable gentleman the member 
 for Birmingham, who is now indulging in such extraordinary 
 gyrations, to recognise that, whatever schemes of Home Rule 
 for Ireland may commend themselves to him, they are not, under 
 any circumstances, likely to commend themselves to members on 
 this side of the House. 
 
 I pass on to glance at the programme of legislation contained 
 in the gracious Speech. I observe a strong family resemblance 
 between that programme in the Queen's Speech and the pro- 
 gramme set forth in a certain speech made in Kent not long 
 ago,* though the speech was at the time it was made declared by 
 certain organs to have no Ministerial authority. The programme 
 
 ' Sir W. Harcourt, who has since given a remarkable account of these 
 negotiations. 
 
 - Mr. Chamberlain. ^ xhe Marquis of Hartington. 
 
 ^ The Dartford speech, siqira, p. 68. 
 
120 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 I consider to be an ample and abundant programme. Of 
 course it is impossible to judge of tlie merits of that programme 
 merely by the titles of the Bills ; but I have hope that those 
 Bills, when produced, will be found to contain much that is 
 good and much that is wise, and that if there should be por- 
 tions of those measures which fall short of what is required, 
 the Government will be glad to be guided by the wisdom of 
 Parliament. I turn to another part of the Queen's Speech which 
 more closely concerns me— the paragraph which states that the 
 Estimates will be laid before the House and framed with due 
 reo-ard to economy and efficiency. It is a curious thing that 
 this last statement with regard to the Estimates being framed 
 with due regard to economy and efficiency had almost fallen into 
 disuse. It is very rarely used nowadays. I suppose it is the 
 strong proclivities of the present Government that have rescued 
 it almost from oblivion. But I must say that I regard it as very 
 like the manoeuvre of waving a red flag to a bull, for if the 
 Estimates are framed with due regard to economy and efficiency 
 they must have been greatly altered since I left the Cabinet. It 
 is quite possible that there may have been some alteration, because 
 I observe that Lord Salisbury, speaking in another place, was 
 good enough to say that I, in common with all other public men 
 — and of course he included himself as one of the most public 
 men in the country — was deeply impressed with what he called 
 the rapid and most injurious increase of public expenditure. 
 Eeally I believe that this is the first indication I have ever had 
 from Lord Salisbury that he was of that opinion. I look upon 
 it as a distinct advance ; and I am not at all disinclined to take 
 the credit of his conversion to myself. At any rate I take those 
 words ' most injurious,' and I commend them to the attention of 
 the House of Commons. When the head of the Government 
 admits in his place in Parliament that the rise in expenditure 
 has been ' most injurious,' it is certain that he is prepared to 
 co-operate with Parliament in reducing public expenditure. 
 Parliament is absolutely impotent to promote economy unless 
 the Government lead the way. We may be of opinion that 
 the expenditure of this country is abnormal and exceptional, 
 but how are we to give effect to that opinion ? Are we to move 
 
THE PERILS OF THE UNION PARTY 121 
 
 an amendment to tlie Address or resolutions in tlie House to 
 that effect ? That would be a resolution or an amendment 
 which the Government would be bound to treat as a hostile 
 motion, and which, if carried, would terminate the existence of 
 the Government. No one on this side of the House would be 
 free to initiate or to take part in any act of this character. As 
 far as regards getting Parliament to pronounce an opinion 
 on the expenditure of the country, that mode of action is 
 out of our power. Therefore we are thrown upon the ordinary 
 proceedings in committee of supply. What takes place ? A 
 Minister comes down with the Army or Navy Estimates. He 
 makes a long statement, probably of an optimistic character, 
 which, as a rule, is listened to by a thin House ; and the members 
 who listen are so exhausted at the end of the statement that they 
 are quite incapj^ble of discussing the contents of that statement. 
 Then suppose that we adduce a number of facts tending to show 
 great extravagance on the part of the department. What takes 
 place ? In those statements of ours there would probably be. 
 something that was inaccurate as well as things that were accu- 
 rate. The Minister gets up ; he fastens upon their inaccuracies ; 
 he proves them to be such with every appearance of virtuous 
 indignation, and he sits down amid Ministerial cheers, uniformly 
 overlooking all that was accurate or valuable in the facts sub- 
 mitted to him. The next morning the papers would have some- 
 thing to this effect : ' The First Lord of the Admiralty (or the 
 Secretary of State, as the case might be) satisfactorily and finally 
 disposed of the frivolous and absurd charges brought before the 
 Committee by the honourable member for Paddington.' That 
 would be the result of our efforts to promote economy. So the 
 expenditure goes gaily on. I say therefore that I am right in 
 holding that unless the Government leads the way Parliament 
 is absolutely impotent. I have a suggestion to make to the First 
 Lord of the Treasury which he may be able to consider. It is 
 that the discussion of the Army and the Navy Estimates, and 
 indeed the discussion of Ministerial statements connected with 
 the Estimates generally, would be improved, and the House 
 would be enormously assisted, if the Minister in charge of 
 Estimates, instead of making a long speech, which is only the 
 
122 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 reading of a written document, were to circulate with the 
 Estimates, or some days before the discussion of them, the written 
 statement which he Arould otherwise read in the House. Then 
 members would come down to the discussion of the Estimates, 
 having had ample time and opportunity to get up the facts, and 
 fully prepared to initiate and sustain a useful discussion of 
 great public questions.' I commend this suggestion to the 
 consideration of my right honourable friend. It is a course 
 I liave for some time wished to see adopted, and I really think 
 it would be a convenience and a saving of time. My right 
 honourable friend was good enough to say in answer to me, and 
 to say it in a speech of generosity and kindness, for which I 
 desire to thank him, that he would welcome any assistance from 
 me in the direction of economy, and would place all information 
 at my disposal or that of the House, and would give us every 
 facility, either by way of special discussion or committee or 
 commission, for arriving at the true reasons of this great increase 
 of expenditure. Encouraged by that invitation of my right 
 honourable friend, I make another suggestion which he and the 
 Government may consider. The fact of the increase of six 
 millions in the Army and Navy Estimates as compared with three 
 years ago is not disputed, and I would suggest that, in order to 
 meet the ai^prehensions of the House and of the people, my 
 right honourable friend should be content to produce the Esti- 
 mates, should take the first votes in each, and should then allow 
 them to go to a Committee of the House of Commons, to be 
 thoroughly gone through by a powerful and properly constituted 
 Committee that would be authorised to send for persons and 
 records, to take evidence, and to get all necessary information. I 
 believe that that is a course which the House would be inclined 
 to support, which the public would approve, and which would 
 have the advantage that it would relieve the Government from the 
 responsibility for the increase, which responsibility they ought 
 not to bear, because it is an increase which they inherit, and 
 it is not an increase for which they are personally responsible,^ 
 
 ' This suggestion was adopted, to the great convenience and advantage of 
 all who had to study the Army and Navy Estimates. 
 
 - This led to the appointment of select committees on the Army and Navy 
 Estimates, the evidence taken before which is of the utmost value to all who 
 
THE PEIilLS OF THE UNION PARTY 123 
 
 I desire as a matter of personal explanation to allude to 
 the question of tlie coaling stations, because I was unable to 
 do so the other night. There seems to be a great deal of mis- 
 apprehension about this question of the coaling stations. I 
 never resigned upon the question of the coaling stations — never. 
 In conversation with ni}^ right honourable friend — and long 
 conversations we had — we went through the Army Estimates 
 item by item, and my right honourable friend was of opinion that 
 not one of those items could be reduced. At the end of a conver- 
 sation, when I asked him whether it was quite impossible to 
 make the smallest reduction in the Army Estimates, he said 
 there was only one item, of 400,000L, on which a reduction 
 could be made, and its reduction he would never consent to, as 
 it was the vote for fortifying the coaling stations. In the 
 correspondence with Lord Salisbury I mentioned that this was 
 an item in which a reduction might be made if the policy of 
 the Government could be reconciled with the reduction, and on 
 that intimation Lord Salisbury, who is a master of the art of 
 tactics, at once with cleverness identified my resignation with 
 the question of the coaling stations. Really I never resigned 
 upon the coaling stations, I resigned upon the broad question of 
 retrenchment — whether there was to be retrenchment or there 
 was not to be. I considered that I was absolutely pledged to 
 retrenchment, and, unless the Government went in for it, it was 
 impossible for me to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not 
 wish to say much about the coaling stations ; but I may take the 
 opportunity of saying that if we are to adopt a policy of expendi- 
 ture upon the fortification of coaling stations we shall be showing 
 conclusively the utter baselessness of the well-known proverb 
 that a burnt child dreads the fire. The House may not be 
 aware that this year we come to the practical termination of 
 the enormous terminable annuities — no less than five millions 
 a year — which were created by Lord Palmerston to raise loans 
 for fortifications ; there were other loans included, but the main 
 
 wish to comprehend the system on which both Army and Navy are managed. 
 In the first year, 1887, Lord Randolph ChurchiR was chairman of the com- 
 mittee. Afterwards two committees were appointed, Lord Randolph continu- 
 ing to preside over that dealing with Army Estimates. 
 
121 SPKKCHKS OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 portion of the auimities wliicli practically come to an end this 
 year were for the loans for fortifications ; and it is not too much 
 to say that of that money which was expended upon fortifica- 
 tions years and years ago, and whicli you have jast paid off, 
 two-thirds or three-fourths of it was absolutely thrown into the 
 gutter. I think it is quite probable that if the right honourable 
 member for Mid-Lothian, when he was Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, and when he had that great dispute with Lord 
 Palmerston in which Lord Palmerston said he would sooner 
 lose Mr. Gladstone than lose Portsmouth Harbour — if he had 
 stuck to his guns, and had stood out against Lord Palmerston, 
 the country might have been saved the outlay of many millions. 
 As to the coaling stations, all I have to say is that, if you can 
 show me that the moneys will not be wasted, that the engineers 
 know how to construct scientific fortifications, and that you will 
 arm them when they are constructed and maintain them in an 
 efficient state, I shall have nothing to say against the policy ; 
 but I approach the question with the utmost apprehension and 
 scepticism because of the previous experience of this country on 
 the question, which certainly honourable gentlemen ought not 
 to exclude from their consideration. It is a great question, 
 worthy of the consideration of the House, whether the policy of 
 the defence of the British Empire does not depend upon the 
 lines of foreign policy which we adopt towards other nations — 
 not by any means a policy of cowardice, but a policy of the 
 careful avoidance of all unnecessary entanglements. I would 
 venture to repose the policy of the defence of the Empire on 
 the patriotism and loyalty of a free and contented people, 
 animated not so much by the strength of their fortifications as 
 by their undying historic memories. I would prefer to repose 
 the defence of the British Empire upon a careful, thrifty, and 
 frugal husbanding in time of peace of national resources, in 
 order that in time of war they may be exuberantly displayed in 
 all their irresistible might. I am not at all clear that these 
 general remarks do not indicate a safer and more economical 
 policy for the defence of the Empire than that of throwing 
 ourselves hysterically into the embraces of engineers, or of 
 lying down pusillanimously in a cemetery of earthworks. All 
 
THE PERILS OF THE UNION PARTY 125 
 
 I venture to deprecate is legislating or spending money in a 
 hurry and under the influence of clamour. It is supposed that 
 the working classes take no interest in this question, that any 
 criticism of national expenditure is not popular because the 
 working classes do not pay taxes. A lot of people come to me 
 and say, ' You have taken a most unpopular line ; the working- 
 classes do not care, they pay no taxes.' It seems necessary to 
 point out, what has been pointed out before, that this question 
 of expenditure concerns not only what the right hon. gentleman 
 opposite calls the classes, but also deeply concerns the masses, 
 because hon. gentlemen must bear this in mind — that out of 
 every shilling's worth of tea which the workman purchases he 
 pays 6d. to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; that out of every 
 shilling's worth of tobacco he pays lOcL, and out of every shilling's 
 worth of beer he pays 2d. Now, I would ask my hon. friends 
 on this side of the House who are prepared to defend a policy 
 of large expenditure. Are you going to put this question of 
 the fortification of the coaling stations or the increase of the 
 army and navy to the test of popular opinion, are you going to 
 test its popularity by the imposition of new taxes ? Will you 
 propose to meet this 6,000,000/. by a re-imposition of the sugar 
 duties ? That would be a very practical way of testing its 
 popularity. Will you raise the tea duties, or will you test the 
 fidelity of your friends the licensed victuallers and ask them to 
 contribute to these fortifications of the empire by an increase, 
 and a very proper increase, of the beer duty ? These are prac- 
 tical questions which I invite my right hon. friend the First 
 Lord of the Treasury to answer. It is no use turning round on 
 me and saying, ' The whole country desires this expenditure, 
 and you are wrong,' or that economy is old-fashioned and out of 
 date, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to get 
 up in his place at the table and put such expenditure on the 
 mass of the tax-payers of the country. My right hon. friend and 
 his colleagues would be the last persons to propose that this ex- 
 penditure should be placed entirely on the income tax, and I am 
 sure they would not contemplate for one moment a permanent 
 maintenance of the income tax at 8d. in the pound in time of 
 peace. These are questions which I respectfully submit to the 
 
126 SPEECHES OF L01{D RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 al tent ion of the Government :incl Purlianient. Tliis great 
 question of public economy is not to be disposed of by mere 
 ad capfandiim statements, or by general denunciation of all 
 persons who wish to bring the expenditure of the country 
 within normal limits. This is a matter which the Government 
 must seriously consider. 1 feel perfectly certain that the atten- 
 tion of the people is being concentrated on this great question 
 of expenditure, and I rejoice greatly that the right hon. gentle- 
 man the member for Mid-Lothian refused, and very properly 
 refused, the other night to identify himself with it for fear of 
 making it a party question. He appealed to those on this side 
 of the House, and I hope he did not appeal in vain — he appealed 
 to the Conservative party, whose best traditions are connected 
 with public economy — to take up this question and put pressure 
 on the Government, so that the Government, with the support 
 of both sides of the House, may lead the way to a more reason- 
 able expenditure of public money and to a reduction of taxation. 
 I know there are many hon. gentlemen on this side of the 
 House, whose opinion and whose esteem I value, who are 
 greatly incensed against me for having taken the course I have 
 done — for having resigned my place in the Government. They 
 are severe in their criticism, sharp in their censure, and righteous 
 in their wrath, when they consider my action. I can only say 
 that I confidently believe that the progress of events will pro- 
 bably modify that judgment. It is not the first time that it 
 has been my evil fortune to wrestle with the Tory party. I 
 remember only about four years ago that so greatly did I dis- 
 please the Tory party that there was hardly one Conservative 
 member who would give me at that time so much as a nod of 
 recognition. Why was that ? I had proclaimed, I admit with 
 much frankness, that I thought the Tory party was going wrong 
 on a great principle. I have once more proclaimed, this time 
 by action, my opinion that the Tory party is going wrong on 
 the great question of expenditure, and again there appear all 
 the charges of disloyalty, treachery, and such like, to which I 
 am accustomed and to which I do not listen. I appeal on that 
 subject to the tribunal of time. Any little political influence 
 which I may possess — any little political strength which may 
 
THE PERILS OF TJIE UNION PARTY 127 
 
 have been given to nie — lias not hitherto been drawn, for any 
 practical or permanent purpose, from within the walls of this 
 House, or from within that circle whose centre is Pall Mall. 
 No, Sir, it has come from outside. I appeal on this question to 
 the just and generous judgment of the people. I know that I 
 have sought for nothing, absolutely nothing, except to protect 
 and promote their most material interests, and on this great 
 question of economy and retrenchment I patiently wait for the 
 judgment of my countrymen. 
 
128 SPEECHES or LOED KANDOLPII CUUECUILL 
 
 ON HIS RESIGNATION. 
 Paddington, April 2, 1887. 
 
 [This was tho first occasion on which Lord Randolph Churchill 
 met his constituents after his resignation, and hence he entered with 
 some detail into his reasons for taking that step. The various 
 sinister and evil motives which had been ascribed to him were 
 briefly referred to, but personal jealousies and animosities were too 
 powerful for a repudiation of these calumnies to receive fair con- 
 sideration. This speech, however, caused considerable commotion 
 in the great spending departments, and even those who had most 
 bitterly opposed reform began to profess themselves zealous converts 
 to it. The policy advocated by Lord Randolph was no longer 
 openly attacked, but it was not perceptibly advanced by those who 
 had constituted themselves its new and unwilling champions. It was 
 justly pointed out in the following address that some of the conces- 
 sions which had been refused to Lord Randolph in December 1886 
 were made to Mr. Goschen in January 1887. This was the only 
 material change that had occurred in the situation. 
 
 It will be seen that there is a gi'eat deal in this speech which 
 partakes of an autobiographical character, and which throws valuable 
 light on the history of Lord Randolph's political opinions. 
 
 The latter part of the speech dealt with the ' Home Rule ' ques- 
 tion, and supported the Government in its efforts to restore order in 
 Ireland.] 
 
 YOU have followed the course of politics during the last few 
 years with interest and attention, and you will be aware 
 that there are many instances of Ministers who have been obliged 
 to separate from their colleagues, and in more than one case 
 have found themselves also compelled to make things somewhat 
 unpleasant for their former colleagues. There are many instances 
 of that line of action. But I know that I was not much im- 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 129 
 
 pressed with the weight or with the character of tliese precedents, 
 and I was determined that on no consideration whatever woiikl 
 I allow the great question of retrenchment and departmental 
 reform to be discredited by any personal or partisan advocacy. 
 I can understand that there may be some in this hall — possibly 
 many — who will say, ' Oh, yes ; we do not disagree with that. 
 That is very well. But when last we elected you to Parliament 
 you were Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House 
 of Commons, and now you appear before us in the character of 
 an unofficial and private member. Will you kindly explain how 
 that transformation has taken place ? ' It is my duty to answer 
 that interrogatory, which I consider perfectly legitimate, in a 
 frank and honest manner ; consistently always, mind you, with 
 obligations of honour and of duty towards my former colleagues. 
 This I may say at starting, that in all probability, if it had fallen 
 to me to occupy any other office in the Government besides that 
 which I did occupy, I should have been in the Government 
 now. But I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I had the 
 honour of being leader of the House of Commons, and as Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer I was almost entirely responsible for the 
 public expenditure of this great empire ; as leader of the House 
 of Commons, I was largely responsible for the general policy of 
 the Government, which had to be exposed and defended night 
 after night in the House of Commons. As Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, I had to feel an absolute and honourable certainty 
 in my mind that I was not taking one shilling, as it were, 
 from your pockets or from the pockets of the people of this 
 country which was not required by the exigencies of the 
 public service. Now I ask you, Do you think, knowing what 
 you know now, that I could have felt any certainty upon that 
 point ? Look at what has taken place since the beginning of 
 the year with regard to the expenditure of public money. Look 
 at the sad discoveries and disclosures — for I must really call 
 them shameful — which have been brought before the public by 
 the committee which has been appointed to inquire into the 
 system of negotiating Admiralty contracts. I go further. I 
 ask you to look at the report of the committee only just lately 
 appointed to inquire into the cutlasses and the bayonets which 
 VOL. II. K 
 
loO SrEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 were supplied to your sailors, and on the excellence of which 
 your sailors in time of war would have to rely. Is it not extra- 
 ordinary that you have in the War Office a great department 
 spending 18,500,000^. of public money, and that that department 
 since 1871 has allowed your sailors to be armed with weapons 
 which the Commission described as absolutely inefficient, un- 
 trustworthy, and unfit for service ? That department has 
 allowed that state of things to continue since 1871, and would 
 not acknowledge that it was so, denied the statements of the 
 Admiralty, and would not acknowledge it till an independent 
 committee told them that this was the case. That is a depart- 
 ment which spends 18,500,000Z. per annum. Look at the 
 speeches which have been made recently in Parliament by the 
 First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary to the Admiralty 
 — against whom as individuals I have not a word to say — but in 
 their speeches in Parliament they have pleaded guilty without 
 qualification to an expenditure of public mone}" in the past 
 which really would not have discredited the Government of 
 Russia. If you want to go further than this, I invite you all to 
 study a Parliamentary paper which you can easily procure — viz. 
 the report of Sir William Dunbar, the controller and auditor- 
 general of public finance, on the expenditure of that vote of 
 credit of eleven millions which was taken by Mr. Gladstone in 
 1885. If you study that you will come to the conclusion that, 
 after all, on that particular matter which I put before you, I 
 could not, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have the smallest 
 certainty that I was not taking money out of your pockets which 
 would be wasted as much as if it were thrown into the gutter. 
 I dare say some of you will say, ' That is all very well ; there 
 have been great scandals, but these would all have been known 
 and dealt with without your taking so strong a step as resigning 
 your office.' I quite admit the apparent plausibility of that 
 position, but I traverse it directly. All these things could not 
 have been known, or if they had been known they would have 
 attracted no attention whatever. Things would have gone on 
 just the same as before. You would have had a plaintive remon- 
 strance here and an indignant letter there ; but the great torrent 
 of other public matters would have swept them out of sight. 
 
ON HIS RESIGNATION 131 
 
 No remedy would have been applied to them. Now, gentlemen, 
 as a matter of history, I believe I am right in saying that no 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer lias ever resigned before on the 
 question of the expenditure of public money. Not one. I 
 believe many Chancellors of the Exchequer have threatened to 
 resign. I believe that many Chancellors of the Exchequer have 
 been within an ace of resigning, but for some reason or other 
 the crisis has been postponed. But my resignation had this 
 effect, that it created, for one reason or another, such a stir that 
 it turned and concentrated the full glare of public opinion — 
 what I may call the electric light of public opinion — on to those 
 two great spending departments, and it illuminated and brought 
 before the eyes, even of the blindest, all the dark nooks and 
 crannies, and all the odd ways of going to work, which charac- 
 terise those two departments. People began examining and 
 writing and speaking, and things began to ooze out and to 
 be discussed, and be put in the way to be remedied, which 
 otherwise would not have been known, or if they had been 
 known would never have been noticed. There is more than 
 that. As far as the question of expenditure was concerned, the 
 commotion which was caused by my resignation of office did 
 unmitigated good, and the more the Press denounced me the 
 more I rejoiced, because I was perfectly certain that the more 
 noise that was made the more the public would rouse and wake 
 themselves — for the British public are at tiines so sluggish and 
 so deaf and so fast asleep that you have to beat them to make 
 them move — the more noise was made the more the public would 
 rouse themselves to a sense of the national seriousness of the 
 questions which were at issue. I resigned the office of Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer because I knew what you know now, but 
 what you did not know then — that the state of the public service, 
 especially as regarded those two departments, was so scandalous, 
 and so dangerous to every interest which you have at heart, that 
 nothing but some great resounding blow would bring about the 
 commencement even of a better state of things. Well , there were 
 some who were interested apparently in defending the existing 
 arrangement and in defending existing abuses, and I must say 
 that really they were not very scrupulous in their manner of 
 
132 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 dealing with lue. They said T liad resigned from motives of per- 
 sonal ambition. AVhy, gentlemen, if I had consulted motives of 
 personal ambition alone I had only to stay where I was. I had 
 so high a position that, if political position and great ofiSce can 
 excite motives of personal ambition, I could desire nothing more. 
 The mere fact of the position I occupied is an answer to the 
 idiotic accusation that I resigned office from motives of personal 
 ambition. Then they said I resigned because I was averse to 
 the proper defence of our coaling stations and our mercantile 
 ports. Gentlemen, my position was this : I said to the Admiralty 
 and the War Office, ' You dispense between you on an average 
 thirty-two millions of public money ; if you spend that money 
 properly you will have an ample balance to put your coaling 
 stations and your mercantile ports in a state of satisfactory 
 defence, and it is because you waste your money and because 
 your money is expended profusely and extravagantly that you 
 come before the public and ask for more sums to put these coal- 
 ing stations and these mercantile ports in a state of defence.' 
 Well, then they said I wanted to bring in a popular Budget, 
 and that I was ready to sacrifice the life of the nation and the 
 safety of the nation to the exigencies of a popular Budget. I will 
 tell you a little matter. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 made a disclosure the other day in the City of London and gave 
 a little secret as to his Budget. I may tell you something with 
 regard to mine. I had not the smallest ambition to bring in a 
 popular Budget; I had a great ambition to bring in a good 
 Budget, and I can tell you this, that there is all the difference in 
 the world at times between a good Budget and a popular Budget. 
 Without in the least going into the provisions of the Budget I 
 contemplated, I have no hesitation in telling you that it con- 
 tained projects and schemes which would have been decidedly 
 unpopular. I have no doubt about it. I believe that it would 
 have been sound financially ; I believe that it would have been 
 in accordance with financial orthodoxy ; but I think it probable 
 — and some of my colleagues thought it probable — that some 
 parts of it might have aroused a great deal of unpopularity. 
 That is my answer to the accusation that I was anxious to bring- 
 in a popular Budget. These accusations and insinuations were 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 133 
 
 utterly false and unfounded, and there is not a word of truth in 
 them. I might, perliaps, have laid myself open by some un- 
 guarded expression to attacks of that kind ; but what was my 
 position ? I was one man alone, unsupported by any of my 
 colleagues, and a man in this position must expect to receive 
 here a hard blow and there a shrewd dig. What was the result ? 
 Those two great departments, the War Office and the Admiralty, 
 which between them absorb more than three-quarters of the 
 whole of your Customs and Excise, have been exposed, have 
 been placed upon their trial, and, I venture to say, have been 
 condemned, and I hope are now in a fair way to be thoroughly 
 reformed and renovated. Do not think for one moment that I 
 place the smallest confidence in any of the professions made by 
 the War Office and the Admiralty of future amendment. They 
 have been very much woke up, but I remember those lines : — 
 
 ' The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be ; 
 The Devil got well, the devil a monk was he.' 
 
 And I have not the smallest doubt that if public attention 
 were to relax, or if public attention were to be withdrawn and 
 diverted to other matters, these two great departments would 
 sink back into their former state of profuse, extravagant, and 
 wasteful expenditure. But they shall not. The great work of 
 economy and public retrenchment — which, mind you, was the 
 great keystone of policy with Sir Robert Peel — that great work, 
 still only begun, shall, if I can do anything, go on ; and these 
 two departments, and other departments which dispose of large 
 sums of public money, know this — that they have in me a 
 relentless enemy, who is supported, I am happy to say, and 
 assisted, by many members of Parliament, by many agents, and 
 who has under his control many sources of information, and who 
 will never cease from watching them, from criticising them 
 publicly in Parliament and in the country, until we get their 
 expenditure of public money put upon a healthy and more 
 business-like footing. 
 
 Before leaving these matters I should like to put before you 
 that, though money considerations are not everything, yet it is 
 not well to live in a region of romance and dispense with them 
 
134 SrEECllKS OF LOED KANUOLPU CHURCHILL 
 
 altogether. JMoney considerations are worthy of your attention, 
 and I should like to put before you the exact sum in pounds, shil- 
 lings, and pence which my action on the question of public ex- 
 penditure, and in resigning my office, absolutely saved your pockets 
 and saved the country. I think this will interest you. The 
 immediate cause of my resignation, the crisis which precipitated 
 it, was the I'^stimates of the War Office. The Secretary for AYar ' 
 placed before me Estimates for the current year which amounted 
 to 18,564-, COOL, and I said to him that I thought that sum, being 
 300,000/. in excess of the previous year, was an amount I could 
 not consent to. I pressed him hard during a long conversa- 
 tion to make reductions on that amount. Now, the Secretary 
 of State for War, a gentleman for whom I have the highest 
 possible respect, and against whom I will not say one word, 
 told me that there was not a single item upon which he could 
 conscientiously accept any reduction. He wrote that to the 
 Prime Minister at the time when there was this ministerial 
 crisis. Then the resignation came, and all the bother. But is 
 not this a most remarkable thing, that after the resignation the 
 War Estimates underwent a revision, and the War Estimates 
 have been reduced by the very considerable amount of 170,000/. 
 odd ? More than that, before I left office, so strong was the 
 pressure I put upon the Admiralty — and I am bound to say 
 the Admiralty responded admirably to that pressure — that the 
 Admiralty Estimates showed a total reduction on the expendi- 
 ture of last 3'ear of no less than 700,000/. I have got the very' 
 decent total of 870,000/. But there is another matter well 
 worthy of your attention, to show the difficulty a Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer is in, in taking care of your pockets. I had to 
 deal with an estimate which was presented by the War Office, 
 amounting to over half a million of money for expenditure, 
 which had been incurred in connection with, the defence of the 
 Eg}q)tian frontier. That expenditure had been incurred with- 
 out the sanction of the War Office, without the knowledge of 
 the Treasury, without the consent of Parliament, and I utterly 
 declined to have anything whatever to do with it or to admit 
 it in any way. It was, I thought, a most indefensible expendi- 
 ture. I fought against that estimate from August to December, 
 ' Mr. W.. H Smilh, at Ihis date First Lord of the Treasury. 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 135 
 
 until within a few days of my resignation. I knew it would 
 be an estimate that the House of Commons would hardly be 
 persuaded to vote, but so great was the pressure pat upon 
 me by the Foreign Office as to the bankruptcy which would 
 ensue in Egypt if we did not repay that sum to the Egyptian 
 Government, and as to the possible issue of an International 
 Commission, and other matters, that at the last moment I gave 
 way. Well, in comes my successor, Mr. Goschen, who the 
 moment this estimate was presented to him took just the 
 same view as I did. He considered it absolutely unjustifiable 
 expenditure, for which he would not be responsible to Parlia- 
 ment and to the Government. And I think he very wisely, 
 owing to the great stir about economy, insisted upon economy 
 somewhere. Consequently the Government have never pre- 
 sented that estimate to the House of Commons. Then I say I 
 practically saved 170,000L, the estimate for the War Office. I 
 practically saved 700,000^. on the Navy Estimates, and I prac- 
 tically saved 500,000?. on the Supplementary Estimates ; and 
 so I practically saved some 1,400,000?. to the tax-payers of this 
 country. I do not believe that aiiy Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 who has been in office so short a time as I was — less than seven 
 months — could show a hard, fair, undeniable saving of so many 
 pounds of the public money. I think you will agree with me 
 in this — that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a 
 thoroughly high-minded and honourable man, will take the first 
 opportunity of recognising that if he has any surplus to dispose 
 of this year — and it will not be very large — yet in the manu- 
 facture of that surplus I may claim to have had the principal 
 share. I think, then, that it is almost a pity, if this large saving 
 of the public money was to be eflfected, that it was not effected 
 by the Government before I resigned instead of atter I resigned. 
 Before I resigned I had made demands in the shape of retrench- 
 ment and economy which I considered to be not extravagant. 
 More than that, I had set on foot two great and powerful 
 agencies for securing economical and thrifty expenditure. I 
 procured the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire 
 into the whole of your Civil Service expenditure, and I am 
 told on good information tliat that ivoyal Commission is doing 
 most excellent work, not only by the actual inquiry and the 
 
136 SPEECH i:S OF LOED RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 discoveries which it, is making, but by tlic mere fact of this 
 inquiry tlic public departments are being put upon their mettle 
 and are setting their house in order. I am glad to have the 
 opportunity of thanking Her Majesty's Government for agreeing 
 to my suggestion that the thirty-one millions odd which the 
 Army and Navy departments spend should be referred to a 
 Parliamentary Committee/ and you may depend upon it that 
 that act on the part of the Government will have the most 
 beneficial effect upon the departments in the preparation of 
 their estimates for Parliament. I think that I have made out, 
 as I was bound to make out before you, my constituents, not 
 at all an unsatisfactory balance-sheet, from a financial point of 
 view, of profit and loss arising out of the action which I felt 
 myself compelled to take in December last. I may be told, and 
 I dare say there are some here who will say : ' Well, you may 
 have done some little good; 1,400,000/., that is good enough, 
 but it is not enough to justify your resignation, because by your 
 resignation and by the action which you took you endangered 
 the great cause of the Union, and you endangered the union of 
 the Unionist party.' Again I perfectly admit the legitimacy 
 and the plausibility of that contention. There are others who 
 say more. They go further and say : ' Oh, but you deserted the 
 ship in the hour of danger.' Well, I think this last accusation 
 is really too contemptible to be looked at. I am, and I think 
 everybody knows I am, as strong a defender of the Union as 
 ever I was at any moment, and the whole, the sole, and the 
 only question which I turned over in my mind morning, noon, 
 and night was this — Can I serve the cause of the Union, can I 
 defend the Union, best inside or outside the Government ? And 
 I came to the conclusion that, at that moment, I could do 
 better work for the cause of the Union outside the Government. 
 I take the first of the two accusations — the accusation that 
 I endangered the cause of the Union by my resignation, and 
 endangered the union of the Unionist party, I will tell you 
 why I say this. I am now coming to my position as it was in 
 January last, not as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as leader 
 
 ' This was done upon the motion of Lord Randolph Churchill himself, and 
 it was a motion which no Government could have resisted. 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 137 
 
 of the House of Commons, and I directly traverse these two 
 allegations. I do not believe there is in this country a more 
 convinced supporter of the Union than I am. I had arrived at 
 the conviction that the Union in its present form must be 
 maintained by a process of argument totally devoid, totally 
 bereft, of all prejudice or passion. I had examined the question 
 of the Union to the very best of my ability, by bringing to the 
 examination some amount of Irish knowledge, some amount of 
 study of former history, and some amount of knowledge of con- 
 temporary politics, and I had come to this conclusion by the 
 simple process of mental calculation — that the Union must 
 be maintained because the project of Home Rule is utterly 
 unmanageable and impracticable. This is my firm opinion 
 of course, it is only an individual opinion — that you might if 
 you liked, as a matter of experiment, place Mr. Gladstone in 
 office to-morrow with an obedient and docile majority, and I 
 am certain that it is not within his power, clever, eloquent, 
 and ingenious as he is, as it is not within the power of any 
 living man, to devise a scheme of Home Rule which will bear 
 the test of Parliamentary discussion. That is my belief about 
 Home Rule, which I shall never shrink from and never change. 
 But I cannot expect that belief of mine, which I believe is your 
 belief — I cannot expect it to be shared absolutely by the great 
 mass of between four and five millions of electors in this country. 
 These are the people we have got to convince ; these are the 
 people we have got to get at our back. There are two methods 
 of maintaining the Union. There are two methods of getting 
 the English people at your back and of repeating on another 
 occasion the victory you won on a former occasion. There is 
 the method of maintaining the Union — by a wise policy, so to 
 convince the English people of the general excellence of your 
 administration in foreign affairs, and in home and legislative 
 matters, that the English people shall naturally, for their own 
 interest, go to the back of a Unionist Government, so that the 
 Unionist Government, in the face of any Parliamentary difficulty? 
 could at any moment confidently go to the English people for 
 renewed support. That is one method of maintaining the Union. 
 Well, then, there is another method of maintaining the Union, 
 
138 8PKECHKS OF LORD KANDOLPll CllUKCIIlLL 
 
 ami tlial is by relying almost' entirely on l^irliamentary and 
 ])ai-fy arrangements, by living as it were from liand to mouth. 
 by calculating the chances and the lives of individual leaders — 
 in fact, what I may call the happy-go-lucky method. Now, I 
 do not say which of these two methods was being attempted at 
 the time I left the Government. That is not necessary- ; but 
 there was a distinct danger that the happy-go-lucky method 
 would take the preference over what I may call the method by 
 policy. 
 
 I am now about to touch on delicate ground, and I want you 
 to follow me closely. I wish to explain to you why I felt I 
 could no longer usefully fill the position of leader of the House 
 of Commons, and why I felt that there were other persons who 
 would fill it infinitely better than I could. Gentlemen, I must 
 take you back some years, because we now live so fast that 
 things are forgotten very rapidly. I must ask you to come back 
 with me to the year 1880. That was a very dark and gloomy 
 year for the Tory party. That was the year in which I began 
 ray active political life. You saw at that time a great, a strong, 
 a powerful Government, which, as far as we could judge, had 
 thoroughly deserved the confidence of the country, and which 
 had carried the country through great difficulties, through great 
 national dangers, which had thoroughly done its duty to the 
 country, and was headed by one of the most experienced— one 
 of the greatest men that England has ever produced. You saw 
 that Government, apparently so strong, all of a sudden over- 
 thrown and hurled out of oflSce, and you saw a new school of 
 politics, and another leader take its place. Think of all those 
 years, from 1880 to 1885. Think of the penalty you English- 
 men, all of you, paid for that catastrophe — the penalty which 
 you paid in your colonies, the penalty which you paid in the 
 loss of your national greatness and your national character, the 
 penalty which you paid in Ireland, the penalty which you paid 
 in the general distrust Avhich overspread the minds of all men 
 and which influenced the course of all affairs. That election of 
 1880 made an enormous impression upon me. That was the 
 time when my political life began, and I learned three lessons 
 rom that general election, which I have had thoroughly im- 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 139 
 
 pressed upon my mind, which I have never ceased, so far as I 
 could, to inculcate on my fellow countrymen, and from which I 
 have never changed, as I shall never change. I learned, in the 
 first place, that the people of England — with them I am best 
 acquainted, and they have the power in their hands — I learned that 
 the people of England prefer a peaceful foreign policy. I do not 
 mean a policy which will assent to the empire being attacked and 
 ridden over, but I mean a policy which should avoid unnecessary 
 interference in quarrels and struggles where British interests 
 are not directly concerned. That was my first lesson. I learned 
 another lesson, that the people of England were distinctly in 
 favour of an economical and thrifty administration of the public 
 services ; and I learned a third lesson, that the people of Eng- 
 land were distinctly in favour of legislation — honest, genuine, so 
 far as it went — which should supply effectually all the admitted de- 
 ficiencies in our law, that should reform generally all the admitted 
 abuses in our social system. These were the three lessons which I 
 learned, and which, in one way or another, I have endeavoured 
 to propagate among those with whom I have come in contact 
 politically. But from the year. J 880 to 1885 I hardly ceased for 
 one moment, either in Parliament or in the country, from de- 
 nouncing the Gladstone Administration for their lamentable 
 shortcomings in these three respects. I never ceased from pro- 
 claiming on all occasions my belief, my conviction, and my honest 
 intention that if it ever fell to me to take part in those matters 
 and to control, guide, or influence the policy of the Tory party, 
 those three main lines of policy which I have described to you, 
 and which I consider to be well within the power and the prin- 
 ciples of the Tory party, should be honestly and genuinely 
 carried out. 
 
 Then there came the election of 1885. It was a most 
 remarkable election. The Tory party won the boroughs and 
 lost the counties. They won the boroughs because the borough 
 population was a pojDulation trained to political discussion, be- 
 cause they believed in the professions which the Tory part}^ had 
 made, and knew of the shortcomings of the Radical Administra- 
 tion. But we lost the counties, and that you must bear in 
 mind. After the election of 1885 vou had raised bv Mr. Glad- 
 
110 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 stone the great vital aud Imperial question of the mainten- 
 ance or repeal of the Union. After a desperate struggle, the 
 hazardous, critical, and touch-and-go nature of which will not, 
 jiorhaps, generally be known for years — after a desperate strug- 
 gle both in Parliament and in the country, Mr. Gladstone was 
 defeated and a Unionist Administration was placed in office. 
 But, though Mr. Gladstone was defeated, and though the policy 
 of repeal was badl)' scotched, it was by no means killed. More 
 than ever was I convinced that if you wished to maintain the 
 Union between the two countries, and in support of that Union 
 to retain the continued confidence of the people of Great 
 Britain — more than ever was I convinced that you could only be 
 successful by a genuine and effective application of tliose three 
 great main lines of policy which I have described. To defend the 
 cause of the Union, in which you have still to fight a desperate 
 struggle, you must get behind you the overwhelming popular 
 support of the people of England. Well, that was my conviction. 
 I used to express it sometimes to my colleagues thus : ' If you wish 
 to make the Tory party with its Unionist allies strong, you must 
 return to a practical carrying out of the principles and policy 
 of Sir K. Peel,' whom I believe to have been the greatest Tory 
 Minister this century has produced, who, even more than Lord 
 Beaconsfield, adopted all the principles and ideas of what people 
 call Tory Democracy. Well, gentlemen, tilled with these ideas, 
 and with the full concurrence and support of the present Prime 
 Minister, I made that speech at Dartford which I have reason to 
 believe satisfied a large portion of public opinion in the country, 
 and which was publicly accepted shortly afterwards by the 
 present leader of the House of Commons as containing a true 
 and faithful exposition of the programme, foreign and domestic, 
 of the Unionist party. What I have to ask you is this, Did my 
 resignation of office endanger the Dartford programme ? No, it 
 did not. My resignation of office made the realisation of the 
 Dartford programme more certain, and the Dartford programme 
 is more likely to be carried into effect now than it was when I 
 resigned office. The foreign policy of the Government since my 
 resignation has been profoundly and beneficially modified. I 
 have complete confidence, so far as my information goes at the 
 
ON HIS KESIGNATION 141 
 
 present moment, that the English people may be certain that 
 they are not likely to be involved in any European struggle 
 arising out of the Bulgarian complications. I say no more on 
 that subject. It may be challenged, but I do not think it will ; 
 it may be denied — I do not think it will ; but no amount of 
 denial or challenge can affect the truth of that statement. 
 
 I have spoken to you about the financial results of my 
 resignation. On the question of legislation I cannot say much, 
 because I do not know. It is not much use talking about 
 legislation now for England and Scotland. The House of 
 Commons has its hands full, and is likely to have its hands full 
 for some time to come, with Irish subjects ; but I feel confident 
 on this point, that the strong liberal infusion which was made 
 into the Cabinet in consequence of my resignation — and I use 
 the word ' liberal ' not in a party sense, but in the highest 
 sense — can hardly fail to have a most beneficial effect upon the 
 character of the legislation for the many wants of the country, 
 and I am bound to say that what has taken place in the House 
 of Commons confirms that belief. The Government has pro- 
 duced one or two promising Bills. From their Bill on land 
 tenure in England, to modify and reform the antiquated customs 
 which make the transfer of land so difficult and expensive 
 among individuals, it is obvious that they are pursuing a liberal 
 and progressive policy. I take their Irish Land Bill. Does 
 not the production of that Bill show you the liberal spirit in 
 which the Tory Government are now endeavouring to work ? 
 You do not know, you have no conception, how I have been 
 persecuted both in public and private because I have sometimes 
 tentatively and timidly advocated propositions which were de- 
 scribed as atrociously Radical ; but what do you suppose would 
 have happened if I had, in 1881, proposed a Bill to Parliament, 
 breaking leases, and interfering with the rights of the land- 
 lord to recover land in the event of the non-payment of rent ? 
 Gentlemen, it shows that truly liberal ideas are making pro- 
 gress. You see Lord Salisbury, a statesman, possessing the 
 confidence of a great party, in order to deal with great national 
 dangers and necessities, boldly putting aside all the worn-out 
 traditions, the antiquated ideas of the past, and bringing for- 
 
142 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHITRCHILL 
 
 ward measures wliicli, if 3'ou think over their character, are 
 enough to make the Duke of Wellinofton and Lord Eldon turn 
 in their graves. On this question of legislation I have only 
 this suggestion to offei- to Her Majesty's Government. They 
 are so amiable about accepting my suggestions now that I 
 think possibly they will consider it. I would advise them, if 
 they have Bills on one or two questions in which the country 
 is interested, such as local government, or metropolitan govern- 
 ment, and the question of allotments for the agricultural 
 labourers, to produce those Bills immediately. Not that the 
 Government could hope under the present state of things to 
 make progress with them, but because by so doing — and you 
 must not throw away any chance in the struggle in which we 
 are engaged — they will show the public that they do honestly 
 and earnestly intend to redeem the pledges they made, and 
 above all they will show to the country the effect of the factious 
 and unpatriotic obstruction in which the whole Liberal Opposi- 
 tion is engaging. I have shown that, so far from doing harm, 
 I did good by the step I took last December ; and you must not 
 think this is an afterthought. Much of what I tell you now 
 is on record in documents which have been or may be published 
 some day, and not one word that I have said to you this after- 
 noon will be contradicted by people who are well acquainted 
 with all the incidents which took place at the commencement 
 of this year. I pray you not to think that I am saying all this 
 to glorify myself in any way. I do not believe there is a person 
 on the face of this earth more utterly callous and indifferent to 
 praise or blame than I am. As a matter of fact I prefer abuse 
 and denunciation. I have lived on it, I have thrived on it. I 
 suppose that against me, both by foes and, I regret to say, 
 sometimes by friends, have been hurled all the deadly shafts of 
 political abuse which can be conceived, and the more they hurl 
 them the more I have been fortunate and happy enough to 
 retain some amount of public confidence. I do not care a bit 
 about myself; but I want you to bear my arguments in mind, 
 because I realise so fully — and I want you to realise as fully as 
 I do — the awful and the desperate nature of the struggle in 
 which we are now involved, a struggle between the Government 
 of the Queen and the Imperial Parliament on the one hand, and 
 
ON HIS EESIGNATION 143 
 
 the forces of treason and sedition and anarchy in Irehmd on the 
 other. The struggle is no ordinary trial of strength between 
 rival Parliamentary parties. This moment, in which we now 
 are, is one of those moments which will from time to time occur 
 in the lives of nations aud of states, when the whole fabric and 
 framework of political society is tried and shaken. 
 
 [Having examined the state of Ireland, and defended the 
 Government for the introduction of the Crimes Act, Lord 
 Randolph Churchill thus concluded :] 
 
 The attitude Mr. Gladstone has taken up is a new one in 
 English political life. Hitherto it has been recognised that 
 when any leader of a great party has propounded to the country 
 a policy with regard to any great question, and that policy has 
 been repudiated by the country — that leader, although he need 
 lose no opportunity of still endeavouring to convince the English 
 people of the merits of his policy, is at any rate bound by all the 
 traditions of party life — by those traditions on which party life 
 depends — to give a fair trial to the policy of his opponents, and 
 fair play, and fair support, to the Government of the Queen. 
 That has been the doctrine of every single English statesman 
 without exception, since party life was first known in this 
 country ; but, for the first time, Mr. Gladstone has shattered 
 that doctrine and set it at naught. It is that which makes the 
 struggle so hard and difficult for the Government and for us. 
 We have to deal with new circumstances, new conditions, and 
 new difficulties which we could hardly have prepared for or 
 foreseen. . . , You are now engaged in a great struggle, a life 
 and death struggle, on behalf of all that you value and hold dear 
 against what can only be described as pure anarchy, absence of 
 law, and total disorder. This is the actual battle in which you 
 are engaged now. Everything up to now has been mere skir- 
 mishing or reconnoissances in force. But this is an actual 
 general engagement which is now going on in Parliament and 
 in the country, and one on which the fate of the Empire hangs. 
 I pray, gentlemen, that in this hour of trial, when the life of 
 your Parliament, the existence of your Empire, the welfare of 
 your people and the future of your race are all at stake — I pray 
 that your resolution may be indomitable and that your courage 
 and your hearts may be high. 
 
144 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 THE BATTLE OF THE UNION. 
 Birmingham, April 14, 1887. 
 
 [In the session of 1887 obstruction again proved very forinid- 
 able, and scenes of a discreditable cliaracter— apparently planned 
 witli the view of bringing the authority of tlie Chair into discredit — 
 were not infrequent. On one occasion a compact body of Irish 
 members marched out of the House, one of their number crying out 
 ' Down with the Speaker ! ' It was to circumstances such as these 
 that incidental allusion was made in the following speech.] 
 
 IT is an unfortunate and almost a deplorable matter that in 
 this Eastertide of our Jubilee year we should find that the 
 condition of the country is one of considerable, and of almost 
 alarming, political commotion. We had hoped that this year 
 might have witnessed some effort at an approach to harmony ; 
 we had hoped that this year might have been marked by at any 
 rate a momentary laying aside of the more acute forms of party 
 strife. But instead of that we find that the battle of the Union 
 is raging more fiercely than ever, and that it is sought by some, 
 by men of position and influence, to rouse the constituencies 
 of Britain into a state of unwonted political excitement. What 
 is the cause of this unfortunate state of things, and what are 
 the objects of the person principally responsible for this state of 
 things ? The cause is this, that Mr. Gladstone, at the head of 
 the party of Repeal, is seeking prematurely to coerce the people 
 of England into a reversal of the decision solemnly arrived at 
 b}' them less than nine months ago. I used specially the word 
 prematurely to characterise this movement on the part of the 
 party of Repeal ; because what are the facts ? Let me take you 
 back a short time. Let us make sure of our ground. In the 
 month of November 1885 — a month which I and many of you 
 
THE BATTLE Of THE UNION 145 
 
 here recollect very well — in that month, as the result of the 
 general election which then took place, Mr. Gladstone found 
 himself at the head of a Parliamentary following numbering 
 335 members of the House of Commons. He might if he had 
 liked, within certain lines and certain courses, have carried on 
 the government of the country with credit and success. He 
 took office in the early part of 1886, as he had a perfect right 
 to do, being at the head of the strongest party in the House 
 of Commons ; but, having taken office, he produced a plan for 
 the future government of Ireland of which I will only say that 
 it absolutely revolutionised the Parliamentary relations and the 
 constitutional relations existing at the present time between 
 Great Britain and that country. This project sharply divided 
 his party, and was defeated in the House of Commons by a 
 respectable majority. He, in November 1885, found himself 
 at the head of a united party. His project left him with a 
 divided party. He appealed to the country against the decision 
 of the House of Commons last July, as he had a perfect right 
 to do, and the result of that election was that his Parliamentary 
 following of 335 was reduced to no more than 190 members of 
 the House of Commons. His Tory opponents increased their 
 strength from 250 to 315 members of the House of Commons. 
 Could anything be more plain, more unmistakable, more un- 
 deniable, than the character of the result of the last general 
 election ? Mr. Gladstone's project for the government of Ireland 
 was repudiated by Parliament, and afterwards by the country, 
 root and branch. The country desired that the Union in its 
 present form should be maintained and that Ireland should 
 continue to be governed by the Queen's Government, responsible 
 to the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. Now, to show 
 that Mr. Gladstone perfectly understood in his own mind how 
 clear, how unmistakable was the decision of the country, I have 
 only to remind you that the moment the result of the election 
 was known J\Ir. Gladstone immediately resigned office without 
 venturing to meet Parliament as a Minister. That action 
 showed that he had very little doubt at that time as to what 
 England wanted. What was the result ? A Tory Government 
 came into office supported by 315 members of the Houss of 
 VOL. II. L 
 
14(^ SPEKCHKS OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 f'oinmons belonging to the Tory party, and receiving an inde- 
 pendent general support from upwards of 80 Liberal Unionists. 
 That Government, on the very first night of its existence — 
 and I speak with knowledge on this subject, because 1 was 
 concerned in that matter — solemnly pledged itself to Parlia- 
 ment that the first moment at which it became conscious that 
 the forces of lawlessness in Ireland could not be controlled by 
 the existing law and by existing criminal procedure, that very 
 moment it would go to Parliament and would apply for special 
 legislative powers. That pledge was given in August last in 
 both Houses of Parliament, and that pledge was registered by 
 the country. After nine months of careful observation, of 
 patient and prudent examination, her Majesty's Government 
 are now redeeming that solemn pledge. They have found that 
 the state of Ireland is such that if the Queen's Government and 
 Parliament are to continue to exercise authority, and effectually 
 to govern in Ireland, it is absolutely necessary that the Govern- 
 ment should be strengthened by special legislative provisions 
 for the detection and for the punishment of crime and for the 
 repression of intimidation. That being so, we have a tremen- 
 dous outcry from the party of Repeal ; there is great sound and 
 fury in the Radical ranks, and we have demonstrations in Hyde 
 Park, and inflammatory letters from Mr. Gladstone, and agitation 
 of every kind ; but if you think it over you will agree with me 
 that in the action of the Government, which is so furiously 
 assailed, there is nothing in the least bit inconsistent with 
 the resiTlt of the last general election — a result to which you 
 in Birmingham very largely contributed — and there is nothing 
 more false than the allegation which is now put forward by 
 many Radical speakers, that the Conservative party at the last 
 general election pledged themselves against that kind of legis- 
 lation which is improperly termed coercive legislation. What 
 the Conservative party pledged themselves to was this— that 
 they would maintain the Union in a practical form, that they 
 would continue to govern Ireland, from and under the authority 
 of the Parliament at Westminster, by the ordinary law it 
 possible ; but if not possible by the ordinary law, then by a 
 strengthened law. I feel that there can be no doubt whatever 
 
THE BATTLE OF THE UNION 147 
 
 in any reasonable mind that the great body of the people 
 perfectly understood that pledge. And on that pledge the 
 Tories and Liberal Unionists were returned to Parliament. 
 
 Let us consider the position of the opponents of the 
 Government. What is Mr. Gladstone's present purpose ? 
 Mr. Gladstone proposes by a double method of Parliamentary 
 obstruction and of extra-Parliamentary agitation to bring the 
 House of Commons, this young House of Commons only just 
 elected, into popular disrepute ; to irritate the mind of the masses 
 of the people against the present House of Commons ; to deprive 
 it of popular sympathy, popular confidence, and so to paralyse 
 and put an end to it. With that aim he is not particularly 
 scrupulous what means he employs. I will mention one, a most 
 serious one, to which I earnestly invite your attention. Mr. 
 Gladstone deliberately permits and encourages — and I say that, 
 because he could discourage it and stop it if he wished — he 
 deliberately permits and encourages movements of various kinds, 
 by individuals and by factions, which have for their object the 
 weakening of the authority of the Speaker of the House of 
 Commons. When I was at Bradford in the month of October 
 last, addressing a great audience like the present, I told the 
 meeting I was addressing that Mr. Gladstone and Sir William 
 Harcourt and others had this design in their minds, to weaken 
 the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons. My 
 declaration on that subject was considered unfounded and pre- 
 mature. But I want to know whether events have not borne it 
 out. This manceuvre of Mr. Gladstone's is one of the most 
 insidious character. The English people, if they value their 
 liberties, cannot be too much on their guard against it. Just as 
 the House of Commons is the vital principle of English liberty, 
 so the authority of the Speaker is the vital principle of the House 
 of Commons. If you assail that authority successfully, if you 
 allow it to be weakened or seriously wounded, the House of 
 Commons dies or decays. It becomes nothing else but a tumul- 
 tuous and brawling mob ; and with the death of the House of 
 Commons dies English liberty. Up to the present time the leaders 
 of both parties in the State have been very jealous of preserving 
 in all its integrity the authority of the Speaker ; and nothing 
 
 I. 2 
 
148 SPEECHES OF LORD IlANDOLril CHURCHILL 
 
 indicates to my mind more clearly the sheer and utter despera- 
 tion to which Mr. Gladstone is reduced than that he should, from 
 his great and high position, deliberately, as I say, permit and 
 encourage movements which have for their object the destruction 
 of the authority of the Chair, But there is even yet another 
 feature which renders his conduct even more blamable. Who 
 is the present Speaker of the House of Commons ? He is one 
 of the most respected and experienced members of Parliament, 
 He bears an honoured name — a name which alone should 
 almost entitle him to the support and to the respect of every 
 member of Parliament, He was, moreover, chosen for the high 
 office of Speaker by Mr. Gladstone himself. It was Mr. Glad- 
 stone who submitted his name to the House of Commons for the 
 Speakership. But now, when his authority is assailed in every 
 way, when exclamations are made by members of Parliament 
 of a character most insulting to that distinguished man, Mr. 
 Gladstone is never in his jDlace either to protest against the 
 insults or protect the authority of the Chair. I said that ]\Ir. 
 Gladstone's method for effecting his purpose is essentially a 
 double method. He endeavours, on the one hand, to intimidate 
 and to coerce Parliament and the people of England into a reversal 
 of their decision at the last election, and by a studied reticence, 
 by what I may call a negative attitude towards the National 
 League in Ireland, he sanctions the proceedings of the National 
 League, which have for their object to bring to nought and to 
 arrest all the ordinary processes of Government in Ireland. By 
 active declamation, by Parliamentary obstruction, by agitation, 
 by correspondence, he hopes to terrify and alarm Parliament 
 into permitting that great evil of anarchy in Ireland to proceed, 
 and to conquer the resolution of the British people. With one 
 hand, as it were, he adds fuel to the flame in Ireland by his 
 attitude to the National League ; and with the other hand, by 
 his attitude in Parliament, he endeavours to cut off the water 
 supply necessary to extinguish the conflagration. This I will 
 say, that more desperate or more unscrupulous strategy to effect 
 a particular political purpose was never yet in the history of 
 England resorted to by a responsible statesman. It may be 
 effective unless the English people are very much on their 
 
THE BATTLE OF THE UNION 149 
 
 guard. I particularly say ' the English people,' because, un- 
 doubtedly, upon England the stress of the battle of the Union 
 falls. ' Dear old Scotland,' ' gallant little Wales ' ' poor Ireland/ 
 have all wandered from the right fold ; but England has 
 maintained by her own strength the Union of the United 
 Kingdom, and the melancholy consequence is that England 
 has to bear the full blast of Mr. Gladstone's fury. There used 
 to be a song some years ago very popular with everyone, 
 every verse of which ended with the sentiment ' I am an 
 Englishman.' But nothing would induce Mr. Gladstone to sing- 
 that song now. He would say, ' I am a Scotchman,' ' I am a 
 Welshman,' or even ' I may be an Irishman ; but, thank goodness, 
 I am not an Englishman.' Mr. Gladstone is as wrathful against 
 England at the present moment, because England has crossed 
 his path, as he was fifteen years ago with the Pope. Fifteen 
 years ago Mr. Gladstone suspected the Pope of having insti- 
 gated the Irish Roman Catholic bishops to defeat his project 
 for university education in Ireland. He poured forth upon the 
 devoted head of the Pope a series of pamphlets of a character 
 most alarming to that potentate. He declared at that time — 
 he argued gravely — that no Roman. Catholic could be a per- 
 fectly loyal subject of the Queen, and he appears to be inclined 
 to argue now that no Englishman can be a loyal subject of the 
 Queen. It is on England that he pours out all his wrath, and 
 he warns the English people that until they consent to the 
 policy of Repeal, they shall enjoy, they shall derive, no benefit 
 from any legislation on any subject, or make any political pro- 
 gress thi'ough their Parliament of any sort or kind. 
 
 Herein lies a great danger. Mr. Gladstone hopes, and 
 many of his supporters hope, that the democracy of England 
 will grow weary of this struggle. I know that there are people 
 in many parts of the country who are very impatient with 
 the present arrest and block of public business. I can sym- 
 pathise fully with that impatience. We know that our whole 
 administrative system requires the most careful overhauling. 
 We know that our whole financial system, whether as regards 
 revenue or expenditure on the public service, requires the most 
 thorough examination, searching reform, and re-arrangement. 
 
150 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 We know tliat tliere are dozens of questions on which legislation 
 is sorely needed by the people at large. We know that there 
 are dozens of projects ripe to be put into practical legislative 
 form. But we can see no prospect of getting to work. Another 
 session has hopelessly gone. The present session is sure to be 
 an Irish session. For all practical purposes it has followed the 
 example of many of its predecessors, and undoubtedly the im- 
 patience of the democracy with this state of things is a serious 
 matter. It is a block, a cessation of public business which at 
 once depresses the mind and exasperates it ; and Mr. Gladstone 
 takes advantage of this feeling. He intensifies the state of 
 things by his action, and he exasperates it by his words. You 
 may ask me, possibly some of you may say, ' Well, what are we 
 to do ? ' I have no specific remedy for this evil. I can only 
 preach patience and perseverance, holding on and plodding on. 
 You may depend upon it that the principle of democracy, the 
 principle of government by the many, is now on its trial. Philo- 
 sophers and historians have written volumes to prove that demo- 
 cracy, or government by the many, is a wayward, capricious, 
 passionate force, on which no reliance can be placed. They 
 have put the question, and they have answered it to their own 
 satisfaction very often in the negative, Can a democracy sustain 
 the burden of a great empire ? That question is now being 
 asked of all of you, and it is in your power and in the power 
 of the millions of electors outside this hall and all over the 
 country — it is in your power to give an answer so conclusive in 
 its character that it may remain a monument for all time. But 
 I grant you the trial is very heavy. The purity of the metal of 
 the British democracy is being tried by a searching and infollible 
 test. Many voices call you from the path of duty, of honour, 
 and of safety. Many voices with seductive accents would beguile 
 you along what appears to be a pleasant and an easy and a 
 flowery road — of giving back to Ireland that Parliament which 
 she once possessed, and which at a time of overwhelming 
 national danger was incorporated with your own. ' Ireland 
 blocks the way,' cries Mr. Gladstone. ' Let her go and govern 
 herself; she will trouble you no more ; you will be able to attend 
 to your own business. She will be your friend and your warm 
 
THE BATTLE OF THE UNION 151 
 
 ally.' Who, of all our public men, I should like to know, has 
 not felt at times the great and almost overpowering strength of 
 the temptation ? Whose mind, of all those engaged in public 
 affairs, has not been exercised and tried by anxious doubts ? If 
 we did not examine this question of Home Rule carefully, if we 
 Unionists had not brought to the examination of the question 
 the most unprejudiced and impartial minds, we should not be 
 qualified to discuss it before a great jiublic audience like the 
 present. These great international problems, in which the 
 principles of government, almost the very elements of national 
 and imperial existence, are brought up and analysed and micro- 
 scopically examined, are not to be solved in the light-hearted, 
 off-hand, sanguine method recommended by Mr. Gladstone and 
 the party of separation. Reflection, knowledge of the past, and 
 a firm determination to look facts in the face — facts as they are, 
 not as you wish them to be — these forces will bring to light 
 gradually, one by one, all the snares and pitfalls and immeasur- 
 able dangers which lie hidden under and are concealed by the 
 glittering and gaudy policy of Repeal. Those are the forces 
 which you must bring to bear at this crisis — and I particularly 
 say you, because it is on you the responsibility rests. By the 
 legislation of 1867 and of 1885 this great empire, with all its 
 many interests, and with all its illimitable wealth, was given over 
 absolutely to your management and government. It is yours 
 to keep or yours to squander, yours to strengthen or yours to 
 ruin, yours to hold or yours to throw away. But what strikes 
 me as especially hard on you is this — that within a short time 
 of your succeeding, as it were, to the absolute management of 
 this vast inheritance, a question is sprung upon you suddenly 
 which, from more than one aspect, is perhaps the most diflS- 
 cult and most complicated question which could puzzle or per- 
 plex or distract a people. Ireland clamours to be free from 
 your rule and to govern herself. She declares that you have 
 misgoverned her for eighty years, and that you do not under- 
 stand her or her customs. She supports her demand not only 
 by a j^ertinacious indulgence in lawlessness, not only by a 
 pertinacious endeavour to paralyse your Parliament and bring 
 all public business to a standstill, but also by a very free and 
 
152 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPTT CHURCHILL 
 
 ingenious use of all those arguments and appeals which are 
 calculated to influence most strongly the minds of a free people, 
 of a people who love freedom, and of a people, moreover, who 
 are constantly animated by a kind of good-natured, easy-going 
 longing for peace and for tranquillity. More than that, your re- 
 fusal to concede this demand entails upon you the absolute and 
 logical necessity of granting to your Government from time to 
 time, through your Parliament, executive powers which are dis- 
 tinctly beyond the limits of what we English are accustomed to 
 regard as constitutional — powers open to abuse, powers the use 
 of which, unless most carefully watched and guarded, tends to 
 demoralise either a community or an Executive — powers the 
 creation of which a truly Liberal mind naturally finds displeasing 
 and repugnant. You see I am putting the case as fairly and 
 honestly as I can. That is what I may call the sentimental aspect 
 of the Irish question — a very strong aspect, to some minds. 
 
 But now I will ask you to consider another view. I will 
 ask you to consider the practical aspect of the Irish question. 
 You would suppose, from the language which is used and the 
 arguments which are put forward by those who advocate the 
 repeal of the Union — you would naturally suppose that Ireland is 
 being treated by Britain as a conquered country, and that the Irish 
 people are being governed as if they were an enslaved people. 
 You would suppose that the Government in Ireland is decidedly 
 despotic, responsible to no one, that every day or every month or 
 eveiy year innocent persons are either hanged or sent to prison 
 for years or for life, that no political freedom of any sort or kind 
 existed there. More than that : you would suppose that the 
 occupiers of soil, the great mass of the peasantry, the cultivators, 
 are ground down and tyrannised over in the most barbarous 
 fashion by every imaginable engine of landlord tyranny and 
 oppression. If that were the case, if there were any portion of 
 truth in that statement of the case of Ireland, I would be a Home 
 Kuler to-morrow. But what are the facts ? The Irish people 
 are as free for all practical purposes as you in this town hall. 
 You do not enjoy one bit more of individual freedom than they 
 do under the Constitution. They enjoy the most perfect 
 political equality with you. _ With them, mind you, no State 
 
THE BATTLE OF THE UNION 153 
 
 Church disturbs the symmetry of religious liberty. With theui 
 no interference of any sort or kind by the Government in the 
 exercise of their political rights ever occurs. They have 103 
 representatives in Parliament — more than they are entitled to 
 by population. These representatives are elected by the great 
 mass of the people just as your own representatives are elected. 
 There is not the smallest official interference by the Govern- 
 ment with the freedom of election in Ireland. The elections 
 in Ireland take place under the secresy and protection of the 
 ballot, and no one interferes with that secresy or projection 
 unless it be Roman Catholic priests or members of the National 
 League. Any public meeting which has even a semblance 
 of legality can be held in Ireland without interference ; any 
 speech, no matter how violent as long as it does not obviously 
 and openly incite to crime, can be delivered without notice by 
 the Government. But, more than that : the Irish peasantry, 
 the cultivators of the soil, are surrounded and protected by an 
 invulnerable, an impregnable wall of legislative fortification, on 
 the strength of which has been concentrated for years all the 
 skill of your most able and experienced public men. ]\Iore than 
 that : the Irish cultivators, by the free use of British credit and 
 British resources, can transform themselves from occupiers into 
 absolute owners, and they enjoy for that purpose privileges 
 and facilities which, I can tell you, from a Treasury point of 
 view are hardly financially sound, and which hitherto have been 
 denied by Parliament to our own people. Now, this is the 
 position of Ireland. I defy anybody to contradict that state- 
 ment of the position, or to assert that there is a single word 
 which is contrary to fact in what I have said ; and I say that 
 the position of Ireland at the present moment is one of perfect 
 political freedom. I do not know any country in the world, 
 not even America, where political freedom has reached to greater 
 lengths or is contained within larger and broader limits than 
 it is in Ireland. If that is so, what is the position, what is 
 the plea, of the Unionist party ? What is the language which 
 we hold to Ireland ? We say this : ' We take no credit 
 whatever to ourselves for this state of things, for this political 
 equality. We admit it is your absolute and indefeasible right 
 
154 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPH CIIURCniLL 
 
 under the Act of Union. Further, every morsel, every deve- 
 lopment of political freedom which we devise for ourselves in 
 the future you shall share in full as you share now. If 
 Ireland has suffered in the past as she has suffered from Brit- 
 ish ignorance, British neglect, British apathy, we have made 
 amends in recent years, and we will make yet more. There 
 is nothing,' we say, ' which you Irish can reasonably demand 
 either to increase your prosperity or to secure your happiness 
 which we will not do our utmost and our best to accord. Nor 
 will we scrutinise too closely or too narrowly the reasonableness 
 of any of your demands, but for your sakes and for our sakes and 
 for the common interest, and for the sake, and for the safety, and 
 for the honour, and for the power, ay, even for the life of this 
 vast and varied Empire, we ask, and we insist, and we will that 
 you shall live peaceably and amicably with us under one Parlia- 
 ment, one Government, and one Throne.' Now, this is to be 
 remembered : out of a population in Ireland of 4,800,000 people 
 nearer 3,000,000 than 2,000,000 are prepared to respond 
 amicably to that appeal. But there is a section of the Irish 
 people, combined and consolidated and organised into a National 
 League, with its sympathisers and supporters, who make us, 
 the Unionists, this reply. They say, ' We care nothing for your 
 boasted civil and religious liberties. We care nothing for and 
 we do not recognise any of your efforts to increase Irish pro- 
 sperity or to raise the condition of the Irish people in recent 
 years. We do not recognise them. We will not obey your 
 laws, for they are foreign laws. We will not share in your 
 Parliament, for it is to us an alien Parliament. We will not be 
 governed by your Government. We will have our own Parlia- 
 mentj our own Government, and our own laws, no matter what 
 may be the effect either upon us, or upon you, or upon the 
 Empire at large.' That is their reply, and they say further : 
 ' If you English will not grant us this demand we will carry 
 disorder and destruction into your ancient Parliament ; we will 
 ruin Irish society by terror and intimidation ; the Queen's courts 
 of justice shall be brought into general contempt and ridicule 
 throughout the land ; and crime, outrage, robbery, and wrong — 
 all undetected, all unpunished — shall turn Ireland into a howl- 
 
THE EATTLE OF THE UNION 155 
 
 ing wilderness, aucl shall make the name and the fame of- the 
 British people stink in the nostrils of the nations.' That is the 
 reply of the National League to the demand and the appeal of 
 the Unionist party, and it is with that reply Mr. Gladstone has 
 identified himself. It is to encounter and nullify the effect of that 
 most formidable menace, which with Mr. Gladstone's assistance 
 they at the present moment have some power to carry into effect, 
 that we Unionists call upon the British people to support the 
 Government which is carrying out their decision, to come to 
 the back of the Parliament which they created only a few months 
 ago. 
 
 I dare say it will be within your knowledge — though it is a 
 disagreeable remark to have to make— that within the last few 
 years we have gained a very bad character for deserting our 
 friends in moments of difficulty. I have only to remind you of 
 what took place with regard to the evacuation of Afghanistan, 
 with regard to the Transvaal campaign, with regard to the 
 evacuation of the Soudan. I have only to remind you that all 
 these strokes of policy entailed the desertion and the abandon- 
 ment, in many cases to ruin, of persons who had been faithful to 
 you, who had fought for you, who had made your cause their 
 own. Those are not pleasant memories, they do not raise our 
 character very high ; but those memories and those facts, grave 
 and serious as they are, are but as the merest trifles, are but 
 feathers, light as air itself, compared to the unutterable infamy 
 of which you will be guilty if you dream even of abandoning 
 the two million or more loyal subjects of the Queen in Ireland. 
 That would be infamy indeed — infamy black and deep as 
 hell itself; never to be forgotten, never to be forgiven as long 
 as the world rolls on ; infamy certain to bring a swift and a 
 speedy retribution. I can have no fear that anything like that will 
 come to pass. It is as well to state plainly the position of 
 public affairs ; but, for my own part, I have an immovable and 
 abiding faith in the great and the high qualities of the British 
 democracy. I do not believe that the British democracy is 
 capable of going wrong on any great question for any appre- 
 ciable length of time. Gentlemen, I said at the opening of my 
 remarks that this is the Jubilee year of the reign of our 
 
156 SPEECHES OF LOllD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 gracious Queen. There are many projects before the public, 
 many of them most excellent projects, for commemorating the 
 Jubilee year ; but I know of no method which would make this 
 Jubilee year more glorious, more memorable, or more lastingly 
 beneficial to the 300,000,000 subjects of the Queen than that 
 this year should be marked by a renewed determination and by 
 a reiterated national decision that under no temptation, either 
 of momentary advantage or transient profit — under no tempta- 
 tion, however alluring, no matter how eminent may be the man 
 who attempts to beguile you — under no circumstances of any 
 sort or kind will the British democracy consent to dismember 
 the dominions of the Queen or disintegrate her empire. For 
 this purpose all that is required is a free exercise of qualities 
 peculiarly British — common sense, a dogged determination not 
 to be bullied out of the right into the wrong, a love of fair play 
 and common honesty. If these qualities are abundantly dis- 
 played, then I have no doubt in my mind that all our present 
 difficulties, great as they seem, will be in no long time sur- 
 mounted. In a few years we shall wonder at the care and the 
 anxiety which they cost us ; and surely in time to come, when 
 all this trouble will be but as ancient history, when many of us 
 who now take part in public affairs will have passed away, among 
 the innumerable legions of jour sons and of your grandsons 
 there will be none to doubt or to deny that those were right and 
 those were wise who, by the breadth of their policy and the 
 liberality of their laws, confided freely and without misgiving to 
 the British democracy the government and the guardianship of 
 the United Kingdom. 
 
157 
 
 THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY IN IRELAND. 
 
 Nottingham, April 19, 1887. 
 
 [In spite of continued attacks upon Lord Randolph Churchill by 
 many who had previously avowed their adherence to his opinions, his 
 populai'ity was unabated, as the meeting at which the following siDcech 
 was delivered helped to prove. The streets of Nottingham were 
 almost impassable long before his arrival in the town, and the ' Times ' 
 records that ' the entire route was lined with people, the procession 
 being received with continuous and hearty cheers.' The speech, 
 delivered in the Albert Hall, was mainly devoted to the Irish 
 question, and it is given here in an abridged form.] 
 
 YOUll chairman, Mr. Rolleston, has congratulated you upon 
 this meeting as a sign — an encouraging sign — of the 
 strength of the Unionist party in Nottingham, and your chair- 
 man made a remark in connection with that subject to which I 
 will allude. He said that the Tory party in Nottingham had 
 not been too much ilattered by the constant attention of the 
 leaders of the Tory party. That is probably the reason you are 
 so strong. You have not been dry-nursed into power, ^'ou 
 have grown of your own strength, and I particularly sympathise 
 with your condition, because, in a way, your position is much my 
 own. Any little political success which in former years I have 
 been able to obtain was certainly not derived from having been 
 in any way pampered or flattered by too constant attention from 
 the leaders of the Tory party, I have known many places and 
 towns in England which have been pampered and flattered by 
 constant attention from the leaders of the Tory party, where 
 the party itself does not possess anything like so much popular 
 strength as you possess at the present day in Nottingham. 
 
158 SPEKCHES OF LORD RANDOIJ'n CHURCHILL 
 
 Therefore I liope you will not make any such complaint, or look 
 upon yourself as injured or damaged because up to the present 
 moment no great Tory statesmen or i\Iinisters have been among 
 you. 
 
 [After some remarks on the pamphlet ' Parnellism and 
 Crime,' the speaker proceeded to consider the position of the 
 Irish question.] 
 
 The party with which you have to deal in Ireland is a revo- 
 lutionary party. It is no new contest which you have to face. 
 This party has existed for many generations in Ireland, and it 
 is the same party to-day, so far as regards its principles and 
 object, as it has ever been. Its principles are undying and 
 remorseless hatred of British rule in Ireland. Its object is the 
 total separation of Ireland from Great Britain, and the placing 
 of Ireland under tlie protection of a foreign Power. At the 
 end of the last century this party existed in Ireland in great 
 strength. Owing to its action the French invaded Ireland at 
 the end of the last century. They were commanded by one of 
 the most brilliant French generals. A small force of French 
 troops landed and defeated tlie troops of the Irish Parliament ; 
 and if it had not been for the failure of the French to support 
 the troops that had landed, and the failure of the Irish revolu- 
 tionary party to act up to their professions, it is possible that 
 Ireland at this moment might have been a French province. 
 This revolutionary party in 1798 broke out into open rebellion 
 against the Irish Parliament, and the Irish Parliament was 
 only able to suppress the rebellion by the aid of British troops. 
 Ten thousand British troops were lent by the British Parlia- 
 ment to the Irish Parliament, and the rebellion was put 
 down. That Rebellion produced the Union. The Irish Par- 
 liament and the Irish Government proved with regard to the 
 French invasion and the rebellion of 1798 that it was utterly 
 impotent to preserve either the internal order or the external 
 security of Ireland, and consequently Mr. Pitt constructed and 
 concluded the Union between the two countries, and the 
 Irish Parliament and the Irish Government were incorporated 
 and united with the English Parliament and English Govern- 
 
THE KEVOLUTIONARY PAKTY IN IRELAND 159 
 
 ment in consequence of those great historical facts, and of the 
 great danger which your forefathers passed through at that 
 time. It is a great mistake to say that the Irish Parliament 
 has ceased to exist : it has not. The Irish Parliament exists at 
 the present moment, only it exists in the bosom of the Parlia- 
 ment of the United Kingdom. The principle of the Act of 
 Union was this : that by incorporating the Irish Parliament into 
 the British Parliament you added to the authority of the Irish 
 Government and the Irish Parliament the whole weight, the 
 whole resources, and the whole irresistible might of Britain. 
 By the Act of Union your forefathers constructed, as it were, 
 a great barrier and a great fortification against the attempts 
 and the attacks of the revolutionary party in Ireland. That was 
 the Act of Union. On several occasions since the year 1800 
 the Irish revolutionary party — the same party as to-day — have 
 made desperate attempts to capture and to overthrow that forti- 
 fication. In 1806, in 1833, and in 1848, and again in 18GG, 
 they made desperate efforts to overthrow that fortification. 
 But on these occasions the Imperial Parliament came to the 
 aid of the Irish Government, and thus the Irish Government 
 was able to cope with these outbreaks and to suppress those 
 attempts. There never perhaps was a more dangerous move- 
 ment against Imperial authority in Ireland than the Fenian 
 movement of 18GG. The Fenian movement of 186G was a 
 popular movement in Ireland. Its ramifications penetrated 
 into every class of society. The shopkeepers in the town, 
 soldiers in the army, servants in the houses of the gentry, 
 even some of the upper classes and some of the respectable 
 middle classes, took part in or sympathised with the Fenian 
 movement. But owing to the might and tlie determination of 
 the Imperial Parliament that movement was put down. In 
 1880, after Ireland had been at peace for many years, after a 
 great period of progress towards prosperity, the revolutionary 
 party set to work again, and the revolutionary party of Ireland 
 this time acquired great popular strength by identifying them - 
 selves with an assault upon the payment of rent in Ireland, and 
 that policy was aided by the failure of crops in 1879-80, which 
 
IGO SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPU CHURCHILL 
 
 iu parts of Irclaud resulted almost iii famiue. They acquired 
 great strength by identifying themselves with a resistance" to 
 the fulfilment of contracts and legal obligations. They also 
 acquired great Parliamentary strength by the extension of the 
 Irish franchise in 188 i. Now, I wish to direct attention to this. 
 I know no instance, though I search all history — I can find no 
 instance more striking of national magnanimity or national 
 generosity than the treatment of Ireland upon that question of 
 the franchise by the Imperial Parliament in 1884. There was 
 not a man in the House of Commons in 1884 who did not know 
 that that extension of the franchise would throw almost the 
 whole Parliamentary representation of Ireland into the hands of 
 tlie Repeal party. There was not one of us who did not know 
 it. and who was not prepared and was not calculating upon 
 immense Parliamentary and national difficulties in consequence 
 of it. Did that prevent us from doing that which we believed 
 to be justice to Ireland ? It did not. The Imperial Parlia- 
 ment held that equal laws were the basis of the Union, and that 
 the Irish should enjoy the same political privileges as the British. 
 They ran all those risks ; they deliberately, and with their eyes 
 open, incurred those dangers, so that the Irish people might not 
 have it in their power to say, ' You British possess greater 
 political freedom than we possess.' I want you to bear in 
 mind that fact when our Parliament and our system of govern- 
 ment in Ireland are assailed as despotic, as irresponsible, as 
 cruel, and barbarous. You have only to bear in mind that fact 
 and to state that fact to dissipate at once accusations of that 
 kind. 
 
 We have again a desperate attempt made by the revolu- 
 tionary party, which has acquired popular strength and Parlia- 
 mentary strength, in the manner which I have described, to 
 overthrow and capture the great fortification of the Union. 
 On this occasion the means of resistance open to the Unionists 
 are not so effective as they have been on former occasions. 
 We have traitors in and deserters from the Unionist camp. The 
 Imperial Parliament, so far as Great Britain is concerned, is no 
 longer united in resistance to the revolutionary party iu Ireland. 
 
THE REVOLUTIONAEY PARTY IN IRELAND 161 
 
 Since the year 1841 Mr. Gladstone has been continuously in 
 Parliament, and frequently in office. He has been during that 
 period, from 1841 to 1886, about twenty-six or twenty-seven 
 years in office as a Minister of the Crown. During that time 
 he has held high office, Cabinet office, and has been Prime 
 Minister for a considerable term of years. During all that time, 
 from 1841 to 1886, whether in or out of office, Mr. Gladstone 
 has steadily and unwaveringly resisted the revolutionary party in 
 Ireland. He has resisted it by force — by sheer, unadulterated, 
 undiluted force — on several occasions. He has resisted them also 
 by endeavouring to remove any popular grievance which might 
 add to the strength in Ireland of the revolutionary party. It is a 
 very difficult calculation to estimate how many persons in Ireland 
 and out of Ireland, members of that revolutionary party, have 
 been either executed on the scaffold or sent to prison to penal 
 servitude for life, or for terms of years, or otherwise punished, 
 mainly, if not entirely, owing to the leading and the guiding atti- 
 tude of resistance to the revolutionary party which Mr. Gladstone 
 has during forty-five years maintained. I own that I do not 
 envy Mr. Gladstone his feelings on that subject. He now 
 acknowledges that the claims of the Irish revolutionary party 
 are just and must be conceded. Surely, when he makes this 
 acknowledgment, he must think to himself of the number of 
 persons whose lives he has contributed to sacrifice and whose 
 liberty he has contributed to take away because they tried to 
 impress upon the Imperial Parliament the same conclusions 
 which he is now impressing upon them. I say that must be an 
 unpleasant reflection for Mr. Gladstone at his time of life. Up 
 to the year 1886 — up to January 1886 — the Unionist party, 
 which we represent here to-day in this hall, comprised all sec- 
 tions of English political opinion without exception — Tories, 
 Whigs, Radicals — all of them devoted, however great their 
 differences may be on other matters, to this great principle of the 
 maintenance of the Union — that is to say, the maintenance of 
 one Parliament for the three kingdoms. The Unionist party 
 still comprises representatives of all shades of English political 
 opinion. Within the ranks of the Unionists there fight Tories, 
 VOL. II. M 
 
y 
 
 lfi2 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 "Wliigs, and Radicals ; but, un fortunately, there has been a 
 great defection ; a large section of the Eadical party and a 
 considerable section of the Liberal party have deserted the 
 Unionist standard and gone over to the enemy and joined the 
 ranks of the revolutionary party. I\Ir. (Tladstone has now- 
 deserted his former standard, and implores Parliament and the 
 people no longer to struggle with this party in Ireland, but to 
 make a complete surrender and give over the government of 
 Ireland into their hands. Mr. (iladstone and his party now 
 declare, in contradiction to everything they have said in former 
 years, that the Imperial Parliament is unable to govern Ireland ; 
 that the British people are unable to preserve their connection 
 with Ireland and to maintain their authority there. A^'hat we 
 have to do is to show that we can govern Ireland. We have 
 to prove to the English people and to Mr. Gladstone and his 
 followers that they are wrong in their conclusion ; that the 
 strength and the resolution of Britain are as great as ever they 
 were, and that we are perfectly able, of our own skill, of our own 
 intelligence, of our own sense of justice, and of our own resolu- 
 tion to govern Ireland peacefully and thus lead her to prosperity. 
 That is what we have now to try and prove. That is what the 
 Government are trying to prove by asking Parliament to sanc- 
 tion the measure they have laid before it. If Ave fail, then un- 
 doubtedly the revolutionary party will win the day. We cannot 
 afford to lose this battle. We cannot afford to give up an ad- 
 vantage. If we cannot restore order in Ireland, if we cannot 
 restore the authority of the law and give to the individual Irish- 
 man security for life and property, then undoubtedly we shall 
 have to make way for the revolutionary party, and we shall have 
 to say to them, ' You do for Ireland what we have failed to do.' 
 But we are trying to avoid that conclusion. And for that 
 purjjose we must strike strongly and speedily at crime and at 
 outrage in Ireland. 
 
 It is perfectly evident that on this question of Home liule 
 the Liberal party will never again be united. Till they are united 
 it is perfectly impossible for Mr. Gladstone to carry his policy to 
 a successful issue, and on this policy of Eepeal they will never 
 
THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY IN IRELAND 163 
 
 be united unless tliis Government fails to effect their purpose of 
 restoring order in Ireland and fails to carry out the high 
 mission with which the constituencies intrusted them. Of this 
 you may be sure — that if the Government and the Unionist 
 party succeed, as I believe they will succeed, in restoring order, 
 in giving back tranquillity to Ireland, and if they are successful 
 in perpetuating in a practical manner the Union between the 
 two countries, the people of this country will continue to give 
 to the Unionist party their overwhelming support. They will 
 do it for this reason — one of the greatest and most sensible 
 motives of action — on the ground that nothing succeeds like 
 success ; and you may depend upon it that if Mr. Gladstone 
 and his followers sustain once more such a defeat as they sus- 
 tained at the last general election — if another general election 
 comes upon them and is as disastrous to them as the last — you 
 may depend upon it that they, or what remains of them, will be 
 uncommonly sick of Home Eule, uncommonly sick of their policy 
 of Repeal, and will begin to turn over in their minds seriously 
 whether there is any chance of their obtaining any influence 
 with Parliament or with the country, unless they abandon 
 and repudiate altogether the policy of the Repeal of the Union. 
 Therefore we may be confident that if w^e can only pull through 
 this crisis, on the whole a good time lies before us. But what 
 we have got to do is to pull through. No doubt we have 
 many difficulties before us. ^Ye shall have most protracted 
 and wearisome debates in Parliament ; we shall have, very likely, 
 most unpleasant and painful scenes in the House of Commons ; 
 we shall have a neglect and laying aside of English and Scotch 
 business ; we shall have from Mr. Gladstone and his followers 
 every kind of appeal to all the influences of terror, cowardice, 
 and desperation. That is what we have got to face, but we 
 must not mind ; we must struggle on, because the Union is 
 worth struggling for. The Union is the life of the British 
 Empire, and it is worth fighting for. To maintain the unity 
 of the empire of the United States, the Northern Americana 
 fought a bloody civil war for four years. They went through 
 every privation, every danger, every sacrifice which a State 
 
 M 2 
 
161 SPEECHES OF LOKD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 cuuld <,^o tlirougli, and for four years that great continent was 
 traversed and luirassed by contending armies ; but they were 
 successful. The}- i)reserved the union of the United States ; 
 and see how illimitable the power of the United States is at 
 present. We have not come to such a pass as that. We are 
 ]iot nearly so badly off as they were, and nothing will induce 
 me to believe that the Union Jack and all it symbolises is less 
 precious to a IJriton than the Stars and Stripes to the American. 
 
165 
 
 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. 
 
 HousR OP Commons, April 21, 1887. 
 
 [The chief feature of Mr. Goschen's first Budget, in 1887, was 
 the manufacture of a fictitious surplus by the partial suspension of 
 the Sinking Fund— a contrivance which astonished many persons 
 who had confidently looked forward to some great and original 
 stroke of genius, and who were disappointed at finding nothing more 
 than an expedient for raising money which has been condemned by 
 all great financiers, unless under pressure of the sternest necessity. 
 Tliis Budget was criticised l)y Lord Randolph Churchill in two 
 speeches, the material parts of which are here given.] 
 
 THE estimated surplus of revenue over expenditure for the 
 coming year is something like 700,000Z., which is greatly 
 due to the reductions which were made in the estimated Navy 
 expenditure before I left the Government, and in tliat of the 
 Ai'my which have been made since. I pass to a matter that in- 
 terests me more than any other, but which I am not able to deal 
 witli at tlie present moment, and with regard to whicli I cannot 
 take the strong line of action which I should have been disposed 
 to take on account of the vital issue which, is now before Parliament 
 and the country. After listening to the right honourable gentle- 
 man to-night for some three hours it is with sincere and real regret 
 that I have come to the conclusion that he has' not said one 
 word on the subject of economy and retrenchment. I regret the 
 fact for many reasons. I regret it on account of the importance 
 of the question itself, and I regret it on account of the position of 
 the right honourable gentleman himself. Never did a Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer join a Government more capable, more qualified, 
 or more powerful to deal with such a question. The Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer came into the Government not only with a great 
 and justly deserved financial reputation, but in such a way that 
 
166 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 on the (|uestiou of retrenclimeut lie had only to say, Sic volo, aic 
 jnheo, for tlie Government could not have afforded to quarrel with 
 another Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, what is the state 
 of the case ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to re- 
 view with much more care the Civil Service Estimates than the 
 Army and Navy Estimates, and to suggest that a reduction 
 might be made in that quarter more effectually than in the 
 Army and Navy. I disagree entirely with that view. I believe 
 that there are reductions possible in the Civil Service Estimates, 
 but I should not put the amount at very much more than 
 250,000?. All I want is that the State shall get full value for 
 its money. I now come to the Army and Navy. The Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, I much regret to say, did not take up 
 the view which I took up. AVhat I found was this — that be- 
 tween 1883 and 1885 there was a total gross increase in the 
 average annual expenditure on the Army and Navy of no less 
 than six millions of money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 never alluded to that increase. All he alluded to was the in- 
 crease on the Army and Navy which was due to what he called 
 the 'naval scare' of 1884, but the increase of expenditure due 
 to the scare does not account for the large annual increase of six 
 millions, nor for half of it. The ' naval scare ' accounted for 
 an increase last year and this year of about 2,700,000/. You 
 cannot put it higher than that, leaving 3,300,000Z. unaccounted 
 for. That is the point to which I should like to draw attention. 
 I want to know what are the circumstances, domestic or foreign, 
 which have caused you to increase the cost of your army and 
 navy since 1883 by the sum of 3,000,O00Z. That is the point 
 on which I should like to have the Chancellor's opinion. It is no 
 use the Chancellor of the Exchequer lecturing the House about 
 the Civil Service Estimates ; what the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer has got to do is this — if he believes an increase of expendi- 
 ture to be necessary in a great department, he has got to place 
 that upon the taxes of the country. If he places it on the taxes, 
 and the taxes are raised, then the great body of the tax-payers 
 will begin to feel the pinch, and will put pressure upon their 
 members to reduce expenditure ; and the moment they feel the 
 necessity of being economical then Parliament will cease to make 
 
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE 167 
 
 proposals for fresh expenditure to the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer. But so long as he does not put the increase of ex- 
 penditure on the taxes of the country, but continues by one 
 financial method or another to conceal it from the country, so 
 long will he be able to accuse Parliament of increasing the 
 cost of the public service. It is from the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer alone that reduction must come. That is the only 
 way in which yon will have retrenchment. I am told that 
 economy is very unpopular — that the people like a strong army 
 and a large navy, coaling stations and fortifications. Then, I 
 say. Test it ; place it on the taxation. There is a gross annual 
 increase on the army and navy, as I have explained. Has the 
 Chancellor placed that on the taxes ? He has not. He has 
 manufactured a surplus by reducing the provision for the re- 
 payment of the capital of the National Debt. I cannot believe 
 it is his Budget — nothing will induce me to believe it. It has 
 been made for him partly by general political circumstances and 
 partly by the persuasions, I will not call them prejudices, of the 
 colleagues with whom he has to deal. In not placing the 
 increase in armaments on the general tax-payers of the country, 
 I" say he has injured the cause of economy and retrenchment. 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the provision 
 for the reduction of National Debt. On that subject I want to 
 say that I believe that large operations are possible and desirable 
 with regard to our present arrangements for the repayment of 
 the National Debt ; but I wish to point out that the six 
 millions annually devoted to the National Debt is a tremendous 
 financial reserve. It is a great weapon, which the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer ought to guard as the apple of his eye, to use only 
 in cases of emergency. What I protest against is taking from the 
 fund for repayment of the National Debt and applying money 
 so taken in order to meet your increased expenditure on arma- 
 ments which, if they are justified or desired by the country, ought 
 to be placed upon the taxes. That is a point on which I feel most 
 strongly. I venture to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that 
 the plan he has chosen is a most unfortunate one. I regret more 
 than I can say that this great principle of the repayment of the 
 National Debt has been interfered with for so light, so trivial. 
 
168 srEECIIES OF LORD EANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 and so unsound a cause. I regret that a great weapon has been 
 tampered with, blunted, and spoiled for future use. I do not 
 know wliether it is possible for the right honourable gentle- 
 man to reconsider his proposals ; but whether he does so or not, I 
 am certain that they violate all the financial principles in which 
 he has been trained, which he has proclaimed, and which he 
 hoped when he got into office to impress on Parliament and on 
 the country. 
 
169 
 
 ECONOMICAL ' FEROCITY.' 
 
 House op Commons, April 25, 1887. 
 
 I DESIRE to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer amic- 
 ably, but pointedly, what are his views on the subject of 
 economy and retrenchment in the public expenditure ? Let 
 him tell the House fairly and frankly whether he is of opinion 
 that the views which I have expressed as to the possibility and 
 the desirability and the necessity of retrenchment are views 
 in which he does not concur, or views in which he honestly 
 concurs, and which he will use his great power and influence 
 to give effect to. In 1885 the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 did not agree with the gentlemen among whom he now sits. 
 He was an independent supporter of the right honourable 
 gentleman opposite, and in those days he placed himself on a 
 high pinnacle of political honesty. He said that he was not 
 going to delude or to humbug the democracy, but would tell 
 them the truth upon all subjects, whether they liked it or not ; 
 and it is within my recollection that from that pinnacle which 
 he occupied in 1885 he looked down on such unfortunate mortals 
 as the present Prime Minister, and such still more unfortunate 
 individuals as myself. His speeches at that time showed that 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer had veiy little confidence in 
 us, which was very painful to me, and possibly also to the Prime 
 Minister. The right honourable gentleman will not go back from 
 what he said in Edinburgh in 1885. His words were not intended 
 as mere phrases, but were bond fide, honest expressions of political 
 opinion which he would be ready to give effect to if he came 
 into office. I ask the House to allow me to read a few extracts 
 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches on this ques- 
 tion of retrenchment. The principles of economy are just as 
 
170 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLrH CHURCHILL 
 
 much concerned in the manner by which you raise revenue as 
 they are concerned in the manner by wliich you spend revenue. 
 We must be economical not only in the way we expend but in 
 the way we raise money. I have here ten extracts, but I will 
 not read them all. I will have mercy on the House. I take the 
 third, which is very remarkable. In a speech wliich he made 
 on October 21, 1885, at Hendon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 used these words : ' The Conservatives hold that such men as 
 Lord Hartington, Lord Derby, Mr. Childers, and others of that 
 stamp, are going to betray the traditions of which they are the 
 heirs — that they are going to throw over Gladstonian finance, 
 Gladstonian views of economy, and, more than that, of national 
 retrenchment. I call that an offensive view, to which I never 
 will subscribe.' Now, sir, I ask the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, when he rises to reply, to show the House how 
 this method of dealing with the sinking fund for this par- 
 ticular purpose is in accordance with Gladstonian finance, 
 Gladstonian economy, Gladstonian views as to national expendi- 
 ture, and, more than that, Gladstonian views of national re- 
 trenchment. But I take another passage. The Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer said : ' The Liberal party have been, and, I 
 trust, always will be, the guardians of the public purse — guar- 
 dians willing even to incur some amount of unpopularity rather 
 than be the ruthless spendthrifts of the national resources placed 
 in their hands.' He then went on to make a comparison drawn 
 from j)rivate life. He proceeded : ' Although there may be 
 public administrators of whom it may be said, " There is no 
 niggardly economy there-— they spend their money like gentle- 
 men," why do they not remember at every point that the money 
 which they spend comes from the taxation of the people ? ' 
 These sentiments are, I think, not wholly dissimilar from those 
 which I humbly expressed at the time when I left the Govern- 
 ment. I come now to the last quotation with which I shall 
 trouble the House. The right honourable gentleman, speaking 
 on November 21' at Edinburgh, said : ' Let me pass from legis- 
 lative proposals to some matters of importance with regard to 
 the administration of the country. One great point is that of 
 national expenditure and national economy, which is becoming 
 
ECONOMICAL 'FEROCITY' l7l 
 
 rapidly less popular than it used to be. I confess that I cannot 
 see in certain candidates for Parliamentary honours any sign 
 that they will be ferocious guardians of the public purse. Be- 
 lieve me, some little ferocity is necessary.' I ask the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, when he rises to defend his proposal, and 
 when he remembers these words that he has spoken, how he 
 can prove that he has been a guardian of the public purse, 
 willing even to incur some unpopularity — I ask him to show 
 how the proposal which he now makes in regard to the debt, 
 and the absence from his Budget of provisions as to retrench- 
 ment, are consistent with the pledge which he gave to the 
 people of Edinburgh, that he would be a zealous and ferocious 
 guardian of the public revenue. 
 
 I have prefaced my observations with these quotations, because 
 I had felt until last Thursday night that, at any rate on the ques- 
 tion of economy, I had a warm ally and a true supporter in the 
 right honourable gentleman. But what is the effect on economy 
 of his proposal ? I imagine that the right honourable gentleman 
 will not deny that an essential part of an economical policy must 
 be the laying aside of money to repay debt. But if, for the par- 
 ticular purpose of making a popular remission of taxation, you 
 withdraw from the provision which former Governments have 
 made for the repayment of debt, how can you argue that you 
 are pursuing a truly economical policy ? Surely the effect of 
 this proposed remission of taxation, which is the purpose for 
 which he withdraws 2,000,000L from the fund for the repay- 
 ment of debt — the effect of that remission on the public mind 
 must be that people will think and say there is no great em- 
 barrassment caused by our present heavy public expenditure, 
 nor can there be any real inefficiency in the public departments. 
 Obviously, the stir made by myself and others about the expen- 
 diture, the increase of the expenditure, and departmental in- 
 efficiency was wholly uncalled for ; there can be nothing of the 
 kind, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year is able 
 to remit one penny of the income-tax, to remit 600,000^ of 
 the tobacco duty, and to grant 330,000^. in aid of local rates. 
 That must be the effect on the public mind. The public mind 
 has been brought with the greatest difficulty to bear on this 
 
172 SPEECITKS OF LOED RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 question of public expenditure. The public were perfectly ready- 
 to place confidence in the Government ; nor did I do anything 
 whatever to prevent any portion of the public from placing 
 confidence in the Government on that point. But the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer has dashed all my hopes on that subject. 
 I am certain that the feeling on the part of the large mass of 
 the people in consequence of this Budget is likely to be that 
 the stir which has been made about high expenditure is a 
 matter with which they need not much concern themselves, and 
 they will feel that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to 
 make so large a remission of taxation they need not trouble 
 themselves about anything else. I wish to ask the right 
 honourable gentleman, are those his views and wishes? Is that 
 the frame of mind in which he made these speeches in 1885 ? Is 
 it a frame of mind that will bring credit on this House, and 
 especially on the Conservative party — a frame of mind of care- 
 lessness and almost of recklessness as to the progress of public 
 expenditure ? The members of the House of Commons are 
 often blamed for their extravagant tendencies, but I repudiate 
 the accusation. I assert that the House of Commons cannot 
 be economical unless the Government of the day is economical. 
 All the great expenditure in the past has been because the 
 Government led the way. When the Government has a cha- 
 racter for thrift, then members refrain from pressing proposals 
 for expenditure, because they know that they have to do with 
 a Government which has a tight hold on the public purse. I 
 say, therefore, that unless the Government leads the way and 
 puts its foot down, it is useless to lay the dut}- and the respon- 
 sibility of economy in expenditure on Parliament. 
 
 I shall be told that retrenchment is impossible — that there 
 is no great retrenchment possible— and that the increase in the 
 army and navy expenditure is one which the country must 
 bear. Well, all I can say is, go back to former times. In 18G0 
 you had a Government in office determined on a retrenchment 
 policy, and the Army and Navy Estimates, which stood then at 
 twenty-seven and a half millions, were by 1865 reduced to 
 twenty-two and a half millions, or a reduction of five millions 
 in five years. In 1868 the estimates were twenty-five millions, 
 
ECONOMICAL 'FEEOCITY' 173 
 
 and by 1871 tliey had been reduced to twenty-one millions, or 
 a reduction of four millions in three years. What do we 
 find in this year ? Since 1883 the average army and navy 
 expenditure has been raised six millions. Does the right 
 honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to 
 say, in view of the figures of former years, that it is impossible 
 to decrease that expenditure ? I challenge him frankly and 
 amicably on that point to say whether large retrenchments are 
 not possible ; and I invite him to declare, in view of this state 
 of things, whether he means to contend that the action he has 
 taken now with regard to the present Budget will strengthen 
 his hands. I wish the House to consider itself as a judicial 
 tribunal, without party prejudices on one side or the other, and 
 I wish to put two Chancellors of the Exchequer before them and 
 try their standard of finance. I will put the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer of the late Government, the member for Derby (Sir W. 
 Harcourt) and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer before 
 the House and I will ask the House to say frankly which presents 
 the nearest approach to the best standard of financial morality. 
 The circumstances of the two were identical, except that the 
 present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little more favoured 
 by increase of the revenue. The circumstances of the time 
 are identical. There was no possibility of any great measure 
 of financial reform. The House was occupied last year, and is 
 occupied this, with the Irish question. The Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer last year had to meet a large increase of military and 
 naval expenditure ; and what was the course he took ? There 
 must have been an enormous temptation to make a large remission 
 of taxation. The Government then was advocating a scheme for 
 Ireland which might obviously have been advanced considerably 
 by a popular remission of taxation. Whether the temptation 
 presented itself or not I do not know ; but I know this, that, 
 so far from touching the sinking fund, the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer of last year revived no less than three millions of that 
 fund which had been suspended ; and the consequence of his 
 doing that was that he was not able to make any remission of 
 taxation. He told the country fairly, ' I cannot lower the taxa- 
 tion, and you have got to meet it.' Can the Chancellor of the 
 
174 SPEECHES or loud RANDOT.ni CIIUECHILL 
 
 Exchequer of to-day put his coiitluct in the same light ? He 
 does not maintain the sinking fund ; he makes a grab at it. 
 He takes two millions of the sinking fund, and with it he makes a 
 remission of taxation. I know it is pleasant to have a remission 
 of taxation ; but what we have to consider is whether that remis- 
 sion }na}" not cost us more than the benefit which we derive. When 
 you embark in unsound finance you pay dearly for it. I have 
 been told that this is a very clever stroke of policy — this remis- 
 sion of taxation. I can only say that the right honourable 
 gentleman was the last person who should interfere with the 
 sinking fund. It is impossible for any one to go into the 
 Treasury and not see that great fund at which the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer has made a grab staring him in the face. 
 There is no cleverness in discovering this fund and in manu- 
 facturing a surplus. Anybody can do it, and I believe every 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer is tempted to do it. I do not 
 believe there is one who has not longed to make a depredatory 
 raid upon that fund. As has been pointed out, every Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer has hitherto resisted the temptation. No doubt 
 it was interfered with in 1885. The right honourable gentleman 
 opposite ' in that year had to find fourteen millions of money ; of 
 this four and a half millions were taken out of the sinking fund, 
 three millions more were borrowed, and the Govei'nment pro- 
 posed, had they remained in office, to raise the rest by taxation. 
 This is the first time that the fund is resorted to for such a pur- 
 pose as is now proposed, and I deplore that it should be a Con- 
 servative Government which has attempted it ; I deeply regret 
 what has been done. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer has fallen a victim to a 
 temptation which has strongly assailed every Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, and which everyone up till now has been strong 
 enough to resist. I do not say that there are not occasions 
 when you may deal with the sinking fund. There may be occa- 
 sions for large operations. It might be very useful in time of 
 war. You might use it under certain circumstances which I 
 will not describe, but which may be supposed, to carry out 
 large taxation reforms which might excite great oiDposition, 
 ' Mr. Childers. 
 
ECONOMICAL 'FEROCITY' 175 
 
 and by using this fund you might allay that opposition and make 
 a beneficial increase to your resources. But there is another 
 use of the sinking fund, and I tbink the right honourable gen- 
 tleman ' alluded to it in his speecb last year on the Irish Land 
 Bill. I think he said he would not have proposed so large an 
 operation as the creation of fifty millions of stock if it were not 
 for the enormous power exercised by the Commissioners of the 
 National Debt over Consols. It is not within reasonable pro- 
 bability that the value of Consols would suffer any large depre- 
 ciation as long as the Commissioners of the National Debt have 
 that great sum of money at tlieir disposal with which to sustain 
 tbe price of Consols. Here Ave have a weapon which might be 
 used in connection with Ireland, if English credit is to be re- 
 sorted to for Irish land legislation, but it is the last weapon 
 in the world that you should seek to weaken, or fall back upon 
 unless for a great purpose. Does the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer really consider that the remission of one penny in the 
 income-tax is a great purpose ? Does he think that he will 
 thereby add appreciably to the prosperity of the country, or for 
 more than a passing moment increase the popularity of the 
 Government ? Imagine the effect of the principle he has laid 
 down. If he can do this, what may not any one else do ? He came 
 to the Exchequer with the highest reputation. Others before 
 him had a reputation to make. He approached the Treasury 
 with a reputation ready made. He was the orthodox apostle 
 — he was the canonised saint of the financial purists. The 
 financial experts are already mourning over his false economy. 
 Has the right honourable gentleman read the article in the 
 ' Economist' on his Budget ? When he was appointed Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, I remember that the 'Economist' said, 'Well, 
 thank God that at last we have got a Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 and that, having gone over every kind of financial impostor,' 
 including my unfortunate self, ' we have at last got a recognised 
 financial genius.' I will read a short passage from the ' Economist.' 
 It says : ' But Mr. Goschen does not intend to leave the 
 present arrangements unaltered, and the chief alteration he 
 proposes is one which, coming from him, we regard with the 
 ' Mr. Gladstone. 
 
176 SPEECHES OF LORD RANPOLni CHURCHILL 
 
 grealest regret and disappointment. He wishes to lay violent 
 hands upon the debt sinking fund and appropriate no less than 
 2,000,000/. of the amount we now devote each year to the 
 redemption of the debt. As we show elsewhere, the excuse he 
 offers for this is of the flimsiest kind, and it should take argu- 
 ments far more cogent than he has yet advanced, or will, in our 
 opinion, be able to advance, to induce Parliament to reverse the 
 policy which in this matter it has deliberately adopted.' What 
 has the Chancellor of the Exchequer got to say to that ? The 
 'Economist' concludes: 'Altogether, then, Mr. Goschen's Budget 
 is, though clever, very far indeed from satisfactory, and it is 
 weak just where we should have expected to find the strength 
 of so able a financier most conspicuously displayed.' I have no 
 reason to feel any great respect for the ' Economist.' It never 
 gave me any credit for financial ability ; and I only quote it as 
 an authority which had told us that the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer would lead us in courses of financial rectitude and 
 purity, and which now tells us he has done the reverse. 
 
 The Committee may think I have spoken too strongly on 
 these matters. I cannot help feeling strongly, because I feel 
 that all those hopes I had entertained that the Tory party 
 would have taken up and would have identified themselves 
 with a policy of sound finance, economy, and retrenchment are 
 shattered. We had an immense opportunity for placing before 
 the country in the financial proposals of the year our adherence 
 to a policy of economy and retrenchment. We are now going 
 to plunge into the Irish question, with which many weeks will 
 be occupied, and financial matters are not likely to come before 
 us again for a considerable time. A golden opportunity for 
 showing the country what our policy was has been lost. The 
 Government have been unfortunately tempted, unless there is a 
 glimmer of hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may 
 reconsider his proposals, to court a little popularity which they 
 did not in the least require. They are strong enough, in all 
 conscience, on the question of the Union. Apparently, to court 
 a little popularity, under the impression that they are weak, 
 they are tempted to make a remission of taxation which in 
 reality will benefit no one, and which will inflict a fatal blow 
 
ECONOMICAL 'FEROCITY' 177 
 
 upon financial arrangements for paying off tlie debt built up by 
 both parties in the House, through Parliament after Parliament : 
 upon a continuous policy which has been added to by one party 
 after another, and which has never been interfered with except 
 in times of emergency. Now we are deliberately identifying 
 ourselves with the policj^ of ceasing to pay off the National 
 Debt. I would ask the Government whether it is not possible to 
 reconsider that particular proposal. It is not necessary for the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer to touch the sinking fund. He 
 has ample resources at his disposal. If he leaves the sinking 
 fund alone and remits a penny of income tax, he will still have 
 a balance of 400,000?. If he does not reduce the income tax, 
 and prefers to take off the tobacco duty, he will have a balance 
 of 800,000?. If he touches neither of these, and confines himself 
 to a relief of the rates, he will have a balance of 900,000?. He 
 can do any of these things if he will only leave the sinking 
 fund alorfe ; and he is touching it for a purpose so paltry and 
 so frivolous that I fail to understand for one moment how it 
 ever entered into his mind, and how the right honourable gentle- 
 men near him, and particularly the First Lord of the Treasury, 
 fell into his policy. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to 
 believe that I only make these remarks because of my intense 
 and earnest desire that the present Government, whose career, 
 I hope, is going to be a long one, may enter upon and may 
 continue in the path of financial stability. 
 
 VOL. 11. 
 
<PEEClIKS OF LORD liANDOLl'H CIIUKCHILL 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND 
 MISMANAGEMENT. 
 
 Wolverhampton, June 3, 1887. 
 
 [In this speech a large number of facts were brought together in 
 illustration of the system unclei" which the Army and Navy are 
 managed, and against which Lord Randolph Churchill had protested 
 in vain. These facts were all drawn from the evidence and reports 
 of Royal Commissioners or Parliamentary Committees, and they 
 remain as unassailable now as they were when first brought to the 
 notice of the public. But the speech was attacked on the ground of 
 its ' exaggerated ' statements, although not a single statement could 
 be disproved. Great alarm, however, was excited in certain influen- 
 tial quarters by that part of the speech in which Lord Randolph 
 declared that he had a plan of reform ready which involved sweeping 
 changes in the War Office and the Admiralty. After that intima- 
 tion it was clearly perceived by men who understood the forces 
 which were at work behind the scenes that Lord Randolph would 
 not be afforded an opportunity of carrying out his design. It became 
 more than ever an object of solicitude with this class to banish him 
 from office, and to place all his actions before the public in the most 
 unfavourable light. The system attacked was far too powerful to 
 yield without a prolonged struggle, the end of which has not yet 
 come.] 
 
 1KN0W tliat there are many here who must be largely en- 
 gaged in the carrying on of practical business, and are excel- 
 lent judges as to the manner in which business ought to be 
 conducted, and I am going to address you in your character as 
 men of business, representing, as you do, very faithfully and very 
 directly, an immense portion of the British jDeople. I am going 
 to address you on what I consider a great subject, the expendi- 
 ture of public money. This is a very large meeting. I suppose 
 there must be some 4,000 or more gathered together in this hall. 
 
DEPAETMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 179 
 
 I wonder how many of you have the smallest idea as to how th^ 
 money you pay in taxes goes ? I do not propose to occupy 
 your time with the expenditure of public money which is in- 
 curred in the Civil Service. I think that there is room for 
 great vigilance, considerable reform, and no inconsiderable re- 
 duction in the expenditure of public money connected with the 
 Civil Service of this country. But I see in that expenditure, 
 after having studied it pretty closely, no glaring or profligate 
 extravagance such as I shall have to bring under your notice. 
 I recognise that the democracy of Britain is continually making 
 fresh demands on the State, that the democracy expects the 
 State to perform duties which in former days the State was 
 allowed to leave to private enterprise, and I recognise that the 
 tendency of modern social reform must tend to check any hopes 
 of large decrease in our civil expenditure. No, gentlemen; 
 what I am going to talk to you about to-night is the expendi- 
 ture on the British Army and the British Navy. I tell you 
 what decided me finally that no time should be lost in speaking 
 out on this subject. I read the other day a speech made by 
 Lord Wolseley with regard to the condition of the Army, and 
 I entreat your attention to this extract. Lord Wolseley used 
 these words. He said : ' The Army authorities asked for re- 
 quisites for the Army, and they were told that they must econo- 
 mise in some way to get them. If guns were asked for, then 
 the reply came that the fighting men must be reduced, or, under 
 the same conditions, carts and horses, which were necessary 
 for the Army, would not be supplied. If the country went on 
 longer in this way knocking off" cavalry and artillery whenever 
 increased expenditure was required, the Army would soon be 
 reduced to two men and a boy.' That is the statement of 
 Lord Wolseley, who occupies the position of Adjutant-General, 
 and is a great authority. I will tell you exactly what the facts 
 are with regard to the numerical strength of your Army and 
 Navy. 
 
 I will go back to the year 1875, and I will tell you why 
 that is a very good year on which to base a comparative esti- 
 mate of public expenditure. Mr. Disraeli's Government was 
 in ofiice, and Mr. Disraeli's Government and the party who 
 
180 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 followed them had been of opinion through many of the preceding 
 years that the Liberal Government which liad preceded tliem had 
 starved the services and reduced our Army and Navy danger- 
 ously. They came into power in 1874, and you may take the 
 estimates of the year 1875 as representing what, in the opinion 
 of Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues, was necessary for the safety of 
 the empire. Now, in the year 1875,^ the cost of our Army was 
 U,500,000L and the cost of our Navy was 10,900,000/.— 
 altogether making a total of 25,400,000L That is the sum 
 which Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues thought necessary to 
 provide for the armaments of the country. In the present year 
 the estimates for the Army are 18,300,000/., and for the Navy 
 12,500,000/., making together 30,800,000/. So that we have 
 an increased expenditure on Army and Navy purposes over 
 what Mr. Disraeli thought necessary for the safety of the 
 country of 5,400,000/. Now, I want to tell you what has 
 happened to the Army numerically since 1875. The Regular 
 soldiers were in that year 129,000, and in 1887 they are 
 141,000 men ; so we have had an increase of 12,000 men in 
 the Regular Army. In 1875 the Militia was 116,000 men; in 
 1887 they number 119,000 men, an increase of 3,000 men in 
 the Militia. In 1875 the number of efficient Volunteers was 
 168,000; in 1887 they number 218,000. So we have had an 
 increase of 50,000 to the efficient strength of the Volunteers. 
 The Army Reserve in 1875 was 30,000 ; in 1887 it is 57,000 
 men, and therefore we have an increase of 27,000 men in the 
 Army Reserve. But in addition to that we have the Indian 
 Army, and our forces there have been increased by 10,000 
 British and 30,000 native troops ; so that if I take Lord Wolse- 
 ley's statement of the Army being reduced to two men and a 
 boy and test it by figures, I find that the British force has been 
 increased, in one way or another, by 92,000, and the whole force 
 of the British Empire by 132,000 men. Now, Lord Wolseley, 
 a man in position, an authority, has, in the face of facts like 
 these, come before the British public and alleged that, owing 
 
 ' These figures are taken from the Estimates and Statistical Abstract for 
 1875, and from the Estimates for 1887-88, and the Official Statement of the 
 Secretary of State for War. 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 181 
 
 to the action of the Treasury and of Piirliament, our Army is 
 being reduced to two men and a boy. 
 
 I pass from that to other matters of more importance. I 
 have shown how there has been the large increase of nearly 
 four millions in the cost of our Army since 1875. What I 
 want to bring before you is that this large increase of expendi- 
 ture is not accounted for by the numerical increase of strength 
 I have demonstrated. That numerical increase of strength only 
 accounts for some 700,000L of additional expenditure, if we 
 take the estimates for food, pay, clothing and transport charges 
 of the Army. Just in the same way with the British Navy, the 
 increase of the cost of the Navy is 1,600,000/. over what it was 
 in 1875, and our Navy is much the same in numerical strength 
 of ships and sailors now as in 1875, although we have an in- 
 creased cost. In 1875 we had 60,000 sailors ; in 1887 we 
 have 62,000, an increase of 2,000. In 1875 we had 168 
 steamships and 40 sailing ships in commission; in 1887 we 
 have 164' steamships and 44 sailiag ships in commission, practi- 
 cally much the same ; and yet we have an increased cost of 
 nearly 2,000,000/. to bear. If I examine the Navy estimates 
 for pay, food, and clothing, I find the increase of 2,000 men only 
 accounts for some 200,000Z. of the increased cost. The increased 
 cost of the Army and Navy is not accounted for by the numerical 
 increase, further than by some 900,000/. out of 5,000,000/. I 
 hope I have made that clear. 
 
 I will now ask your attention for a moment to a comparison 
 of the military strength of the British Empire and the military 
 strength of the French and German Empires, the two great 
 empires of the continent of Europe, and the expenditure of 
 the British Empire and the expenditure of those two great 
 empires on military and naval armaments. The empire of 
 Germany spends 21,000,000/. annually as ordinary expenditure 
 on army and navy purposes. The French Republic spends 
 29,000,000/. annually as ordinary naval and military expendi- 
 ture. The United Kingdom, our own country, has reached an 
 ordinary naval and military expenditure of 31 ,000,000/. There- 
 fore, you see, we spend 10,000,000/. more than Germany on 
 military and naval purposes, and 2,000,000/. more than France. 
 
182 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPn CHURCHILL 
 
 But it would not be a fair comparison if we did not take into 
 account the whole military expenditure of the British Empire, 
 and for that purpose we must take the Indian expenditure, 
 because we have identified the Indian military resources with 
 our own resources at home, and on two occasions when it was 
 necessary to make a gi'eat military display we have brought 
 Indian troops to the scene of the struggle and incorporated them 
 with our own troops. Therefore I am bound to add to our 
 Imperial expenditure the expenditure which India is called 
 upon to bear. India pays nearly 20,000,000/. annually for the 
 Indian army. Now, what have we got to in the way of compara- 
 tive expenditure. Germany expends 21,000,000Z. on army and 
 navy purposes, France 29,000,000/., and the British Empire 
 51,000,000/. Let us see what these empires can respectively 
 do for their expenditure. Germany for the expenditure of 
 21,000,000/. can put into the field one and a half million armed 
 men, and that does not include her enormous reserves. France 
 can do much the same for her expenditure of 29,000,000/, a 
 year. She can put into the field one and a half million of armed 
 men ; and mark this : the German and French fortresses are 
 all of them fully provisioned and adequately armed. The German 
 and the French troops are armed with the best artillery, the 
 best rifles, the best weapons of every sort. The transport of the 
 French army and the German army is most perfect, and their 
 stores of ammunition and all munitions of war are full to 
 overflowing. That is what they can do for their money. Let 
 us see what the British Empire can do for an expenditure of 
 51,000,000/. I suppose — though I believe military men will 
 contest this — still I suppose that, if we went to war or had to 
 defend ourselves, we might, after maddening delay, after pouring 
 out money like water, possibly put in the field and maintain 
 150,000 British soldiers. We could not do more. We have many 
 fortresses in the United Kingdom and in the British Empire, and 
 many strong places, places of strategic importance. We have 
 not one single fortress that is properly or adequately armed. We 
 have not one single fortress that is properly provisioned. We 
 have a great many strong strategic places which are perfectly 
 unarmed and perfectly unprovisioned, notwithstaiiding all our 
 
DEPARTxMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGRMKNT 183 
 
 great expenditure. I will take the great fortress of Malta, in 
 the Mediterranean, and I say that Malta is insufficiently and 
 inadequately armed. It is not sufficiently provisioned to sup- 
 port a garrison for three weeks. We have not one single heavy- 
 gun in reserve, not one of any sort or kind. We have not any 
 reserve whatever of heavy projectiles for heavy guns. Our 
 horse artillery, of which the British nation are so proud, is 
 armed with what Lord Wolseley has described as the worst gun 
 in Europe. Our field artillery is armed with a gun so inferior 
 that it is to be replaced, and a new field artillery gun is being 
 manufactured. But if we went to war to-morrow it would 
 be armed with a most inferior weapon. Our British infantry, 
 which was said to be the best in the world, is armed with 
 rifles which have been proved in action to be defective, and of ' 
 inferior description, while the bayonets bend and twist when 
 strain is pat upon them. Our cavalry are armed with swords 
 of equally bad manufacture. This has all been proved ; it is 
 on record. Our sailors are armed with cutlasses of the same 
 worthless description, and this is a fact — that though at any 
 moment we may be called upon to defend the empire, and put 
 our army of 150,000 in the field, in spite of our vast expendi- 
 ture on our home establishments of thirty-one millions, we 
 have not got land transport for 20,000 men. That is our 
 military and naval condition. 
 
 Let me for one moment make a digression as to foreign 
 policy. If that is our military and naval position — and I defy 
 any one to contradict it — do you not think it is the most utter 
 and glaring folly to talk about the ascendancy of England in 
 the councils of Europe ? Do not you think it is the most utter 
 and glaring folly for a Minister — if there were such a Minister 
 — to dream of resisting the advance of the Kussian Empire in 
 the south-east of Europe by military force ? If that is our 
 naval and military condition, the Minister who knew that such 
 was the naval and military condition of the country, and adopted 
 a foreign policy such as some apparently advocate, would be a 
 maniac. 
 
 The blame for this stafe of things does not rest upon 
 the British people, and it does not rest upon the House of 
 
184 SPEKCIIES OF LORD RANDOLrH CHURCHILL 
 
 Commons. The blame for it rests upon the system of our 
 naval and military administrations, upon our naval and military 
 departments; the blame lies upon those who uphold that 
 system, and who are responsible for it. Year after year, 
 millions have been steadily voted by Parliament for the support 
 of the Army and Navy. The House of Commons has nerve 
 refused, on a single occasion, to vote whatever the Minister 
 demanded. We have had not only the annual estimates : we 
 have had since 1875 two enormous votes of credit. Everything 
 that has been asked for by the Minister has been given. Suc- 
 cessive Secretaries of State, successive Lords of the Admiralty, 
 have solemnl}^ assured Parliament that, in voting these millions, 
 they were voting all that was necessary for the efficient defence 
 of the country ; and yet, what I have said to you to-night with 
 reference to the naval and military condition of the empire is 
 absolutely true. That being so, perhaps some of you will 
 understand the sort of system of public expenditure against 
 which I dashed myself, and with which I utterly refused to be 
 connected either for a day or for an hour longer than I could 
 help, either as Minister or as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I 
 had confidence in the First Lord of the Admiralty and the 
 Secretary of State for War. I thought they were men of 
 energy, and that if I put pressure upon them, by refusing to 
 grant the increased means they demanded, I thought they, 
 acting under that pressure, would come to the determination 
 to reform and revolutionise that rotten system of expenditure 
 of public money. That was my hope. You may say my way 
 of going to work was a rough-and-ready one. So it was, but it 
 was my only way. I was only Chancellor of the Exchequer : 
 I was not First Lord of the Admiralty or Secretary of State for 
 War. It was not my business to do their business. What I 
 said was, ' Your system is rotten and profligate. I will not be 
 responsible for giving you increased grants of public money. 
 Reform your system. Make seventeen millions wisely spent do 
 what eighteen millions unwisely spent would not do. Make 
 eleven millions wisely spent do what twelve and a half millions 
 will not do unwisely spent ; and having assured me and my 
 colleagues in Parliament of your efforts to establish a sound 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 185 
 
 system of naval and military expenditure, then, if you must 
 and will, go before Parliament and ask for an increased vote of 
 public money.' 
 
 I will now tell you two or three very interesting anecdotes, 
 which will illustrate to you the truth of what I state as to your 
 defenceless and unprepared condition. You Avill recollect that 
 in 1881, on the morning before the bombardment of Alexandria, 
 the French fleet sailed away from the harbour, and left the 
 English fleet to do the work. The English fleet bombarded 
 Alexandria. During the bombardment the 'Alexandra,' ' Teme- 
 raire,' and ' Monarch,' heavy ships of war, fired a certain number 
 of rounds of heavy shell from their eleven-inch guns. What do 
 you think was the condition of these ships after the bombard- 
 ment ? Ruj^pose the French Admiral had returned and said, ' I 
 object to your landing sailors and troops in Egypt, and if you 
 do I will open tire on you ; ' what do you think was the position 
 and condition of the British sailors on board these ships ? They 
 had only got about ten rounds of shell remaining for each of their 
 eleven-inch guns ; ' and what is worse, there was not at that time 
 any i-eserve whatever of eleven-inch shells for these guns in our 
 great arsenal at Malta ! That was the condition of the reserve 
 stores of the English fleet at that time. I will tell you another 
 story even more startling. You remember the expedition to 
 Khartoum. You remember the formation of the desert column 
 which was to cut itself off from its base and to plunge into 
 the desert on what seemed almost a forlorn hope. The life of 
 that column depended upon its being properly equipped. The 
 gallantry of the men was known. All that they wanted was to 
 be properly equipped. Yet, when that column started, and 
 when that column was in action, it was found that a large 
 number of the shells which had been sent out for its artillery 
 were too large for the guns which accompanied the column, and 
 another portion of the shells —the shrapnel shells — had either 
 not been filled or had been imperfectly filled, so that they would 
 
 ' Lord Charles Beresford, si:)eaking at the annual dmner of the Constitu- 
 tional Union on June 8, 1887, said that 'had they been attacked at Alexandria 
 by the French fleet they would have been in an awkward position, as tliey had 
 not too rauch powder ; but that was not the fault of the Admiral, it was the 
 fault of the system.' 
 
186 SPEKCirivS OF LORD RANDOLPIT OHURCHILL 
 
 not exploJe. This is the couditiou in wliicli the War Office sent 
 that column of British soldiers to do their work. Tliat is a fact ; 
 but I will give you another. You are aware that in modern war- 
 fare what are called machine guns pla}' a large part, that they 
 are valuable for the defence of the ironclads against torpedo 
 boats, and for the defence of military positions. Well, the War 
 Office have purchased a large number of machine guns. At the 
 close of last year — and you remember how critical the state of 
 Europe was at the close of last year — if we had been called upon 
 to go to war there was no ammunition in store for the use of the 
 machine guns — none whatever. There were the machine 
 guns, and no ammunition had been made to use in them. But 
 I will tell you another story, and I think this is the worst of all. 
 I heard this the other day, and I heard it on the highest 
 authority. One of our ironclads, the ' Monarch,' a powerful 
 ironclad, came into harbour the other day and required two new 
 heavy guns for one of her turrets. There were no heavy guns 
 to give her. What do you think they did ? They took two 
 heavy guns intended for the armament of the Spithead and 
 Portsmouth forts, and they put them on board the ' Monarch.' 
 Therefore, you see under this splendid system which expends 
 over oO,OOO.OOOL annually, in order to arm one of our iron- 
 clads we have to disarm two of our forts. Although for the 
 last thirteen years we have spent 26,000,000?. — no less than 
 26,000,000/. of money — in providing, as we thought, for the 
 proper accumulation of munitions of war, guns and warlike 
 stores, yet that is the condition of affiiirs. Now do you under- 
 stand what the system is against which I wish to bring, if 
 possible, the pressure of the English people ? 
 
 I will give you another illustration of the way in which the 
 money goes. I will give you a fact which has just come out, and 
 which is as yet very little known. There is a very important 
 department of the War Office^ — the Ordnance Department — and 
 that department is under the impression that they are capable 
 of designing heavy powerful guns. In 1883 or 1884 they 
 designed a gun called the 43-ton gun, and they called upon 
 Messrs. Armstrong & Co. of Elswick to construct fifteen of 
 these 43-ton guns. Messrs. Armstrong, who knew more about 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 187 
 
 gun-construction than the Ordnance Department, suggested tliat 
 the design was bad, and that it would be a bad gun. The 
 Ordnance Commissioners told Messrs. Armstrong to mind their 
 own business and to make the guns. The guns were made, 
 and cost something like 100,000/., and when made they were 
 sent to Woolwich, and were to be sent to sea in the ships of 
 war. At this moment there comes forward Captain Noble — 
 who had been formerly employed by the Government, and 
 who is, I believe, a director of the Armstrong Company — and 
 says, ' Do not send those guns to sea : they are bad guns and 
 cannot stand the charge which you are going to place in them.' 
 The Ordnance Department told Captain Noble to mind his 
 own business, and the guns were sent to sea — four of them on 
 board the ' Collingwood ' — a ship as to which I shall have 
 something to say to you presently. And what happened? 
 One of these guns burst when the second round was fired, 
 with only half a charge. The whole of the guns were recalled 
 and condemned, and an expenditure of some 100,000/. was 
 found to have been wasted. Now, mind you, the Ordnance 
 Department was told by the contractors that the guns were bad 
 before they were constructed ; they were told by an authority 
 that the guns were bad after they were constructed ; and yet 
 the guns were ordered to be made, the guns were sent to sea, 
 and the guns burst. Now, would you believe it — if we had to 
 go to war to-morrow, four of these precious guns are being kept 
 in reserve in order to be placed on board the ' Collingwood,' 
 which will be one of the ships we would have to rely on 
 as part of the British fleet. Therefore the sailors of the 
 ' Collingwood ' will know that, though they are supposed to 
 engage heavy artillery either on land or sea, they are only 
 able to engage that heavy artillery with guns which it is at 
 least a thousand to one will burst when fired with more than 
 half a charge. You would think, and any practical person 
 would think, that the officials responsible for these guns would 
 have fled from the country, or at least have been dismissed from 
 the public service. Not a bit of it. The officials responsible 
 for these guns are occupying high official positions in the War 
 Office at the present moment. And they are now engaged in 
 
188 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 speuding large sums of money iu the construction of what 
 ai-e called 110-ton guns, which are to fire 1,0001b. of powder and 
 to discharge enormously heavy shot ; and the Royal Commission 
 has been investigating the reports relating to these guns, which 
 cost over 20,000/, each, and can only fire about 150 rounds. 
 The report says, in a very mild but suggestive manner — ' They 
 regret to remark that the result does not appear to be equal 
 to the expenditure, and that it is very unfortunate if nothing 
 better can be devised.' I think you will admit I am bringing 
 before you matters worthy of your attention. 
 
 We will leave the War Office alone for a moment and turn 
 to the Admiralty. It would appear that we have a very 
 powerful fleet on paper ; but if you look into the facts, it is not 
 so powerful. In 1883 two large ships were launched, the ' Ajax ' 
 and the ' Agamemnon,' built for having great offensive power and 
 great speed ; but unfortunately it was found when they were 
 launched and went to sea, that if they went faster than eight 
 miles an hour they would not steer, and became utterly unman- 
 ageable, and therefore, for all purposes of a ship of war, they 
 were seriously defective. What do you think those two ships 
 cost ? They cost 800,000/. Eight hundred thousand pounds 
 was spent on these two ships of war, which could, in all proba- 
 bility, be sent to the bottom by any adversary of anything like 
 equal size which could steer and be handy when at full speed. 
 Some years later they turned out the ship ' Imperieuse,' which 
 was to be armoured in a particular way. When they came to 
 send her to sea, they found that she drew 3ft. 3in. of water 
 more than she was designed to draw. Observe the result. The 
 armour which she would have had above water now became 
 below water. She was supposed to be a powerfully protected 
 ship, but in consequence of her construction she became unpro- 
 tected ; and on the ' Imperieuse ' the Admiralty spent 500,000/. 
 Then the Admiralty went on, not in the least discouraged, to 
 construct six very large ships of what are called the Admiral 
 class. The Admiral class are ships named after the great 
 Admirals, and one of the Admiral class is the ' Collingwood.' 
 They are supposed to be protected ships, and supposed to be 
 able to engage the heavy artillery of land forts or hostile iron- 
 
DEPARTxMENTAL EXTRAVACtANCE AND MlSMANACrEMKNT 189 
 
 clads. But this is certain, that so badly constructed is this 
 class of ships, so little is the protection they have, so unscienti- 
 fically is that protection applied, that for all intents and 
 purposes the Admiral class of ship are unprotected, and are not 
 in a condition to engage successfully heavy land artillery and 
 the heavy artillery of ironclads. This class cost 4,500, OOOZ. 
 Some are finished ; others will be finished in 1889, and it is on 
 the Admiral class that the British nation have greatly to depend 
 if they have to defend their coasts and their commerce. Think 
 of the position of sailors on board the ' Collingwood.' The ' Ool- 
 liugwood ' is one of this class. The sailors of the ' Collingwood ' 
 know they have a gun which is likely to burst if it is fired, 
 and that they are in a ship which, so far from being a pro- 
 tected ship, can be perforated at half a dozen vital points by 
 the artillery of the enemy and sent to the bottom. But the 
 Admiralty were not content with that, and they proceeded to 
 construct two other ships — the ' Victoria ' and ' Sans Pareil ' — 
 and of those ships I will only say that a person very high in 
 office in the Admiralty considers those two ships to be even 
 worse than the ships of the Admiral class ; and on those two 
 ships they propose to spend 1,G00,000L I have proved to you 
 that a total expenditure of 7,400,000L has been incurred by the 
 Admiralty practically for no purpose at all, and in 1885 it 
 occurred to the Admiralty that they would not do badly to 
 change the constructor who was mainly responsible for this 
 splendid effort at shipbuilding. So Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, who 
 was the constructor of that day, retired, and a new constructor 
 was appointed. Now I have to draw your attention to seven 
 more ships to be constructed by the Admiralty, and designed in 
 1881'. They are called belted cruisers, ships of the Australia 
 class — that is to say, ' Australia ' is the name of one of the ships. 
 They are designed to have a belt of armour running round their 
 sides five feet six inches wide, and it was intended that no less 
 than eighteen inches of that armour should be above the water- 
 line so as to protect the ship from any hostile shot. It is now 
 discovered that when the ships have got their full quantity of 
 coal on board to enable them to keep the sea, the belt of armour 
 to protect them, instead of being eighteen inches above the 
 
190 SPEECHES OF LORD KANBOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 water-liuc will, be six inches below it. The total cost of those 
 seven ships will be two millions of money, and what I have 
 told yon abont those seven ships is fully and frankly admitted 
 by the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the official document 
 which he laid before the House of Commons, explanatory of the 
 Navy estimates for this year, he confessed that if the ships are 
 to keep the sea — that is to say, if they are to have a sufficient 
 supply of coals on board — the armour will be six inches below 
 water, and that they will be unprotected. This. confession has 
 not yet attracted notice. What is the grand result of all this ? 
 The result of all this is, that in the last twelve or thirteen years 
 eighteen ships have been designed by the Admiralty for cer- 
 tain purposes, and on the strength of the Admiralty state- 
 ments Parliament has faithfully voted the money. The total 
 money which has been voted for these ships has been about 
 ten millions of the money of the tax-payers, and it is now 
 discovered, and officially acknowledged, that, in respect of the 
 purposes for which these ships were designed and of the purpose 
 for which that ten millions was spent, the whole of the money 
 has been misapplied, wasted, and thrown away. Can you con- 
 ceive such a state of things ? Now you understand why it 
 is that the Army and Navy Estimates increase. And is it any 
 wonder that a Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the 
 House of Commons and says, after such a state of things as 
 that, ' My expenditure is so high I really regret to say I 
 cannot any longer afford to repay the capital of the National 
 Debt ' ? 
 
 I have a great deal more which I am most anxious to say to you. 
 You cannot imagine how strongly I feel on this point. I can 
 assure you that when I was occupying the early days of this week 
 in putting together notes and collecting the materials and facts 
 about which I should talk to you to-night, the state of things 
 as they appeared when they came to be placed on paper was so 
 outrageous that at times I got into such a state of vexation and 
 of rage that I was obliged to give up my work for a time and try 
 to think of something else in order to get quiet. I want, if 
 possible, to make you perfectly sick of this state of things. I 
 want to make you as farious and angry against this state of 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EX rEAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMKNT 191 
 
 things as I am myself. I want, if possible, to bring down upon 
 those who are responsible for this state of things the anger, and 
 even the vengeance, of the British people. I have shown you 
 what the system is which spends so many millions of taxes 
 annually on the Army and Navy, and I have shown you what 
 its results are. But would you believe it ? With all this, the 
 system itself has increased its own cost to the nation ; that is 
 to say, that the War Office has increased its own direct cost 
 since 1875 by not less than 50,000L a year; the non-effective 
 vote of the Army has increased since 1875 600,000L a year. 
 It now amounts to three millions a year. The cost of the 
 Admiralty, the cost of the actual system, has increased since 
 1875 by 25,000L a year. The naval pensions have increased 
 by 200,000^. a year, and the civil pensions — mark this, I beg of 
 you — the civil pensions of the Admiralty have increased by 
 25,000/. a year. The total amount of the non-effective vote of 
 the Navy is two millions, so you have a total vote for pensions, 
 naval and military and civil, of five millions a year which the 
 tax-payers have to pay.^ In other words, what I have brought 
 before you is this — that the utterly rotten and monstrous 
 system which is responsible for this desperate state of things has 
 actually had the audacity to increase its own direct cost to the 
 public and to the tax-payers by a sum of about one million a 3'ear 
 since 1875. 
 
 I will give you a curious illustration of the way in which 
 this increase is brought about. You well know when First 
 Lords get to the Admiralty they are always bitten by the mania 
 for re-organisation. I do not know whether it is that they are 
 struck by the bad state of things, or whether they are anxious 
 to bring in their own friends and get rid of friends of their pre- 
 decessors ; but the fact remains that there are always going on 
 what are called re-organisations at the Admiralty. I will tell 
 you something about that. I go back to 1854 — a long way 
 back. They were moderate in those days. They had a re- 
 organisation then which cost the country 4,517^. in pensions. 
 In 1869 — I am getting nearer our own time — re-organisation 
 
 ' The total amount paid by the nation for pensions of all Ivinds falls little 
 short of 7,000,000^. per annum. 
 
192 Sl'KHCllliS OF LORD IIANDULPII CHURCHILL 
 
 cost 8,400^. a year in pensions. In 1879 they had a re- 
 organisation which cost the country and the taxpayer 21,000/. 
 a year in pensions and 52,000/. in bonuses to persons retiring. 
 Would you like to know some facts about these unfortunate 
 persons who retire ? I am sure there are many of you who 
 serve large firms and employers for many years with no hope 
 of pensions, and others serve for many years before they 
 can get a pension, and those persons do not receive during 
 their term of service a very high salary. Mark, under tliis 
 re-organisation of 1879, thirty- eight clerks under forty-six years 
 of age were pensioned off. I will give some details about 
 these clerks to show you what lucky fellows they are. One 
 clerk had a salary of 260/. a year ; his age was thirty-one, and 
 he received a pension, and probably receives it now, of 130/. a 
 year and a bonus of 524/. Another clerk received a salary of 
 about the same amount ; his age was thirty-seven, and he 
 received, and is probably receiving now, a pension of 207/. a 
 year and a bonus of 950/. Since that time another large re- 
 organisation has taken place — I think about the year 1885. 
 More appointments at high salaries have been created, and it 
 would seem from indications which we have had in Parliament, 
 but which we have not got out in figures, that very much the 
 same sort of burden has again been placed upon the tax-payers 
 of the country. That shows you how this beautiful system 
 increases its own cost and extends, as it were, like a cancer — 
 like a malignant tumour — into the vitals of the tax-payer. But, 
 gentlemen, that is not all. It may interest you to know, as men 
 of business, what sort of salary the clerks at the Admiralty and 
 War Office receive. They are not only entitled to very high 
 pensions but to very high salaries. At the Secretary's ofiice at 
 the Admiralty, there is one clerk who receives 1,200/. a yeai, 
 three are receiving over 900/., and six are receiving nearly 800/. 
 I should like very much to compare these salaries with the 
 salaries which are given in great firms of private enterprise in 
 this couiitry, and I should like to ask the great firms of private 
 enterprise whether they give salaries of that magnitude, and 
 whether they would equally think themselves bound to give 
 high pensions. I take the War Office. The staflF of the War 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRA VACxANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 193 
 
 OflSce consists of twenty-one chief clerks who receive 700?. 
 to 900Z. a year salary, and forty-six senior clerks who receive 
 4601 to 6001 There are 557 clerks at the War Office, who 
 cost this country nearly 150,000?. a year, and in addition to 
 that the War Office pays 8,000?. a year to copyists, who are 
 taken on at tenpence an hour, and who, you may be perfectly 
 certain, do most of the hard work of the office. 
 
 We have a public official in this country who is called the 
 Controller and Auditor-General, and every year he examines the 
 accounts of the nation, and reports to Parliament how the money 
 which Parliament has voted is spent. In his report for the year 
 1885-86 he informs Parliament — but Parliament does not pay 
 .the smallest attention to it — that the contractors for some steam 
 machinery received 38,000?. more than they had any right to re- 
 ceive by their contract, or the Admiralty had any right to pay ; 
 that the contractors for shipbuilding received 50,000?. more than 
 they had any right to receive by their contract, or the Admiralty 
 had any right to pay — a total sum of 88,000?. of money, public 
 money — generously thrown away by the Admiralty to contractors, 
 and brought before the knowledge of Parliament by the Controller 
 and Auditor-General, and not paid the slightest attention to by 
 Parliament. But, more than that : the Controller and Auditor- 
 General says this. He tells Parliament that Messrs. Armstrong 
 contracted in the year to supply certain gun-mountings to the 
 Admiralty, and were to be paid when the work was completed 
 on delivery. But Messrs. Armstrong did not find that quite 
 convenient, so they came to the Admiralty and said, ' Would 
 you kindly oblige us with an advance of 200,000?.?' 'Cer- 
 tainly,' said the Admiralty, ' certainly ; take it,' and they gave 
 it them ; they gave away generously to Messrs, Armstrong 
 200,000?. of public money which they had not the smallest 
 right thus to dispose of. But I am now going to tell you what 
 I think is the most extraordinary story of all. I am going to 
 illustrate to you the system under which the Admiralty make 
 their contracts. You know they have to make large con- 
 tracts for machinery and for ships, and I will tell you some- 
 thing about the way in which they do it. All this is on record 
 iu the Blue-books ; it has all come out. This is how they 
 VOL. II. 
 
194 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 negotiate their contracts. You will reiiieiiiber I meutioued a 
 little while ago two ships, the ' Sans Pareil ' and the ' Victoria/ 
 Well, the Admiralty wanted engines for these ships, and they 
 invited tenders for engines of 8,500 horse-power. Two of the 
 contractors tendered to provide engines of 10,000 horse-power, 
 or an increase of 1,500 horse-power ; and they valued that 
 increased 1,500 horse-power at an increased cost of 8,000^. 
 That did not suit the Admiralty at all. They said, ' You 
 gentlemen do yourselves an injustice ; this increased horse- 
 power which you value at 8,000L is really worth 15,O0OZ. We 
 cannot possibly allow you to rob yourselves in that way, and 
 we will give you for this increased horse-power nearly double 
 what you yourselves value it at.' Now that is a positive fact. 
 More than that : Mr. Wallace, the principal engineer of the 
 Allan Line, who is recognised as one of the most eminent 
 maritime engineers in the country, gave evidence before the 
 Royal Commission that the increased horse-power which the 
 contractors valued at 8,000^. and the Admiralty at 15,000^, was 
 not in reality worth more than 2,000/. And before the tenders 
 were actually accepted, Messrs. Elder, the great shipbuilding 
 firm, came forward and said, * This increased horse-power, which 
 the contractors valued at 8,000/. and you at 15,000/., we will 
 give you for nothing.' Messrs. Elder were told — very much like 
 the other people I alluded to before — that they did not know 
 their own business, that the Admiralty knew it best. That is 
 how business is carried on in a public department of this 
 most practical country, which spends twelve millions a year. I 
 have not done yet with these ships. It has been proved in 
 evidence before the Committee on Admiralty Contracts that 
 they could have been built for 583,000/. each, including all 
 machinery. But the Admiralty seemed to think that was too 
 cheap ; so they accepted contracts which made the ships cost, 
 the one 601,000/., and the other 604,000/. — again throwing 
 away nearly 40,000/. of public money. This, too, is very curious. 
 The two sets of engines required for these ships cost, under the 
 Admiralty arrangements, 111,500/. each. Six months after, 
 tlie Admiralty required facsimiles of the engines, and advertised 
 for tenders, and the lowesttender was 78,000/., a reduction of some 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT lO-5 
 
 33,000/. on the tender which the Admiralty accepted six mouths 
 before. The Admiralty were startled ; they were afraid to take 
 the lowest tender, the difference between the two amounts was 
 so great ; so they took a higher tender, but the higher was only 
 94,000/., or about 18,000/. less than the previous engines had 
 cost — and this was in the short space of six months, and although 
 it was proved that there had been no increase whatever in the 
 value of labour or machinery. 
 
 We pay a large sum of money for engineers at the dock- 
 yards and at the Admiralty; 100,000/. a year for what is called 
 the scientific branch of the Admiralty; and, farther, a con- 
 siderable sum for schools of design and construction. But the 
 committee who found out these things report that there is no 
 jjractical engineering department at the Admiralty with busi- 
 ness capacity competent to design engines, and to bring the 
 most varied knowledge and most recent experience to bear on 
 the construction of engines. In other words, although we 
 spend an enormous sum of money upon this extensive depart- 
 ment, it has been proved before a committee to be unable 
 to produce what any competent firm could not do without, 
 namely, a practical engineer. You are aware that a great quan- 
 tity of rope is used in the Navy. Well, the Admiralty think 
 they can make rope much better than the trade. It was proved 
 in evidence before this same committee that the cost in manu- 
 facture of rope by the Admiralty exceeds that of the trade by 
 25 per cent. In this one department alone it was possible for 
 the Admiralty to save 50,000/. a year. The Koyal Commission 
 presided over by Sir Fitzjames Stephen, which I alluded to in 
 the earlier part of my remarks, makes mention of another matter 
 which I should like to bring before you. We expend a large 
 amount in maintaining at Portsmouth and Woolwich and Green- 
 wich very extensive and perfect chemical laboratories ; yet these 
 perfect and extensive establishments, with all their highly-paid 
 officials, have not yet been, able to devise or invent a single fuse 
 which can be relied upon to burst a shell. At the bombardment 
 of Alexandria a very large proportion of shells fired never burst, 
 and of those now in use in the British service there is not a 
 single fuse certain to burst a shell. I have given you, I think, 
 
196 SPEIKCHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 a pretty full sketch and a pretty fair idea of the nature of the 
 system of expenditure of public money against which I protested 
 as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to which I fell a victim. 
 That is the system which, I deeply regret to say, the Prime 
 Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of 
 State for AVar, badly advised, thought it their duty to maintain ; 
 but that is the system I declined to give increased grants of 
 money to as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I said I would not 
 give the tax-payers' money for the maintenance of so rotten and 
 profligate an expenditure of public money. You know that the 
 end of it was that I had to resign. A pretty storm was raised. 
 All London society, all the London clubs, and nearly all the 
 metropolitan press were up in arms. They said, ' How brutal, 
 how foolish, how unpatriotic, to refuse to vote money to those 
 admirable departments ! ' The opposition was tremendous : 
 there was not a single word or action of mine that was not 
 twisted, distorted, and perverted in order to give the public a 
 false impression of what I was driving at. To such an extent 
 was it carried that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 
 House of Commons, in replying to me when I was urging 
 economy, so far misrepresented my action and motive that he 
 said I wanted to reduce the numbers of the Army and Navy, 
 that I wanted to send ships to sea without guns, and to con- 
 struct guns and to provide no ammunition. In other words, he 
 accused me of wanting to do exactly what this monstrous system 
 does w^hich I wish to demolish and destroy. I must tell you 
 one last anecdote in order to show you what I can only call 
 the audacious humbug of the official ring. You must not think 
 that I am particularly blaming the present Ministry. I do 
 not blame them particularly. I remember a story of a witty 
 and sarcastic Irishman who was playing a game of whist with 
 a bad partner. The partner played so badly that he lost the 
 rubber, and afterwards began to apologise. The Irishman 
 said, ' Oh, my dear fellow, do not apologise ; I am not blaming 
 you, I am only pitying you.' In the same way, I do not 
 blame the present ]\Iinisters. I want to show you the sort of 
 humbug which the official ring think good enough for public 
 consumption. You remember what a fuss was made about 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 197 
 
 coaling stations when I resigned, and how everybody said I 
 had been unwilling to put this commercial empire in a proper 
 state of defence. It was perfectly untrue, and the authors of 
 the accusation knew it was untrue ; but it was made, and ac- 
 cepted very freely, and the authors of the accusation placed 
 themselves in the proud position of being sterling patriots who 
 were determined to place the coaling stations of the empire in 
 a proper state of defence. "Well, there came the conference of 
 colonial delegates, and fortunately the ' Standard ' newspaper 
 published an account, evidently written by some one present, of 
 the proceedings at the conference. The subject of the coaling 
 stations came before the conference, including the question of 
 the protection of King George's Sound. It is situated on one of 
 the most important waterways in the world ; it is on the road 
 to Melbourne ; and the British and Indian commerce that passes 
 by King George's Sound to Australia is valued at 120,000,000?. 
 a year. At the present time it is an important coaling station 
 and harbour, and is absolutely unprotected. With a view to 
 its defence, the War Office said to the colonists : If you will 
 spend 27,000Z. on batteries and barracks, and if you will main- 
 tain a force of artillerymen, we will give you for the defence 
 of this important coaling station and harbour of King George's 
 Sound — what do you think ? — a number of obsolete iron muzzle- 
 loading guns. That was the idea of these sterling patriots of 
 the way in which they were going to defend one of the prin- 
 cipal coaling stations of this great empire. The colonists were 
 extremely indignant, and one got up and said he was perfectly 
 amazed at what he called the ' liberality ' of the offer, but he 
 begged to assure the War Office that the colonists could do the 
 business a great deal better themselves ; and, much ashamed, 
 the War Office withdrew the offer. So much for the defence of 
 the coaling stations.^ 
 
 I frankly confess I have not yet been able to persuade the 
 
 1 How little has been done for the protection of the coaling stations since 
 Lord Randoliah Churchill's resignation may be gathered from the following 
 statement contained in a leading article of the Times, January 3, 1889: — • 
 ' The provision of garrisons capable of utilising fortifications and guns has 
 hardly been begun. Important stations could be named which would be 
 
198 SPEECHRS OF LORD EANDOLPIT CIIUKCHILL 
 
 Government of the enormous evils of this system of expenditure 
 of public money. I cannot get the (lovernment to believe in 
 the virtue of economy or in the possibility of retrenchment. I 
 will only give you one instance of the opposition I have to con- 
 tend against. I suggested after I resigned that there should be 
 a Parliamentary Committee appointed to examine into the esti- 
 mates for the Army and Navy. The Government acceded with 
 some hesitation and rather a wry face. Weeks passed away 
 and the motion for the committee was never made. At last, 
 when the motion for the committee was put down on the paper, 
 it was immediately blocked, so that it could not be brought on. 
 For weeks it remained blocked, and it would have remained so 
 now if it had not been that one day when the Government pro- 
 posed to take as the first business that night the vote for the 
 decoration of Westminster Abbey for the Jubilee service, I got 
 up in the House and asked the Government if they really meant 
 to say that they considered the vote for the decoration of West- 
 minster Abbey more important than a Parliamentary inquiry 
 into the vast naval and military expenditure of the country. 
 When the matter was put in that way they yielded, and they 
 brought on the motion at a time when it could be discussed, 
 which they might well have done weeks before. The motion 
 passed without the smallest opposition, and I thought the com- 
 mittee would be immediately nominated. Not at all. A fort- 
 night elapsed — the Whitsuntide holidays came, and the night 
 before the holidays I got a positive pledge from the First Lord 
 of the Treasury that he would nominate the committee that 
 night. The next morning judge my surprise when I found that 
 the committee had not been nominated, but had been again 
 postponed. This committee, which might have done great 
 work, which might have gone into these things and sifted them, 
 cannot now be usefully appointed this year, as the year is, I am 
 afraid, too far advanced and the committee can hardly in the 
 time which remains to Parliament hold more than twelve or 
 
 absolutely in the power of our enemies in case of war, unless, indeed, the 
 Admiralty, with its hands full of more pressing business, could find the means 
 to detach ships in time to protect them.' Lord Carnarvon has since m^ide even 
 stronger statements about the utter defencelessness of our coaling stations. 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 199 
 
 thirteen sittings.' All this is very discouraging, very disheart- 
 ening, and I feel that in these matters I cannot do anything 
 without the help of the English people. You may ask me 
 fairly enough, you may say, ' What do you propose to do ? ' I 
 have placed before you facts and figures to show you that the 
 British Empire spends 51, 000, 000/. a year on naval and military 
 estabhshments — 31,000,000/. more than the German Empire, 
 and 20,000,000/. more than the French Republic. I have shown 
 you that, compared with these two great Powers, we are in a 
 state of utter and hopeless military and naval defencelessness 
 and want of preparation. You may well say, ' What are we to 
 do ? ' I confess to you that I have not spent many months of 
 thought on the subject without being prepared with some sort 
 of plan. T have a plan ; but I think for the present I will keep 
 it to myself, because I want to see whether the British people 
 are satisfied with the state of things which I have shown to 
 exist, and I want to see whether the British people are prepared 
 to make an effort to alter it. I will say this much, however — 
 that my plan is undoubtedly based upon a radical sweeping 
 and even revolutionary reform of those two great departments 
 of the War Office and Admiralty. Such a reform would result, 
 in a year or eighteen months' time, in our being placed in a 
 state of fairly perfect military and naval preparation, so far as 
 the provision of stores and munitions of war and things of that 
 kind are concerned ; and I think it is a plan that would admit 
 of a reduction of the annual naval and military expenditure by 
 nearer 4,000,000/. than 3,000,000/. of money. But this much 
 is certain — you may take for granted that you will never get 
 economy, however much you are in favour of it, in your public 
 service, until you get into office Ministers who honestly believe 
 in economy. You may be certain of this — that economy and 
 efficiency are inseparable, and that free expenditure and ineffi- 
 ciency are equally inseparable. For it is a most significant 
 fact that all these great scandals I have placed before you have 
 
 ' The evidence taken before this committes contains information of the 
 most important and valuabie character, but unfortunately it is still little 
 known to the public. The condition of the British Army cannot be properly 
 understood without the study of this evidence. 
 
200 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 come to liglit concurrently with large increase of expenditure. 
 No doubt these questions of expenditure are connected with 
 larger questions of finance and of revenue reform. These are 
 matters I will not now touch upon. You know what my 
 opinions are about the Budget.' You know how deeply I re- 
 gretted what I considered the fatal policy of taking from the 
 provision for the reduction of the National Debt a large sum 
 of money for the purpose of concealing extravagance and of 
 making a paltry and a petty remission of taxation. There 
 are three cardinal principles which a Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer is bound to observe in framing his financial policy, all 
 of which this year's Budget violates. They are the principles 
 which regulate, or which ought to regulate, every household in 
 the country ; and the first of them is — keep your expenditure 
 down ; and the second of them is — pay your way. Don't get 
 into debt — that is to say, pay what you have got to pay out of 
 the revenue of the year. And the third of them is — lay by 
 something every year. That laying-by from a national point of 
 view means paying off debt —repaying our National Debt ; and 
 if we want to keep up our credit as a nation we must continue 
 our efforts to repay the National Debt. We can now borrow 
 money at 3 per cent. If we had continued our efforts to repay 
 the National Debt, in a few years we would have been able to 
 borrow money at 2^ per cent, or 2| per cent., which means 
 a large saving to the tax-payer. We now come upon the 
 State for a great many things and we use State credit for a 
 great many reforms. We call upon the State to purchase 
 Irish land. We call upon the credit of the State to help us 
 to make our local improvements or to house our artisans. 
 We call upon the State for the purpose of purchasing allot- 
 ments. We call upon the State for the purpose of redeeming 
 tithes. We call upon the State for the purpose of still further 
 assisting the education of the country. In all these matters the 
 credit of the State is being put to a severer and severer strain. 
 Is not this a bad moment, of all others, to choose for ceasing to 
 pay off the National Debt, by which alone the credit of the 
 nation is maintained ? I have no time to-night to examine 
 ' Mr. Goschen's first Budget. See speeches of April 21 and 25, pp. 165-177. 
 
DEPARTMENTAL EXTEAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT 201 
 
 this more in detail, but I most earnestly hope that the British 
 democracy will see the vital importance of this question, and 
 will not allow the present Irish complication to drive this ques- 
 tion from' their minds. I want the British democracy, which is 
 still young and vigorous, to start fair in money matters and 
 to adhere rigorously to sound principles of financial honesty. 
 Finance is the weak point of democratic government. Look 
 for a moment at the Frenchman. In France you find a pure 
 democracy, universal suffrage, and a republican form of govern- 
 ment, and what else do you find ? Their expenditure under the 
 government of the Empire was eighty-one millions of money. In 
 the sixteen years which have elapsed since the democracy 
 came into existence in France their expenditure has mounted 
 up to 156 millions of money. They have a floating debt of sixty 
 millions added to a national debt of 782 millions, and every 
 year they have a deficit to meet which they meet mostly by 
 loans, and during the last five years the deficits of French 
 Budgets have amounted to not less than eighteen millions of 
 money. I am deeply indebted to you for the patience with which 
 you have listened to me. I have occupied your time at an un- 
 conscionable length, but you do not know the enormous import- 
 ance I attach to this matter. I had earnestly hoped that the 
 Tory party would have identified itself with this great question 
 of economy, of retrenchment, and of radical departmental reform. 
 I had hoped it ; I hope it still. The Tory party has a great 
 and golden opportunity. I a,m told all over London, in all 
 kinds of quarters, ' You have made a mistake : economy is a most 
 unpopular thing. The people care nothing about it ; the mass 
 of the people pay no taxes.' It is in vain that I point out that 
 the labour interest pays at least half the revenue and an enor- 
 mous sum in local rates. Talking in London on this subject is 
 like preaching in the wilderness. I am of opinion that if 
 the great mass of intelligent voters in the towns do not bestir 
 themselves, if they do not put pressure upon their members and 
 upon Parliament, if they do not force this question to an issue, 
 then we shall find ourselves travelling at racing speed along a 
 downward road which, before long, must lead to a tremendous, 
 irreparable, and perhaps fatal catastrophe. 
 
202 SrEECIIES OF LORD RANDOLPir CTIURCIIILL 
 
 OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS. 
 
 House of Commons, July 18, 1887. 
 
 [The following speech was delivered in Committee of Supply 
 during the discussion on Naval Estimates, Vote 6, whicli includes 
 the charges for the maintenance of dockyards. Among other facts 
 l)rought forward in this speech which have never been explained is 
 the large increase in the cost of shipbuilding in the dockyards, in 
 spite of the decrease in the price of material, and the slight decrease 
 in the cost of labour. The immense difference between the estimates 
 for building ships in dockyards and the actual cost of the vessels 
 had not been denied, but no justification has ever been afforded for 
 it. The statements here produced were all derived from official 
 sources, and they serve to illustrate the reckless waste of money 
 which goes on continually in connection with the Navy.] 
 
 IF we look back to the year 1872-73 we shall find that 
 988,562?. was thought sufficient in that year for the main- 
 tenance of the dockyards at home and abroad. The Admiralty 
 now demand 1,732,600/. ; so that the vote has practically doubled. 
 But we cannot consider Vote 6 without considering Vote 11, 
 for new works and machinery in the dockyards, and Vote 11 in 
 tliis year is 553,000/. Combined these two votes amount to 
 2,285,000/. Then, Vote 10, for machinery and ships built by 
 contract, has increased by six times since 1872-73. The Com- 
 mittee will, I think, allow that these are remarkable facts. Let 
 me analyse Vote 6 as it stands in the present year. The 
 Admiralty ask for 1,538,095/. for the work in the home yards. 
 What are they going to give us in return for that expenditure ? 
 They say, ' We are going to spend 702,131/. on new construc- 
 tion, 322,268/. on refitting and repairing, and 106,569/. on 
 manufacturers and materials,' making a total of 1,131,968/. 
 This is what tlie country will get in direct return for its expen- 
 
OUE NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 203 
 
 diture of 1,538,000^. in the home yards. But a considerable 
 balance is left, and this balance is entirely absorbed by salaries 
 and incidental expenses. The incidental charges amount to 
 406,000^. ; that is to say, the incidental charges, which do not 
 come under the heads of labour and material, amount to no 
 less than 31 per cent, on the return of 1,130,000^. which the 
 Admiralty proposes to give. But supposing we add to this 
 expenditure Vote 11, which is for new works and machinery by 
 contract. We then have to add to the incidental charges con- 
 nected with the maintenance of the dockyards not less than 
 304,150Z. ; so that we have altogether about 700,000Z. spent in 
 charges incidental to the maintenance of the dockyards while 
 turning out work valued at 1,100,000L 
 
 If I turn to the expenditure upon foreign yards I find that 
 matters are still more serious. The total estimate for foreign 
 yards is 195,322Z. The direct or effective expenditure on new 
 construction, refitting, and manufactures is put down at 87,659L 
 and the incidental charges amount to 107,663L If I add these 
 incidental charges under Vote 6 to the charges under Vote 11, 
 amounting to 139, 000^., I get a total of 240,000/. spent upon 
 foreign yards, while the return in dn-ect service amounts only 
 to 87,000L These figures disclose a state of things for which 
 a most elaborate defence is demanded from the Admiralty. 
 Examining the details of Vote 6, I find that there are some 
 curious facts as to the cost of building ships in dockyards. In 
 1869-70 the average cost was 55/. per ton ; in 1877-78 it was 
 80/. ; and in 1884-85, 109/. Therefore the cost of buildiug ships 
 in the dockyards has increased since 1870 by more than 50 per 
 cent., and since 1878 it has increased by 29/. per ton. This 
 increase is not accounted for by any increase in. the cost of 
 labour. On unarmoured ships the cost of labour since 1878 has 
 only increased 4/. per ton. On armoured ships the cost has 
 only increased by 61. We thus only get a mean increase of 5/. 
 in the cost of labour, but we get a gross increase of 29/. per ton 
 in the cost of building. The price of material will not account 
 for the increase, for there has been an immense fall since 1874 
 in the prices of nearly all structural materials. Between 1874 
 and 1883, since which prices have not risen, iron plates fell in 
 
204 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 price from 19/. Ss. id. to 187. 15.?.; pig lead fell 36 per cent.; 
 zinc, 43 per cent. ; mill coals, 23 per cent. ; liemp, 15 per cent. ; 
 copper, 21 per cent. ; and red pine, 50 per cent. Yet, notwith- 
 standing this fall in prices since the time when ships were built 
 at 50/. or 60Z. a ton, there has been a large increase. That 
 is a point on which, I think, the House is entitled to some explan- 
 ation from the Admiralty. I desire, on this subject, to read an 
 extract from an article in the May number of the ' Westminster 
 Review ' — an article of great ability. A more moderate and 
 temperate and wise statement of the matter I do not think I 
 have ever read. The article says : — 
 
 * If tlie period 1873-74 is compared with that of 188G-87, it will 
 be found that the items in the Navy Estimates that are liable to be 
 affected by prices were two and three-quarter millions more in the 
 latter, or cheap, than they were in the former, or dear, times. It 
 would appear that there has been an increase in the latter year of 
 nearly 2,000,000Z. in the item of " machinery and ships built by 
 private contract." If this had been the only increase — in other words, 
 if the work formerly largely done in the dockyards had been trans- 
 ferred to private naval constructors — there would have been little 
 reason to find fault, since there has been a large consensus of opinion 
 in favour of such a transfer on the part of high authorities and 
 responsible statesmen. But this increase has proceeded jjari passu 
 with one of 500,000?. in the dockyards and naval yards, and of 
 nearly 300,000/. in naval stores, for which there appears to be no 
 adequate equivalent given. After every possible allowance has been 
 made that the most indulgent and reasonable of censors can allow, 
 after all the difficulties that confront the Admiralty have been fully 
 extenuated, after the necessarily more cautious and circumlocution 
 ary processes common to Governmental work have been taken into 
 consideration, there still remains a formidable and apparently un- 
 answerable indictment lying at the door of those who are I'esponsible 
 for our naval expenditure. The charges of wasteful, inefficient, and 
 inadequate administration have been proved to the hilt, not by the 
 impersonal or irresponsible criticisms of the public press, of anony- 
 mous pamphleteers, or of foreign rivals, but by the evidence of 
 Admiralty officials themselves, and by the Avell-considered and 
 weighty deliberations of successive committees appointed to inquire 
 into the subject. Of such committees there are two whose recent 
 reports are entitled to special consideration — the first being the com- 
 mittee on the l)ui]ding and repair of ships ; the second the committees 
 
OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 205 
 
 appointed to inquire into the Admiralty and dockyard administra 
 tion and expenditure. They reported in October 1884 that the 
 Admiralty system failed to show the entire cost of labour on a dock- 
 yard-built ship ; that the whole question of incidental charges was 
 so obscure as to render unreliable any comparison between the cost 
 of shipbuilding in public and in private yards ; that the incomplete 
 and meagre character of the specifications furnished by the Admi- 
 ralty to contractors not only increased the time during which ships 
 were under construction, but also materially enhanced the cost of 
 the work ; that the time occupied in building a ship under contract 
 compared favourably with the period of construction in a dockyard, 
 the whole tendency of contract work being to avoid delay ; that a 
 heavy expenditure was incurred in refitting ships that have com- 
 pleted their commission when it was really not required ; and that 
 the Admiralty would do well to follow more largely the practice 
 followed in the merchant navy of adding new ships to their fleet in 
 preference to incurring a heavy expenditure on old ones. . . . They 
 found that alike in the general principles of management and in the 
 merest matters of detail the system was inefiicient ; that in spite of 
 enormous sums voted for machineiy and works " the tools employed 
 were of an obsolete character, which must necessarily increase the 
 cost of the work " ; that large sums of money were wasted in patch- 
 ing up old ships when a very little more, or perhaps even less, would 
 provide entirely new vessels ; that ships were over and over again 
 stripped and " torn up " when about to be placed in a new com- 
 mission, although no such expenditure was required ; that there was 
 a want of touch between the several heads of departments coinci- 
 dently with too much centralisation of detail, which caused " delay 
 and unnecessary correspondence " — that the whole administrative 
 arrangements were, in fact, such as no private firm or individual 
 would be likely, even if he could afford it, to tolerate for a moment. 
 But more still remained behind. Two years after the committee on 
 the building and repair of ships had presented their report, another 
 of these interesting, but, it is to be feared, absolutely unheeded, docu- 
 ments was submitted to my Lords of the Admiralty, in which the 
 committee on dockyard expenditure reported that " the supervision 
 of labour is unsatisfactory, and that idleness and incompetence are 
 practically unchecked " ; that " the want of co-operation between 
 the superintendent and the ofticers acts unfavourably upon the cost 
 of works in progress " ; and " we can imagine no more unsatisfactory 
 state of aflfairs, nor one more calculated to subvert all effectual con- 
 trol over the men " ; that *' very serious inconvenience and waste of 
 labour are experienced both in procuring articles from contractors 
 
206 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 and ill drnwing tlieni from stores " ; that " the condition into which 
 dockyard business li;is been gradually drifting is, and has been for 
 some years, entirely underrated in the Admiralty Department, and, 
 we greatly regret to add, to the very serious detriment of the 
 service '"' ; that there is " no systematic or concurrent financial con- 
 trol over dockyard expenditure " ; that " duplication of accounts, 
 over-employment of clerks, preparation of voluminous, and in some 
 cases useless returns, and defective audit" are "defects common to 
 all yards and to all branches of work therein " ; and that as regards 
 management " the system is seriously defective, and does not secure 
 a fair return for the vast outlay annually absorbed therein." ' 
 
 Now what I want to know is, what answer the Admiralty 
 have to make to these charges. The Admiralty have told us 
 that they cannot make any reduction in the expenditure, and 
 that any demand for a reduction is intolerable and unjustifiable. 
 But what have the Admiralty done with regard to the charges 
 brought against them in the two reports a summary of which I 
 have just read? I now desire to lay before the House a few 
 figures with a view to comparing the cost of dockyard ships and 
 ships built by contract. Taking for this purpose the ' Constance 
 and the ' Carysfort,' which are recent ships, it appears that the 
 ' Constance,' which was built in the Chatham Dockyard, cost 
 114,886/. for her hull, and 36,000^. for her engines; making a 
 total 150,886L, or 90/. 9s. M. per ton for her hull, and 15/. os. U. 
 per ton for her engines. The ' Carysfort,' built by contract at 
 Glasgow, cost for her hull 98,480/. and for her engines 29,948/., 
 making a total of 128,428/., or 77/. lOs. 10c/. per ton for her hull 
 and 13/. 5s. per ton for her engines, which shows a difference of 
 22,458/. in favour of Glasgow upon the whole cost, of 13/. per 
 ton on the hull, and of 1/. 18s. 4c/. per ton on the engines. Not- 
 withstanding these striking facts the ' Constance ' and the ' Carys- 
 fort appear in the estimates as each costing 123,000/. ; thus 
 making it appear that contract ships and dockyard ships cost 
 the same price. I hoj^e the Admiralty will give us some ex- 
 planation of this. 
 
 I proceed to the case of larger ships — the ' Camperdown,' 
 built in Portsmouth Dockyard, and the ' Benbow,' built by con- 
 tract on the Thames. The original estimate for the ' Camper- 
 down ' was : direct charges, 668,947/. ; indirect charges, 93,880/. 
 
OUE NAVY AND DOCKYAKDS 207 
 
 —total, 762,827^. The estimate for the ' Benbow' was 6G5,718^., 
 and dockyard work 43,83U., making a total of 709,559/. ; thus 
 showing a difference of 53,000/. in favour of the contract ship. 
 A change having been made in the designs as to the armament 
 of the ' Benbow,' an extra expenditure of 50,000/. was incurred ; 
 but even with this additional expenditure, which was not fairly 
 incurred, the latest estimate for the ' Benbow ' was only 762,000/. 
 as against 770,000/. for the-' Camperdown,' which is 14',000/. in 
 favour of the contract ship. Then take the case of the ' Immor- 
 talite,' built at Chatham Dockyard, and the ' Australia,' built by 
 contract. The direct estimate of the ' Immortalite ' was 278,720/., 
 and the indirect charges were 45,194/., making a total of 
 323,914/. In the case of the ' Australia,' the contract ship, the 
 direct estimate was 245,458/., with 20,955/. for dockyard work 
 and indirect charges 5,966/., making a total of 272,379/., showing 
 a difference in favour of the dockyard ship of 51,335/. What 
 does the Admiralty say to that ? Why in the case of three 
 ditierent classes of ships should the building cost more than in 
 private dockyards ? One reason is that the Admiralty never 
 know their own mind. They never have the smallest idea when 
 they lay down a ship how much they are going to spend 
 upon it. 
 
 I will give the Committee some examples of this. In the 
 case of the ' Dreadnought,' in 1871 the Admiralty came to Parlia- 
 ment and asked it to vote 269,000/., and Parliament voted that 
 sum for the building of the ship. The final estimates, about 
 five years afterwards, came to 445,000/. ; the actual cost was 
 491,000/., or nearly double the sum which the Admiralty told 
 Parliament when they induced Parliament to vote the money. 
 Now take the case of the ' I'emeraire,' a little later. The original 
 estimate upon which Parliament consented to her being laid 
 down — (recollect these are not supposed to be mere phantom 
 estimates ; if you tell Parliament, ' I intend to spend so much on 
 this ship,' and far more is spent, then Parliament is deluded and 
 deceived, and all Parliamentary control becomes an absolute 
 farce) — the original estimate of the ' Temeraire ' was 281,000/., 
 the final estimates 356,000/., and the actual cost 375,000/., show- 
 ing an excess of 90,000/. over the original estimate. In the case 
 
208 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 of tlie ' Inflexible ' the orig-inal estimate was 396,000Z., the final 
 estimate 007,000/., and the actual cost 025,000/. ; showing an 
 excess over the estimate submitted to Parliament of 229,000/. 
 Take a smaller class of ships. The original estimate for the 
 'Shannon' was 108,000/., the final estimate 218,000/., and the 
 actual cost 250,000/., or an excess of 82,000/. Therefore, even 
 in the case of a ship like the ' Shannon,' the Admiralty cannot 
 estimate the cost of building- her. Take, again, the ' Bacchante,' 
 a well-known vessel. The original estimate was 107,000/., the 
 final estimate 152,000/., and the actual cost 104,000/., making 
 an excess of 57,000/. What I want to know is this — what 
 would become of any private firm that made such mistakes 
 as these in its calculations ? What would become of such a 
 firm when it found that the cost of building a ship was exactly 
 double their estimate ? It would go into bankruptcy. But the 
 Admiralty cannot go into bankruptcy, because they have a 
 deluded Parliament to draw upon ad libitum, and these mistakes, 
 which would ruin both the character and credit of any private 
 firm, are passed over by Parliament, and the Admiralty submit 
 estimates they know to be illusory. Again, look at even the 
 estimates of the amount they say they are going to spend in 
 labour upon ships. The original estimate for labour upon the hull 
 of the 'Imperieuse' was 147,000/., and the final cost 210,000/., 
 or an excess of 03,000/. ; in the case of the ' Warspite ' the figures 
 were 147,000/. and 202,000/. ; in that of the 'Mersey,' 02,000/. 
 and 98,000/. ; in that of the ' Severn,' 02,000/. and 90,000/. ; of 
 the ' Curlew,' ] 9,000/. and 20,000/. ; and of the ' Melita,' 19,000/. 
 and 23,000/. Therefore the Committee will see that not even 
 in the case of very small ships, where one would think there was 
 no .difficulty in estimating the amount, was it in the power of 
 the Admiralty to ascertain what they ought to pay, 
 
 I want to show the Committee the utterly untrustworthy and 
 deceptive character of the Admiralty statements contained in the 
 estimates submitted to Parliament. In the appendices you will 
 find a certain amount of labour promised by the Admiralty to 
 be expended on certain classes of ships, some to be advanced and 
 others to be completed. But those statements are not worth the 
 paper they are written on. All which is put in the appendices 
 
OUE NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 209 
 
 escapes the control of the Auditor-General altogether.' The 
 Committee will be surprised to hear this. We have a Committee 
 on Public Accounts, but the only check on our Dockyard and 
 Arsenal expenditure is a return called the expense accounts, 
 which is never issued for the Navy until two years, and the Army 
 three years, after the expenditure. That is the only possible check 
 on the departments and the only means of finding out how the 
 departments spend the money. Is not that a disgra,cefal state 
 of things for the country ? I am enabled to furnish some de- 
 tails of the manufacturing establishments, which show the utter 
 absence of Parliamentaiy control. Take the case of the ' Dread- 
 nought.' She was commenced in 1870. Building was suspended 
 for two years, and begun again in 1872, and the Admiralty 
 told Parliament that they intended to spend in that year for 
 labour and material upon her 27,000Z. As a matter of fact, what 
 they did spend was only 11,000?. Having got Parliament to 
 vote them money to advance the ' Dreadnought ' by one-tenth 
 of her total cost, they only advanced her by one-sixtieth. In 
 1878 they told Parliament that they were going to spend 
 12,000Z. in labour only; as a matter of fact, they spent 26,000?. 
 In 1873 the Admiralty informed Parliament they intended to 
 spend 28,000?. in labour upon the ' Temeraire ' — that is to say, 
 to advance her by one-fifth of her total cost. As a matter of 
 fact, they only spent 5,618?., not even a fraction of her total 
 cost. In 1874 they told Parliament they intended to spend 
 36,000?. on the ' Temeraire ; ' they only spent 24,000?. In the 
 case of the 'Shannon' in 1873, the estimate for labour was 
 15,000?., the actual expenditure only 6,00.0?. In 1874 the 
 figures were 2 7, 000?. and 42,000?. ; in 1875, 26,000?. and 35,000?. ; 
 and in 1876, 11,000?. and 16,000?. In 1877, apparently, the 
 Admiralty did not intend to spend any money upon the ' Shan- 
 non,' but they spent 5,500?. upon her. This shows the utter 
 uselessness of the Admiralty telling Parliament, ' We will 
 advance a ship so much.' The money is given to them and 
 then it is spent for other purposes — money that is voted for 
 repairs is spent upon building, and vice versa. It may be right ; 
 
 ' The Admiralty, iu 1888, altered their form of estimates in order to meet 
 this criticism. 
 
210 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHUKCIIILL 
 
 but I contend that, unless we are going to make the whole thing 
 like the commonest farce, the estimates submitted to Parliament 
 should be adhered to, and Parliament should know that the 
 money it has voted for a certain purpose will be devoted to that 
 purpose and not spent as the Admiralty choose. 
 
 I pass to another point. I wish the Committee to see how 
 utterly useless is our alleged Parliamentary control. Why is 
 it that in the case of the 3,000,000Z. or 4,000,000/. we spend 
 under Vote 6, or the 3,000,000/. or 4,000,000/. we spend under 
 Votes 11, 12, and 13 for the Army, we have absolutely no audit, 
 no Parliamentary control or knowledge, until three or four years 
 after the money has been spent ? The Committee, perhaps, has 
 no idea of that, but it is so, and that is exactly what must be 
 put a stop to. Let me refer to the question of incidental 
 charges. I want to compare them with the labour charged 
 direct to ships and other effective services. In 1880 the indirect 
 charges for the home dockyards were 602,000/., and the direct 
 charges for labour in connection with ships were 884,000/. — that 
 is to say, the indirect charges amount to 70 per cent, of the 
 direct charges. I do not believe any country in the world can 
 show such bloated charges as those. The labour charges have 
 gone up from 864,000/. in 1880 to 1,152,000/. in 1885— an 
 increase of 288,000/. What I want to ask the First Lord of the 
 Admiralty is this. In his memorandum he contrived to hint, if 
 he did not actually state, that he looked forward to a large 
 reduction in the expenditure upon shipbuilding, because many 
 contracts would fall in. Does the Admiralty intend to make a 
 corresponding reduction in the indirect charges ? Let us analyse 
 some of those charges. I must tell the Committee that it is 
 quite impossible to find the total cost of any dockyard either 
 at home or abroad. I do not believe it is possible for any mem- 
 ber of the Admiralty, or for the cleverest clerk in the Admiralty, 
 to find out the total cost of any dockyard within a good many 
 thousands of pounds. At Portsmouth the direct vote for labour 
 was 374,000/., while the incidental charges for the establishment 
 amounted to 260,000/., or 70 per cent. ; at Devonport the direct 
 vote for labour was 277,000/. ; the incidental charges, 182,000/., 
 or 65 per cent.; Chatham — direct vote, 272,000/.; incidexital 
 
OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 211 
 
 charges, 164,000^, or 59 per cent. ; Sheerness — direct vote, 
 95,000/. ; incidental charges, 75,000L, or 78 per cent. ; Pem- 
 broke — direct vote, 133,000/. ; incidental charges, 56,500/., or 
 42 percent.; Haulbowline, 171/.; incidental charges, 4,500/., or 
 2,572 per cent. The Admiralty have expended altogether 
 526,000/. in the extension of Haulbowline, and the expenditure 
 has not ceased. I have no hesitation in saying that the whole 
 of that half-million has been absolute and total waste, and that 
 if we had taken that money and expended it in real public works 
 in Ireland we would have done fifty times more good than we 
 are likely to do as regards the naval expenditure at this yard. 
 (Lord G. Hamilton shook his head in dissent.) I am not the 
 least bit deterred by the dissent of the First Lord from that 
 statement ; I assert that the Haulbowline dockyard is a fair 
 instance of profligate waste, and that the expenditure upon it 
 ought to be stopped. The First Lord takes up this position. 
 He says: 'We can make no economy; we must keep all our 
 expenditure going ; it is all justifiable ; and though the taxes are 
 high and people crying out, every penny of these thirteen millions 
 we must have for the Navy ; ' and yet here we find going on at 
 Haulbowline expenditure which is the most utter waste. As re- 
 gards the foreign yards, in the first place, the Admiralty do not 
 separate the incidental charges from the labour in detail. For 
 some reason or other they conceal that, and we can only get them 
 in the total. They give them, however, in connection with Hong 
 Kong and Malta. Now, the labour vote at Hong Kong was 
 10,000/., while the incidental charges were 29,000/., or 300 per 
 cent. ; at Malta the labour vote was 48,000/. and the incidental 
 charges 63,000/., or 133 per cent. If we take all the foreign 
 yards — Antigua, Bermuda, Cape of Good Hope, Esquimalt, 
 Gibraltar, Halifax, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Malta, Sierra Leone, 
 Sydney, and Trincomalee — we find a total vote of 80,000/., for 
 labour, with incidental charges amounting to 213,000/., or 266 
 per cent. Now, make any allowance you like as to keeping up 
 certain expenditure, and still I defy any one to say that that scale 
 of incidental charges is not grossly extravagant. There is one 
 remarkable feature in connection with establishment charges in 
 the home yards, and that is the item of salaries. I particularly 
 
 p 2 
 
212 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPII CnURCHILL 
 
 invite the First Lord to explain how it is that the sahiries of 
 superintendents, oflScers, and clerks, which were 101,000Z. in 
 1878-9, rose to 174,000/. in 1885-6— an increase of 73,000/. ; 
 and if he pleads that he cannot answer for those years, I will put 
 another question — namely, how is it that the salaries of super- 
 intendents, officers, and clerks have increased from 140,000/. 
 in 1884-5 to 172,000/. in 1887-8? And it is very curious 
 that whereas our 140,000/. worth of salaries superintended 
 1,200,000/. worth of wages to labour, we now require 172,000/. 
 in salaries to superintend 1,300,000/. of wages — i.e. an increase 
 of 100,000/. in wages to labour requires an increase of 30,000/. 
 a year to superintendents, officers, and clerks. That is a remark- 
 able state of things, and one that the First Lord will find diffi- 
 culty in explaining satisfactorily. 
 
 Let me take the Committee to Sheerness Dockyard. An 
 enormous sum of money has been expended on Chatham and 
 Portsmouth. In their extension there has been expended 
 4,245,000/., and, clearly, it was intended by the Admiralty that 
 when these extensions were completed Sheerness would be shut 
 up. But is Sheerness, which shows 78 per cent, for incidental 
 charges, going to be shut up ? Not for a moment. On Vote 
 1 1 there is taken for new w^orks at Sheerness 8,000/., for repairs 
 4,735/., for new machinery 738/., and for new machinery by con- 
 tract 2,200/. — in all, 15,673/, for new works and machinery this 
 year, although we have spent an enormous sum on Chatham 
 and Portsmouth on the understanding that Sheerness was to be 
 closed. The total cost of Sheerness this year with these new 
 w^orks amounts to 100,000/., and it would be as easy for the Ad- 
 miralty to save that 100,000/. to-morrow as for the First Lord of 
 the Admiralty to rise in his place. And this is the First Lord 
 (pointing to Lord G. Hamilton) who said he could not make 
 one single economy in the Navy Estimates! I assert, with- 
 out the smallest fear of contradiction, that you might by mere 
 application for three weeks reduce the gross charge for inci- 
 dental expenses by at least 100,000/., and, by careful and pro- 
 longed watching, by more. I must point out that by the 
 proposal to shut up Haulbowline and Sheerness you might not 
 only save a great deal of money, but you might do a very good 
 
OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 213 
 
 tiling by getting rid of the buildings and land. Now, let me 
 ask the First Lord to explain some of these sources of waste. I 
 learn that during 1885-6 in the dockyards it was thought 
 necessary to expend 14,000Z. on cable chains and moorings, 
 22,9o4L for hawsers and rope for guys, and 2,477L for yard 
 boats. I am told by those who know that this is a very large 
 sum of money. I have been told that there are eight or nine 
 lighters which are very rarely used, two men and a boy being 
 kept on each lighter for the jourpose of taking care of it. That 
 is the kind of thing which goes on under the head of these 
 incidental charges, and they are matters which the Admiralty 
 cannot possibly defend. The First Lord of the Admiralty will 
 perhaps explain another matter connected with the incidental 
 charges. We maintain a laboratory at Greenwich costing 1 ,000/. 
 a year, but for some reason the Admiralty thought it necessary to 
 erect another laboratory of an expensive character at Portsmouth, 
 costing 2,350/., and maintained at a cost of 750/. a year. That 
 is the way the money goes. Have the Admiralty ever con- 
 sidered the number of depots on the Soutli American station 
 and the North American station comparatively ? Is the 
 Admiralty aware that for the last few j^ears all the depots on 
 the South American station have been done away with, and that 
 the vessels on this station draw stores direct from England ? 
 For the North American station, apparently, a different principle 
 prevails. The Admiralty maintain at a very considerable cost 
 three depots on that station — Halifax, Bermuda, and Jamaica. 
 I think the Admiralty will hardly deny that one depot for the 
 North American station would be ample, and we might save 
 money on the others. These are economies which might be 
 made if you were bent upon economy. I turn to another subject. 
 An enormous amount of money is spent on chaplains and 
 schools in the dockyards. A most ridiculous amount is spent 
 altogether on education in the Navy — 2,400/. is spent every year 
 for chaplains at Chatham, and 2,980/. every year for schools. I 
 can conceive that at the dockyards of Portsmouth, Chatham, 
 Devonport, and elsewhere there must be a large suiidIus of 
 clergymen who would discharge the religious duties required at 
 a very much lower figure ; and as far as the schools are concerned, 
 
214 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 there must be a large number of elementary schools to which 
 the dockj^ard children might go. But some of the dockyard 
 schools are for higher education — for engineers and students — 
 and this raises an important question. The system of education 
 pursued in the Navy is a remarkable one. An enormous sum 
 of money is spent on the education of shipwrights and others 
 who may rise from the ranks in the dockyards up to high 
 positions in the departments. It is an extremely extravagant 
 method. We maintain for that purpose dockyard schools and 
 Greenwich College, which receives 5,500/. a year. We make 
 all kinds of allowances to instructors for apprentices, amounting 
 to 5,000/. ; and having educated several hundred apprentices a 
 year in order to get a very few good, we leave them at perfect 
 liberty to seek service in foreign countries or in private yards. 
 It happens, therefore, that after the country has spent a large 
 sum of money in educating these students they instantly leave 
 us and go either to the enemy or to private enterprise. Is that 
 not an absurd and extravagant system ? If any one of us went 
 to Sir William Armstrong's or to Whitworth's for scientific 
 education we should have to pay a large premium. This is 
 often a source of profit to these firms ; but the Navy pursues 
 the reverse method : it pays persons in order to teach them 
 the science of shipbuilding. That is a system which is suscep- 
 tible of large reform. The whole method of education in the 
 Navy must be reconsidered, and if we do that we must save a 
 large sum of money. That, however, is perhaps a larger ques- 
 tion than may properly be bi^ought in to be examined on this 
 vote. But, speaking generally, besides Greenwich College we 
 maintain the ' Britannia' at 22,000/. a year, plus 15,000/. contri- 
 bution ; we maintain the ' Marlborough ' and the school at Devon- 
 port for engineer students at a cost of 13,393/. and 3,000/. con- 
 tribution. The whole question of Navy education, I think, 
 ought to be carefully examined by the Admiralty, and is worthy 
 of being examined by the House. 
 
 I have one more remark to make on this dockyard vote, and 
 it is this : I want the explanation of the Admiralty as to the 
 system of spending money on ships that have been completed. 
 I have found in the estimates some curious instances in regard 
 
OUR NAVY AND DOCKYARDS 215 
 
 to sums spent on repairs up to March 1886. I find, for instance, 
 that in 1881-2 the ' Constance ' was built at a cost of 123,000^., 
 and up to March 1886 you had spent 8,000/. on her. In 
 1879-80 the 'Carysfort' was built at a cost of 123,000L, and 
 12,556/. was spent on her. In 1878-9 the 'Comus' was built 
 at a cost of 123,000/., the sum of 47,595/. being spent on her 
 to keep her going. What is the meaning of such sums being 
 spent on repairs? The ' Shah,' built in 1876-7, cost originally 
 249,984/., and 40,000/. has been spent on repairs connected 
 with a ship which you are not going to employ. The ' Leander,' 
 built in 1885-6, was completed for 191,000/., but in the same 
 year the Admiralty spent 8,947/. on her. What is the reason ? 
 The ship is delivered fully completed, but it is found necessary, 
 either with regard to ships built by contract or ships built in 
 the dockyards, to be continually spending vast sums of money 
 on those ships. I was told by a military gentleman from 
 Malta that the ' Carysfort ' was redocked and refitted at immense 
 cost, although my informant said that the captain had declared 
 that she did not require a penny to be spent upon her. Take 
 some other ships, and see what was spent up to March 31, 
 1886. The ' Agincourt '—first cost 483,000/., and there has 
 been spent on her for repairs 202,000/. The ' Northumberland ' 
 — first cost 490,000/. ; 201,000/. spent in repairs — ships, I believe, 
 perfectly useless for fighting purposes. The ' Penelope ' — another 
 useless ship — first cost 196.000/. ; 94,000/. has been spent on 
 repairs. The 'Iron Duke '—first cost 280,000/. ; 186,000/. spent 
 on repairs. The ' Swiftsure '—first cost 267,000/. ; 102,000/. 
 spent on repairs ; and so on with the smaller ships. These 
 are the matters connected with this vote which I want the Com- 
 mittee to consider. Let me briefly summarise the points — the 
 form in which the estimates are brought before Parliament is 
 not only perfectly inconvenient for Parliament to get any know- 
 ledge as to what they are spending, but deliberately calculated 
 and contrived to keep out the Controller and Auditor-General ; 
 the number of dockyards at home and abroad add the enormous 
 incidental charges connected with them ; the utter unreliability 
 of the estimates as regards ships, whether as regards the final 
 cost or the final estimate as compared with the original ; the 
 
21 n SPHECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 useless amouut spent on repairs and alterations ; the amount of 
 money whicli is spent in the maintenance of foreign yards 
 which might be well closed — those are the matters which have 
 been brought forward as bearing out in every word the condem- 
 nation, the strong and deliberate condemnation, passed upon the 
 system pursued by the Admiralty, by the two Committees which 
 I quoted at the beginning of my speech. I trust the First Lord 
 of the Admiralty will not put these remarks, thoroughly authenti- 
 cated and well-founded, aside by merely trusting to his official 
 majority. If he does not attach importance to them, the country 
 does. The country will not go on throwing millions of money into 
 the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty to have them ex- 
 pended in the Avay in which the official documents show they are 
 expended. Let him show what he has done to produce improve- 
 ment in those branches of the service ; or if he does not, I do 
 earnestly implore the Committee to refuse absolutely to proceed 
 with this vote until the Admiralty have furnished the most 
 ample and complete information. 
 
217 
 
 ECONOMY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. 
 Whitby, September 23, 1887. 
 
 [At the close of the session of 1887 Lord Randolph Churchill 
 attended a meeting at Whitby, and reviewed the work which had 
 been done. He expressed strong approval of most of the measures 
 of the Government, but there is space here only for that portion of 
 the speech which dealt with the question of retrenchment and honest 
 administration. ] 
 
 BEFORE concluding my review of last session I sliould like 
 to mention one feature — a source of especial gratification 
 to myself. I mean the strong disposition which was manifested 
 on the part of Parliament to initiate and sustain a vigorous 
 campaign against the extravagant expenditure of public money. 
 The strong disposition which I noticed in the House of Commons 
 to carry on with will, vigour, and resolution that great work — 
 the greatest, I think, of all the works of the present dnj — the 
 work of economy and retrenchment, of radical retrenchment and 
 reform in our public service, will, I hope, continue. I have 
 noticed that disposition since the beginning of the session in all 
 quarters of the House. I have even detected it in Government 
 circles. For years you have had talk about economy ; for years 
 you have had lamentations over the growth of public expendi- 
 ture; for years you have had promises of retrenchment and 
 reform ; but not until now have you been treated to performance. 
 I cannot say that much marked progress has yet been made ; 
 the work has only just begun ; but I would look for great results 
 next session. You must recollect that this edifice of national 
 extravagance has been the result of years of neglect. It cannot 
 be thrown down by mere shouting or in a moment. It must 
 be demolished bit by bit and taken down stone by stone ; and 
 
218 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH OHURCHILL 
 
 a new building must be erected in its place. All this will be 
 undoubtedly a work of time, and I would not look for marked 
 results before another year has gone by. I will not now enter 
 into this question in detail. I will only say that the work of 
 public economy has been well begun, and that, as far as I can 
 judge, the labourers are many for the work, and that they come 
 from all parties in the State. I permit myself on this subject 
 at the present time two observations only. In the first place, I 
 would observe that the action which I took with regard to this 
 question last December — action which at the time was freely 
 criticised and severely condemned in all quarters — if looked at 
 now and judged now solely from the point of view of economy, 
 and within the limits of the question of economy, excluding 
 disturbing elements, has, it must be admitted by all reasonable 
 persons, been justified, and more than justified, not only with re- 
 gard to the grounds upon which it was based, but with regard 
 to the results, general and particular, which have followed, and 
 are still following, from that action. But to that remark, 
 though I have made it, I do not attach much importance, 
 because, whether people admit it or do not admit it, nobody 
 in the w^orld will ever persuade me that I was in error on that 
 point. But my second observation is, I think, of more import- 
 ance. People talk a great deal about hard times. They talk a 
 great deal about the depression of trade, commerce, and agri- 
 culture. They talk a great deal about the intolerable pressure of 
 high taxation. All that they say is probably very true, and you 
 have a great many remedies preached to you for this most diffi- 
 cult and disturbing state of things. There are some who preach 
 to you of Protection, There are others who preach to you 
 of a kind of modified Protection which they call Fair Trade. 
 There are others who preach to you bimetallism, and who say 
 that if the State were to fix by law the relative value of silver 
 and gold prices would rise. I will not discuss those remedies at 
 the present moment, because to every one of them there is a 
 fatal objection, and that is, that any of those remedies, if proposed, 
 would excite the most ferocious party controversy and the most 
 protracted party opposition, and consequently little progress 
 would be made with them in Parliament and little result would 
 
ECONOMY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE 219 
 
 follow for a very long* space of time, even if they were adopted. 
 That is my objection to any of those remedies. But of this I 
 am perfectly certain, that if I had my way, and if I could see 
 great departments of the State filled by men who had thoroughly 
 at heart and who thoroughly believed in and were convinced of 
 a possibility of economy, I could make more millions for the 
 service of the State, either for remission of taxation or for meet- 
 ing legitimate expenditure, out of economy, retrenchment, and 
 departmental reform than any Protectionist, Fair Trader, Bi- 
 metallist, or any other metallist could extract, no matter how 
 ingenious might be the remedy which he might persuade Parlia- 
 ment to adopt ; and more than that: I would guarantee on the 
 most recognised and widely accepted principles of finance that 
 you would have 50 per cent, more efiiciency in your public 
 services than you have at the present moment. The advan- 
 tages of my method are obvious, because not only would it, 
 if adopted by Government and Parliament, bring prompt and 
 speedy relief to an overtaxed and overburdened nation, but it 
 would excite no party contention. On the contrary, it would 
 excite the co-operation, or at any rate the friendly rivaliy, of all 
 parties in the State. 
 
 What is the general character of the public services of this 
 country at the present moment ? The great feature and cha- 
 racteristic of it is this, and it is one of which you may well be 
 proud — that we employ three men to do the work of one, and 
 we pay each of the three men at least one-third higher salary 
 than we need pay to one man who would do the work which 
 the three pretend to do. We retire men prematurely on high 
 pensions at a time when they are perfectly capable of doing 
 good service to the State. That is the general feature and 
 characteristic of the public service of Great Britain, supposed 
 to be the most practical country in the world. I particularly 
 allude to the Pension List, because the Pension List of this 
 country has reached proportions which make it positively no- 
 thing less than a national scandal. The Pension List of this 
 country is a list amounting to, I believe, over six millions of 
 money a year ; six millions of money in mere pensions ; od. in 
 the income tax — imagine what that is ! With those six millions. 
 
220 SPEKCTTES OF LOUD KANDOLPIT CHURCHILL 
 
 ill about forty years we might pay off the whole of the National 
 Debt, which costs us twenty-six millions a year at the present 
 moment. This gives an idea of the pressure of the Pension 
 List upon the people, and of what vital importance it is that 
 the Pension List should be cut down and kept down. But 
 to go back to our public services. If the State purchases 
 articles for its own use by contract, it generally pays from 20 
 to 40 per cent, more than a private individual would do. If 
 the State thinks it will manufactui'e the articles it wants by 
 itself, the cost for manufacturing is about double what the 
 private manufacturer would incur. These are no mere asser- 
 tions — they have been proved over and over again by speeches, 
 committees, and inquiries of all sorts and kinds — they are un- 
 deniable facts ; and with all this ludicrous and shameful ex- 
 travagance in public expenditure, it is admitted by all, at the 
 same time, that we have not real efficiency in our public 
 services and our public departments. I do not know Avhether 
 you agree with me, but I am strongly of opinion that the time 
 for this state of things has gone by. I perceive that this 
 democratic Parliament does not intend to tolerate this state 
 of things any more. Nothing ever gave me greater satisfaction 
 and delight, nothing gave me greater amusement, than to notice 
 during the course of last session the impatience and utter in- 
 credulity with which members of Parliament received the usual 
 stereoty|3ed official answers with regard to questions of expen- 
 diture and administration. It was obvious that the House of 
 Commons were not going to content themselves with the an- 
 swers, the stereotyped answers, which former Parliaments had 
 been content with. Former Parliaments used to regard those 
 answers as if they were gospel. But the present democratic 
 Parliament has a tendency to regard them as fictions founded 
 upon fact ; and a most useful effect is being produced on the 
 public departments. The permanent officials are, I believe, 
 learning a very useful lesson that they are not gifted with 
 infallibility, and that they are not to continue to regard the 
 House of Commons with that air of superiority with which they 
 have been accustomed to regard that House as a body, and 
 members of Parliament as individuals. They are learning that 
 
ECONOMY IN TH1-: PUBLIC SERVICE 221 
 
 tliey are not masters of the House of Commons — that as servants 
 of the Crown, and indirectly the servants of tlie House of Com- 
 mons, their duty is to carry out the policy of the House of 
 Commons, and that the House of Commons is not disposed to 
 put up with any of the shifts and excuses for maladministra- 
 tion which contented former Parliaments. I think that all 
 this is extremely useful, and is sure to produce a harvest of 
 benefit and good to the nation. Nothing, certainly, has given 
 me greater pleasure than the effect which the labours of the last 
 session have produced upon the interests of economy, retrench- 
 ment, and departmental reform ; and no one looks forward with 
 greater hope and confidence to the labours of this Parliament 
 in future sessions than I do. 
 
SPEECH IlS of lord KANDoLPU CIIUHClllLL 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY. 
 
 Sunderland, October 20, 1887. 
 
 [The following address was devoted to a criticism of a speech 
 made by Mr. Gladstone the previous evening at Nottingham. The 
 great question of the liquor traffic was discussed in a spirit which 
 somewhat surprised some members of the Conservative party ; but 
 Lord Randolph's ideas found partial expression in certain clauses of 
 the Local Government Act of 1888, although these clauses wei-e, 
 from a variety of causes, withdrawn. The declaration in favour 
 of judicious legislation for the encouragement of temperance was 
 emphatically repeated at Paddington in November 1888.] 
 
 J OWN that when I first received an invitation, some three 
 or four years ago, to visit the North of England for political 
 purposes, I never anticipated in those days that if I did come I 
 should have addressed other than a purely Tory gathering. But 
 times and parties have changed ; and it is with inexpressible 
 satisfaction that, in these days of difficulty and danger, I find 
 myself on this occasion, on a visit to the North of England, 
 addressing a meeting which represents all parties in the State. 
 You are aware that there has been within the last week or 
 so a very brisk political debate going on in the country ; almost 
 as brisk a debate as you could have in the House of Commons 
 itself. The only difference between this debate and debate in 
 the House of Commons appears to me to be that, instead of 
 members answering each other from their places in the Senate, 
 they answer each other from town to town in the United King- 
 dom. The main feature of that debate, the most interesting — I 
 cannot say the most instructive — has been the speeches which 
 have been delivered yesterday and the day before yesterday by 
 the leader of the Opposition. Those were speeches which had 
 been greatly looked forward to ; and 1 fancy that those speeches 
 
MK. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 223 
 
 have disappointed alike friends and foes. They were speeches 
 of prodigious length and compass, and therefore it will not be 
 within my power, consistently with the demands which I might 
 legitimately make upon your indulgence, to go at length over 
 all the ground covered by those speeches. But Mr. Gladstone 
 brought before the country what purported to be the domestic 
 programme of his own personal following. I cannot call it the 
 Liberal party, because the Liberal party has ceased to exist. 
 This programme, excluding Ireland, which Mr. Gladstone put 
 before the country is undoubtedly a programme of interest, 
 which we shall do well to-night to examine so as to find out 
 whether what Mr. Gladstone promises to the people is good, 
 and whether, if it be good, we could not quite as well obtain 
 it through the Unionist party, and possibly better from the 
 Unionist party than from Mr. Gladstone. He mentioned various 
 subjects of interest, and I will take them in the order in which 
 they came. He placed in the first position the question of Par- 
 liamentary registration, and he made a very curious remark 
 on that subject. He declared that it was a subject of first- 
 class importance — and there I do not disagree with him ; but 
 he went on to say, ' We want an enfranchised nation to work 
 with.' That is all very well ; but I thought, and I suspect a 
 good many of you thought, that when Mr. Gladstone dealt with 
 Parliamentary reform about two years ago he dealt with that 
 reform completely, and he told you that the result of his Bill 
 would be that you would have an enfranchised nation to work 
 with. But now it would appear that his work has been, like 
 former work, badly done — that it has been incomplete and de- 
 fective. There are two points involved in this question. There 
 is the principle, which is conveniently expressed by the formula 
 of ' one man one vote.' That is one principle which is involved 
 in the matter of Parliamentary registration. The other is the 
 machinery of registration. Now, on the question of one man 
 one vote, gentlemen, I have this to say. I do not think it a ques- 
 tion of very great importance ; it is not a matter which involves 
 any great or vital principles. I cannot imagine that any very 
 serious opposition would be excited if ' one man one vote ' was 
 to be applied strictly to the composition of the Parliamentary 
 
■J'2i Sri-ECIIES OF LORD RANDOLl'II CHURCHILL 
 
 register and to the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise. 
 You have the one man one vote principle strictly applied to 
 many of the great boroughs : in ^Manchester, in Liverpool, in 
 Birmingham, in Glasgow, inSheflield,in Bradford, in London, and 
 several other places, no man, although he may own property in all 
 the divisions in the town, can record his vote in more than one. 
 Take Newcastle and Gateshead. There are two separate towns 
 — not two divisions of a borough — and a man who owns property 
 in Newcastle and Gateshead may vote in both places, although 
 if they were one town he would only have one vote. That is 
 an anomaly ; it is a distinction which rests upon no solid differ- 
 ence. I do not believe that what is known as the property vote, 
 which would be more or less modified if one man one vote 
 was strictly applied — I do not believe that the property vote 
 is indispensable to the protection of the rights of property. We 
 have preferred, and no body of men more so than the Tory 
 party, to repose the defence of the rights of property upon the 
 good sense and intelligence of the whole comniunity j and if the 
 good sense and the intelligence of the whole community are not 
 adequate to the proper treatment of and proper respect for the 
 rights of property, then no special privileges of franchise are 
 likely to defend those rights. Therefore I have no very strong 
 opinion about the property vote. I expect that at a general 
 election the exercise of the property vote amounts numerically 
 to not more than some thirty thousand in a recorded vote of 
 four millions and a half. Obviously the principle applies of de 
 minimis non curat lex, though, undoubtedly, at by-elections 
 the property vote might be of some importance. Still, at a 
 general election the change which would be affected by the 
 application of the one man one vote principle is not of any vital 
 import to the political stability of the community. So far 
 as I am concerned, if the question of one man one vote was 
 raised in Parliament I should not think it my duty to vote 
 against the application of that principle. The question of 
 machinery is of very different and far greater importance. We 
 have now, for the purpose of Parliamentary registration, when 
 our electoral roll numbers over five million persons, exactly 
 the same machinery for registering the electors as we had when 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 225 
 
 the electoral roll amouuted to only about half a million. On 
 the face of it, that can hardly be a good arrangement. What 
 are the three factors in Parliamentary registration? There 
 is, in the first place, the overseer, who is an official changed 
 annually, and unremunerated. There is, in the second place, 
 the revising barrister — these are the two official parties con- 
 cerned in registration ; and then you have an authority — a 
 very powerful one, but not official — and that is, the political 
 machinery and the political organisation of the two rival parties 
 in the State. I am not impressed with the last of these 
 authorities as a valuable factor in Parliamentary registration ; 
 because, in the first place, it is an authority Avhich is extremely 
 costly, which is maintained with difficulty ; and, in the second 
 place, I suspect that the main object of a political party is 
 not so much to make up a good and fair register of elec- 
 tors, as to keep off persons who ought to be on, and to keep 
 on people who ought to be off; so that any improvement of 
 the official machinery which should diminish the exertions of 
 the two rival political parties in respect to registration would, 
 I think, be a great national benefit. I come to the official 
 element, and have nothing to say against the revising barrister. 
 I believe the work of the revising barrister is well done. But 
 when I come to the overseer, there I have a great deal of fault to 
 find ; and I only wish to say now on this point that I believe that 
 the local official concerned with Parliamentary registration should 
 be a paid professional officer occupied with no other duty than 
 that of continually looking after the composition and the proper 
 maintenance of the electoral roll. I believe that the registration 
 of Parliamentary voters, at any rate in its origin, is strictly a 
 work of local concern, and that it ought to be made part of the 
 duties which devolve upon local authorities. 
 
 I come to the question of the Reform of the Land Laws. 
 What did Mr. Gladstone say about that ? He said we want to ^^ 
 sweep away bodily the system of landed entail. Yes, but what 
 does he mean by that ? Does he mean that he will absolutely 
 prohibit any settlement of any sort or kind of landed estate ? 
 Because, if he means that, I believe that he is going far beyond 
 what the general sense of the community would acquiesce in. 
 
 VOL. n. Q 
 
'22C> SPEECHES OF LOUD lUNDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 There is nothing more vahietl in this country tlian the large 
 freedom which we possess of testamentary bequest, and any 
 undue or despotic curtaihnent of the freedom of testamentary 
 bequest would be greatly resented in this country. Therefore, 
 if Mr. Gladstone, in sweeping away bodily the system of landed 
 entail, means to prohibit all settlement of any sort or kind of 
 laud, then I say I am entirely opposed to so large and so radical 
 an innovation. But, on the other hand, if he means merely 
 to confine his reform to the abolition of the entail of landed 
 estate upon lives unborn, then I agree with him, and I imagine 
 that a majority of both parties in the House of Commons 
 would agree with him, that the power, possessed by individuals, 
 of entailing landed estates upon unborn lives has been a great 
 barrier, a great dyke, a great dam, which has kept back from 
 the land the new capital, new energy, new ideas which are re- 
 cpiired for its proper development. And I would point out that 
 3'ou may pass any laws you like to facilitate the transfer of land ; 
 you may set up the most elaborate machinery for registration of 
 title ; but until you deal with this question of entail on unborn 
 lives you will not have made any real reform of the land laws of 
 this country. The landed interest of England is going through a 
 time of trial. I believe it is vital to the landed interest to shake 
 itself free from that cramping fetter and chain of entail upon 
 unborn lives. I believe an enormous amount of vitality would 
 be infused into the landed interest if a short bill — it might be a 
 bill of one clause only — were passed through Parliament, pro- 
 viding that from and after a certain date all entail of landed 
 estates upon unborn lives should be illegal, null, and void. Mr. 
 Gladstone, however, gives no indication of the extent to which 
 he would go in this matter, and it is a matter on which we 
 cannot afford to remain in the dark. Mr. Gladstone alluded to 
 the agricultural interest, and he did not say much of comfort. 
 All he said was that his own Agricultural Holdings Act, which 
 he passed in 1883, was more beneficial than the one passed 
 by Lord Beaconsfield in 1875. Lord Beaconsfield"s Act had, no 
 doubt, one defect. It allowed parties affected to contract them- 
 selves out of the scope of the Act ; and, as far as I know, all 
 Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1883 did was to remedy that defect. 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 227 
 
 But, curiously enough, Mr. Gladstone made precisely tlie same 
 mistake when dealing with another subject of importance • to 
 the working classes of this country. I allude to the Em- 
 ployers' Liability Act. He passed in 1880 a law, which, I 
 believe, was wisely drawn and well conceived, to regulate the 
 liability of employers towards their workmen in consequence of 
 accidents happening to the workmen. But wliat was tlie fault 
 of tliat Act ? It was that parties were allowed to contract them- 
 selves out of the Act. At that time I and several other Con- 
 servatives strove very hard to make that Act of compulsory ap- 
 plication. It is not by any means a Radical idea to make that 
 Act compulsory. One of the most respected members on the 
 Conservative side of the House — I regret to say, he died some 
 years ago— Mr. Knowles, then member for AVigan, and a very 
 large employer of labour, led a section of the Conservative party, 
 of which I was one, in a great effort to make that Act compulsory, 
 and, in Mr. Knowles's absence one day, at his request I moved an 
 amendment to that Act providing that it should be compulsory, 
 and also providing a co-operative system of insurance among the 
 employers, with a view to guard against ruinous liability in 
 consequence of accidents. But Mr. Gladstone's Government 
 resisted, and resisted successfully. The consequence has been 
 that you have had efforts in Parliament to extend the scope 
 of the Employers' Liability Act. Therefore, Mr. Gladstone 
 is open to the same reproach in dealing with the liability 
 of employers as he brings against Lord Beaconsfield in dealing 
 with the relation of farmers and landlords. I only wish on 
 this subject to make this remark — that I think the State 
 ought to Ije most cautious, most reluctant, to interfere with 
 matters of contract between man and man. But when it does 
 so interfere, in obedience to a great popular demand, I think 
 its dealings should be thorough, and that the form of contract 
 which it lays down should be universal and of compulsory appli- 
 cation. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone made some remarks about a subject which 
 interests the masses of the people — I mean the question of Pro- i 
 tection — and he denounced in turn all who advocated any return 
 to the principle of Protection. I am not prepared to differ with 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 SPEECHES OE LOUD llANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's strictures on l^iotection to-night. I have only 
 to 'point out that Mr. Gladstone did not state the case fairly. 
 He said that the farmer and the manufacturer — he talked about 
 a silly manufacturer and an uneasy farmer agi-eeing between 
 themselves to put import duties on articles of foreign import, 
 the manufacturer to put duties on manufactures and the farmer 
 to have duties on corn and wheat and articles of home produce. 
 He asked what benefit would arise to the artisan and agricultural 
 labourer from these duties ? He insinuated that no benefit would 
 arise, and I am not prepared to contradict him. But I think, 
 when you are talking on a subject of great interest to the people, 
 and when you hold such a position as Mr. Gladstone does, 
 you should be careful to state the case fairly to the people ; 
 and Mr. Gladstone ought undoubtedly to have added that the 
 advocates of Protection have always urged that a great stimulus 
 to industry and a great rise in wages would, as they allege, 
 follow a return to protective duties, and would entirely com- 
 pensate — and more than compensate — the labourer and the 
 artisan for the rise in the price of necessaries of life. I do not 
 at all commit myself to that argument for Protection, but 
 )/ it is one which the country is perfectly open to consider. 
 The main reason why I do not join myself with the Protec- 
 tionists is that I believe that low prices of the necessaries of 
 life and political stability under democratic institutions are 
 practically inseparable, and that high prices of the necessaries 
 of life and political instability under democratic institutions 
 are also practically inseparable. That is one reason for being 
 extremely cautious before joining in with the Protectionist cry. 
 I pass to another question which Mr. Gladstone touched 
 upon, and which he said very little about — the question of Local 
 Government. He alluded to it as a matter of pressing im- 
 portance, and stated that local government should be reformed 
 because we wanted the introduction into our local government 
 of the representative principle. There I entirely agree with 
 him. I think that, as you have given full and perfect repre- 
 sentation to the masses of the people for imperial purposes, it is 
 idle and frivolous and ridiculous to be fearful of giving full and 
 perfect representation to the people in local concerns. He went 
 
MR. GKiDSTONE'S LATER POLICY 229 
 
 on to say we wanted a readjustment, a large and equitable re- 
 adjustment, of imperial and local burdens. Well, there I also 
 entirely agree with him, and so do the entire Unionist party. 
 And then he said that we wanted in connection with local govern- 
 ment great decentralisation ; and there again not the slightest 
 difference, I imagine, would arise between Mr. Gladstone and his 
 Unionist opponents. I think it is absolutely necessary, in any 
 large scheme of local government, that we should confer on the 
 county councils large executive powers, large taxing powers, and 
 to some extent legislative powers also. I think that by that 
 means you would enormously diminish the labour which now 
 devolves upon the House of Commons. Therefore, you observe, 
 Mr. Gladstone has no monopoly whatever with regard to the 
 necessity for great reforms in local government. 
 
 Now I come to the question of the liquor laws ; and on that 
 he was extremely vague, and I do not think the temperance 
 party owe anything to Mr. Gladstone. Nothing whatever ; they 
 have given him many times a warm and hearty support, and 
 what has he done for them ? Nothing at all. On three separate 
 occasions in the Parliament of 1880-85 the principle of local 
 option was affirmed by large majorities in the House of Commons, 
 but not a morsel of attention did Mr. Gladstone pay to those 
 majorities. When he found himself at the head of a majority 
 in 1886, neither at that time did he attempt to deal with the 
 question, and he does not say one word on the subject at the 
 present moment except this: that he regrets — he, of all people 
 in the world ! — that there has been a delay in legislating on this 
 question. He does not announce any intention of dealing with 
 it if he came into power. He says that the temperance party 
 need not hope for legislation in a temperance direction until he 
 has been enabled to repeal the Union between Great Britain 
 and Ireland. I cannot follow that argument. If the case which 
 is represented by the temperance party affects ^^Ltally the social 
 condition of the great masses of the people, then, I say, nothing 
 ought to delay legislation on that question, and that there is 
 no reason whatever why legislation which affects the health, 
 the lives, and the morals of millions of individuals in the 
 country ought to be retarded on account of the necessity for a 
 
230 SrEECIIHS OF LORD EANDOLPE CHURCHILL 
 
 constitutional organic change in llie relations between Ireland 
 and Great Britain. But altliougli Mr. Gladstone was vague, I 
 will, with your permission, not be so vague. I give you ray 
 own ideas very briefly on the subject of the reform of the 
 liquor laws. I have (of course I speak for myself) — I have 
 had great and peculiar ojjportunities of ascertaining what I may 
 well believe to be the tendency — the general prevailing tendency 
 — and disposition of the mind of the Tory party in Parliament 
 and in the country ; and though possibly here and there I may 
 go a little beyond it, still I do not think that I shall be very 
 far out. My own view of the liquor laws is that they are 
 intimately connected with the question of local government. 
 Constitute in your rural districts, as you have in your city dis- 
 tricts, a popular representative government, and I think you 
 may hand over to them very large powers for regulating the 
 drink traffic in their districts. But up to this point I am still 
 vague. Perhaps you would say : ' Would you give to the local 
 authority power to prohibit totally all sale of drink within their 
 district ? ' Well, I would and I would not. (Laughter ; and a 
 Voice : ' Let's have it out.') In theory I would, and in practice 
 I would not. I do not think you could, if you deal genuinely 
 with the question, withhold from the local authority practicall}' 
 unlimited powers with regard to the drink question, but I would 
 introduce two very salutary checks upon any impulsive or 
 fanatical or hasty action, and they would be checks connected 
 with the pocket. In the first place, I imagine that a great 
 feature of the readjustment of imperial and local burdens would 
 be the total transference, or almost total transference, from 
 imperial authority to local authority of the revenue arising from 
 licences of all kinds. I think that if the revenue which arises 
 from licences for the sale of drink was made an important 
 source of revenue for the local authority, the local authority 
 would not hastily or impulsively or fanatically deprive them- 
 selves of a useful source of revenue. After all, gentlemen, the 
 only test that I know of, the only real test of earnestness on any 
 subject, is the pocket. I heard a story the other day of a 
 reverend gentleman — I would not on any account mention to 
 Avhat denomination he belongs, but he is a reverend gentleman — 
 
ME. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 231 
 
 wlio owns some liouse property in a town. He was informed 
 tliat on this property Avas a gin-shop in wliich a great deal of 
 drunkenness, a great deal of disorder, and a great deal of immo- 
 rality nightly took place. Well, he was very much shocked — 
 horribly shocked — and he immediately went to his solicitor and 
 told him that he must immediately sell the property, and that 
 he would not own it an hour. The solicitor said, ' Of course, 
 sir, it is my business to carrj^ out your instructions, but I had 
 better remind you before doing so that the property in ques- 
 tion pays eight per cent., and that if I were to sell the pro- 
 perty and invest the money I could not get more than four 
 per cent." ' Oh," said the reverend gentleman, ' I will think 
 about it ; I will go home and consult my Avife.' And he did ; 
 and the solicitor has never heard anything more about that 
 gin-shop. I do not know whether the moral of the story is very 
 edifying, but after all it is only human nature. When you are 
 legislating about subjects which interest human beings, it is 
 just as well not to leave altogether out of account human 
 nature ; and I cannot help thinking that a properly devised 
 check which affects the pocket would control fanaticism with 
 regard to the prohibition of the sale of liquor. But there is one 
 more check. I think that the total prohibition of the sale of 
 liquor would be attended with evil. I can imagine a district 
 where the large majority of the people were firmly persuaded 
 of the evil of the sale of intoxicating liquor and were prepared 
 to prohibit it. I can imagine a county council elected for the 
 purpose of prohibiting all sale of drink within the district. 
 But I can go farther, and I can imagine such an amount 
 of inconvenience, of annoyance, of vexation, and discomfort 
 of every kind arising to individuals from restrictions of that 
 kind, that by the time the next county council was elected 
 a majority would be returned in favour of the unrestricted sale 
 of drink, and the decision of the former council would be en- 
 tirely reversed. Theiefore you might have the most violent 
 fluctuations of law with regard to the sale of drink — a series 
 of reactions : sometimes a popular vote in favour of total ab- 
 stinence, and perhaps in a year or two a reaction in favour 
 of the most unrestricted sale. Therefore it seems absolutely 
 
232 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 necessary to devise a still more forcible check on fanatical 
 dealings with the sale of drink, and I would suggest this — 
 that wherever the establishments for the sale of liquor are 
 abolished in a sweeping and in a rapid manner, there ought 
 at once to come in the question of compensation of vested 
 interests. A scale should be devised and applied to regulate 
 where compensation should apply, and to what extent. No 
 doubt great controversy would arise as to where the compensa- 
 tion should come in ; but that compensation in some form would 
 have to come in somewhere, and ought to come in somewhere, 
 I have no doubt whatever. But, subject to those two restrictions, 
 gentlemen, I frankly say I am in favour of legislation in the 
 direction of temperance. I do not advocate it on moral grounds, 
 because it would not be my business to do so ; others can do so 
 better than I. I advocate it on ecqnorfl ic gro unds. There can 
 be no question that an enormous amount of the crime in the 
 United Kingdom springs from the unrestricted sale of drink. 
 I was talking the other day to a police magistrate in a very 
 crowded part of London — a practical man of the world, for whose 
 opinion I have the highest respect, and he told me at least two- 
 thirds of all the crime that came before him arose from the 
 unrestricted sale of drink — what I may call the fatal facility of 
 recourse to the public-house and the gin-shop. What is the 
 effect of that ? The effect of that is, that we have to maintain 
 a large criminal population in our prisons, which is an immense 
 burden upon the community, because the population of our 
 prisons is utterly unremunerative. Not only do they bring 
 in nothing, but if that population was not in the prisons, if they 
 were not a criminal population, they would be active workers 
 contributing to the welfare of the community ; so that the loss is 
 a double one. It is the expenditure involved in their useless 
 maintenance, and it is the loss which the community sustains 
 from their labour not being available for the good of the com- 
 munity. Therefore any legislation which would diminish — as 
 I believe sensible temperance legislation would — ^^the criminal 
 population in our prisons would really be legislation of a highly 
 economical character. But I have yet to put another question 
 . still more important. The amount of money the British people 
 
ME. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 233 
 
 spend on drink yearly is something- enormous. I forget the 
 exact amount, but it certainly exceeds a hundred millions. Now 
 imagine if by some reasonable and wise legislation we could 
 diminish the facility of recourse to public-houses and gin-shops, 
 what a very large proportion of these millions would be diverted 
 from the liquor trade and would flow to other trades and 
 industries. All trades would benefit. More food would be 
 purchased, and better kinds of food. More clothing would be 
 purchased, and better kinds of clothing. More furniture would 
 be purchased, and better kinds of furniture. More education 
 would be given to children, and a better kind of education. In 
 every way in which money could be diverted from expenditure 
 on the liquor trade, the other trades of the country would 
 benefit. In these days of bad trade and hard times, we cannot, 
 if we are wise, afford to neglect any means which may justly 
 and legitimately stimulate the trade and industry of Britain. 
 I think you will admit that I have been much more frank and 
 distinct on the question of liquor laws than Mr. Grladstone. It 
 is quite possible I have some friends sitting near me with whom 
 I may get into a little hot water with regard to what I have said. 
 I have been unfortunate in getting very often into hot wa£er with 
 some of my Tory friends. Still I believe that the opinions I have 
 put before you are not immoderate opinions. I believe they are 
 not unwise opinions. I believe they are practical and safe opinions. 
 Mr. Gladstone alluded to the question of Disestablishment, to 
 what he called religious equality, and here again he was more 
 vague and more ambiguous than ever. He was not only ambi- 
 guous, but I think he was disingenuous ; and if I did not wish to 
 be extremely respectful to him I should say that his treatment of 
 the Disestablishment question was immoral ; because, how did he 
 treat the great and solemn question involved in the maintenance 
 or abolition of the connection between Church and State ? He 
 treats it as nothing more or less than as a question of political 
 and electoral legerdemain. He divided it into two or three 
 heads. He talked of the Welsh Church and the necessity for 
 disestablishment in Wales. He talked of the Scotch Church 
 and the demand for disestablishment in Scotland ; but by some 
 inexplicable process, perfectly peculiar to himself, he mixed ;ip 
 
234 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHrRCHILL 
 
 the two qin'stious of Home llule aiul of Disestablishment. He 
 argued that ^Vales ought to receive disestablishment as a boon 
 because it returned more Home Rulers proportionately, and 
 therefore disestablishers, than Scotland, which was rather luke- 
 warm and rather Laodicean in its demand for Home Jlule, 
 which had not returned anything like so large a proportion of 
 Home Rulers, and therefore disestablishers. Can you conceive 
 anything more improper ? He mixes up two questions which 
 are totally distinct. He uses, as it were, the disestablishment 
 of the Church, a great and solemn question, as a bribe by which 
 to gain support for his Repeal policy. But on the question of 
 English disestablishment he was worse than on the question of 
 Scotch and Welsh disestablishment. He did not say, and he 
 did not give the smallest hint, whether he was in favour of it or 
 whether he was against it. All he said was, he could iiot do 
 everything at the same time. He said : ' You may agitate for 
 it ; I will not necessarily oppose it. You may get it for all I 
 care, but everything cannot be done at the same time. You 
 cannot drive six omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar.' Now, 
 I ask you, gentlemen — and there are many here who are not by 
 any means partisans of the Tories — I dare say there are some in 
 this hall who are followers of Mr. Gladstone — I ask them, Do 
 they think that that is a proper or decent way of treating before 
 the people of England so great and so solemn a question ? How 
 can you place unlimited confidence in a man who treats the 
 gravest question in such a manner ? I will not go into the 
 question of Church and State to-night. I content myself with 
 expressing my own opinion, which, I believe, is the opinion of 
 almost the entire Unionist party, that I am distinctly hostile to 
 disestablishment either in Wales or in Scotland or in England. 
 I believe firmly, and I do not think anything will ever change 
 my conviction, that the work which has been done by the Church 
 among the masses of the people is a great and a sacred work, 
 that it is being pursued with ever-increasing activity, that the 
 connection of the Church with the State gives to that work 
 greater vigour, greater authority, and greater independence than 
 it would otherwise possess ; and T am certain that nothing but 
 the most unmitigated evil and disaster can possibly flow from 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 235 
 
 any appropriation of ecclesiastical property to secular purposes. 
 We have had some experience in this question of Disestablish- 
 ment. Look at Ireland. We were told the disestablishment 
 of the Irish Church would heal the woes and pacify the grie- 
 vances of Ireland, that it would elevate the condition of the 
 people. Has it done so ? Has the appropriation of the property 
 of the Irish Church to secular purposes increased material pro- 
 sperity in that country ? I cannot see that any great, tangible, 
 practical, undeniable national benefits have followed from the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church. It is a matter of opinion, 
 but I see nothing in past legislation to tempt us farther on the 
 road of plunder of ecclesiastical establishments. 
 
 I have dealt with nearly all the questions which Mr. Glad- 
 stone alluded to, but I must point out to you two omissions 
 in Mr. Gladstone's programme. Not one word, not one sentence 
 was there in that lengthy speech which referred to the greatest 
 of all questions — the question of economy, the question of 
 financial retrenchment and of dej)artmental reform. I have 
 special and peculiar reasons for being disappointed at that 
 omission. I think it is a most grave omission, one which the 
 people ought to take the most serious notice of, because it is 
 obvious that it must have been intentional, and that in his pro- 
 gramme for the future legislation or development of the country, 
 if the work was committed to him, economy or retrenchment 
 find no place. There was another most remarkable omission. 
 He said nothing whatever about popular education — not a word. - 
 Elementary education in the aspect which now interests the 
 masses of the people — I mean free education — found no place 
 in Mr. Gladstone's programme. On the question of free educa- 
 tion I have thought much, and I have long been of opinion 
 that it is very difficult indeed to combine compulsory attendance 
 of children at elementary schools with the compulsory payment 
 of fees by the parents of the children. I think that the duty of 
 the State is to remove every obstacle, to provide every reason- 
 able facility for getting the children of England into the schools 
 in England. And if it is found, as I think it may be found, in 
 some parts, perhaps in many parts, that the payment of fees is 
 not only a great obstacle to education but a great hardship on 
 
230 SPEECHES OF LOED RANDOLPn CTTUROniLL 
 
 tlie stnigglino; and labouring poor, then T tliink an offort slionld 
 be nuitle t(^ relieve these persons from the payment of fees. I 
 do not see much difficulty in the matter. I do not think the 
 position of voluntary schools need be affected. It would be 
 quite possible to take over on to the Consolidated Fund the 
 whole amount now paid by parents of children for fees in ele- 
 mentary schools. The sum is not a very large one, nothing 
 appalling or alarming ; and it would be quite possible for the 
 State to repay to all schools which were free the amount which 
 those schools would have derived from the receipt of fees. I see 
 no difficulty in that, nor do I think it would injure the position 
 of denominational schools, which confer enormous benefit upon 
 the community. I may be told that such legislation is not 
 economically sound. I dispute the proposition altogether. As 
 with temperance legislation, so with educational legislation — 
 the more you extend it the more you will diminish your criminal 
 population, the more you will encourage thrift and morality of 
 every kind, the more you will, I believe, develop a disposition 
 to struggle against adversity, the more you will raise the social 
 condition of the people throughout the land. It is truly 
 economic legislation ; all the money you lay out wisely on edu- 
 cation will be repaid to you one hundredfold. I will go further 
 and say that legislation for the purpose of bringing education 
 freely to every child in England is the truest Conservative 
 legislation. If by temperance legislation or educational legisla- 
 tion you can increase the material prosperity of English homes, 
 you have done nearly all that you can for the happiness of the 
 people throughout the country. 
 
 ****** 
 Mr. Gladstone — upon what I hold to be an utterly unten- 
 able assumption, that the difficulties in connection with Irish 
 government are, under the present arrangements, insuperable 
 and permanent — calls upon you to allow him to fabricate a 
 totally new Constitution for the United Kingdom, the main 
 feature of which is the abolition in its present form of the 
 Parliament at Westminster, and the substitution in its place of 
 two Parliaments and two Governments for the United Kingdom. 
 That is Mr. Gladstone's proposal. He argues to this effect. 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 237 
 
 tliat the United Kingdom is not really united, and cannot be 
 united, until the United Kingdom is governed by two Parlia- 
 ments and two Governments, practically independent of eacli 
 other, each going its own way, and in all probability disputing 
 and quarrelling, and even fighting, with each other. Only the 
 mind of Mr. Gladstone could evolve union out of such an 
 arrangement. He might as well argue that the felicity and 
 perfect comfort of married life is only to be found in divorce. 
 On that argument, on that extraordinary assumption, Mr. 
 Gladstone offers to the English people, to the kScotch people, 
 and to the Irish people, to provide them with a totally new 
 Constitution, which, he claims, will sweep away as if by magic 
 all the difficulties in Ireland which we have to contend with. 
 I can well understand persons saying to Mr. Gladstone : ' You 
 tell us you are going to remove the great difficulties of govern- 
 ment in Ireland; but let us know your remedy; let -us have 
 your whole plan before us before we consent to so large a change 
 as you propose ; let us know exactly what you mean to do, and 
 then we shall be able to say whether we can support your policy 
 or not.' I can understand that frame of mind. But what does 
 Mr. Gladstone say to that demand ? He says, ' That is a 
 demand I cannot comply with. You have got to leave the 
 w^hole matter in my hands, leave it absolutely to my judgment. 
 If I was to explain to you beforehand my plan, by which I pro- 
 pose to establish a new Constitution consisting of two Parlia- 
 ments and two Governments, I should utterly destroy all the 
 hopes I have of carrying that Constitution into effect. I shall 
 tell you nothing about it.' That is what he says to the people 
 of England, what he has said ever since the last election, and 
 what he said last night at Nottingham. ' I shall tell you nothing 
 about it. You must give me a docile majority and unlimited 
 power, and you must trust implicitly to me to provide you 
 with a first-class article. That is the demand which he 
 makes. Eemember what is at stake. This is no ordinary law 
 which Mr. Gladstone seeks to pass. This is no ordinary reform 
 such as political conflict has arisen over before. It is some- 
 thing widely different. It is an immense modification, it is 
 almost a total transformation, of the Constitution of the United 
 
238 SPEECHES OF LOliD liANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Kiugtlom. It is u change whicli affects not only the thirty- 
 six uiillious of the inhabitants of tlie United Kingdom, but 
 which also affects directly and immediately the three hundred 
 millions of people who depend upon the Government, upon the 
 Parliament, upon the strength of the United Kingdom. That 
 is the nature of this business, and you are asked gravely by 
 Mr. Gladstone to confide the whole management of this affair to 
 him, and to him alone; and he utterly and resolutely refuses to 
 give the people the smallest information or indication as to the 
 manner in which he intends to carry the change into effect. 
 Now I will reason, if I may, from private affairs, because there 
 is an analogy between private affairs and public affairs. This 
 town of Sunderland contains, and is surrounded by, a gi-eat 
 number of large manufacturing and commercial establishments 
 in which millions of capital are embarked and hundreds and 
 thousands of hands are emj^loyed. Times are bad, and difficulties 
 arise in connection with the carrying on of business at a profit. 
 I ask you who are connected with the management of any of 
 these establishments : suppose a man comes to you and says, 
 ' The way in which } ou carry on your business is altogether 
 wrong ; it must be totally changed and transformed — the whole 
 system of your business. If you will change and transform it, 
 instead of returning you 10 per cent, or 5 per cent, it shall 
 return you 50 per cent.' If you were to say in reply, 'That is very 
 interesting and alluring, but would you kindly tell me the details 
 of the changes which you propose to institute in my business ? ' 
 Suppose he said, ' Oh, no, that is impossible ; you must leave the 
 Avhole plan to my judgment ; you must give over the whole of 
 your business to me, and trust implicitly to the arrangement I 
 will make.' Well, now, what would any one who was a practical 
 manager do with a fellow who talked to him like that ? I think 
 he would kick him off the premises as an impostor and a knave. 
 There is an analogy between such a private matter as I have 
 put before you and this great national matter, the Repeal of the 
 Union. And is it not curious that there are people in private 
 affairs who would denounce such a demand as utterly lunatic 
 and criminal, and yet in public affairs are prepared blindly and 
 unreflectingly to concede such a demand ? The English and 
 
ME. GLADSTONES LATER POLICY 239 
 
 Scotch people are proverbially liarcl-lieaded people. I cannot 
 forget that the men of the North Country have a special and 
 peculiar reputation for hard-headedness and businesslike and 
 practical modes of managing their affairs. Is it within the range 
 of possibility — surely it is not within the range of possibility — 
 that the British democracy, that the hard-headed men of the 
 North should confide the whole of their political fortunes and the 
 future destinies of the empire to one man, without possessing 
 beforehand from that one man the clearest knowledge and the 
 most precise information as to the use which he intends to 
 make of the power when he gets it ? And yet, what is the 
 position? Mr. Gladstone says, 'I will establish tw^o Parliaments, 
 two Governments, in the United Kingdom. The rest you must 
 leave to me. What shall be the relation of these two Parlia- 
 ments to each other, what shall be the precise powers and 
 limits to the respective action of these Parliaments, I will not 
 tell you. If you ask me I will say you are laying a trap into 
 which I won't walk.' ' Whether I will deal finally with the land 
 question in Ireland by means of the tax-payers' money or remit 
 that question to the Irish Parliament, I won't tell you. If you 
 ask me, you are laying a trap into which I won't walk.' ' Whether 
 I will deal separately with the province of Ulster, or hand over 
 the province of Ulster to the Irish Parliament, I won't tell 
 j^ou. It is the worst of all the traps which you are trying to 
 lay for me in asking the question.' 'Whether the Irish members 
 of Parliament shall remain at Westminster, whether Ireland 
 shall be represented at Westminster or not, or whether Irish 
 representation at Westminster shall cease, I decline to tell you. 
 It is another of those diabolical traps which my opponents are 
 laying for me in every direction.' ' You must leave all these 
 matters,' he says, ' which I admit to be matters of the most 
 profound importance, absolutely to my judgment and my dis- 
 cretion.' His judgment and his discretion ! The judgment 
 and discretion of ' the old pilot ! " I will not detain you this 
 evening by examining the record of the old pilot during the 
 years 1880 to 1885. It is sufficient to say that the old pilot's 
 idea of pilotage was to discern wherever he could a rock upon 
 the ocean and to steer the ship of State right upon that rock. 
 
240 SPEECHES 01- LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 ^'ou have had sonie experience of his skill and judgment in 
 dealing with this question and in fabricating a new Consti- 
 tution. You recollect that in 1886, without the authority of 
 the people — without, as it were, the knowledge of the people, 
 taking the people by surprise — he produced a plan for the esta- 
 blishment in the United Kingdom of two Parliaments and 
 two Governments. That plan was found to be so bad, so non- 
 sensical, so utterly ridiculous, that it was decisively rejected 
 by the Parliament in which he had a majority, and still more 
 decisively rejected by the country. And yet, in spite of that 
 experience, he still comes before the English people and claims 
 from them unlimited powers. He says his former plans are 
 dead, thereby admitting them to be bad plans. He says he will 
 j)roduce a fresh plan, and calls upon the people to give him un- 
 limited power in order that he may make another try at setting 
 up two Parliaments and two Governments for the United King- 
 dom. Before you listen to that demand, if you are reasonable 
 and intelligent, as I know you to be, you are bound to force him 
 to lay his whole plan before you. Eemember that if you ever 
 give him a majority, you have very little power until Parliament 
 comes before you again. Therefore you should be most careful, 
 in so large a matter, to know exactly where you are going and 
 exactly what use is going to be made of the power you confer. 
 I pray you, do not lose yourselves in the mazes of Irish history. 
 1 pray you not to yield yourselves up to maudlin sentiment 
 over Irish wrongs and Irish woes. What you have got to do 
 is to call upon these men to explain themselves, to expound to 
 you their remedies. Say to them, ' Show us your plan before 
 you expect us to be a party to your policy, before you expect 
 us to give you the power to carry that policy into effect.' You 
 must force these men, these Repealers, to descend from those 
 altitudes of sentiment and bogus humanitarianism in which they 
 wander. You must force them to emerge from that cloud and 
 mist of the rights of man and the rights of nationalities in 
 which they delight to hide themselves. You must force them 
 to explain their paradoxical notion that union is only to be 
 found in separation, and that national prosperity can only be 
 created by anarchy and by crime. Bring them down, gentle- 
 
MR. GLADSTONE'S LATER POLICY 241 
 
 men, to the common level ground of plain matter-of-fact busi- 
 ness. Make them show you their hands, explain to you their 
 entire remedy, and disclose to you their plan in all detail. If 
 such a line is adopted by the people of England as a body, and 
 adhered to, then I am sure that the genius of Britain, which 
 shivers and shatters nonsense and imposture of every kind, 
 will penetrate and reject the tinselled theories and the gaudy 
 policies in which Repealers revel, and will guide the democracy 
 along the path of national honour, of public credit, of imperial 
 might and renown — the path which our fathers consistently 
 trod, and which we and our sons in turn must tread. 
 
 Vol. li. 
 
242 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPU CHUliCHlLL 
 
 THE 'REYOLUTIONAKY PARTY.' 
 
 Newcastle, October 22, 1887. 
 
 [In the following speech the main facts connected with sevei"al 
 cases of alleged outrage in Ireland, such as the Kinsella case and the 
 Mitchelstown aftray, were minutely examined, in reply to statements 
 which had just been made by Mr. Gladstone. These comments, on 
 what may be regarded as incidents of transitory importance, are now 
 omitted. The remaining portions of the speech have a permanent 
 interest.] 
 
 IN the course of this week tlie leader of the Opposition, Mr. 
 Gladstone, has arraigned before the people of this country 
 the Unionist party, her Majesty's Ministers, and he has espe- 
 cially arraigned the action of the Irish Executive Government. 
 He has brought an indictment against them ; he has tried them ; 
 and he has found them guilty. And he calls upon the people of 
 England to take a similar course. Now I am not going this 
 afternoon to put in any plea for any arrest of judgment against 
 the indictment of Mr. Gladstone. I am going to try, if you 
 will allow me, to meet that indictment on every point, and to 
 claim from you and from the people of this county and outside 
 this county a complete and perfect acquittal on all the charges 
 which Mr. Gladstone brings. Mr. Gladstone based his indict- 
 ment at Nottingham mainly upon two grounds. He indicted 
 the Government and the Unionist party for having adopted in 
 their treatment of Ireland what he called a policy of coercion ; 
 and the second ground on which he based his indictment w^as 
 the administration of the law by the Irish Executive. Now it is 
 a favourite topic with Radical speakers — it is a topic which has 
 often been urged before Newcastle audiences by Mr. Morley — that 
 the Tory party are prone to coercion, and that they had exhibited 
 
THE 'EKVOLUTIONARY PARTY' 243 
 
 tliat proneuess by precipitately recurring at the earliest oppor- 
 tunity in their government of Ireland to what Mr. Morley called 
 ' the days of dark and tyrannous Toryism.' I merely repeat 
 that expression without examining it. I look upon it as a 
 wide stretch of the rhetorical faculty. I should rather be in- 
 clined to think Mr. Morley means by that expression a method 
 of government which fifty years ago was in accordance with the 
 public opinion of that time, but which would not be in accor- 
 dance with the public opinion of the present day. I think that 
 is a more sensible way of putting it. But let me examine this 
 charge that the Tory party and the Unionist party have hastily 
 recurred to methods of tyrannical and arbitrary government. 
 What is the recent history of the Tory Government ? When, in 
 1885, Mr. Gladstone's Government fell, a Tory Government 
 acceded to ofiice ; and what did they do ? They found that 
 crime was dimiuishing in Ireland, and that order was increasing 
 in Ireland. They knew that the Irish were about to exercise, 
 with much greater latitude than had ever been the case before, 
 the franchise for the election of a new Parliament, and they 
 determined that, in order that no unnecessary or irritating 
 grievance should annoy the Irish mind, and prejudice the Irish 
 mind against the connection with England — they determined, 
 though undoubtedly the decision was a most anxious and respon- 
 sible one, that they would make an effort to govern Ireland 
 without renewing the special criminal law which Mr. Gladstone 
 had found necessary. Therefore there was no precipitate or 
 hurried recourse to the ' dark and tyrannous days of Toryism ' 
 then. There were two things which the Government of that 
 day did not foresee, did not know — one thing which they could 
 not have known, and one which they could hardly have known. 
 The Government of that day could never have foreseen, and could 
 not possibly have known, that Mr. Gladstone would in so short 
 a time have given his adhesion to the cause of the Eepeal of the 
 Union — a step which on his part has immeasurably stengthened 
 the forces of sedition and of disorder in Ireland ; and, furthermore, 
 the Government of that day did not know the wide extent and 
 the formidable organisation of the National League in Ireland. 
 Owing to these two causes — the power of the National League, 
 
 R 2 
 
244 .SPEECHES 01' LORD KANDuLL'll CllUKClilLL 
 
 the desperate manner in which it was used, and also to the 
 adoption by !Mr. Gladstone of a policy of Home Rule — the honest, 
 bond fide effort which the Tory Government of 1885 made to 
 govern Ireland by the ordinary law broke down, and in January 
 1886, although the Government knew that their tenure of 
 power could only be counted by days and by hours, they came 
 before Parliament, and they committed themselves without 
 hesitation, without calculation, solely from honest motives, and 
 from actual knowledge which they possessed, to a policy of 
 strengthening the law in Ireland. So much for that Govern- 
 ment. It went out of office in January, and a brief interval 
 took place, in which Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister ; and 
 in August 1886 Mr. Gladstone left office, and again a Tory 
 Government succeeded him. AVhat did the Tory Government 
 do ? Was there any hasty or precipitate recourse to ' the dark 
 and tyrannous days of Toryism ' ? Did the Tory Government 
 immediately ask Parliament for any special criminal law ? They 
 did not. And why ? Because, although they knew that the state 
 of Ireland was disturbed — although they knew that the adminis- 
 tration of law in Ireland was attended with the utmost difficulty — 
 still they did hope, and they had reason to hope, that the alliance 
 which had been formed between the party of Mr. Gladstone 
 and the party of Mr. Parnell — mischievous as they held that 
 alliance to be to all the interests of the country — still they 
 had reason to hope that at any rate it would have this eflfect, 
 that respect for the Constitution would lead Mr. Gladstone and 
 his followers to restrain the revolutionary party of Mr. Parnell, 
 and would keep the agitation for the Repeal of the Union and 
 the agitation on the subject of Irish land within the bounds of 
 the law. At any rate, there was no precipitate recourse to 
 arbitrary measures of government. That plan, that hope, that 
 intention broke down like the former one ; and what was the 
 determining factor which caused that policy to break down ? It 
 was the Plan of Campaign, The Plan of Campaign was pre- 
 cisely similar in all its incidents and in all its character to what 
 you are well acquainted with under the name of the No-rent 
 Manifesto of 1881. There was a precise similarity between the 
 No-rent Manifesto of the Land League in 1881 and the Plan 
 
THE ' EEVOLUTIONARY PARTY' 245 
 
 of Campaign of the National League in 1887. Both denoted 
 action of this kind, that it was an illegal withholding of legal 
 obligations by violent resistance to the process of the law 
 and by intimidation of the Queen's subjects. That was the 
 Plan of Campaign, that was the No-rent Manifesto ; they were 
 similar in their incidents and their aims. Why do I make 
 this close comparison between the Plan of Campaign and the 
 No-rent Manifesto ? For this reason, that Mr. Gladstone the 
 other day at Derby had the temerity to assert that the reason 
 why he could not be attacked by us on account of his having 
 resorted to coercive measures for the government of Ireland 
 when he was in office was because the Irish party of to-day 
 had totally changed from the Irish party of that day. As well 
 might you expect the Ethiopian to change his skin or the 
 leopard his spots. Mr. Gladstone argued that when he had 
 recourse to coercion in 1881 the Irish part}" had made a danger- 
 ous and a violently illegal attack upon property by means of 
 the No-rent Manifesto. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gladstone's 
 statement is historically incorrect ; because we must recollect 
 that Mr. Gladstone during his tenure of office from 1880 to 
 1885 brought in two Coercion Bills, and the first Coercion Bill 
 preceded the No-rent Manifesto by several months. Not only 
 so, but that great and memorable denunciation of the Land 
 League which Mr. Gladstone uttered at Leeds, and which he 
 referred to the other day at Derby, when he denounced the 
 Land League as a body of men whose objects were public 
 plunder, and who were marching through rapine to the dismem- 
 berment of the empire — that denunciation preceded the No- 
 rent Manifesto. There was this difference between the No-rent 
 Manifesto and the Plan of Campaign — a difference against Mr. 
 Gladstone, and in favour of the present Government — that the 
 No-rent Manifesto was no sooner issued than it was disavowed 
 by the Irish Land League. Moreover, the No-rent Manifesto 
 was not acted upon by the people of Ireland. The payment of 
 rent after the No-rent Manifesto proceeded with difficulty, as 
 it had proceeded with difficulty before the No-rent Manifesto. 
 The No-rent Manifesto, for all pi-actical purposes connected 
 with order in Ireland, made hardly any difference at all to the 
 
246 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Government of the day. But what of the Plan of Campaign ? 
 The Plan of Campaign of last winter was not only not disavowed 
 by the National League, but it was avowed by the leaders of the 
 National League as their plan. It was not only avowed : it was 
 gloried in. It was not only gloried in : it was preached all over 
 Ireland ; and not only that, but, differing again from the No-rent 
 Manifesto, the Plan of Campaign was widely acted on by the 
 Irish tenantry. 
 
 I have shown you that JMr. Gladstone had recourse to coercion 
 for Ireland before the No-rent Manifesto ; I have shown you 
 that the present Government did not have recourse to coercion 
 for Ireland until after the wide adoption of the Plan of Cam- 
 paign. Look at the importance of the difference. Mr. Glad- 
 stone says our strongest charge against him is that he resorted 
 to precisely similar methods for governing Ireland as we do 
 now, and he says he has dismissed that charge and shattered it 
 by his argument that the nature of the Irish party had changed. 
 I have shown you that the "'nature of the Irish party is the 
 same, as judged by a comparison between the Plan of Cam- 
 paign and the No-rent Manifesto ; and further I have shown 
 you that this Tory Government which Mr. Morley charges with 
 being so ready, so precipitate, in having recourse to the ' days 
 of dark and tyrannous Toryism,' has exhibited to the Irish 
 people far more patience, far more forbearance, far more reluct- 
 ance to resort to extreme measures than did the Government 
 of which Mr. Gladstone was the head. But I will not yet leave 
 the subject. Mr. Gladstone avers that the Irish party has 
 changed — that their objects are more moderate, and that their 
 methods are different and more legal. I assert — and I challenge 
 contradiction — that the National League of the present day and 
 the Land League of Mr, Gladstone's day are one and the same 
 body ; that they do not differ in the slightest respect. Wliat 
 proof would I bring of that assertion ? I do not go to Sir 
 William Harcourt. He is the last witness I would call. And 
 therefore I do not go to him and quote his saying when he 
 was a Minister of the Crown that the National League was the 
 apostolic successor to the Land League. I put him aside, 
 and o-o to a more credible and more recent witness — I mean 
 
THE ' KEVOLUTIONARY PARTY' 247 
 
 Mr, Michael Davitt. Only the other da}" — about three weeks 
 ago — Mr. Michael Davitt, addressing the people of Cork, and 
 through them the people of Ireland, said that the National 
 League and the Land League were one and the same body, that 
 they had not changed, that their objects were the same, that 
 their methods were the same, that their officers were the same, 
 and their members the same. Now, who is likely to know most 
 about the National League ? Mr. Davitt or Mr. Gladstone ? 
 And in the face of the assertion of Mr. Davitt, what becomes 
 of Mr. Gladstone's contention that the Irish party have changed 
 their methods and their objects. Now, let us see how far we 
 have got. We have established the absolute identity of the 
 National League and the Land League, and we have got Mr. 
 Gladstone's admission, made at Derby the other day, that his 
 coercion of the Land League was right and justifiable. We 
 have established the absolute similarity between the Plan of 
 Campaign and the No-rent Manifesto, and we have got Mr. 
 Gladstone's assertion, made at Derby the other day, that the 
 No-rent Manifesto was an action of dangerous and violent ille- 
 gality. And we have got to this : that whereas Mr. Gladstone 
 applied to Parliament for coercion before the No-rent Manifesto, 
 and at a time when the No-rent Manifesto had not been acted on 
 by the people of Ireland — had not, indeed, been issued — the pre- 
 sent Government did not apply to Parliament for special powers 
 until after the Plan of Campaign had been initiated, and at a 
 time when the Plan of Campaign was being dangerously acted 
 upon among the Irish people. In the face of this, what becomes 
 of ]\[r. Gladstone's indictment against the Government and the 
 Unionist party that we have resorted to coercion on insufficient 
 ground ? There is one more accusation which I am anxious to 
 deal with. ^Ir. Gladstone declares that the Unionist party at 
 the last election pledged themselves before the people of England 
 that they would have no recourse to coercion in Ireland. I declare 
 that that accusation is unfounded. I defy Mr. Gladstone or 
 any of his followers to quote from one single speech or address 
 of any leading member of the Unionist party at the last election 
 one single sentence or opinion v/hich, by any stretch of imagina- 
 tion or any exercise of ingenuity, could be twisted into n pledge 
 
248 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 that the Unionist party would not have recourse to coercion for 
 the government of Ireland. I know that there is no such 
 declaration to be found. I say there is no single leader of the 
 Unionist party who gave such a pledge as Mr. Gladstone de- 
 scribed. The accusation is nonsensical on the face of it. What 
 was the issue before the country in 1886 ? It was whether 
 the country would adhere to the old policy or go in for the 
 new. The old policy was the policy of maintaining the Union. 
 The new policy was the policy of repealing the Union. Both 
 policies involved coercion under certain circumstances. The 
 policy of maintaining the Union involved the possibility, nay, 
 even the probability, of having to ask Parliament for extra- 
 ordinary powers to repress and control the National League. 
 But the policy of repealing the Union involved the absolute 
 certainty of the Irish Parliament arming their Government with 
 extra powers for the coercion of Ulster. The coercion of the 
 Protestant community of Ulster is a far more wicked, far more 
 unjustifiable, and a far more brutal kind of coercion than any 
 which the present Government can be supposed to be guilty of. 
 I come to the second point, which is perhaps more im- 
 portant, and which certainly involves newer topics. I come to 
 Mr. Gladstone's indictment against the administration of the law 
 in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone has averred that the law as adminis- 
 tered in Ireland is disagreeable, and indeed odious, to the Irish 
 people ; and he said it is no wonder it is disagreeable and odious 
 to the Irish people, and he proceeds to adduce certain illustra- 
 tions to show why it should be odious and disagreeable to the 
 Irish people. I will take these illustrations and examine them. 
 But first he makes a general assertion, and says that owing 
 to the action of the Government there is no freedom of speech 
 in Ireland. Is there not ? We will test that assertion by 
 actual fact. About a fortnight ago there was a meeting in 
 the Rotunda, at Dublin, which was attended^by the Nationalist 
 party ; and I have no reason to suppose there was any Govern- 
 ment reporter at the meeting, and I am certain no prosecution 
 followed the speeches delivered. But I am going to give you 
 some gems out of the speeches which were delivered at that 
 meeting, to show that a very considerable freedom of speech does 
 
THE 'REVOLUTIONARY PARTY' 249 
 
 exist in Ireland^much more freedom than any of us would 
 permit ourselves here. Mr. Dillon was speaking on the Coer- 
 cion Act, and he said : ' The Lord Mayor and Mr. William 
 O'Brien would continue to publish, in defiance of the seventh 
 clause, ay, and of the whole Act, the full proceedings and the 
 resolutions of every suppressed branch in Ireland if they were 
 men enough to hold their meetings and pass their resolutions. 
 They had set the Act at open defiance, and invited the Govern- 
 ment to put them down if they could and if they dared ; and he 
 said in the name of the Irish Press there was not a newspaper 
 that called itself National, from Cape Clear to Antrim, that 
 would not continue to publish the proceedings of the suppressed 
 National League branches in defiance of the clause in the Act, 
 and let the Castle do its worst.' There is not much restraint 
 there. But Mr. Dillon improves on that. He goes on to say, 
 alluding to the evictions at Gweedore and to the action of the 
 Eoman Catholic priest in stimulating the people to resist the 
 police at Gweedore : ' Be it crime or no crime, he told them to 
 face the police again and resist them. What was the result of 
 Father M'Fadden's action ? A more instructive lesson had 
 never been taught the people of Ireland. Father M'Fadden 
 faced the police, and drove them and the magistrates in charge 
 of them out of Donegal.' Not much want of liberty in that. 
 I go on. Mr. Dillon further says : ' The moral of that was that 
 every tenant in Ireland who had the heart of a man in his breast 
 should take his stand upon his heai'th and fight as long as his 
 arm had strength in it for his home.' I am not saying whether 
 these sentiments are right or wrong. All I say is, that if senti- 
 ments of that kind can be delivered at a public meeting in the 
 capital of Ireland, without the smallest interference by the 
 Government, what becomes of Mr. Gladstone's charge that there 
 is no freedom of speech in Ireland ? I have only one more quo- 
 tation. ' It was the national resolve,' said Mr. O'Brien at the 
 same meeting, ' to defy that infamous and abominable Act ' — 
 that is, the law of the land agreed to by Parliament — ' to defy- 
 that infamous and abominable Act, and to obstruct it and 
 defeat it in every possible way, and to hold it up to public 
 ridicule, hatred, and contempt. Their determination was to 
 
250 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 kick Balfour's pi-nclaiiuitiou ironi one end of Ireland to the other, 
 just as the Mitchelstown boys kicked the helmets of the police 
 from the market-square.' I do not think, after what I have read 
 to you, and knowing that these speeches were delivered without 
 the smallest interference by the Government, that any man in 
 England, except the most rabid and most hopeless partisan of 
 Repeal, will say that freedom of speech is interfered with in Ire- 
 land. We are told that there is not a free press in Ireland. Is 
 there not ? I have not foi'tified myself to-day with copies of 
 ' United Ireland.' In every edition of ' United Ireland,' which 
 comes out twice or thrice a week, you will find the paper is 
 filled with the wildest accusations, and the most unrestrained 
 and abominable and revolting accusations, against the present 
 Government, of every sort and kind, and not one of those papers 
 has been prosecuted or will be prosecuted on account of the 
 accusations against the Government which they contain. How 
 can it be said that there is no free press in Ireland ? Writers in 
 the Irish pi*ess may write, and do write, exactly what they please 
 against the Government, No language is too violent for them 
 to use ; no language, however violent, as long as it is just an 
 expression of opinion, will entail prosecution ; but when a news- 
 paper deliberately sets itself to break the law of the land, as 
 agreed to by Parliament, an Irish newspaper, just like an English 
 newspaper under similar circumstances, would be brought either 
 before a magistrate or a jury. 
 
 [The speaker, having replied to some statements made by Mr. 
 Gladstone concerning some alleged abuses committed by the 
 police authorities in Ireland, proceeded to defend the police in 
 London from Mr. Gladstone's reflections upon them.] 
 
 I must say a word about the police. What I say of the 
 police in London applies to the police in Newcastle, or any 
 other large town in the country. The duties of the police in 
 any large town are of the most arduous, anxious, and responsible 
 character. I take London alone. Look at the smallness of the 
 number of police in London compared to the population of 
 London. I think the police in London only number about 
 fourteen thousand, among a population of five millions. Look at 
 their duties : they have not only to look after the property of 
 
THE 'REVOLUTIONARY PARTY' 251 
 
 tlie citizens, they have not only to watch closely over that 
 numerous criminal class which resides in every large town. 
 They have to look after those societies which exist in England, 
 supported from America, for purposes connected with the use of 
 dynamite. I know from my own official knowledge that there 
 are agents of these societies in many of our large towns on whom 
 the police have a watch. I know of an escape of the English 
 people from a disaster of unprecedented magnitude in 1883 — an 
 escape by a hcxir's breadth, and an escape brought about only 
 by the uncommon watchfulness of the police. But, in addition 
 to all that, the police in London have now to watch closely 
 those Socialist associations which exist, and which seem to ex- 
 ist, for no other purpose than to cause riot and disorder. And 
 surely a body of faithful public servants, who have performed 
 and are performing duties of so terribly anxious, so terribly 
 responsible a nature — surely they are entitled to the generous 
 appreciation of the British public, surely they have a right to 
 be protected from the hasty, from the unreflecting censure of one 
 who, only a few months ago, was Prime Minister of the country 
 and responsible for the peace of the whole realm. 
 
 I wish now to discover as briefly as I may the reason of 
 this attitude on the part of Mr. Gladstone towards the police 
 generally throughout the United Kingdom. It is not an atti- 
 tude which he would have taken up a year ago. What is 
 the reason of the changed attitude on the part of Mr. Gladstone 
 towards the police of the United Kingdom ? That examination 
 opens up one of the most serious aspects of the policy of Repeal. 
 It opens up this question, What has been the effect on Mr. 
 Gladstone and his following of their alliance and fusion with 
 a party which is distinctly a revolutionary party ? What is 
 the difference between a constitutional party and a revolu- 
 tionary party ? A constitutional party works as the Tories and 
 the Radicals have worked in this'country for years past — it works 
 by public discussion, by orderly agitation, by the use of argu- 
 ment, by petitions of every kind, and by other legal methods. 
 That is a constitutional party. What is a revolutionary party ? 
 A revolutionaiy party is a party which, like the party of Mr. 
 Parnell, discards all the methods of a constitutional party, and 
 
2.32 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 relies solely on methods of public disorder, constant disturbance 
 of the peace, violent and forcible resistance to all processes and 
 forms of law. That is a revolutionary party. And the effect 
 upon Mr. Gladstone and his followers of their alliance, their 
 fusion with a revolutionary party has been that instead of their 
 making, as the Government hoped, a revolutionary party consti- 
 tutional, the revolutionary party is making them revolutionary. 
 Their alliance with the revolutionary party has eliminated 
 their constitutional disposition, and has forced them to aim at 
 revolutionaiy objects and to work b}" revolutionary methods. 
 That will show why this onslaught is being made by the party of 
 Repeal upon the police of the United Kingdom. On that I have 
 got to say that if, for the future, political changes and political 
 reforms of any kind are to be effected, not by constitutional 
 agitation, but by disorder, by disturbance, by violent resistance 
 to all forms and processes of law— if that is to be the future of 
 our political life, then farewell, a long farewell to all commer- 
 cial progress of any kind — farewell, a long farewell to all hope 
 and all prosperity of re^dved trade and industry in England. 
 What is the secret of the colossal wealth and power of the 
 British Empire ? I hold it to be this — that for a space of two 
 hundred years revolutionary forces in this country have been 
 kept under, that public opinion has never tolerated the exercise 
 of revolutionary forces, for the Government of the day have 
 always been supported by public opinion in putting down and 
 keeping under revolutionary forces. But depend upon it that 
 the moment these revolutionary forces, which must exist in all 
 great communities, escape from control ; the moment that they 
 think, or have reason to believe, any large proportion of public 
 opinion, or that any important political party will tolerate, or 
 will excuse, or will justify the disorder which they cause, then 
 you may be certain that the sun of British prosperity, of British 
 wealth, of British commercial greatness, will set for ever. You 
 may imagine to yourselves what would follow if the revolutionary 
 forces got the upper hand. All enterprise would be checked, 
 all commerce would be contracted, factories and workshops 
 would be closed, labour would be unemployed, wages would 
 fall. The fjict is that the escape of the revolutionary forces 
 
THE ' KEVOLUTIONARY PARTY ' 253 
 
 from control would not affect what Mr. Gladstone calls the 
 classes — at any rate would affect tliem far less than the masses 
 of the people. The classes possess capital. Capital can take to 
 itself wings and flee away. But what will be the condition of 
 the working men of this country, what will be the condition of 
 their families and their homes when disorder and anarchy shall 
 have taken the place of authority and law ? I have specially 
 alluded to this matter in language as strong as I could bring- 
 to bear, because I think it ought to attract the attention of 
 working men. There is no more serious aspect of the Repeal 
 movement than the tendency which it seems to show that the 
 revolutionary forces are endeavouring to escape from the control 
 under which they have been kept for over two hundred years. 
 Will the democracy of England be quick enough to discern the 
 danger and guard against it while there is time ? I confess 
 that I am startled and alarmed at the fact that the majority of 
 the electors of this great city, and indeed of the North of 
 England generally, should have given in their adhesion to the 
 Repeal of the Union. It may be that our exuberant wealth, 
 our bounding and swelling prosperity in times not long ago, 
 our rapid annexations of territory and acquisitions of empire, 
 our measureless commerce, our proud marine, have blunted the 
 perceptions and dulled the energies of our race, and have led us 
 to believe that we may lightly acquiesce in any political experi- 
 ment, any organic change. Yet surely there are moments when 
 we must realise that England, surrounded as she is by mighty 
 States disposing of innumerable armies, is not invulnerable, 
 that her resources are not inexhaustible, and that there is no 
 certainty that her empire should endure for ever and for ay. 
 Other empires as wide and great as ours have waxed and 
 waned, other States as powerful and as wealthy as ours have 
 risen and have sunk into the ocean of the past ; and it may be 
 that the time is inscribed upon the book of fate when the busy 
 marts, the crowded streets, the bustling factories of this living 
 city shall be as desolate as the ruins of Thebes, as silent and as 
 mournful as the courts of the palaces of the Mogul. Who will 
 dare pronounce ? But of this I am certain, that if such is the 
 inevitable fate of our empire, history will unerringly decide 
 
254 SrEELlIliS or LOKD KANUOLPII ClIURCUILL 
 
 that the kuell of our glory and might was earliest tolled on the 
 day when the people relaxed their firm grip of the noble prin- 
 ciple of the Union and feebly and fatally followed the broad 
 and downward path of separation ; on the day when popular 
 cowardice was substituted for civic courage ; when surrender to 
 rebellion, treason, and sedition was disguised under the specious 
 pretexts of concession, conciliation, philanthropy, and the rights 
 of nationalities ; when order, law, and loyalty to authority had 
 ceased to be the watchwords of the community and were no 
 longer the bulwarks of the State. It may be neither right nor 
 wise nor profitable thus to speculate upon or pry into the 
 mysteries of the future ; but should these anticipations, founded 
 upon the mutability of institutions and the spirit of decay which 
 pervades all human arrangements, not wander far from actual 
 eventuality, then I am confident that it will also be recorded 
 that the Unionist party had striven hard and long and to the 
 last to avert the doom, and that they are innocent and guiltless 
 of all responsibility for a calamity which will shock mankind 
 and change the world itself. 
 
255 
 
 'FAIR TRADE.' 
 
 Stockton, October 24, 1887. 
 
 [In 1885 a Royal Commission was appointed by Lord Salisbury's 
 Government to inquire into the causes of depression of trade. 
 It was presided over by Lord Iddesleigh. Mr. Gosclien and other 
 leading Liberals refused to take any part in this inquiry, but a 
 large mass of evidence was produced, and ultimately the majority 
 of the Commission made a report which, upon the whole, was 
 unfavoui'able to the Fair Traders. Lord Randolph (yhurchill felt 
 himself bound to abide by the decision of the main body of the 
 Commission ; and, consequently, in the following speech, he adopted 
 a line more hostile to the policy of placing duties on imported goods 
 than that which he had taken at Blackpool and other places. It 
 ought to be stated that the two gentlemen specially referred to in 
 this speech advocated nothing more than a system under which 
 moderate duties could be laid on fully manufactured foreign goods 
 for revenue purposes.] 
 
 THE Irish leaders, you must recollect, have declared in Ireland 
 and in Parliament that by every means in their power they 
 will make the government of Ireland impossible, that they will 
 prevent the Government responsible to the Imperial Parliament 
 at Westminster from governing Ireland ; and they are actively 
 aided and abetted in that policy by the members of the Radical 
 party, and also they receive support from Mr. Gladstone himself. 
 Why ? Because, obviously, if the Irish can succeed in making 
 the government of Ireland impossible, in breaking down the 
 government of Ireland, and in breaking down with it the 
 Government of the Unionist party, then Mr. Gladstone will 
 come before the country, and he will point to the complete 
 breakdown of the Government ; he will declare that all his 
 prophecies bad been fulfilled, and lie will possibly, he thinks, 
 
250 Sl-EliCHES 01' LOED EANDOLPII CIIURCUILL 
 
 obtiiiu from the people of England a perfectly free hand — without 
 any declaration of policy beforehand, without any explanations 
 in detail he will obtain a perfectly free hand for his project of 
 setting up two Parliaments and two Governments in the United 
 Kingdom. The policy is obvious and plain, and you must be 
 on your guard against it, and you must not attach too much 
 importance to these incidental struggles which have taken place, 
 and which possibly will take place, between the police and the 
 people of Ireland. They are mere incidents in the great struggle 
 which is going on in Ireland, on the fate of which order depends 
 not only in Ireland but in your own country — the great struggle 
 between lawlessness and law, between anarchy and order. 
 
 There are some people in this country, not necessarily hot 
 partisans, but people of a sentimental and rather weak turn of 
 mind, who are always very much shocked and horrified when a 
 collision takes place between the people and the forces of the 
 Executive Government, and they carry their sentimentality to 
 such an extent that they appear to be under the impression 
 that whenever disorder is threatened the police should give way, 
 and should not attempt to quell the disorder ; that under no 
 circumstances whatever should the police and the people ever 
 come into collision. I might point out that the logical result 
 of the definite acceptance of a policy of that kind would be that 
 we might just as well do away with the police altogether, and 
 save ourselves a great deal of expense. But I should like to 
 bring to your notice some examples of what goes on in America, 
 where these opinions are not held as to the iniquity of quelling 
 disorder by force. We know that America is a country of 
 perfect freedom ; that we find in America the purest form of 
 democratic government which you could well see. Well, I 
 happened to be looking the other day over an account of some 
 riots which took place in New York in the year 1863. These 
 riots, curiously enough, were Irish riots ; and what is still 
 more curious is that, I believe, strictly speaking — speaking 
 from the strictly legal point of view — the Irish were justified 
 in protesting against the action of the Government which led 
 to the riot. What took place was this : the President of the 
 United States, in order to carry on the war, called for an extra 
 
'FAIR trade' 257 
 
 levy of soldiers from the population. I believe that that act 
 on his part was unconstitutional — he certainly did something 
 which was perfectly unconstitutional. He sent the Provost- 
 Marshal of the United States to go into the city of New York 
 to superintend the levy himself This sending one of the 
 Government officers into the territory of a State which for all 
 State purposes was independent of the Federal Government 
 could only be justified by the great law of public safety. The 
 population of New York submitted to that forced levy, all ex- 
 cept the Irish, and the Irish protested ; not only protested but 
 rioted ; and for four days the city of New York was in posses- 
 sion of a riotous Irish crowd, and a quantity of property was 
 destroyed, and many lives were lost. And then the United 
 States Government thought they would act. So they sent some 
 troops to New York ; they did not think the police were quite 
 strong enough, and the troops came into the town, and this is 
 how the action of the troops is described by a person who wrote 
 an account of that riot : ' The troops were commanded by 
 Captain Putnam, and Captain Putnam placed his guns in posi- 
 tion and swept the street with canister, which soon cleared it. 
 Bodies lay thick on the pavement, and in the course of five days 
 over 1,200 Irishmen were killed, and the lesson has not had to 
 be repeated in New York.' Therefore, you see our friends in 
 America are not squeamish about restoring order when they 
 think it is threatened. But there is another story told about 
 Irish riots at that time. There were riots in Pennsylvania. 
 The police were to some extent overpowered, so General Grant 
 sent General Sheridan into Pennsylvania with troops, and the 
 story goes that General Grant sent for General Sheridan before 
 he started, and said, ' Have you plenty of grapeshot ? ' General 
 Sheridan said that he had, and General Grant said, ' Then you 
 require no more instructions.' You may say, ' Well, that was a 
 long time ago, and under the pressure of a great civil war.' So 
 it was, but the Americans proceed in exactly the same way at 
 the present day in that purely democratic country where perfect 
 freedom is supposed to prevail, and is looked upon as the high- 
 est of all objects. I saw in ' The Times ' on the 2nd of this 
 month that a meeting had been announced to take place in 
 VOL. II. S 
 
258 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 New Jersey to protest against the sentence of death passed upon 
 seven Socialists at Chicago. What followed is described in 
 Renter's telegram — ' The police were, however, forewarned, and 
 one hundred and fifty constables occupied the hall where the 
 meetiug was to be held ' — in order to do what Mr. Gladstone 
 decided the English Government had no right to do — ' to 
 prevent the meeting being held.' That was the action of the 
 American police. They would not allow a meeting to be held, 
 called for the purpose of sympathising with men who had been 
 condemned to death. Why ? Because the meeting was likely 
 to disturb order. However, let us go on. 'The Socialists, 
 being infuriated at this, made a rush upon the police, some of 
 them being armed with knives. The police used their clubs 
 aud wounded many of their assailants, and it is feared fatally, 
 and finally succeeded in getting possession of the hall and 
 in preventing the meeting.' That shows pretty well that the 
 American people perfectly understand that you cannot trifle 
 with lawlessness, especially in a country where there are large 
 and practically unlimited democratic institutions. Everybody 
 in America is expected to do what apparently nobody is ex- 
 pected to do in Ireland, and that is to obey the law. The 
 New York Legislature and other American legislatures are very 
 fond of passing resolutions sympathising with the disturbers of 
 order in this country, but when similar elements begin to work 
 in their own they alter their ideas. Then the police begin to 
 use their clubs, and the military begin to get their rifles into 
 that position which shocks Mr. Gladstone as being so terrible. 
 What is going on in Ireland affects our own country also. 
 Look at the state of things in London just now. Day after day 
 the traffic of London is impeded. Day after day the order of 
 London is disturbed by persons who have been taught by Mr. 
 Gladstone that all interference by the police is an impertinence.' 
 The disorders of London have become aggravated since that 
 
 ' Referring to disorderly meetings in Trafalgar Square, which occasioned 
 great annoyance and loss to the tradespeople of the district, and kept a large 
 part of London in a state of uneasiness and turmoil. Li the midst of these 
 events, Mr. Gladstone made some adverse criticisms on the police, which were 
 much resented throughout the country. 
 
*FAIR trade' 259 
 
 speech which Mr. Gladstone delivered to the deputation at 
 Kidderminster, and the duties of the police have become in- 
 expressibly more difficult and more dangerous than they were 
 before ; and the police have been denounced by Mr. Gladstone 
 as acting illegally and as being impertinent. I happened to 
 come across a quotation yesterday from a speech made by Mr. 
 Gladstone's own Home Secretary in the year 1883 about the 
 police ; and to show you how Mr. Gladstone has been changed 
 by his alliance with the revolutionary party of Mr. Parnell, I 
 will just read what the Home Secretary of that day, only four 
 years ago, said about the police. He said : ' The first line of 
 defence that we have is the police, and I hope I may pay my 
 tribute to the splendid service which the police, not only in 
 the metropolis, but also in the provinces, and in Ireland, have 
 rendered to the cause of society.' Not to the Government — not 
 to the party, but to the cause of society, said the Home Secre- 
 tary ; but in spite of that — in spite of those splendid services 
 which were rendered by the police — Mr. Gladstone has allowed 
 himself, for party and political purposes of by no means a high 
 order, to hold up the police, as it were, to the condemnation, 
 and even worse than the condemnation, of the people of this 
 country. 
 
 I wish to occupy your attention for a few moments on a 
 matter which I think is of interest to the people of this country. 
 I allude to the condition of British trade. I glanced at this 
 subject the other night at Sunderland, but I did not go at all 
 deeply into it for want of time. I see that my remarks with 
 regard to the policy of protection have incurred the censure of 
 a leading member of the Protectionist party (Mr. Henry Chap- 
 lin), and I am anxious to go more fully into the matter than I 
 was able to go into it at Sunderland the other night. Nobody can 
 take part in English public life at the present moment without 
 being deeply impressed every day that he lives with the serious 
 condition of British manufacture and agriculture, with the con- 
 tinuance of the depression which has for years affected those two 
 great branches of industry, and with the very slender hopes and 
 signs of any speedy amelioration. But the fact that British 
 trade is depressed and that British agriculture is critically 
 
 s 2 
 
260 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 affected, and the fact that there are no signs that reasonable 
 people can rely upon of any immediate revival, ought to put us 
 exceedingly on our guard against the adoption of rash remedies 
 that are proposed for the cure of this depi'ession. I dare say 
 there are many Fair Traders in this hall, and I would like 
 to argue a little with them this evening. In the first place, 
 let me allude to what Mr. Chaplin said about my remarks 
 at Sunderland. I said that low prices of the necessaries of 
 life and political stability in a democratic Constitution were, 
 I believed, closely connected or inseparable. Mr. Chaplin dis- 
 agrees with that altogether, and says, How can you prove that 
 you had not political stability twelve or fourteen years ago, 
 when prices were much higher ? and have you greater political 
 stability now than you had then ? and is there greater political 
 stability in Ireland than you had at that time ? Now I cannot 
 go into the question of Ireland, because Ireland is affected by 
 special causes which altogether render it valueless for trade 
 examination. But with regard to twelve or fourteen years 
 ago, when prices, as Mr. Chaplin says, were high, the fact is 
 this, that twelve years ago prices were higher than they are now, 
 but they were low relatively to the wages which were then 
 earned ; and that is ray point with regard to low prices now — 
 that the wages are lower than they were twelve years ago, that 
 the profits of business are less, and yet that the prices of the 
 necessaries of life are lower than they were twelve years ago. 
 That is my point ; but let us go back a little. Let us go back 
 to times when, I hold, you had no political stability, and when 
 you had high prices of the necessaries of life and low wages. 
 Let us go back to the time at the close of the great war. For 
 many years after the close of the great war you had high prices 
 of the necessaries of life and low wages, a very miserable con- 
 dition of the labouring and artisan portion of the community, 
 and certainly no political stability. The masses of the people 
 were kept down by the sheer force and strength possessed by 
 the Government of the day ; and we do not call that political 
 stability. I go to another period, the period before the repeal 
 of the Corn Laws, and there again you had high prices of the 
 necessaries of life and low wages ; and I cannot think you had 
 
'FAIE TRADE' 261 
 
 much political stability at that time. Tlie fact which proves 
 you had uo political stability at the time is that Sir Robert 
 Peel, the leader of the Tory party, a man pledged to Protection 
 by all the acts of his life and by the process by which he had 
 got into power — Sir Robert Peel saw there was so little political 
 stability in the financial position of the day that he threw over 
 his party, and was even charged with having betrayed it. He 
 abolished the Corn Laws and introduced corn into the country 
 free of duty. I quote that to show that my argument about 
 low prices of the necessaries of life and political stability in a 
 democratic Constitution is strengthened if you look back to the 
 two periods to which I have referred. Have we political stability 
 now that we have these low prices which Mr. Chaplin says are 
 such a terrible disadvantage ? I say we have. What is my 
 proof of it ? I find this the greatest and most practical proof 
 The Tory party is in office and the Tory party is undoubtedly 
 the party of political stability, and when the Tory party is sup- 
 ported by the great portion of the masses of the people I hold 
 that you have political stability. What have you got now ? 
 You have in the great towns of England, in the great towns in 
 the North, and in the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and 
 particularly in London — marvellously displayed in London — 
 enormous volumes and enormous masses of the people, of the 
 labouring people, who faithfully range themselves behind and 
 support the Tory party. That is the state of things at the 
 present day. What do you suppose would have been the state 
 of things before the repeal of the Corn Laws if you had had in 
 those days an election on the same franchise as you have now ? 
 I do not suppose in those days, under such circumstances, before 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws, when prices of the necessaries of 
 life were high and wages low, there would have been one-fourth 
 part of the House of Commons supporting the Tory party. 
 There is the difference between what I call political stability and 
 political instability. I find you have now in this country, at 
 a period of low prices, an immense portion of the population ^ 
 deeply attached to the Constitution, and I am certain you would 
 not have had that portion so pronounced and so in favour of the 
 Constitution at the time to which I have referred, when prices 
 
262 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 were high and wages were low. Mr. Chaplin further said that 
 the Royal Commission had reported that the present depression 
 of trade was due to low prices. That is not accurate. It is dis- 
 tinctly inaccurate. What the Commission reported was that 
 the depression of trade was due to over-production (a very 
 different thing), and that over-production causes low prices ; 
 and it is not at all correct to say that the Commission singled 
 out low prices and said they were the cause of the depression 
 of trade. The Commission singled out the main cause as 
 over-production, and that is another important fact to bear in 
 mind. But, passing over that side of the argument, let us come 
 to the great remedy that is preached to us for the depression of 
 trade ; and let us examine it quietly this evening. 
 
 What is Fair Trade ? I have never been able to get a 
 definition of it. I have several friends who are Fair Traders ; 
 my two great friends. Lord Dunraven and Mr. Jennings, the 
 member for Stockport, are Fair Traders. I have never been able 
 to get at what they mean by Fair Trade. What does it mean ? 
 Does it mean an ad valorem duty on foreign manufactures 
 alone, or does it mean an ad valorem duty on foreign manufac- 
 tures together with duties on raw material and food imported 
 from abroad ? Because there is an essential and vital difference 
 between the two things. If it means only an ad valorem duty 
 on foreign manufactures, then I am against it. I am against it 
 from a party point of view. What would take place if the 
 Tory party advocated an ad valorem duty on foreign manufac- 
 tures ? That would happen to us which happened to us from 
 other causes in 1885. We should win the boroughs and we 
 should lose the counties ; because nothing will persuade me that 
 the country population will acquiesce in a policy of allowing the 
 manufacturing interest in the towns to put on protective duties 
 which will make manufactured articles dearer to them to buy, 
 unless they are to get a corresponding benefit for their own pro- 
 ductions. I say that if Fair Trade means an ad valorem duty of 
 foreign manufactures I am against it, because I think such a 
 policy would greatly injure, possibly even ruin, the Tory party. 
 But does it mean besides an ad valorem duty on foreign manu- 
 factures — and this is a question to which I must have an answer 
 
'FAIR TRADE' 263 
 
 from somebody of position in the country who advocates Fair 
 Trade ; they always shirk it — does it mean an ad valorem duty 
 on foreign manufactures combined with duties on foreign im- 
 ports of raw materials and foreign imports of food ? Does it 
 mean that ? Let us take the imports of food. It is no use 
 putting a duty on these imports for the purpose of benefiting 
 the farmer unless your duty is of such a kind and such a nature 
 as to raise the price which the farmer can get for his corn. 
 That is quite clear, is it not ? I should see no harm in a 
 shilling duty on wheat. We had a shilling duty on wheat till 
 within the last ten years, and it produced a very respectable sum 
 of money, and I believe a shilling duty on wheat at the present 
 moment would produce over a million a year, and it certainly 
 could not by any possibility affect the price of bread. But that 
 duty would do no good to the farmers. What the farmers want 
 is a duty which shall make the cultivation of wheat profitable 
 to them. Then what sort of duty will it be, must it be, to raise 
 wheat to that price ? What is the price generally admitted to 
 be profitable to the farmer for the cultivation of wheat ? Forty- 
 five shillings a quarter. (A Voice : ' Forty shillings.') Forty — 
 on certain land possibly you might not be able to grow Avheat 
 profitably at forty shillings a quarter. (A A^oice : ' Forty-eight.') 
 There seems to be a difference of opinion. It is an average 
 between forty shillings and fifty shillings. What the farmer 
 wants is such a duty as will raise the price of wheat from 
 twenty-eight shillings, where it stands now, to some figure 
 between forty shillings and fifty shillings. Now, is that what 
 the Fair Traders advocate ? That is what I want to know ; 
 because if they do, I want to know what evidence there is of 
 any great national demand for such a duty on wheat. That is 
 a very important matter. The Tory party, Mr. Disraeli once 
 said, would be nothing unless it was a national party. A 
 national party must, I suppose, have a national policy, I can 
 quite understand that there are certain lines of policy which it 
 would be the duty of the Tory party to resist to the last, even if 
 an overwhelming majority of the nation advocated those lines 
 of policy — lines of policy such as would alter the Constitution of 
 this country, or lines of policy which would shake the rights of 
 
204 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 property. I can quite understand that the Tory party ought 
 to resist such a policy even if the nation demanded it by 
 an overwhelming majority, even if by so resisting they were 
 excluded from office for years. But with this financial question 
 I find no such necessity. The Tory party are under no disability 
 with regard to a change of fiscal policy. They are not responsible 
 for the repeal of the Corn Laws ; they always protested against 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws. Therefore, if there was a great, 
 strong national demand for a recurrence to a system of protec- 
 tion which should invoh^e a duty on food, which would have the 
 effect of making food higher in price to the people, I see nothing 
 whatever to prevent the Tory party yielding to such a national 
 demand. At an}" rate, for my own part, if I saw such a national 
 demand, I should not think it my duty to offer an obstinate 
 or a prejudiced resistance. But where is the national demand ? 
 I have put before you what the nature of the duty must be, 
 and I want to know where is the national demand ? Where 
 are the great mass meetings held in favour of a duty on corn ? 
 I have not heard of one. Where are the petitions to Par- 
 liament in favour of a duty on corn ? I have not seen one. 
 Where is the instance in which a man of Parliamentary position 
 supported by large numbers of followers has got up and advo- 
 cated a duty on corn ? There has never been one in my time 
 (A Voice : ' Lowther.') Mr. Lowther ? I think I am right in 
 saying this, that Mr. Lowther has never advocated in the House 
 of Commons the imposition of a duty on corn high enough 
 to make the cultivation of corn profitable to the British farmer. 
 Never — I am certain of it ; and I am certain that if he did 
 there is hardly one man in the House of Commons who would get 
 up and agree with him. But there I have made my point, 
 that if Fair Trade means an ad valorem duty on manufactures, I 
 am against it, because it would benefit one portion of the country 
 at the expense of the other. If it means a general return to the 
 imposition all round of high duties on foreign imports, I say, 
 before I make one step in that direction, I must have distinct 
 and clear and forcible evidence of a national demand for such a 
 policy. What do my friends the Fair Traders say to that ? 
 But I will go a little farther. Let us assume that we have 
 
'FAIK TRADE' 265 
 
 a great national demand — an unmistakable demand. I have one 
 criticism to make. It would be the most tremendous confession 
 by a nation, not only of failure but of commercial weakness, 
 which I can conceive. Can we afford as a nation to make such 
 a confession as that, unless we are absolutely certain in our own 
 minds that the remedy will make us better off" than we were 
 before ? Can a great nation afford to confess, not only that it 
 has made a great mistake, but that that mistake has nearly 
 ruined it? That is a matter worthy of your consideration. 
 It is a question of credit. You may say it is sentimental ; 
 you may say that when you have made a mistake you had 
 better confess it and repair it as soon as you can ; but it 
 is an objection which is worthy of consideration, and certainly 
 such a confession as that of national weakness and national 
 failure ought not to be made except on the clearest and most 
 certain ground that the policy you are going to recur to will 
 make you stronger than before. But I proceed to another ques- 
 tion which I put to Fair Traders. Can the Fair Traders prove 
 simply, and in a manner intelligible to the people at large, that 
 France, Austria, and Germany — countries where there are high 
 protective duties — are more flourishing and more prosperous 
 than we are ? Can they prove it ? It is no use saying to me, 
 as I noticed a Sheffield paper said the other day, ' Go to 
 America or New South Wales.' I will not go to America, and 
 I will not go to New South Wales. There is not the smallest 
 analogy between those countries and England. America is a 
 self-contained country, and almost everything she requires for her 
 people she can produce in abundance. We cannot. We have 
 more people than we can feed ; and not only for food, but for 
 our manufactures, we depend on ra-w material imported from 
 abroad. Therefore, I decline to go to America or New South 
 Wales ; but I would go to European countries — France, Ger- 
 many, Austria — and I want to know whether the Fair Traders can 
 prove, or undertake to prove, that the people of those countries 
 are more prosperous than ours. I believe not. I have read the 
 reports of our consuls from Paris, and also from Berlin, and 
 those reports go to show that protection, so far from being a 
 benefit to the French and Germans, has been a burden. Of 
 
206 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 course it is only the opinion of a consul, but it is the opinion of 
 an ofiicial — an opinion whicli throws upon the Fair Traders of 
 the country the duty of showing that the consul is wrong and 
 that protection has been a benefit to France and Germany. The 
 question I want to ask is, whether European protected countries 
 are more prosperous than ours. I have another question, and 
 this question ought to be answered before Fair Trade is carried 
 much further. No doubt at the present moment British industry 
 is cramped and hampered and handicapped by the fortifications 
 of customs duties which foreign countries have erected round 
 their territories, Tliere is no doubt about that, and it is equally 
 true that, in spite of that fortification, an enormous amount of 
 British manufactures filter through these fortifications into the 
 countries protected. Foreign countries do not mind that going 
 on to a certain extent, because they realise the advantages which 
 they reap from the possession of the free market in England. 
 But suppose that we in England were to clap on high protective 
 duties on foreign imports, would not the situation be then altered, 
 and would not foreign countries then proceed with a policy of 
 retaliation and put on higher protective duties than they have 
 now, thereby keeping out that margin of British importation 
 which now flows over their protective barrier ? That is worth 
 considering, because, if they did, and importation was finally 
 and for ever checked into foreign protected countries, I do 
 not see that we should be any better off for protection here at 
 home. It is quite true we should have gained the control of 
 the home market, but we should have lost a large amount of 
 our foreign exportation. I want this question answered, What 
 would be the effect of foreign retaliation upon the adoption 
 by Great Britain of protective duties ? And I want another 
 question answered : I want to know, if you adopt protection, 
 what will you do with India ? That is an important matter. 
 India is financially embarrassed. The Indian Government finds 
 great difficulty in raising a revenue sufficient for its wants, on 
 account mainly of the depreciation of silver, and the Indian 
 Government is embarrassed because you do not allow the Indian 
 Government to put protective duties on articles of Indian manu- 
 facture. India is your great free market. Every kind of British 
 
'FAIR TRADE' 2G7 
 
 goods flows into India without the smallest obstacle, and tbe 
 possession of India is of incalculable value on that account to 
 the British working-man. But what I want to know is this. 
 Seeing that India is financially embarrassed owing to the fact 
 that you have not allowed her to put on protective duties for the 
 protection of her industries, suppose you resort to protective 
 duties for the protection of English industries, can you in common 
 decency or justice — can you without most dreadful injustice- -pre- 
 vent India from putting protective duties on her own manufac- 
 tures in order to keep out your competing article ? That is a 
 most important point. India has an industry which thrives in 
 spite of British imports into India — the cotton industry. But 
 suppose that India claimed to put a heavy protective duty on 
 importations of English cotton in order to protect her own 
 cotton industry, and in reply to your having put a heavy import 
 duty on Indian corn, I want to know how you are going to say 
 ' No ' to her. The nation cannot afford to act unjustly — not 
 with injustice so great as that would be if you said ' No.' And 
 suppose India herself put a heavy protective duty on the im- 
 port of English cotton, I want to know what the population of 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire are going to say ? I think they 
 would have something to say to their main market for their 
 produce being taken away from them. I want to know how 
 the Fair Traders would propose to treat India in the event of 
 our recurring to protective duties in England. Again, I think 
 you will get into a difficulty with Ireland. It would be very 
 difficult indeed to refuse to Ireland protective duties for Irish 
 industries in the event of your having put on protective duties 
 for English industries. And if you are to have protective duties 
 for Irish industries, and protective duties for British industries, 
 where is our commercial unity ? I think you will admit that 
 these are questions which the Fair Traders ought to answer, and 
 which they ought to deal with ; and they ought not to attack and 
 they ought not to get angry with people of perhaps their own 
 party who differ from them, but do not differ from them in an 
 unfriendly way, but who wish to be convinced — who are not like 
 the deaf adder, which stops its ears and won't be charmed. I 
 am quite ready to be charmed, only at the present moment the 
 
268 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 music of the Fair Traders is so discorclaiit that I can't be cliarmed, 
 I certainly am no fanatical adherent of the Cobden school. I 
 came into political life long after the school ceased to have any 
 practical existence. I am no fanatical adherent of theirs, and, 
 moreover, having been for a short time at the Exchequer, and, 
 therefore, naturally having an interest in financial and revenue 
 matters, I cannot but feel that any Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 would be glad enough to raise revenue by customs duties, if he 
 was certain that such a mode of raising revenue was fairly 
 economical, safe, and popular — that is to say, acquiesced in by 
 all classes of the community. But what the Fair Traders have 
 got to show us is not only that it would be safe, would be satis- 
 factory in the present state of England, that it would bring back 
 prosperity ; they have got to show us more — they have got to 
 show that the great bulk of the nation are with them ; and they 
 cannot expect that any man in his senses, who occupies any 
 position whatever of responsibility in politics, would consent to 
 abandon what is undoubtedly the safe ground of the present 
 arrangement, and what is probably the advantageous and 
 beneficial ground of the present arrangement, in spite of large 
 drawbacks and disadvantages — they cannot expect any sober, 
 sensible person to abandon that ground unless they prove in the 
 most clear and most unmistakable manner that the ground he 
 is going to take up is stronger than the ground which he leaves. 
 "We must recollect — and I think Fair Traders should recollect, 
 — that interests of the most vital character are committed to the 
 charge of the Tory party. The guardianship of the Monarchy, 
 of the hereditary Chamber ; the connection between Church and 
 State ; the rights of property, order and law, are all committed 
 to the guardianship of the Tory party. And we cannot, and no 
 man of responsibility would, risk the whole of those interests 
 on what, after all, might only amount to the mere turn of a 
 card or to the mere cast of a die. 
 
269 
 
 THE STRENGTH^ OF THE UNION PARTY. 
 
 Stockport, December 16, 1887, 
 [A portion only of this speech is reprinted here.] 
 
 THE general sense of the country seems to me to have turned 
 markedly in a Unionist direction, and you can see by the 
 attitude of the two parties that that is so. The Unionists at the 
 present moment, so far from being disheartened, are jubilant. 
 The Repealers at the present moment, so far from being jubilant, 
 are despondent. I dare say you noticed in the papers this morn- 
 ing that Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter to a gentleman where he 
 talked of the Unionist cause as in every way a failing cause. 
 Where on earth does Mr. Gladstone get his information as to the 
 course of politics in this country ? Was the Unionist cause a 
 failing cause in Dulwich, a large and representative constituency 
 in the metropolis ? Was it a failing cause in North Hunting- 
 donshire, a representative agricultural county ? ^ Where does 
 he find that the Unionist cause is everywhere a failing cause ? 
 Would he find it here if he were present on this platform, see- 
 ing the thousands of people before him representing this great 
 manufacturing town ? It is a most curious thing how liable to 
 error ]\[r. Gladstone seems recently to have become. It has been 
 said by the poet that 
 
 The evening of life gives a mystical lore, 
 And coming events cast their shadows before. 
 
 But those lines obviously do not applj' to the hermit of Hawarden 
 Castle. It is a most curious thing. Mr. Gladstone is an old man 
 — old in the service of his country. But this is most remark- 
 able, that though he is old in experience, and old in years, the 
 
 ' Two recent elections in these constituencies had resulted in Conservative 
 victories— in Dulwich by a majority of 1,412; in North Huntingdonshire by 
 286. 
 
270 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHLLL 
 
 older lie becomes the wronger and wronger be becomes — bad 
 grammar, perhaps, the use of that comparative, but I think it 
 expresses best the present character of Mr. Gladstone's state- 
 ments. It is, further, most curious that his predictions and his 
 prophecies as to coming events, which used to take two or three 
 years in being falsified, now only take two or three weeks in the 
 process. Since the close of the session the position of the two 
 parties, the Unionist party and the Repeal party, has been 
 completely altered ; and I will give you one proof of it. Look 
 at the position and attitude of the Liberal Unionist party. We 
 all know what we owed to the Liberal Unionist party at the 
 last election. They gave us most loyal support, and by their 
 aid we undoubtedly won many seats ; but at the beginning of 
 the year the position of the Liberal Unionist party was a doubtful 
 position. Negotiations were going on of a formal and official 
 character for their reconciliation with Mr. Gladstone and his 
 immediate following, and no one could quite tell at the begin- 
 ning of the year what would be the result of these negotiations. 
 What is the position now ? Why, the leader of the Liberal 
 Unionist party the other day, speaking in London to a con- 
 siderable gathering of his followers, told them that all hopes 
 of reconciliation with the Repeal party must be finally aban- 
 doned, and that, at any rate so far as the next general election 
 is concerned, which may be three or four years ofi", the alliance 
 of the Liberal Unionist party with the Tory party would 
 continue and would hold good for all purposes. That is a great 
 fact. The developed attitude of the Liberal Unionist party I 
 take to be the cardinal feature of the recess. You may have 
 noticed in the papers that in France they talk a great deal 
 about republican concentration ; and though they talk a great 
 deal about it they do not seem to attain it. We have been 
 occupied since the beginning of the year in what we may term 
 ' Unionist concentration,' and we have achieved in the work a 
 remarkable and undeniable measure of success. 
 
 Why should the Unionists be jubilant and the Repealers 
 despondent ? I think I can show you. It has often been urged 
 against Mr. Gladstone that he adopted the policy of repeal in 
 order to gain the Irish vote and to maintain himself in office. 
 
THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION PAKTY 271 
 
 I would be the last person in the world to think it necessary to 
 dispute that proposition. It is quite possible that motives of that 
 kind may have weighed upon him ; but in political discussion, if 
 3'on can, it is as well to attribute to your adversary the best 
 motives ; and therefore let us, for the sake of argument, attribute 
 to Mr. Gladstone the best motive in adopting the policy of 
 Repeal, What was the main plank in the platform of the Repeal 
 party ? It was this — the impossibility, as they hold, of govern- 
 ing Ireland under a Parliamentary union. They were persuaded, 
 convinced beyond the power of argument or reason, of that 
 impossibility ; in fact they all found salvation in the comfortable 
 reflection that Ireland was ungovernable, and they said it and 
 spread it here and there and everywhere, in public and private, 
 in Parliament and on the platform, that the Unionists would 
 fail, and must fail, in maintaining peace in Ireland, in maintaining 
 the security of life and property, and in maintaining the due 
 fulfilment of obligations and the due disch:a*ge of contracts in 
 that country. They also said the Unionists would fail in carry- 
 ing on the business of the nation in Parliament on account of 
 the opposition of the Irish party. They declared that the 
 National League in Ireland and in Parliament would be too 
 strong for all the forces which the Unionist party could bring 
 against them, and on that they based their cardinal proposition 
 that it was impossible to govern Ireland under the Parliamentary 
 Union. Have those assertions been borne out ? The National 
 League was a very formidable organisation — perhaps the most 
 formidable which the British Government has ever had to deal 
 with — but it was only formidable as long as you were afraid of 
 it. So long as from one political cause or another the British 
 Government was unable to tackle the National League, so long 
 the League was formidable. I was always certain the day would 
 come when we should have to try conclusions with the National 
 League in Ireland. I knew the struggle would be sharp and 
 bitter, and would involve great controversy. Therefore I was 
 anxious that the struggle, if it must come, should come later 
 perhaps than sooner, and I did not want in any way to pre- 
 cipitate it ; but I never had the slightest doubt that the moment 
 the British Government chose to measure itself against the 
 
272 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 National League the British Government would jmt down 
 tlie League and all its organisation and peculiar methods of 
 working. And what is the position of the National League 
 now ? The Government has measured itself with the League, 
 it has procured extra powers from Parliament in the shape of 
 exceptional criminal procedure for dealing with the League, that 
 most baneful organisation in Ireland. And what is the condition 
 now of the National League ? The condition of the National 
 League in Ireland at the present moment reminds me very much 
 of one of those white, pasty, inconsistent puddings that you see 
 sometimes in a pastrycook's shop — I think they call it ' blanc- 
 mange.' It is a pudding that is always toppling over on this 
 side or on that, unable to stand up, and threatening to fall and to 
 go to pieces and to dissolve with every draft of air or passing 
 shock from the outside world. The National League is dis- 
 tinctly on the wobble. Some of its leaders are in prison in 
 Ireland for having broken the law. A few of its leaders are in 
 hiding, and they are angry with the police because the police 
 will not take the trouble to look for them ; and others of those 
 leaders — the most prominent of them — have, with a great 
 amount of worldly prudence, sought for comfort and security 
 in this country by addressing Kadical gatherings in different 
 towns. Mr. Gladstone the other day declared that the state of 
 Ireland was getting worse every day. Upon what evidence 
 does Mr. Gladstone come to such a conclusion ? Compare the 
 state of Ireland now with the state of Ireland at this time last 
 year. At the present moment in Ireland criminals — real crimi- 
 nals, not political offenders, but people who were actually con- 
 cerned in the commission of real, genuine crime — are being 
 brought before legally constituted tribunals, and are being con- 
 victed, punished, and sent to prison with or without hard labour. 
 This time last year it was hardly possible to secure the convic- 
 tion of a single criminal in Ireland on any charge directly or 
 indirectly connected with the agrarian question. Is that de- 
 terioration, or is it an improvement in the state of Ireland? 
 If in any society criminals are being convicted and punished for 
 crimes which a year before they committed with impunity, how 
 can you argue, as Mr. Gladstone does, that the state of that 
 
THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION PARTY 273 
 
 society is getting worse and worse ? But there is anotlier fact 
 wliicb seems to have escaped Mr. Gladstone's attention altogether. 
 I dare say yon recollect that this time last year we heard a 
 great deal about what was called the Plan of Campaign. The 
 Plan of Campaign was an organisation by which the tenants 
 bound themselves under no circumstances to pay their rents 
 unless the payment of rent should appear to be convenient to 
 the National Land League. You may recollect that the Plan 
 of Campaign made an immense sensation. It was regarded 
 by the Nationalist party as the most triumphant production of 
 political science which had been vouchsafed to this century. 
 We hear little about it now. I read the Irish news most care- 
 fully, and I have not read of a single fresh estate in Ireland upon 
 which the Plan of Campaign has this winter been proclaimed. 
 Is that a sign that the state of Ireland is getting worse and 
 worse, as Mr. Gladstone stated ? Mr. Parnell, the leader of the 
 Irish party, and Mr. Dillon and others, towards the close of last 
 session ventured to prophesy the most terrible winter for Ireland. 
 They declared in accents which used to make your blood run 
 cold and your hair stand on end, that there would be the most 
 awful outburst of crime and bloodshed in Ireland. They de- 
 clared that social ruin would be manifested in Ireland in its 
 most appalling shape. Has tliat been the case ? On the con- 
 trary, over the greater part of Ireland you have complete tran- 
 quillity. There has been nothing approaching to any justifica- 
 tion of the prophecies which were uttered : not even in the 
 most disturbed districts — Keriy, Galway, and Clare. Althougli 
 there have been occasional outrages of a shocking character, 
 still there has been no such general systematic outbreak of crime 
 as we have had experience of in recent years. Therefore, can 
 you argue on that state of facts, as Mr. Gladstone does, that 
 Ireland is getting worse and worse ? No ; there is no doubt if 
 you go to facts and figures, and are not carried away by emo- 
 tion and fancy, the state of Ireland, so far from getting worse 
 and worse, is under the influence of a great Parliamentary 
 majority, and, under a Government determined to enforce the 
 law, getting better and better. Therefore I come back to this 
 point, that the great plank of tlie Repeal platform — namely, the 
 VOL. H. T 
 
274 .SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 impossibility of i^ovt'i-ninj^ Ii-t'laiul iiiulcr tlie Union, has snapped 
 in twain and broken down. ]jord Granville compared the Liberal 
 Unionists the other day to cherubim, because he said tliey had 
 nothing to sit npon. But I think the expression ' political 
 cherubim ' is much more applicable to ^Ir. Gladstone and his 
 followers, because the plank on which they sat, and on which 
 they declared they would sit for ever, has broken in two and 
 let them down into a morass of discomfiture and doubt. If that 
 is so, that the principal assertion of the llepeal party has been 
 utterly falsified in practice, is there any wonder that the Repeal 
 party should be down on their luck and change their attitude of 
 exultation for one of disappointment ? And is there any wonder 
 they should sing very small w^hen they do sing, and in a minor 
 key, and are only able to sustain the song in notes of quavering 
 tone y It is perfectly legitimate, perfectly right and proper, 
 that we, Unionists, gathered together at this great meeting, 
 should congratulate ourselves upon this state of things, and 
 should allow ourselves a certain amount of exultation over the 
 obvious defeat and disappointment of our opponents. But we 
 must be careful not to carry that too far, and we must remember 
 that moments of success are sometimes the moments which are 
 the most dangerous to the successful. There is a terrible ten- 
 dency when you are very successful to be off j^our guard. There 
 is a temptation to take refuge in repose and to sink into inac- 
 tion. We must strive, and we must take care that our leaders 
 strive, against yielding to that temptation. We must recollect 
 that the country expects great things of the Unionist party. 
 The Unionist party have not only promised to the country a 
 tranquillised Ireland under a Parliamentary union, but theN' 
 have also promised to the country large and liberal legislation, 
 and they have also promised to the country a reformed admini- 
 stration, whether for imperial or local affairs ; and these are 
 promises which we must try to carry out. And we must use oar 
 success not for the purpose of merely contemplating the proud 
 position we occupy, but as a means of advancing to a still more 
 commanding position in the country. 
 
 The next session, I hold, will be a critical session for this 
 Parliament. On the successes or failures of the Unionist 
 
THE STEENGTH OF THE UNION PARTY 275 
 
 j)arty next session they will be narrowly judged, in all probability, 
 at the next general election. And therefore it is that I put in 
 a word of warning against indulging ourselves too much in 
 exultation over our opponents ; and I put in a plea that we 
 ought to be always looking forward to the future and taking- 
 advantage of any success which we have at the present time, in 
 order to grasp a future still more successful. It is for these 
 reasons that I observe with satisfaction the attitude which the 
 Government has taken on a question which, I hold, is second to 
 no other question before the country — and that is the question 
 of economy in our administration and of retrenchment of our 
 bloated and swollen public expenditure. I am gratified at the 
 attitude which the Government have taken up on this question. 
 I do not in any way care to recall the recent parts taken by 
 some in connection with this question. I do not wish to rake 
 up the utterances of persons high in authority, who on the 
 platform and in the press declared not only that retrenchment 
 was impracticable and impossible, but that, in fact, we ought 
 to spend more millions than we do already. I do not want to 
 indulge in variations on that most irritating and exasperating 
 expression in which friends will indulge in private life — ' As 
 you see, I was right ; I told you so ; I told you how it would 
 be.' I do not want to say anything of that kind. I am quite 
 content to take facts as they are, quite content with events as I 
 find them ; and I think no impartial person can fail to see that 
 the present Government are anxious now to be an economical 
 and thrifty Government. I do not know whether you are aware 
 of it, but you would have to go back to the year 1869, when 
 better financial practices prevailed than do now, or did a short 
 time ago, to find a year in which no supplementary estimates 
 were presented to Parliament for the Ami}- and Navy. There 
 is an immense evil attaching to supplementary estimates. They 
 cannot be always avoided, but they ought to be kept within 
 the narrowest and strictest limits. Parliament has a right at 
 the beginning of the year to know what is required for the 
 service of the year, and if Parliament is afterwards told by 
 Government, ' We did not ask enough, and you must vote more,' 
 it will be obvious to you that the whole beneficial control of 
 
 x2 
 
276 SPEECHES 01' LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 PiirliauK'ut over the expenditure of tlie country is gone. Of 
 late years the supph^mentary estimates for tlie Army and Navy 
 liave amounted to several hundred thousands of pounds, and 
 uinv we are told by the Chancellor of the ]^L\chequer, for the 
 first time since 1860, that no sujiplementary estimates will be 
 presented for those two services. I attach importance to that 
 statement, and I am happy to say that it does not stand by 
 itself. I observe that the First Lord of the Admiralty the other 
 day spoke — I forget exactly where — and said that not only 
 would there be no supplementary estimates for the Navy, but 
 there would be a substantial saving 'on the estimates already 
 voted by Parliament for the Navy. It seems almost too good to 
 be true, but still it is an official statement, and till it is dis- 
 proved we may attach credence to it and build expectations 
 upon it. But not only that : I have got hopes also of the other 
 great spending department, the War Office. The condition of 
 the War Office is such as would daunt the heart of the stoutest 
 economist. But yet, although the circumstances are most 
 difficult, still I hear on good authority of reforms being carried 
 out in that department. I will not say, because I am not in a 
 position to say, whether these reforms are wise and well-planned. 
 But this fact remains, that there is a considerable activity in 
 that department, a rummaging up of obsolete and inefficient 
 administration ; and of this I am certain, that if these reforms 
 which are now being considered and carried out are really wise 
 and good reforms, they must result in an economy and saving 
 of public money. But that is not all. The Secretary of the 
 Treasury the other day stated in addressing his constituents 
 that the actual saving upon" the Civil Service estimates of this 
 year as compared with the year before had amounted to no less 
 a sum than 270,000/. That would be a respectable saving on 
 the Civil Service estimates, and I have little doubt, knowing 
 what I do of the estimates and of the capacity of the Secretary 
 to the Ti-easury, that he will be able to show Parliament similar 
 savings for the coming year. Not only that, but we are also 
 informed on the authority of the Secretary to the Admiralty 
 that the estimates for the great department of the Navy will be 
 presented to Parliament next year for the first time in the history 
 
THE STRENGTH Ot THE UNION PARTY 277 
 
 of the country in an intelligible form. What does that mean ? 
 It means this, that the Government will not ask Parliament for 
 money for which it cannot show sufficient reason and necessity. 
 And, lastly, there is very good reason for belief that the prin- 
 ciple, which I think was so beneficially and successfully asserted 
 in the last session of Parliament, of referring the estimates to a 
 Select Committee of the House of Commons— that that princij)le 
 will be applied next year more methodically and more exten- 
 sively than it was applied in the past session. Therefore, on 
 all these grounds, I express my hope, regardless of all that 
 passed a few months ago, that the present Government is deter- 
 mined on economy. What does all this economy and this de- 
 termination to pursue economy by the methods I have pointed 
 out mean to the taxpayers in figures ? I will tell you how T 
 calculate it myself, although it must be recollected that I do 
 not command official knowledge. Still figures and facts are 
 made public by the departments, and it is open to anybody who 
 has had any experience of these departments to make a calcula- 
 tion ; and I calculate that the meaning of what I have been 
 putting before you in figures comes to about this. If we take 
 into account, in the first place, the admittedly abnormal character 
 of the nsiviil and military expenditure for the last two years; if 
 we take into account, in the second place, the condition and the 
 prospects of the revenue ; if we take into account, in the third 
 place, the very considerable saving already effected ; and if we 
 take into account, in the fourth place, the overhauling of public 
 departments now going on. and the abuses in these departments 
 which are being brought to light — if we take all these matters 
 into account, I hold this, that the meaning of what I have put 
 before you in figures comes to this, that the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer in his Budget next April should have — I do not say 
 positively that it will be so, but he ought to have, I hold — an 
 estimated surplus for the year 1888-89 of between two and 
 three millions of money, and amounting to nearer three millions 
 than two. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can do a great 
 deal with a surplus of between two and three millions of money, 
 and I do not know anything that would bring greater credit on 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues than to be 
 
278 SPEECHKS OF LORD EANDOLPil CHURCHILL 
 
 able to present tlic country witli a surplus of that amount — a 
 surplus wliicli should not have been adventitiously, by any un- 
 expected chances, brought about, but a surplus which will have 
 been effected mainly, if not entirely, by rigid economy in public 
 administration. It is my hope and expectation that by the finan- 
 cial year of 1889-90, the public expenditure of this country will 
 have been reduced to an amount, as near as possible, to a little 
 above or a little below eighty-five millions of money, or, in other 
 words, a reduction of no less than five millions from the amount 
 at which Mr. Gladstone bequeathed the public expenditure to 
 his successors. This prospect, which I put before you, I know 
 to be a justifiable and reasonable prospect, which is based on 
 facts and on figures. And 1 rejoice over it exceedingly, for two 
 reasons. My first reason is that I hold there is nothing more 
 utterly wicked on the part of any Government than wasteful and 
 improvident expenditure of public money. There is nothing- 
 more utterly abominable on the part of a Government than the 
 unnecessary imposition of high taxes. The safety and stability 
 of the nation depend not only upon the course of conduct which 
 may be pursued by this party or by that, not upon political chances 
 which change from day to day : the safety and stability of the 
 nation depend upon sound finance, and the alphabet of sound 
 finance is economy in public expenditure. That is my first reason. 
 My second reason is more of a party character. I am certain 
 that nothing will tend to make the Unionist party and the 
 Unionist Government more popular and more strong through- 
 out the length and breadth of Great Britain than the existence 
 of a conviction in the minds of the masses of the people that 
 they are a truly economical and thrifty Government, and that 
 they care above everything for the relief of the people from 
 burdensome and oppressive taxation. I may sum up the general 
 result of what I have endeavoured to put before you by saying 
 that the rank and file of the Unionist party have done their part 
 bravely in Parliament and in the country. They have worked 
 and laboured and struggled as I think no party ever did before, 
 and more can hardly be expected of them. Everything now 
 depends upon her Majesty's Government, and we may entertain, 
 I think, all confidence that our legitimate expectations with 
 
THE STEENGTH OF THE UNION PAKTY 279 
 
 respect to tlieir iiction will be amply gratified. All that is ueces- 
 sary iiow fur the complete success of the Unionist party 1 hold 
 to be that the Government should persevere resolutely in the 
 task of repressing and curbing and keeping in check all those 
 elements of disorder and anarchy and sedition which have for 
 so long distracted Ireland ; that the Government should persist 
 steadfastly and patiently in their pursuit of the policy of retrench- 
 ment and economy ; that the Government should produce at the 
 opening of the session some large, liberal, well-considered, and 
 statesmanlike measures of legislation with regard to the great 
 matters in which a reformed Parliament and an enfraachised 
 people must necessarily be deeply interested ; and that the 
 Government should carefully avoid all foreign entanglements, 
 and should by no means become involved in any of those quarrels 
 and disputes, apparently of a serious nature, which are disturb- 
 ing European tranquillity. If such is the policy of the Govern- 
 ment, and I believe that it is the policy of the Government, 
 depend upon it, if we meet again next year, or when you meet 
 again next year, after another session has gone by, you will be 
 able to laugh at and deride all the efforts and all the devices of 
 your opponents to upset you or to weaken you, and you may be 
 certain that before long that rump of the Liberal party which 
 has followed Mr. Gladstone will bitterly rue the day and curse 
 the hour when they were persuaded by that statesman to fly the 
 Hag of Repeal, and to ally themselves and identify themselves 
 with that party in Ireland whose most cherished hope, whose 
 most ardent longing, and whose highest ideal of human happi- 
 ness is to be found in the ruin and in the destruction of the 
 British Empire. 
 
280 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLril CHURCHILL 
 
 HOME RULE. 
 
 Oxford Union, February 22, 1888. 
 
 [The meeting at wliicli the following speech was delivered was 
 regarded with very great interest, not only at Oxford but through- 
 out the country. Lord Randolph attended it at the special request 
 of the members of the Oxford Union, about 800 of whom were 
 present on the occasion. The resolution moved was in these terms : 
 — That to satisfy the just aspirations of the Irish people, it is neces- 
 sary that a statutory Parliament be forthwith established at Dublin. 
 Mr. E. A. Nepean (University) opposed the resolution. The dis- 
 cussion was continued by Mr. Cozens Hardy (New), Mr. Saunders 
 (Balliol), and ACr. Murray (8t. John's), and then by Lord Randolph 
 Churchill.] 
 
 ICAISr assure yon, sir, that I consider it to be a very great 
 houour to have been permitted to assist as a spectator, and 
 even more to have been called upon to take part as a debater, 
 in the discussions of this celebrated and learned Society. I did 
 not have the good fortune while I was at Oxford to take part in 
 the debates, although it was my privilege to be a member of the 
 Society ; but I am glad that time and fortune have been kind 
 enough to permit me to fill up a deficiency in my experiences 
 which was to be regretted. While I thank you for having 
 allowed me to listen to your debate, I would also thank you for 
 the extremely courteous welcome wliich you have given me. 
 
 Now, sir, I have listened to five speeches on a great ques- 
 tion, and they appeared to me to be speeches of great and equal 
 merit — speeches of great and equal promise. One thing par- 
 ticularly pleased me. I observed that those three gentlemen, 
 who adopted the views which I do not hold with regard to 
 this subject, appear to have found their most effective armoury, 
 their most resourceful arsenal for their most formidable Aveapons 
 
HOME KULE 281 
 
 against their opponents in speeches which I have myself, at 
 different places, delivered. I cannot but be flattered by the 
 attention which they have paid to those speeches, nor did I dis- 
 cern, as is sometimes the case when former speeches are quoted 
 against me, in the quotations made, any expressions of opinion 
 which I should in any way at the present moment repudiate or 
 be ashamed of. One extract from my speeches was made by 
 the first speaker, which I must notice — he attributed to me that 
 I had designated the Irish people as foul fiends. He, I regret 
 to say, has not studied the speeches, or the particular speech 
 from which he professed to quote, with the accuracy and ability 
 with which he has studied the Irish question ; because, if he had 
 done so, he would have found that the persons so called were 
 not the Irish people, but the class of persons best known as 
 moonlighters and outrage- mongers, whom he himself very 
 properly designated as ' desperate ruffians.' I have never said, 
 and I never will say, one word or utter one sentence to the 
 discredit, or blame, or censure of the Irish people as a nation. 
 I have lived among them much, I have travelled far and wide 
 in Ireland, perhaps more than many Irishmen ; I have watched 
 and known personally several of the Irish representatives in 
 Parliament, and never have I consciously said one unfair word 
 to bring discredit or disrepute upon Irish representatives, and 
 never shall 1 do so. I have experienced always in Parliament 
 from the Irish repi'esentatives the utmost courtesy and gene- 
 rosity and indulgence, although on many occasions it has been 
 my fate to be in sharp opposition to them. I do not propose 
 this evening to follow in detail the interesting speeches to 
 which you have listened, for several reasons, or at any rate for 
 two. In the first place, because I should not like to undertake 
 to deal off'hand with the arguments which some of those 
 speeches presented ; and, in the second place, it struck me that 
 in the three speeches wdiich were supposed to be delivered in 
 support of this motion, the motion itself did not suflficiently 
 attract the attention of the speakers. When I had the honour 
 of receiving the invitation of your president to take part in a 
 debate in the Oxford Union, he informed me that I should be 
 required to address myself to the Irish question, and the debate 
 
282 .SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPH CHUPvCHlLL 
 
 10-1111:111 is entirely taken nj) with the Irish question. Before 
 c-oniiiiiT to the actual terms of the motion, let us for a moment 
 t'oiisidcr what is the Irish question. It is extremely important 
 that ill these matters wt; should closely analyse and examine 
 the phrases we make use of Now what is the Irish question ? 
 1 apprehend that all sections of opinion in the House will agree 
 with me in this proposition — that the Irish question is like the 
 poor: we have it always with us, and probably we always shall 
 have it with us. The Irish question, as I define it, is the diffi- 
 culty which we experience in governing Ireland, or. in other 
 words, in obtaining in Ireland from our system of government 
 the results which we obtain in Scotland and England. We have 
 not yet obtained from our system of government in Ireland that 
 amount of affection and reverence for the law, that amount of 
 material prosperity among the people, and that amount of gene- 
 ral contentment and tranquillity which we have obtained from 
 our system of government in Scotland and England. That, I 
 apprehend, is a correct definition of the Irish question. With 
 regard to the motion, bearing in mind that definition, it is well 
 the House should recollect that the Irish question was quite as 
 acute during the years that Ireland had a Parliament as it has 
 been since the time that Ireland has not had a Parliament. 
 During the term of the independent Irish Parliament, that is 
 to say from 1782 till the Act of the Union, it would be a 
 melancholy work to examine the number of Coercion Acts the 
 Irish Parliament was forced to pass. The Irish question, ac- 
 cording to my definition of it, was more acute even during the 
 term of that Irish Parliament than it has been since ; so acute 
 was it that Mr. Pitt had to deprive Ireland of the independent 
 Parliament England had granted to the Irish people. That 
 is the measure of the acuteness of this question at the time 
 Ireland had a Parliament of her own. 
 
 Here I must make a brief digression. We had some time 
 ago, in a letter from the leader of the Repeal party, an expres- 
 sion to the effect that Mr. Pitt's policy towards Ireland was 
 a policy of blackguardism.' On that I would say, that if you 
 
 ' In a letter to Mr. Leveson Gower, a Liberal Whip defeated in the elec- 
 tions of 1886, Mr. Gladstone wrote : ' I am amazed at the deadness of vulgar 
 
HOME EULE 283 
 
 compare Mr. Pitt's policy in carrying' tlie Union with ^Ir. 
 Gladstone's policy in going in for Kepeal, you find this most 
 remarkable difference — that Mr. Pitt, in carrying the Parlia- 
 mentary Union, sought for no party advantage, nor was he 
 obliged to seek for any party advantage. Mr. Pitt's position in 
 Parliament at the time was as strong a Parliamentary position 
 as a statesman possibly could have, and the bringing of the 
 Irish members to the English Parliament certainly could not 
 strengthen, possibly might weaken, that position. That was 
 the position of Mr. Pitt, and I legitimately infer that he had 
 but one single motive at heart, and that was the good of the 
 two countries. But if I contrast the position of Mr. Pitt with 
 that of the present leader of the Separatist party, I do not detect 
 the same singleness of mind, because the latter knew as an 
 undoubted fact that the support which he gave to the policy of 
 Repeal was a support which, one way or another, would bring 
 him, until his policy was carried, an addition of eighty-six votes 
 to his Parliamentary strength. Therefore, when I am told to 
 remember the blackguardism of the policy of Mr. Pitt, I can- 
 not assent to that most remarkable substantive without closely 
 examining the personal position of the present leader of the 
 liberal party. 
 
 Since the Union the Irish question has assumed many 
 forms, and has presented itself in many shapes to Parliament. 
 From shortly after the Union down to 1829, the Irish question 
 assumed the form of a demand for Catholic emancipation, and 
 Catholic emancipation was at length conceded. But I canriot 
 refrain from saying with respect to a great many men of both 
 parties who opposed Catholic emancipation — that the r.:ain 
 foundation of their opposition was that it would inevitably 
 lead to the disestablishment of the Irish Church and to the 
 Repeal of the Union. Were the fears of these men altogether 
 unfounded ? Catholic emancipation has certainly led to the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church, and if it has not led quite 
 to the Repeal of the Union, it has certainly brought us rather 
 ne^ij" it. The Irish question, after Catholic emancipation was 
 
 oijinion to the blackguardism and baseness — no words are strong enough — 
 •svhich befoul the whole history of the Union.' 
 
284 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 granted, assumed a very acute 'form with regard to the payment 
 of tithes, and at that period crime and outrage rose to a gi'eat 
 lieight, and had to be repressed by the strongest Coercion Act 
 tliat has ever been passed, the great feature in which was that 
 the Lord Lieutenant might put the disturbed districts under 
 martial law. AVe must never forget that the man who was 
 Prime Minister when that Coercion Bill was passed was the 
 Liberal statesman Ijord Grey, who, only a year before, had been 
 instrumental in passing the great Reform Bill. The next form 
 of the Irish question with which Parliament had to deal was 
 the Repeal movement which was headed by Mr. O'Connell, 
 The Repeal movement lasted some years and then disappeared, 
 and the Irish question assumed the form of what I may call 
 political conspiracy. We had the rebellion — if it may be dis- 
 tinguished by such a name — of Mr. Smith O'Brien. We had 
 the conspiracy which was known by the name of the Phoenix 
 conspiracy ; and another very formidable conspiracy, within the 
 personal recollection of many here to-night, known as the 
 Fenian conspiracy. That was the Irish question under the 
 guise of political conspiracy, and Parliament dealt with the Irish 
 question under that guise. Parliament then attempted to deal 
 with the Irish question by what was known as heroic legislation, 
 and you had two great Acts— the Disestablishment of the Irish 
 Church, and an Act which attempted to meet the demands of 
 those who led the agitation in connection with Irish land at that 
 time. Then you had another form of the Irish question, which 
 sprang up in the year 1873. You had the Home Rule move- 
 ment of Mr. Butt, and the movement died away; and in 1879 
 you had the Irish question in the form of the extremely advanced 
 and socialistic land agitation under the auspices of Mr. Davitt, 
 and that has been accompanied and succeeded by the Irish 
 question in the form in which the House is now considering it 
 — the demand for Home Rule as presented by Mr. Gladstone 
 and ]\Ir. Parnell. Now I have particularly gone over all those 
 different forms of the Irish question — always asking you to bear 
 in mind my original definition of that question — because I think 
 it is important, for a right understanding of the subject with 
 which this motion deals, that you should recall the historv of the 
 
HOME EULE 285 
 
 Irisli question as it lias been presented to us in comparatively 
 modern times. This motion only deals with one form of the 
 Irish question, and there is no security whatever that, even if 
 you were enabled to limit it within the scope of this motion, it 
 would not again present itself in another form, so Protean is it 
 in its nature. 
 
 Let me ask your attention for a moment to the motion which 
 has been moved so ably to-night. I think, in dealing with sub- 
 jects of this kind — subjects, after all, on which the welfare of 
 thousands and of millions depends — that we should carefully 
 guard ourselves against loose phraseology ; that we should 
 beware of abstract resolutions ; and that if we assent to an 
 abstract resolution we should take care that it should be, if I 
 may use the term, mathematically worded. Now, what is the 
 wording of this resolution ? May I be allowed to analj'se it ? 
 We are called upon to assent to a pi'oposition that to satisfy 
 the just aspirations of the Irish people it is necessary that a 
 statutory Parliament be forthwith established in Dublin. I 
 observed with pleasure that the gentleman who spoke second 
 particularly fastened on an adjective which attracted my atten- 
 tion — the adjective 'just.' What does that adjective mean? 
 Is it an adjective of adornment, or is it intended to limit the 
 subject to which it applies ? Because an immense deal turns 
 upon that. Does the mover of the motion, or those who sup- 
 ported him, mean by the just aspirations of the Irish people any 
 aspirations of the Irish people ? For instance, suppose the 
 aspirations of the Irish people were for total separation. Would 
 those be just aspirations ? Now, the mover, as far as I can 
 make out, avoided examining that adjective ; but are aspirations 
 for an Irish Parliament on the part of the Irish people just ? 
 Are they just with regard to the other two countries which 
 form the United Kingdom ? Does England possess a Parlia- 
 ment of her own? In my Parliamentary experience of thirteen 
 years I have seen many purely English questions settled by 
 Scotch or Irish votes. Does Scotland possess a Parliament of 
 her own ? The answer is obviously ' No.' And in Parliament 
 many Scotch questions are decided by English and Irish votes. 
 But if Scotland and England do not possess Parliaments of 
 
280 SPEECHES OF T-ORD EANDOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 tlieir own, wliy should you assumo tliat if is just thnt Ireland 
 should possess such a Parliament? Hut if the adjective 'just' 
 be, as I called it, an adjective of limitation — if it mean that 
 you out^ht to try and satisfy those aspirations of the Irish 
 people which are just — then the debate will occupy ground of 
 a nnich less debatable character. But that was not the ground 
 which the mover took up. Having adverted to the adjective 
 ' just,' I now come to another expression in this resolution, and 
 1 may perhaps in passing praise the resolution, [think it is an 
 admirable resolution for debating purposes, because it contains 
 within a very small compass more disputable propositions than 
 any resolution which I have ever seen. I come to the expression 
 in the resolution ' the Irish people,' and we are asked to satisfy 
 the just aspirations of the Irish people. Now, are the mover 
 and those who supported this resolution prepared seriously to 
 contend that the whole of the Irish people are animated hj 
 similar aspirations? Because if they are not, obviously the ex- 
 pression is a loose and inaccurate one, and instead of talking 
 about the Irish people, surely they ought to have inserted the 
 words * the majority of the Irish people.' But much turns upon 
 that omission. If the Irish people were perfectly unanimous, 
 if they were of one race and one creed, the difficulties of the 
 Irish question would be much less than they are. But can 
 any reasonable or practical man forget for one moment that in 
 Ireland there is a large minority, certainly numbering one 
 million out of four, and possibly numbering two millions out of 
 four, in all probability numbering nearer two millions than one, 
 who are diametrically and passionately opposed to the ' just ' 
 aspirations which are set forth in this resolution ? This is what 
 really differentiates the claim of the Irish people, or the majority 
 of the Irish people, for self-government from the claim of every 
 other people in history who have obtained self-government or in- 
 dependence. Let us take some of the instances which we know 
 of nationalities having obtained self-government. Take the case 
 of the Italians. Was there in Italy, when Italy fought for her 
 freedom and independence, a strong minority of Italians passion- 
 ately devoted to Austrian domination ? Take the case of the 
 Greeks. The Greeks obtained their independence. Was thei"e 
 
HOME EULE 287 
 
 among the Greeks a strong minority passionately devoted to the 
 rule of Turkish pashas ? Take the case of the Bulgarians. Was 
 there a strong minority of the Bulgarians passionately devoted 
 to the rule of the Turkish pashas ? In Italy, in Greece, in 
 Bulgaria you had unanimity of national sentiment absolutely 
 unbroken, and that was the great feature of the movement for 
 self-government which took place in those countries. Can any- 
 body seriously contend that you have anything approaching that 
 unanimity of national sentiment in Ireland at the present time ? 
 Xow, come to the main example alluded to by one of the 
 speakers — Austria-Hungary. We are often told that the Repeal 
 of the Union would be a successful policy in Ireland on account 
 of the great success a dual Parliament has had in the Empire of 
 Austria-Hungary. There again there was, with regard to the 
 claim of Hungary for a separate Parliament, absolute unanimity 
 of national sentiment, although in Hungary a large portion of 
 the population are of a totally different race and origin to the 
 Magyar portion. Yet the whole people, the entire inhabitants 
 of Hungary, were as one in demanding that Hungary should 
 be governed by a Parliament of her own. A Parliament was 
 conceded to Hungary, and undoubtedly a dual Parliament in 
 Austria-Hungary has worked fairly well, so far as ordinary 
 observers can see, up to the present moment. Why has it 
 worked well ? It is agreed by all who are acquainted with the 
 condition of those two countries that the mainspring, perhaps 
 the only cause of its working well, is the loyalty and affection 
 which the people of the two countries feel for the person of the 
 Emperor. It is because the Emperor has deservedly gained the 
 love and affection of Hungary and Austria, because of his per- 
 sonal influence over those two countries, that the complicated 
 arrangement has worked well. But the House should recollect, 
 liefore drawing a too rapid inference from the case of Austria- 
 Hungars', that the arrangement has yet to be tried by great 
 national difficulties and crises. There is this also to be said 
 when you who support this motion point triumphantly to the 
 case of Austria-Hungary : you ought to be prepared to contend, 
 if you want to make your example a crushing one, that Austria- 
 Hungary would not have been a far stronger empire than she 
 
288 SPEECHES or LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 is, it' it had been possibli- f(^r lioi- to luivc, liad oiio l\'U'lianient 
 instead of two. 
 
 It is perfectly ol)\-ious tliat it is iinpossiblc to ati^ree to such 
 nil expression as tliat whiolv I have noted —namely, the Irish 
 people. AVe are told that it is necessary for a certain purpose, 
 to satisfy these aspirations, that a statutory Parliament should 
 be forthwith established in Dublin. What is a statutory 
 Parliament ? I never heard the expression until the end of the 
 year 1885, and then, I think, the expression was invented by a 
 newspaper. There appear to be some people in this country 
 who are innocent enough to suppose that the word ' statutory ' 
 is something so sacred that a statutory Parliament is a per- 
 fectly safe thing, and that a Parliament which was not statutory 
 would be a very dangerous thing. I suppose, however, that the 
 statutory Parliament is a Parliament which is created by statute, 
 and whose powers are defined by statute ; but I want to know from 
 the supporters of this motion what sort of security they derive 
 from the word ' statutory.' What sort of security can they show 
 that the statute creating that Parliament -would be like the 
 law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not? I should 
 like to know how many statutes have been passed by Parliament 
 which have not been either repealed or amended ? And w^hat 
 is there to prevent the statute which you pass this year creating 
 an Irish Parliament being amended the next year by a new one 
 which might expand the power of the Irish Parliament? I 
 therefore look upon the word statutory as being utterly delusive, 
 and I would recommend that the word Parliament should stand 
 by itself without the adjective statutory. But I ask whether 
 you think that, having been unable to resist the demand for 
 the creation of an Irish Parliament, you would be able to 
 resist a demand by that Parliament for an extension of its own 
 power. Upon this point I should like to refer to a passage 
 from a speech from one of the most learned of living Irishmen 
 — the right honourable gentleman who was Attornej'-General 
 in Lord Beaconsfield's Government, and who was afterwards 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and wdio is admitted to be more 
 intimately acquainted with Irish history than any other man. 
 I mean Dr. Ball. In speaking in the debate on Home Rule in 
 
HOME RULlL 289 
 
 187 !■ he used these words : 'The answer to the motion was not 
 to be found in elaborate argument or in dealing with allegations 
 and assertions which were alike unfounded. It was to be found 
 in the perception which nmst flash across the mind of every man 
 acquainted with the history of the two countries, that to grant 
 it would be to weaken, if not to destroy, the power and great- 
 ness of the empire. They talk of confining themselves in 
 the l^arliament in Dublin to special questions. That was the 
 theory, but they could not limit the range or the aims of the 
 power they had called into existence. It would chip and burst 
 the shell in which it had grown and been fostered, and soar far 
 beyond command or control. What commenced with local 
 affairs would expand to imperial. Having crushed the landlords 
 of Ireland, they would next proclaim war with the Saxon and the 
 Protestant. They could not measure the progress of representa- 
 tive institutions. The House of Commons, scarcely tolerated by 
 the Tudors, had grown to be the prominent power in the State. 
 The Irish Parliament, however sincere might be the efibrts of 
 those who demanded it to check it, would expand to dangerous 
 dimensions. It would become ambitious, and aspire to dictate 
 and intermeddle in the police of the empire.' That gentleman put 
 extremely well a point which you must recollect, that if you once 
 consent to the creation of a Parliament in Dublin, you abandon 
 all power of controlling the action or of preventing the growth 
 of that Parliament unless you had recourse to arms. 
 
 With regard to the statutory Parliament, it is said we are to 
 grant it because it would satisfy the just aspirations of the Irish 
 people. Now, would it ? That is a point upon which we can 
 get no certain information. Not that it would make the slightest 
 difference to me personally if I had the information ; but it 
 might to other people. It is supposed that a Parliament situ- 
 ated in Dublin on the plan of Mr. Gladstone would satisfy the 
 aspirations of the Irish people. You remember that under that 
 plan Irish members were excluded from imperial concerns, and 
 they were never more to have the slightest voice in imperial 
 matters. We ar^ asked as serious and reasonable persons to 
 believe that a Parliament of that character would satisfy the 
 just aspirations of the Irish people. I have here an extract from 
 
 VOL. II. U 
 
2!)0 SPEECHES OF LOKU KANDOLPll CllUECHlLL 
 
 the writings of a very distinguished, or at any rate a very 
 notorious Jrishman in the last century, when he was alluding to 
 and describing his own Parliament in Ireland as it existed at 
 that time, and the Pai-liament of Irelaiid as it existed then had 
 undoubtedly far more power, far more dignity, than the Parlia- 
 ment which was proposed to be created by jNfr. Glladstoue. How 
 did ^Ir. Wolfe Tone speak of the Parliament of Ireland as it 
 existed before the Union — a larger and more powerful body than 
 it is now proposed to create? This is what he said in 1790, 
 and I recommend it to the honourable gentleman who is dis- 
 posed to be so confident in the statement of Mr. Parnell as to 
 the limits of the Irish appetite. This is what ]\Ir. Wolfe Tone 
 said : ' The present state of Ireland is such as is not to be 
 paralleled in history or fame. Inferior to no other country in 
 Europe in the gifts of nature, blessed with a temperate sky and 
 a fruitful soil, intersected by great rivers, indented round her 
 whole coast with the noblest harbours, abounding with all the 
 necessary materials for unlimited commerce, teeming with inex- 
 haustible mines of the most useful metal, filled by four millions of 
 an ingenious and gallant people with bold hands and ardent spirits, 
 posted right in the track between Europe and America, within 
 fifty miles of England and three hundred miles of France — yet 
 with all these great advantages unheard of and unknown ; with- 
 out pride, or power, or name ; without ambassador, army, or navy ; 
 not of half the consequence in the empire of which she has the 
 honour to make a part as the single county of York or the loyal 
 and well-regulated town of Birmingham." That was the satis- 
 faction which a most representative Irishman in the year 1791 
 felt with reference to the Irish Parliament of that day ; and, 
 judging by that standard, what do you think as reasonable 
 people would be the satisfaction which Irishmen of the present 
 day would feel with such a Parliament as was offered to them 
 by Mr. Gladstone ? I leave this analysis of the resolution for 
 the time. The fact of the matter is, this question of repealing 
 the Union or maintaining the Union is really not a question of 
 fine-drawn arguments. It is not a question of ingenious theory. 
 It is a question of instinct and common sense, and no other. 
 That is the way in which it was always treated by Sir Robert 
 
HOME RULE 291 
 
 Peel. He always said it was a question of commou sense, and 
 not one of elaborate argument. What is tlie meaning of this 
 proposition to create a statutory Parliament ? It means this. 
 That you will abolish your present Imperial Parliament for the 
 United Kingdom, and that you will set up and work in its 
 place two Parliaments and two Governments responsible to those 
 two Parliaments, and the proposition, which is seriously made, 
 and which we are called upon to accejDt, is that that duality 
 of Parliaments and Governments will produce a more perfect 
 union for all imperial purposes than the one Parliament and 
 Government that we have now. That is a statement which 
 requires only to be made to be confounded. It is not necessary 
 to argue to see its utter impossibility and nonsense. It may 
 have occurred to many of you in the course of your daily expe- 
 riences to witness that most painful and most melancholy 
 spectacle of an idiot child. You see at once, in looking at it, 
 that there is an awful absence of reason in the child, and just as 
 a whole congress of doctors would not be required to prove to 
 you that the child was an idiot, so, in the same way, no congress 
 of doctors would be able to prove that the child was rational 
 and sane : and so it is with this proposition, that duality of 
 Parliaments and Governments will produce in the United King- 
 dom a greater union for imperial purposes than one Parliament 
 and one Government produce. I submit to you that hopeless 
 folly is indelibly stamped upon the lineaments of such a pro- 
 position. 
 
 After all, this question of Home Pule, although it is before 
 us in certain novel aspects, is in no sense of the word a new 
 question. It was my fortune in 1874 to witness the birth of 
 Home Rule in its present form. I heard Mr. Butt bring it on 
 in the House of Commons, and I heard it debated two nights. 
 Mr. Butt was a remarkable man. He was a very learned 
 lawyer. He was admitted to be perhaps as high an authority 
 on constitutional law as existed in his day, and he was in addi- 
 tion a very sound Tory. Mr. Butt was supported by a great 
 mixture of classes in Ireland. He Avas supported not only by 
 the mass of the people, but a large number of most respectable 
 persons followed him. More than that : certain Conservatives 
 
 u 2 
 
2U2 SI'KKCIIES Ui' LOUD liANDOJ.PH CHURCHILL 
 
 were avowed supporters of Mr. Butt. Colonel Kin<^-lJaniiiiii,' 
 the present Under-Secretary for Ireland, came into Parliament 
 as a supporter of Mr. Butt. Mr. (leorge Morris, one of the 
 shrewdest men in Ireland, and now Vice-President of the Local 
 Government Board, was a supporter of Mr. Butt ; and that was 
 a movement which was discussed by Parliament, and which 
 was decisively rejected by Parliament ; a movement, compared 
 to the present movement, as respectable and as high as can 
 well be imagined. In fact, I do not like to draw comparisons, 
 because I should be using too strong language about the 
 present movement. That motion was opposed by both parties 
 in the State at th&,t time. I do not think it necessary to indulge 
 in any denunciation of Mr. Gladstone for his conversion to Home 
 Rule, but I do complain that he should indulge in denunciation 
 of his opponents because they have not been able to make the 
 same conversion which he has made. I read in the ' Quarterly 
 Review ' the other day a sentence from one of the works of Dr. 
 Arnold ; he said, ' It is not to be endured that scepticism should 
 run at once into dogmatism, and that we should be required to 
 doubt with as little discrimination as formerly we were called 
 upon to believe.' Mr. Gladstone and his party more than all 
 others did call upon the people, did call upon us, to believe in 
 the merits of the Union. He had faith in the merits of the 
 Union, but his faith changed to scepticism, his scepticism de- 
 generated into infidelity in the merits of the Union, his in- 
 fidelity has become dogmatic, and he fiercely denounces those 
 who have been unable to follow him in his surprising course. 
 When I referred to the motion of Mr. Butt it was to bring 
 before your notice a speech made upon the motion by Lord 
 Hartington — for after all it is rather in these old speeches that we 
 find instruction than in anything said at the present day — to 
 call your attention to a most remarkable statement which Lord 
 Hartington made with regard to this very motion for a Parlia- 
 ment in Ireland, and to a most remarkable prophecy which he 
 made. Lord Hartington, in replying to Mr. Butt, said : — ' In 
 honour and honesty the Imperial Parliament in Great Britain are 
 bound to tell the Irish people that whatever arguments are used 
 ' Died in 1888. 
 
HOME RULE 293 
 
 with reference to that question as applied to Ireland, while 
 giving every consideration to the just claims of Ireland, we only 
 look at it from an imperial point of view, and we are con- 
 vinced that, whatever might be the effect of the proposal upon 
 the internal affairs of the country, we can never give our assent 
 to that proposal.' Here was the head of the Liberal party, 
 speaking for the whole Liberal party, making a statement, with- 
 out the dissent of a single member of that party, to this effect 
 — that even if it were proved that Home Rule would be of great- 
 est benefit and the source of unlimited prosperity to Ireland, the 
 Imperial I^arliament would never grant Home Rule because they 
 would have to look at it from an imperial point of view. That 
 was Lord Hartington's statement, which I commend to your 
 notice as being then the view of Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal 
 party. Mr. Gladstone was a party to that statement. And 
 now I will give you the prophecy that immediately followed 
 that statement, and when you see how the prophecy has been 
 fulfilled, it will, I think, certainly induce you to lend even 
 greater weight to the statement than otherwise you might be 
 prepared to do. Lord Hartington, after alluding to the fact 
 that the Liberal party was sometimes taunted with a desire to 
 ally themselves with the Irish party, went on to use these 
 words : ' But now it might be said that protestations of this 
 kind were of little avail, and that when the exigency of the 
 moment demanded it they might be easil}^ evaded and set aside, 
 and therefore it was of more importance that he should express 
 his firm conviction that if any honourable members sitting on 
 that side of the House were so reckless as to show symptoms on 
 their part of a disposition to coquet with this question, there 
 would instantly be such a disruption and such a disorganisation 
 of parties that they would find that they had lost more support 
 in England and Scotland than they could ever hope to obtain 
 from Ireland.' I think you will admit that that was a most 
 remarkable prophecy made twelve years before the event 
 occurred ; and it has been marvellously borne out ; because, 
 although ^h\ Gladstone by his conversion gained eighty-six 
 votes from Ireland, he lost no less than one hundred and forty 
 votes in England and Scotland, 
 
294 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Now 1 will nlludc to a iiiattL-r of interest, and one that has 
 a considerable bearing on this question. I will examine the 
 conversion of Mr. Gladstone to the policy of Repeal, and en- 
 deavour to discover the causes of that conversion. AVe know 
 perfectly well that up to the time of the election of 1885 Mr. 
 Gladstone was the declared opponent of the j^epeal of the Union, 
 or Home Rule ; and that immediately after that election he 
 underwent a great change of opinion, and then appeared for the 
 first time as a supporter of Home Rule. Now, how was the 
 great conversion brought about ? Because it was that conver- 
 sion and nothing else that has brought Home Rule within the 
 region of practical politics. I believe that the history of Mr. 
 Gladstone's conversion to Home Rule was this. I happened to 
 be in a position at that time to be extremely well informed upon 
 the subject, partly fromoflScial information at my command, and 
 partly from other information I was able to obtain. From that 
 information I have reason to believe that Mr. Gladstone was told 
 after the election of 1885 that Lord Carnarvon, the then Viceroy 
 of Ireland, had formed a strong opinion favourable to a lai'ge 
 concession in the direction of Home Rule. Mr. Gladstone re- 
 sorted immediately to the sometimes dangerous process of put- 
 ting two and two together, and, remembering the change which 
 Mr. Disraeli had induced the Tory Party to make in reference to 
 Parliamentary reform, he arrived at the conclusion that, if the 
 Tory Viceroy was in favour of Home Rule the Tory Cabinet 
 must also be in favour of it. He himself could not afford to be 
 out of the running ; he could not afford to be more Tory than 
 the Tories themselves. Therefore it was that he made that re- 
 markable communication to the editor of the Leeds newspaper 
 which convulsed the whole political world at the time. But Mr. 
 Gladstone did not know, and I do not know that he knows it 
 now^, that with the exception of Lord Carnarvon not one single 
 member of that cabinet would consent to consider, even for one 
 single moment, the policy of taking a single step in the direction 
 of Home Rule. You may be certain that if Mr. Gladstone had 
 known that, or could liave brought himself to believe it, he would 
 not have made the advance to the Irish party which he did, 
 because he was under no necessity to make it. He occupied an 
 
HOME RULE 295 
 
 extremely powerful position at the time. He was at the head 
 of a party numbering ooO members in the House of Commons — 
 a party which could not be effectually assailed except by an 
 alliance between the Tories and the Irish on the basis of a con- 
 cession to the Irish on the lines of Home Rule, and of that, I 
 have pointed out, there was no danger whatever. What is the 
 moral of this ? That is the point. It must detract from the 
 merits and force of this conversion to Home llule and of the 
 policy founded upon that conversion, if you discover that it was 
 based, not upon the calm, dispassionate, and disinterested exami- 
 nation of what was good for the two countries, but merely upon 
 a miscalculation of Parliamentary chances by an old Parliamen- 
 tary hand. Do not think I cast any doubt on Mr. Gladstone's 
 present sincerity, but I am entitled to search for what I call the 
 first cause of his conversion, and in that first cause I discover a 
 fatal flaw in his position. I do not denounce Mr. Gladstone ; for 
 we must remember that the combination of the wisdom of the 
 serpent and the harmlessness of the dove was from the earliest 
 and, I may say, the holiest times not oul}^ counselled but en- 
 joined ; but I cannot conceal my opinion, nor can I refrain 
 from the declaration, that I find in Mr. Gladstone's conversion 
 to Home Rule a great deal more of the trail of the serpent than 
 I do of the silvery wings of the dove. 
 
 Let me examine a very important and practical matter, 
 one which seemed a good deal to interest those who spoke in 
 support of this motion, and that is, what are the chances of 
 Repeal being carried in Parliament and in the country ? That 
 is a very practical question, and very important for this Society, 
 for two reasons : because it certainly would not look well in 
 future years that you should have adopted hastily a policy 
 which the common sense of England had afterwards continually 
 repudiated ; nor w^ould it be well that many of those who are 
 here to-night, and who are so fortunate as to have before them 
 an uncommenced public career, should at the outset of that 
 career ally themselves with a hopelessly defeated and fallen 
 cause. Now, therefore, what are the chances of this Repeal 
 policy which is embodied in this resolution being carried ? I 
 will examine it with judicial impartiality, and T start by telling 
 
296 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPTT CriURCHILL 
 
 you tlint llio conclusion at wliicli T liave arrivcrl is tliat the 
 chances of Repeal being carried are microscopically slender. 
 What are the chances in favour of it ? I find only one, and 
 that is the alliance which has been formed between the Liberal 
 party, or what remains of the Liberal party, and the Irish party. 
 We are always told, that whenever the Liberal party have iden- 
 tified themselves with any question, that question has always 
 sooner or later been carried to a triumphant issue. Well, that 
 is far too general a statement, and the honourable members 
 who spoke in support of this motion will at once recollect 
 that at the close of the last century the Liberal party, under 
 the leadership of Mr. Fox, adopted a line of policy which was 
 considered by the country to be erroneous and dangerous. The 
 result of the Liberal party adopting such a line of policy was, 
 that from the year 1782 to the year 1832 the Tory party, with 
 the exception of very brief and fortuitous intervals of Liberal 
 government, absolutely governed England. I am quite content 
 not to carry my examination of the future further than a period 
 of fifty years. You must also bear in mind that the Liberal 
 party of the present day is by no means the formidable instru- 
 ment which the Liberal party was two or three years ago. 
 Mr. Crladstone, in carrying his party through that most start- 
 ling political manoeuvre wdiich I have referred to, has lost many 
 of his ablest marshals and some of his most effective troops, 
 and the difference between the formidable character of the 
 Liberal party of the present day and that of three years ago 
 is much the same as the difference which would exist between 
 the man in possession of both his legs and arms and the man 
 who in battle had lost a leg and an arm. Obviously the 
 latter man would not be nearly so formidable an opponent. 
 The alliance between the Liberals and the Irish Home Rulers 
 is the only chance which I can find in favour of Repeal being 
 carried, and against that I have to set a most formidable list 
 of chances. In the first place, this Parliament is constitu- 
 tionally and legally entitled to last until the year 1893, and as 
 the Unionist majority in this Parliament has now proved itself, 
 after frequent trials, to be of remarkable and unusual solidity, I 
 cannot think that any rational person would suppose that this 
 
HOME RULE 207 
 
 Parliament, in *lie ordinary course of events, is likely to come 
 to an end much before August 1893. That is a long period — 
 five years — and a great deal may happen in five years. Mr. 
 Gladstone states, and his followers proudly repeat, that the 
 flowing tide is with them. Yes ; but in five years the tide may 
 flow and ebb, and ebb and flow ; and there is no reason that I 
 can see why when August 1893 comes round, the tide should 
 not be flowing on the side of Mr. Gladstone's opponents. 
 Therefore, considering that this Parliament is likely to last five 
 years, I own that I cannot attach the importance to those recent 
 bye-elections which Mr. Gladstone's supporters seemed inclined 
 to attach. It must be always recollected about them that the 
 great question of the Union does not come before the constitu- 
 encies — all sorts of minor issues come before the constituencies 
 — questions such as the case of Miss Cass, the case of Trafalgar 
 Square, or something of that kind. But at not one of these 
 elections has the question of the Repeal of the Union been before 
 the constituency except in an indirect form, and that indirect 
 form has been the public renunciation and denunciation by the 
 supporters of ]\ir. Gladstone of the legislative proposals which 
 Mr. Gladstone placed before Parliament in 1886. For these 
 reasons, I do not think that we ought to attach, or that the 
 followers of Mr. Gladstone would be wise in attaching, undue 
 importance to these bye-elections, considering that whatever 
 the}^ show Ave shall never actually ascertain until the month of 
 August 1893. 
 
 I come to another chance against the policy of Repeal being 
 carried, which, I think, is of great importance, and that is, that 
 those who study Irish history and Irish nature will come to 
 this conclusion, that all Irish political movements are es,sentially 
 transient in their nature. Take the great Repeal movement, 
 which was far more passionately supported by the Irish than 
 the movement of Mr. Parnell, and was far more honestly sup- 
 ported, because it was entirely unconnected with the land. 
 That movement was passionately supported by the Irish people 
 of all classes and all creeds, for O'Connell had an immense 
 number of supporters among the classes as distinguished from 
 among the masses. How long did that Repeal movement 
 
298 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 last? Only a very few years; and from the day when it dis- 
 appeared to the present time, the movement for Repeal has 
 never been heard of at all. Take the Fenian movement. I 
 remember quite well the beginning of the Fenian movement, 
 and I do not think I am using any exaggeration when I say 
 that half of the Irish population were either sworn Fenians or 
 in clo.^e sympathy with them. What has become of the Fenian 
 movement at the present time ? It can hardly be said to exist. 
 It has absolutely vanished into the past, and so, no doubt, every 
 other Irish political movement will prove to have been of a 
 transient character. In connection with this view, let us 
 examine the present constitution of the Irish party. Do you 
 think that anybody who knows Ireland, and knows that party, 
 would think it likely to hold together until the month of 
 August 1 893 ? I do not. I know there are divisions of the 
 deepest character in that party, with difficulty at the present 
 moment bridged over. The party is sharply divided into two 
 sections — those who believe in the efficacy of Parliamentar\' and 
 constitutional methods, and those who do not believe in the 
 efficacy of those methods ; and depend upon it, as year after 
 year goes by, and Home Rule recedes farther and farther into 
 the distance, those who no not believe in the efficacy of Parlia- 
 mentary methods will assei't their superiority over those who 
 do believe in the efficacy of Parliamentary methods, and the 
 moment the}' succeed in asserting that superiority the knell of 
 the Irish party, as we know it now, will have been tolled. You 
 may say that by stating this I am perhaps preventing such an 
 eventuality taking place. Not at all. It must take place, in 
 the nature of things. It cannot help taking place as sure as we 
 are here. If this present Parliament lasts for five years, the 
 Irish part}', as we see it now, will have gone to pieces. That 
 is another consideration, I think, well worth your notice against 
 the policy of Repeal being carried. 
 
 I come to another, of equal importance, — the extreme 
 uncertainty of any political movement being carried to a 
 triumphant issue which absolutely depends upon the life of one 
 man. I heard the other day ]\[r. Gladstone speak in the House 
 of Commons. After the many speeches I have heard him 
 
HOME EULE 299 
 
 make, I never heard him make a more memorable, a more 
 effective, a more oratorical effort, not only from the eloquence 
 with which it abounded, but memorable from the physical vigour 
 required from a man of his age to deliver so long, so exhaustive 
 a speech. But as I listened to that speech I watched the party 
 behind him and the colleagues by his side, and I thought to 
 myself, ' Where would you be without the oratory of your 
 leader ? ' and my mind, instantly, readily, and with certainty 
 answered the question, ' Nowhere.' 
 
 I suggest another chance, which is equally good, against 
 the policy of Repeal being carried. I will rejoice the imagination 
 of t}\ose who support this motion, and assume the possibility of 
 the date of August 1893 coming round, and the accession to 
 ofiice of Mr. Gladstone at the head of a majority. Even then 
 the chances of carrying Mr. Gladstone's policy would not be 
 very gi"eat, because then you are met by the absolute impos- 
 sibility of framing a plan which shall successfully create and 
 define this statutory Parliament. One question alone, the ex- 
 clusion from or the retention of the Irish members at West- 
 minster, you will find, if you think it over, would checkmate 
 the framing or devising of any plan for a statutory Parliament 
 in Ireland, and no one knows it better than Mr. Gladstone, 
 He knows he cannot get the Liberal party to support a policy 
 which will entail the exclusion of the Irish members. He has 
 never said, and he never will say, that it is in his power to 
 devise a plan which will retain them at Westminster while 
 giving them a Parliament of their own. Nobody has ever at- 
 tempted to devise a plan but Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Butt never 
 did. He was often challenged, but never attempted it. The 
 present Irish party have never attempted it. They have often 
 been challenged, but they never would. Mr. Gladstone was 
 the first to devise a plan ; and such a plan it was, that even the 
 mover and supporters of this motion had not one word of praise 
 for that plan. But I go still further and say this, that even 
 if Mr. Gladstone, by the help of a fanatical majority, was en- 
 abled to set up in Ireland a statutory Pai'liament of some kind 
 or another, you may be absolutely certain that the crazy and 
 cranky machinery of government would 1)0 shattered and 
 
nOO SPKECIIES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 sliivcrcd into a tliousantl fragments at the very outset of its 
 existence by the resistance, the armed resistance and the irre- 
 sistible resistance, of Protestant Ulster, 
 
 And now I can understand some one saying to me in de- 
 speration. Is Home Rule, then, never to be granted ? I can 
 tell anybody who makes such an inquiry the epoch at which it 
 will be granted, but I cannot fix the date of that epoch. When 
 Britain has ceased to rule an empire ; when Britain has ceased 
 to be a nation ; when Britain has lost her great dependency of 
 India ; when Britain has been abandoned and repudiated by 
 her colonies ; when Britain has been overrun by foreign armies 
 and conquered by foreign foes ; when her wealth, her manufac- 
 tures, and her commerce have all departed ; when the manly 
 spirit and dogged determination of her sons have become but 
 as a memory and as a dream of the past — then, I think, Ireland 
 will obtain Home Rule. I can only wonder at those who, at 
 such a moment as the present, are seeking, by various pretexts 
 and under plausible excuses, to weaken, mutilate, and divide 
 our Imperial Government and our Imperial Parliament. Open 
 your newspapers any morning, and you will see at the head of 
 the foreign intelligence the words ' The European Situation.' 
 Although I earnestly hope and believe that the European peace 
 will be preserved from day to day, from week to week, from 
 month to month, and even from year to year, still I cannot dis- 
 guise from myself, nor can any of you disguise from yourselves, 
 that we may be standing on the brink of a rupture of European 
 peace such as we have not seen since 1813. If such a catastrophe 
 as the outbreak of war should fall on Europe, I know, and you 
 know, that it will require all the concentrated strength and all the 
 undivided resources of England to bear her unharmed through 
 such a conflict and collision of nations. I own that I have 
 little patience to argue on such a matter as this with those who 
 at such a crisis of the world's history seriously propose to adopt, 
 as an expedient of domestic policy, a programme so desperate 
 and so insane as that embodied in this resolution. 
 
 Let me assure you of my very sincere gratitude for the 
 kindness with which you have listened to my lengthy remarks. 
 I wish most respectfully to say to you that you are right and 
 
HOME RULE 301 
 
 wise to consider betimes this great constitutional question. You 
 do rightly, and you do wisely, as the representatives — ay, 
 probably as the leaders — of the coming generation, to exercise 
 your strong, your bright, and your hitherto unwearied intelli- 
 gences upon a subject so high and so attractive as the relations 
 which exist, or which ought to exist, between the Irish and 
 the English people. I earnestly pray that the result of your 
 continued deliberations may be to induce at least the large 
 majority of you to walk straightly and to tread firmly in that 
 path of honour and safety which till within two years ago was 
 consistently and unhesitatingly followed by both the great 
 political parties in the State ; and I entertain the confident 
 anticipation that it will be alike the privilege and pride of many 
 of you to contribute in a marked degree, according to your 
 several measures, capacities, and opportunities, to the main- 
 tenance, in all its splendour and in all its unity, of the mighty 
 empire which is your inheritance and our great possession. 
 
302 srEECnES of lord kandolpii cjiukcjiill 
 
 COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY. 
 
 House ok Commons, Makcii 8, 1888. 
 
 [In Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, Sir Walter 
 Barttelot moved the following amendment : — ' That an humble 
 address be presented to her Majesty, praying that, in order accu- 
 rately to ascertain our position, she may be graciously pleased to 
 appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and repoi't upon the 
 requirements for the protection of the empire.' 
 
 The result of this was that a Royal Commission was granted, 
 though not precisely of the kind which Sir Walter Barttelot and 
 his friends desired. The following speech was delivered in support 
 of the amendment. 
 
 The virtual control of the Army by civilians, and the effects of 
 that system, are dwelt upon in this speech, but the importance of 
 the issue thus raised has not yet been adequately appreciated, nor 
 are the dangers involved in it at all comprehended by the peojple.] 
 
 1 THINK I am rig-lit iu saying that since the great debates on 
 army organisation, which will be well within the recollec- 
 tion of the right honourable gentleman opposite [Mr. Gladstone], 
 which took place in 18G9, 1870, and 1871, we have had no 
 discussion in the House of Commons so important as the one 
 which the House is now engaged in carrying on. I think the 
 House will act wisely if it endeavours to arrive at what I may 
 call the real meaning of the motion now before the House. It 
 appears to me to be this. It is a cry of alarm raised by the 
 representatives of the services at our present condition as re- 
 gards offensive and defensive preparations ; a great and loud cry 
 of anxiety concerning the present condition of our military 
 organisation. There is one feature about this Parliament which 
 is worthy of notice. I doubt whether in any former Parliament 
 the services have been so strongly represented as they are in 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY 303 
 
 the present House. I do uot wish the House to be led away 
 iuto any discussion as to whetlier that is a wise arrangement or 
 not. By consulting a work • which is in favour with honourable 
 gentlemen opposite, and which I have no reason to suppose is 
 incorrect, I find that the services are represented more or less 
 directly in the House by no less than 178 members ; therefore 
 the Parliamentary strength of the services is most unusual, and 
 probably has never been equalled, or even approached, in any 
 previous Parliament, and may possibly never be equalled again. 
 What happened on Monday night ? Many speakers addressed 
 the House, and of all the speakers who addressed the House, 
 and who all, except one, belonged to the services, or may be 
 said to have represented the services, every single member who 
 spoke agreed in assailing the position the Government had taken 
 up with regard to this motion. There can be no question among 
 us as practical and reasonable beings, that on all subjects of 
 technical administration and management the authority of the 
 representatives of the services must stand high. What was 
 most remarkable was the absolute unanimity which characterised 
 the declarations of the honourable and gallant gentlemen who 
 represent the services. Unanimity has not always characterised 
 the representatives of the services. There have been great 
 divisions with reference to the Army ; one honourable member 
 would advocate a particular reform and was contradicted by 
 another ; and if we refer to the great debates on army 
 organisation which characterised the years I have before alluded 
 to — I mean the debates on the introduction of short service and 
 the abolition of purchase — we shall find a sharp division of 
 military opinion on the merits and demerits of those reforms. 
 The bulk of army opinion was against them, but there were 
 many distinguished soldiers who sided with the Government of 
 the day, and advocated the reforms. The unanimity which we 
 now have among the representatives of the services with regard 
 to this particular motion is almost unparalleled, and is, I think, 
 worthy the attention of the House. They one and all, by dif- 
 ferent arguments and by different allegations, asserted our posi- 
 tion from a military point of view to be in a deplorable and 
 ' The Financial Itcfovm Almanac. 
 
304 yPKECHES OF LORD liANDOLPlI (JllUKCUlLL 
 
 uiisatistactory condition, and that notwithstaudiuf^ the increasinf^ 
 cost which tlie House has been called upon to defray in respect 
 of the Army of this country. It would certainly appear from 
 some of the speeches made that the only remedy proposed was 
 that we should spend more money. I am not prepared to say 
 that is their remedy ; but if it is, I am at issue with them. 
 My remedy, if their statements of fact are true, is, ' Reform your 
 system." If we reform our system, I am convinced that the 
 money which is spent now will be amply sufficient, and more 
 than amply sufficient, to maintain our army in a fairly efficient 
 and satisfjictory condition. Ijet the House consider the nature 
 of our system of military organisation. There is one feature 
 about it which is absolutely unparalleled in any other country 
 in the world. No other country has a military system at all 
 approaching ours, and that drives us to one of two conclusions. 
 Either our system is so good that no other country can at all 
 approach it, or it is so bad that no other country would adopt 
 any part of it. The House can form an opinion for itself as to 
 which is likely to be the case. The system is a most curious 
 mixture of civil and military elements, the feature of which is 
 that the civil element predominates over the military, which is 
 subordinate to the civil. The consequence is, that the responsi- 
 bility to Parliament is laid upon the civil element alone and 
 altogether taken away from the military element. There is no 
 connection whatever between the military heads of the Ai-my 
 and the Parliament of this country. That, I believe, is a correct 
 statement of our military system; and not only is there no 
 approach to it in other countries, but our military system, com- 
 pared with that of other countries, is very costly. 
 
 Now, sir, we are told by the representatives of the services 
 in this House, speaking with responsibility and authority, that 
 this system, which costs more than any other system, is useless, 
 and worse than useless ; it is a mischievous system, which gives 
 no results in the shape of the military preparations which the 
 country has a right to expect. That this is the result is not a 
 matter of surprise. We have made arrangements by which 
 military men, who from their youth have studied and mastered 
 all the intricacies of military service, are placed in direct sub- 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BEITISH AEMY 305 
 
 ordination to civilians who have had no such training, and who, 
 from the necessity of the case, are incapable of acquiring it. 
 We apply to the Army a system which, I venture to say, we 
 would not uphold and maintain in any other case. I will draw 
 a homely analogy. Supposing the Prime Minister of tliis 
 country were to select the senior member for Northampton ' to 
 be head of the Church of England and were to appoint him 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, or supposing he were to select the 
 right honourable member for Sleaford ^ to be head of the legal 
 profession and make him Lord Chancellor, the result would be 
 that the public mind would be shocked by such appointments. 
 A man who made such appointments ought to be placed under 
 legal restraint. But that which is supposed to be an insane 
 action in ecclesiastical or in legal matters is regarded as a per- 
 fectly sane act in the management of military affairs. Not only 
 are military training, military life, and military experience not 
 required in the case of high War Office appointments, but I 
 believe I do not go too far when I say that military training, 
 military life, and military experience are almost a disqualification 
 for high official appointments at the War Office. In what I am 
 about to say I do not propose to throw any blame upon the 
 present Secretary for War.^ When the present Secretary for 
 War was appointed he endeavoured to put an end to many 
 curious anomalies which prevailed in his department. The 
 Secretar}^ of State in his statement on the Army Estimates has 
 mentioned certain reforms which he has adopted for the purpose 
 of relieving the civil authority of some of the control over the 
 Army. The Secretary of State regarded that as a primary 
 feature of reorganisation. What strikes me, however, is, that 
 by this so-called reform certain offices have been abolished and 
 others have been set up in their places, and the heads of the 
 abolished departments have been placed in other positions. 
 That is the character, as a rule, of War Office reorganisations. 
 The Secretary for AVar has abolished the offices of Director and 
 Assistant Director of Supplies and Transport, which were for- 
 merly respectively filled by Sir A. Haliburton and ]\Ir. Lawson 
 at salaries of 1,200/. and of 1,000/. per annum. But although 
 ' Mr. Labouchere. - Mr. Henry Chaplin. •* Mr. Edward Stanhope. 
 VOL. II. X 
 
30G SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHITRCHILL 
 
 these gentlemen ceased to exist in tlieir former characters, tliey 
 now reappear — resurrected as it were — Sir A. Haliburton as 
 Assistant Under Secretary for War, with a salary of 1.200/. per 
 annum, and ^Nlr. Lawson as Assistant Deputy Accountant- 
 General, at a salary of 1,000/. per annum? Will the House 
 believe that there was already in existence an Assistant Under 
 Secretary for War at a salary of 1,500/. per annum in the person 
 of Colonel Deedes, who has no duty to perform except to look 
 after the messengers at the War Office, and who has now the 
 aid of Sir A. Haliburton to assist him in the discharge of that 
 laborious work, and that there were already in existence two 
 Assistant Deputy Accountant-Generals, one with 1,200/, and 
 the other 1,000/. a year, and that Mr. Lawson has been appointed 
 to assist them, with a salary of 1,000/. per annum. That is not 
 all. In the place of the Survej^or-General of the Ordnance 
 Department two new offices have been created. There has been 
 created a Director of Ordnance Factories, and the gentleman 
 who holds that office is General ]\raitland, who was formerly one 
 of the Superintendents of the Gun Factories, at a salary of 950/. 
 His salary is now doubled, and he receives 1,800/. a year ; and 
 what is more remarkable is that he was singled out by the 
 Commission presided over by Sir J. Stephen as being mainly, 
 if not entirely, responsible for the design and manufacture of 
 the ill-fated 43-ton guns. The Secretary for War, in his state- 
 ment, uses the following language : ' Among the advantages 
 which I anticipate from this alteration I place first the fact that 
 the military authorities will now be enabled to take a compre- 
 hensive view of the whole condition of the military resources of 
 the country, of our requirements, and of the means available 
 for meeting them. All the threads are in their own hands. 
 Any scheme put forward by them should be founded upon full 
 knowledge of all surrounding conditions, and the Secretary 
 of State will be enabled to rely npon them for advice as to the 
 comparative importance of all proposals for army expenditure.' 
 What I wish to ask is, whether the Commander-in-Chief and his 
 great military advisers are aware of the increased responsibility 
 which has been thrown upon them, and whether they are will- 
 ing to accept that increased responsibility. If the statement 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY 307 
 
 is a mere expression of the opinion of the Secretary for War, 
 it is not worth the paper it is written upon. The Secretary for 
 War says that all the management of the Army is in the hands 
 of the military authorities. That is contrary to the fact. The 
 most important matters connected with army administration, 
 such as those relating to contracts for clothing and for ordnance, 
 are absolutely removed from the knowledge of the Commander- 
 in-Chief; and that being so, I fail to see how all the army 
 administration is in the hands of the military authorities. 
 
 I come to a much more important question — that relating 
 to the estimates. Under the Order in Council which created 
 the present office of Commander-in-Chief, the duties of that 
 officer were greatly enlarged, and the Commander-in-Chief is now 
 charged with the duty of preparing the estimates. If the House 
 turns to the duty of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, 
 they will find that he is charged with the duty of compiling the 
 estimates. Will the Secretary of State explain the distinction 
 between preparing and compiling the estimates? Does com- 
 piling really mean adding up the Commander-in-Chief's figures 
 to see whether he has made any mistake in his arithmetic, or 
 does it mean going over the estimates, reducing some amounts 
 fixed by the Commander-in-Chief, and increasing others ? If 
 you have not given financial authority to the military officials you 
 have not increased their responsibility nor their control over the 
 Army. The control over the Army depends upon financial 
 authority, and if the Commander-in-Chief has nothing to do with 
 the preparation of the estimates matters are left exactly where 
 they were before. That argument cannot be contradicted ; but 
 in spite of this the Secretary of State says that now, for the first 
 time, he is able to rely on the military authorities. That is a 
 most extraordinary statement. I altogether deny its accuracy, and 
 I assert if former Secretaries of State have not been able to rely on 
 their military advisers nothing which has taken place in the War 
 Office will enable the Secretary of State to rely upon them now. 
 I would like, with regard to our present position, and with re- 
 gard to this question of military responsibility and military 
 control, of civil responsibility and civil control, to read to the 
 House some extracts from the evidence given before the Royal 
 
 X 2 
 
308 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Coniinissiou by a witness of the liigliest authority. Lord Wolseley, 
 in his evidence last year before the Jloyal Commission on civil 
 establishments, used these most remarkable expressions, which 
 are well worthy of the serious consideration of the House of 
 Commons. In reply to question 2,473, Lord Wolseley said : 
 ' The tendency of all our military administration, so far as I 
 have been able to judge of it, has been to make military men 
 extravagant, has been to make them spending animals instead 
 of economical animals. You have divided the great administra- 
 tion of the Army into the military and into the civil, and you 
 have strictly reserved to the civil branches everything connected 
 with finance and everything bearing upon economy. The result 
 is, as might be expected from such a system, that the military 
 commander and his staff consider that they have absolutely no 
 responsibility about money, and in all the demands and requests 
 they make for stores or for money they do not think of economy, 
 having been taught that the economical side of the question is 
 entirely to be dealt with by the financial people in the War 
 Office. Whereas, according to my notions, if yon threw upon 
 officers commanding districts and all the stations throughout 
 the world a certain amount of financial responsibility, you would 
 make them very anxious to economise for the pnblic service ; 
 their reputation would then be at stake and they would hesi- 
 tate before they made any extravagant demands." In reply to 
 question 2,528, Lord Wolseley said : ' My experience is, that 
 when soldiers are trusted, as I have seen them, as governors and 
 in that sort of position abroad, they are more particular about 
 public money and more economical than any one else.' In reply 
 to question 2,529, Lord Wolseley said : ' Now if the officer is 
 economical he gets no credit for it. He is looked upon as a 
 fool.' That is one of the results of our curious military system. 
 Now, sir, these are Lord Wolseley 's statements before a Royal 
 Commission. But he gave further evidence as to the effect of 
 placing a civilian in a responsible position over military men. 
 In reply to question 2,250, Lord Wolseley said: 'I think it 
 a very ridiculous thing to bring a gentleman into the War 
 Office and make him responsible for supplying the Army with 
 the most important implements they have to make use of — their 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY 309 
 
 arms, great guns, &c. — who may be absolutely ignorant of every- 
 thing connected with war, or the requirements of war, or the 
 stores made use of in war.' In reply to question 2,460, he 
 said : ' I think that the amount of effective work, as far as the 
 Army is concerned, that a Parliamentary gentleman coming 
 into the War Office can do is very small. I do not think the 
 public have any very great return for the salary he receives. 
 He brings no special knowledge to bear upon any of the very 
 difficult subjects he is asked to deal with. He is the fifth wheel 
 of the coach. The only thing I know he really can do is to 
 answer questions in the House. If he interferes with people he 
 has to deal with he interferes with the efficiency of the Army, 
 and if he does not interfere with them, what good is he and for 
 what purpose is he there ? ' It is only fair to say that the 
 statement was made about the Surveyor-General. Lord Wolseley, 
 who had been through many campaigns, and who is a G.C.B., 
 being subordinate to the Secretary of State and dependent on 
 the Secretary of State for his existence, could not apply that 
 language to his official superior ; but I am putting no extrava- 
 gant construction on Lord Wolseley 's words if I were to say to 
 the Secretary of State, ' Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.' 
 Lord Wolseley contrasts our system with the German system, 
 and that is a very important matter. Lord Wolseley, in answer 
 to question 2,338, said : • Germany is divided into nineteen 
 anny corps, and each army corps is as independent almost as 
 England is of Ireland. It has its own establishment, its own 
 headquarters, and its own storage accommodation. It has its 
 own transport and everything complete, and there is allotted to 
 it, to the general officer commanding, so much money on an 
 estimate, and he manipulates the whole thing, and is responsible 
 to whoever is the financial man at the financial headquarters.' 
 For the moment I digress in order to relate an experience of 
 my own. When I passed through Berlin the other day I was 
 fortunate enough to make the acquaintance of a captain of one 
 of the regiments of Dragoons of the Guard, He was good enough 
 to offer to show me all of what I may call the domestic economy 
 of his regiment. I may mention that this officer was a man 
 of high rank, the heir to a great fortune. That officei- wont 
 
310 Sl'EECJlES OF LOED EANDOLPH CHUEUHILL 
 
 to his regiment every morning at sLx o'clock, remaining with it 
 until noon. He returned to his regiment at one o'clock and 
 never left it until five or six o'clock in the evening. That is the 
 way in which the Prussian Army works. The reason of the 
 greater efficiency of that Army is because of the responsibility 
 which the German system puts on the officer, as I shall show 
 the House. The German officer has not only military control, 
 but also financial control, and the manner in which an officer 
 manages his regiment and the finances of his regiment is the 
 measure of his promotion. This officer showed me the whole 
 of the squadron of about one hundred and fifty men in all its 
 working. That squadron was complete in every single par- 
 ticular. The whole of the money for the maintenance of the 
 regiment was allotted to the colonel of the regiment who, with 
 the five captains of the five squadrons, dealt with that money 
 entirely as they thought fit. They made their own contracts, 
 bought their own supplies, purchased all their articles except 
 horses and weapons. He showed me the storehouse of the 
 squadron. 'J'liere were in it duplicates, triplicates, of every 
 single article of equipment or accoutrement which a cavalry 
 regiment could possibly want. There were three or four suits 
 of clothes, three or four sets of pouches and helmets ; in fact 
 they had every sort of thing in their storehouse in duplicate 
 and in triplicate. Will the House believe that the great 
 rivalry between regiments in Germany is, not to spend but 
 to economise money, so that their stores may be better and 
 greater in amount than those of any other regiment. That is 
 the result of putting financial power in the hands of a soldier ; 
 and it is a fact that every Prussian regiment going to war is 
 turned out with every article of equipment brand-new from 
 beginning to end. That regiment of which I am speaking could 
 have gone to the frontier at twelve hours' notice, and not one 
 single letter of any sort or kind need have passed between them 
 and the War Office. I venture to state that not one single 
 regiment could be moved in this country without reams and files 
 and folios of correspondence, extending over a period of several 
 days ; and that is our system and our military condition. 
 
 I have given to the House an instance of a J^russian regi- 
 
COST AND CONDITION Oi* THE BRITISH AKMY 311 
 
 meiit, and from one instance you may learn all. They are all 
 alike. I give the House now an instance of an English regiment 
 which also came under my personal notice last year. An officer 
 commanding one of our crack cavalry regiments required for his 
 regiment new ammunition pouches. He applied for them, and 
 after a time he got them. When he got them, however, he 
 found that the straps across the shoulders were so weak that 
 when the pouches were full of ammunition the straps broke and 
 the ammunition tumbled out. The defect was brought to the 
 notice of the War Office, but at first they did not believe it 
 There was a long correspondence, but at last the War Office 
 replied and admitted that they were bad, and new pouches 
 were sent. When they arrived, it was found that they would 
 not hold the regulation quantity of cartridges. Again the 
 colonel commanding brought the matter to the notice of the 
 War Office, who were most indignant and perfectly incredulous. 
 A prolonged correspondence ensued with the War Office, but at 
 last a solemn inspection was made of those pouches, and the 
 statement was found to be correct. The colonel told me only 
 the other day that, after a correspondence extending over more 
 than a 3^ea]', he had at last succeeded in getting for a crack cavalry 
 regiment proper ammunition pouches. From that you may get 
 a most perfect picture of the beauties of the German and English 
 systems. These are instances which may not be contradicted. 
 But the absurdities of the War Office are worthy of more notice. 
 Lord Wolsele}' in his evidence stated to the Royal Commission 
 that a man in Canada who had claims on the War Office for 
 2,'>'. 6d. had to sign his name nineteen different times. In the 
 report by the accountants appointed to audit the accounts of the 
 Woolwich factory there is a passage as to the query-sheet. On 
 the question of payments made, it had to be signed or initialled by 
 no fewer than eight persons, and after one year's labour of those 
 eight persons in reference to this particular question, the result 
 was a total disallowance of 2s. M. Then in another passage the 
 accountants speak of the many signatures required, and say 
 that ' much labour is bestowed on most trifling amounts." But 
 what does Lord Wolseley say with regard to his own work ? 
 Here is Avhat the Adjutant-General of the Army says: 'Taking 
 
312 SPEECH KS 01' LOKD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 my cnvii work, there is such an iininense amount of small 
 work that, instead of having time for serious and big subjects, 
 one's time is taken up in reading stupid little papers upon stupid 
 little subjects. There is an immense amount of routine which 
 ought to be avoided.' That is how Lord Wolseley describes the 
 working of the system. 
 
 I should like to tell the House what are the results of the 
 system. Lord Wolseley says: 'I think we move our troops 
 a great deal too much, and that an immense amount of money 
 is spent uselessly upon the movement of troops continually all 
 over the world.' Then I will quote Lord Wolseley about the 
 supplies of the Army. He says, in answer to question 2,267: 
 ' During my time in the Army we have not been supplied with 
 as good material as we ought to have been supplied with. I 
 think, for instance, the tools supplied to the Army are very bad, 
 extremely bad, taking them generally. The picks, shovels, axes, 
 and all those descriptions of tools are very bad.' This, mind 
 you, is the evidence of the Adjutant-General of the Army. 
 With regard to the clothing of our troops Lord Wolseley 
 says : ' I have seen the French Army, the soldiers of the 
 Geraian, and the soldiers of the Italian Army, and, looking 
 at the clothing, I should say that their clothing is made of a 
 decidedly superior quality to what ours is.' I hope that the 
 House will bear that in mind. It has been stated that if 
 the German Anny were to be clothed at the same rate of ex- 
 pense as our Army, that would add 300,000^. to their expendi- 
 ture. Then, again, Lord Wolseley says, in answer to question 
 2,510 : ' I am quite sure that if you sent to-morrow for an 
 implement called a billhook, the common billhook that is used 
 in the Army, you will find that it is made of very inferior stuff, 
 little better than hoop-iron. If you chop wood with it the 
 wood chops it.' That is the statement of a man who is speaking 
 from his own experience, and it is a statement which was only 
 made last year. But there is one more statement made by 
 Lord Wolseley which is even more important. In answer to 
 question 2,443, he says : ' I think that one of the most import- 
 ant elements in regimental efficiency is regimental transport, 
 and one of the greatest misfortunes which our Armv suffers from 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY 313 
 
 at the present moment is that we have not got even the nucleus 
 of any regimental transport. Of all the troubles we suffer from 
 when we take the field, the want of any regimental transport 
 is the greatest. Now I have given to the House some of the 
 results of our curious system, into which the Government do not 
 seem desirous of having an inquiry. But there are other results 
 which have met with a great chorus of military condemnation. 
 Some right honourable gentlemen will recollect the Crimean war. 
 What was the great feature of that war ? The great featui-e was 
 that while the British soldier was covered with glory, the civil ad- 
 ministration was covered with the deepest disgrace. But take 
 the series of scandals in the last few years. Besides the scandals 
 connected with the swords and bayonets of the Army and the 
 cutlasses of the Navy, and that connected with the 43-ton gun, 
 there appears to me to be a very unpleasant business at the 
 present moment about what is known as the 9"2 in. gun. We 
 have not quite arrived at the truth about it, but the Secretary 
 of State for War has assured the House that a gun with a 
 cracked lining is a better one than a gun with a lining which is 
 not cracked. These are matters on which we have not yet full 
 information ; but look at the commissariat scandal in Egypt, that 
 terrible and unequalled scandal in connection with the ammuni- 
 tion for the column in the desert. It is not that 1 want to irritate 
 the authorities by placing upon them personally the responsibility 
 for these matters ; I place the responsibility on the system. 
 The system which has produced these results in the past is the 
 same which obtains up to the present time ; and not in the 
 slightest, in the most trifling particular has that system been 
 really altered ; it is as powerful for evil now as it was then. 
 We are told that there is Parliamentary control ; but what has 
 Parliament ever done to bring any single person to justice 
 for these scandals ? AVe have seen over and over again the 
 futility of this alleged Parliamentary control. We have been 
 told that, with regard to the number of field guns, we cannot 
 do what Switzerland, Belgium, Servia, or Roumania could do 
 with ease. A very serious statement was that made b}' the noble 
 lord the member for Marylebone, which, I think, was a 'calcu- 
 lated indiscretion,' to the effect that Ave had no gunpowder in 
 
314 SPEECHES OF LOKl) KANDOLPJI CHURCHILL 
 
 stoiv and were obliged to depend I'or our <)^unpowder upon 
 manufac-tories in a foreign country. 1 do not know wlietlierthe 
 noble lord referred to cocoa i)owder, but he has stated that there 
 was not sufficient in store. 
 
 Lord 0. BeresfoHD : I said that there was not a sufficient 
 amount in store to meet wliat would be requisite if we went to 
 war. 
 
 Lord Ji. Chlju'HILL: At all events, we have a statement of 
 such importance as that made by the noble lord, who was in 
 office onl}^ a very short time ago, and who must be in a position 
 to know. 
 
 Xow, may I ask the House to judge the system from an 
 economical point of view — that is to say, compare its cost with 
 that of the German system ? Such a comparison is very in- 
 teresting and full of lessons for us. We have the evidence ^ of 
 one of the most distinguished officers in the British Army — 
 namely, General Brackenbury, the head of the Intelligence 
 Department. He was examined as to the cost of the German 
 system. I think it will be admitted that the German sys- 
 tem is nearly an ideal system, and that the more nearly we 
 approach to it the more likely is our system to be a satisfactory 
 one. General Brackenbury stated one thing which is most 
 remarkable. He gave the cost of the German War Office and 
 of our own. Our War Office costs 400,000?. a year ; it contains 
 093 officials, and manages an arni}^ which on a war footing 
 may be considered as amounting to 500,000 men. The German 
 War Office costs 160,000/. ; this includes the cost of the War 
 Ministries of Bavaria, of Saxony, and of Wurtemberg ; and 
 there are only 503 officials. The German War Office, with this 
 small proportion of expenditure, manages to control an army 
 which on a war footing amounts to upwards of 3,000,000 men. 
 Those are broad facts, however they may be explained away by 
 official ingenuity. Now let us look at the cost in the two cases. 
 The expenses of the German army system last year were 
 21,000,000/., or, deducting the non-effective vote, 19,300,000/., 
 as compared with 14,600,000/., the expenses of the British 
 
 ' This evidence was given before the Select Committee on .\rmy Estimates, 
 of which Lord Randolph Churchill was chairman. 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BEITISH AEMY 315 
 
 system after deducting its non-effective vote. I asked General 
 Brackeubury whether he did not consider that the best test of 
 any organisation was the number of army corps which could be 
 put into the field after making the various necessary allowances, 
 and General Brackenbury agreed that it was. Well, for an 
 effective cost of 19,300,000^. Germany can put into the field 
 nineteen army corps ; we are supposed to be able to put into 
 the field two army corps for the sum of 14,600, OOOZ. General 
 Brackenbury said that that was a most unfair comparison — 
 that it must be recollected we have a volunteer army ; that 
 it is much better paid, fed, and clothed than the German Army ; 
 and that if the German Army were paid, fed, and clothed in 
 the same way their expenditure would be much higher. But 
 I was not afraid to follow the general on that ground, and I 
 asked him to add up what that expenditure would be if the 
 German Army were paid and fed and clothed as well as the 
 British Army. I found that to the 19,300,000^. should be 
 added the sum of 6,650,000/. in respect of pay, 1,300,000L for 
 better food, for clothing 300,000/., and for the item of forage 
 373,000/. ; thus making a total altogether, if the pay, cloth- 
 ing, and forage of the German Army were in the same style as 
 ours, of 27,900,000/. I add on something more. The German 
 war authorities, no doubt, possess a fund over which the German 
 Parliament has no control in the indemnity which was paid 
 by France in the last war. Out of this military treasury they 
 have constructed enormous fortifications, and added largely to 
 their supply of military stores. Still, it would probably be 
 extravagant to say that they take out of the military chest more 
 than two millions of money a year. Therefore hy adding on to 
 the 27,900,000/. the sum of 2,000,000/. as contributions from 
 the military chest, we shall arrive at a grand total of 30,000,000/. 
 So that for 30,000,000/., even supposing their army were kept up 
 on the more extravagant style of the British Army, the Germans 
 can send into the field 19 army corps, as against 14,600,000/. 
 for our two army corps, making the cost of each German army 
 corps about 1,500,000/., as against an English cost per corps of 
 7,000,000/. I think those are startling figures. You may say 
 what you like, but there must be something wrong with a system 
 
316 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 wliii'li sliow^f results so miserably inadeijuate as compared with 
 those of other military systems. 
 
 I cannot pass away from this subject without reminding the 
 House that Germany has, moreover, seventeen first-class for- 
 tresses — military camps they might be called — in such condition 
 that they are ready at the shortest notice for any emergency ; 
 and that she maintains her army in the most perfect equipment, 
 ready to cross the frontier at a fortnight's notice. As for our 
 fortresses, what have we ? We have only four first-class for- 
 tresses — Portsmouth, Plymouth, Gibraltar, and Malta; and we 
 are told in the memorandum of the Secretary of State that every 
 one of these fortresses, to make them reasonably safe, requires an 
 enormous amount of money to be spent upon it. And what says 
 the Secretary of State about his two army corps ? ' For the 
 First Army Corps,' says the Secretary of State, ' the cavalry 
 division, and the troops for the line of communication, the whole 
 of the necessary outfit, including clothing, arms, accoutrements, 
 equipments, tents, stores, supplies, and vehicles, might have been 
 said to be practically complete ' — not that they are complete — 
 ' except that every month produces new demands and alterations, 
 and some of the transport materiel is not of the newest pattern.' 
 Does the Secretary of State really mean to bring forward that 
 miserable excuse that constant changes in accoutrements and 
 ecjaipment have prevented him from completing the equipment 
 of the First Army Corps ? Those things do not change at all 
 events in such short periods of time but that your First Army 
 Corps at least ought to be completely equipped. The next para- 
 graph is still more important. ' For the remaining troops the 
 equipment is partly in existence, and could probably be com- 
 pleted without serious delay.' Partly ! Probably ! And yet 
 the Secretary of State, after making such a statement, rebukes 
 other persons for what he calls revealing our weakness to foreign 
 powers ! If the House of Commons thinks what I have quoted 
 a satisfactory statement to make to the House of Commons in 
 respect of the results of our military system, and if after that it 
 can lightly vote supplies to a system which produces such small 
 and inadequate results, the House of Commons takes a very 
 remarkable view of the situation. I cannot pass from this para- 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH ARMY 317 
 
 graph without alluding to the cavalry division of the First Army 
 Corps. Will the House believe that after providing for the 
 wants of the First Army Corps there would not be left in the 
 country for military purposes two thousand cavalry horses ? 
 Will the Secretary of State stand up and say that the Com- 
 mander-in-Chief and the military heads are responsible for this 
 state of things ? That is what I want to know. I wish to 
 apologise to the House for detaining it at this length, but the 
 matter is so important that I venture to make even further 
 demands upon the patience of honourable members. I wish to 
 allude to the question of the rifle of the British Army. Now it 
 is a most remarkable thing that there are three distinct opera- 
 tions going on in the Government factories with regard to the 
 rifle of the Army. In the first place, there is a new rifle which 
 is going to be manufactured in certain quantities this year and 
 in larger quantities next year. There is then going on the con- 
 version of the Eufield-Martini rifle — and a most melancholy story 
 that unfolds. Two years ago we spent nearly 300,000/. on 
 manufacturing what was considered to be an excellent rifle for 
 the Army, the Enfield ^Martini. Although a magazine rifle was 
 then before the War Office, the War Ofiice decided that they 
 would not manufacture a magazine rifle but the Enfield- Martini, 
 and they spent the sum 1 have mentioned in doing so. Now 
 the War Office have decided that they will have a magazine 
 rifle : and thus the money spent on the Enfield-^Iartini has been 
 absolutely thrown away. And what are they going to do now ? 
 They are converting the Enfield-]\Iartini, which has a smaller 
 bore, into the Martini-Henry, which has a larger bore. That is 
 the second operation ; and the third operation is that thev are 
 continuing to manufacture the Martini-Henry, although it is 
 likely to be superseded very soon by the magazine rifle. The 
 result of all this is, that, supposing this country was invaded in 
 1890, there would certainly be two rifles, and probably three 
 rifles, in the hands of the British troops defending this country, 
 with certainly two, and probably three, different sorts of ammu- 
 nition. 1 think the House will agree that this is a sickening 
 and heart-breaking stor3^ Now, is it not the case that the time 
 has come for vigorous inquiry and for radical reform ? A Royal 
 
318 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 Commission is asked for, and the Government do not see their 
 way to assentinor to the motion, at any rate in the form in wliicli 
 it stands on the paper. A Royal Commission of tlie ordinary 
 kind would be useless — worse than useless — because it would be 
 composed of men who would meet three or four times in the 
 session and adjourn over the recess, and it would be highly im- 
 probable that such a lloyal Commission, could possibly give a 
 report before next year ; proliably not before three j^ears would 
 they be able to examine the mass of evidence that would fill a 
 volume or two of Blue-books. In the meantime we should be 
 going on as we are going on now. There are two essential 
 points about a Royal Commission which must be recognised. 
 It must be a Commission of high authority, and it must be a 
 Commission which will work with the utmost expedition. I do 
 not think that anybody can suppose that the need for an inquiry 
 has not arrived. If that is conceded, I tell the House that 
 what we want is a Military Commission, whose function it will 
 be to tell the people what they do not know — what is the real 
 opinion of the military heads upon our existing military state. 
 That has always been kept from the people. We have been 
 asked, ' Why should we know? what is the necessity for knowing 
 these things ? They are known to the militar}" experts and the 
 Government know them.' The Government know it, but it has 
 been kept from the public. What these high military authori- 
 ties ought to do is to discover what they know, tell us wlnt we 
 want, and they ought to inquire into the cost of putting things 
 in order and maintaining things in an efficient state. Such a 
 Commission might deliberate and report to the Government in 
 less than six weeks, and might give to the Government and the 
 country and I^arliament the military opinion on these points. 
 Can there be any doubt that we should be infinitely better off 
 than we are now ? I will read the last extract with which I 
 will trouble the House ; it is from the evidence of Lord Wolseley, 
 who said : ' The greatest misfortune that occurs to me upon this 
 subject arises from the fact that our military requirements have 
 never been inquired into — liave never been tabulated or laid 
 down. There is no fixed point up to which we work, whether 
 it is the Commander-in-Chief or any official connected with the 
 
COST AND CONDITION OF THE BRITISH AIDIY 319 
 
 Array ; we have had nothing decided by the country as to what 
 the country wants, or as to what our military policy, its aims 
 and requirements are. Q, 2,642. — Then you do not know what 
 you want ? A. — We do not know what we want. We do not 
 know what we are working up to. . . . There has never been 
 any authoritative inquiry instituted as to what are the military 
 requirements of the empire.' He recommended a Eoyal Com- 
 mission to examine experts on the various topics connected with 
 the subject. If the House consents to an inquiry which is 
 meant, not to enlighten but to blind the country, this House 
 will not represent the opinions of the country. There are other 
 matters to which I wish to refer, but I shall not go into them 
 now. I have said enough to let the House understand the 
 position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886, Year by 
 year I had seen the expenditure growing, and year by year I 
 had seen the results diminishing. Year by year I had seen the 
 distress and disquietude, not onh' in the mind of the Army but 
 in the mind of the public, growing deeper and stronger. I 
 hoped that by putting that pressure on the spending depart- 
 ments, by cutting off the supplies— I hoped that I might force 
 them and compel the heads of those departments to look into 
 their own affairs and make the necessary reforms ; but they 
 would not. What was my position ? I was called upon to 
 defend an expenditure which I knew was wasteful. I knew I 
 shoidd be called upon to sustain and maintain a system and 
 an establishment which was rotten, and I concludecl that my 
 miserable capacities were not equal to the task, and that I 
 must leave it to some one more qualified than myself for such 
 a duty. The attitude the Government have taken up towards 
 this motion is one of resistance ; but what do they call upon us 
 to do? To vote confidence in the existing system. I cannot 
 do that, because I know it is hopelessly bad. 
 
320 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND. 
 
 Birmingham, April 9, 1888. 
 
 [Tliis spooch was occasioned by the election of Lord Randolpli 
 Churchill as President of the Edgbaston Conservative Club. The 
 first part of the address was devoted to a review of the general 
 features of the session of 1888 do\\Ti to the month of April, and to 
 an examination of the relative strength of the Government and the 
 Opposition. Lord Randolph then proceeded to consider the actual 
 position of both parties, and the prospect before them. The necessity 
 of reform in the method of Irish government was again strongly 
 insisted upon in this speech.] 
 
 WHAT is the reason of the profound tranquillity in Parlia- 
 ment at the present time, and of the great propriety of 
 demeanour on the part of the Opposition ? What is the reason 
 of it all ? I am particularly anxious to bring before you the 
 moral which I draw from the political position at the present 
 time, because it is a position unique in English history. The 
 reason of the tranquillity which we all rejoice in at the present 
 time, and which we all appreciate, is, that the Government of the 
 Queen is a strong Government, but not too strong. That is the 
 point I wish to bring before your notice. The Government by 
 the necessities of its political position is compelled to becon- 
 tinually, day by day. most cautious, always on the alert ; and 
 that is what the Government of England ought to be. In the 
 years that I have been in Parliament I have seen rise and fall 
 two Governments which were striking examples of Governments 
 possessing great and overwhelming Parliamentary strength. I " 
 saw the Government — the Tory Government — which came into 
 office in 1874, and I saw the Government which came into 
 office— the Liberal Government — in 1880 j and both those 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND 321 
 
 Governments were Gov^ernments which possessed overwhelming 
 Parliamentary strength. They both, after a few years, came to 
 ntter grief; and I do not believe I am anticipating too much 
 the province of the historian if I venture to doubt whether either 
 of those Governments has left any mark on English history which 
 will be to their enduring praise. Those Governments possessed 
 a position of overwhelming strength in the House of Commons ; 
 and the moral I draw is that the possession by a Government 
 of overwhelming Parliamentary strength, and the command by 
 a Government of a highly disciplined and large Parliamentary 
 majority, does not always necessarily lead to goodadminstration, 
 but does very often induce serious Ministerial vices. It leads 
 — I have seen it with my own eyes — it leads on the part of 
 Ministers to undue pride ; it leads to disdainful treatment of 
 remonstrances or suggestions coming from faithful followers ; it 
 leads to over-confidence on the part of Ministers. Ministers 
 who belong to such a Government think that they are in office 
 for life, and that leads as an inevitable result to great laxity and 
 great carelessness of administration. I hold that the position 
 of the present Government is in many ways an ideal position, 
 because it is a position which preserves them fi'om the danger of 
 falling into the defects and the faults which I have brought to 
 your notice. One marked feature in the position of the present 
 Government is the support of the Liberal Unionist party. That 
 is a support which I would venture to call a happy mixture of 
 loyalty and of independence. It is a support which is strictly 
 conditional, and the conditions are highly honourable both to 
 those who make them and to those who abide by them; but 
 they are conditions which, if you think them over, you will find 
 must make most effectually for good administration and for good 
 legislation. There is another feature to which I attach equal 
 importance in the position of the present Government, and that 
 is the composition of the Tory party. The composition of the 
 Tory party in this Parliament differs widely from that of all 
 former Tory parties in the House of Commons, because the Tory 
 party is mainly composed now, for the first time in its history, 
 of representatives of large and populous towns, who are directly 
 in touch with great masses of our fellow-countrymen, who 
 
 VOL. u. y 
 
322 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH OHUROITILL 
 
 possess tlicir conscience, and wlio are always vividly bearing in 
 mind the pledges by whicli tliey gained the confidence of their 
 constitnents ; and the result is that there is in the Tory party 
 a very large and predominant section who would not be prepared 
 to tolerate for one moment without a most effective and a most 
 vigorous remonstrance any tendency on the part of the Govern- 
 ment of the day either to inaction or to reaction. That is a 
 feature of the position of the present Government to which I 
 attach the utmost importance, and from which I deduce the 
 brightest anticipations. There is one more reason, perhaps, 
 which it is worth while to bring before you, why Parliament is 
 fulfilling its duties at the present moment with so much energy 
 and vigour, and in such a satisfactory manner ; and that reason 
 is, that for the first time in English history you have a Parlia- 
 ment which directly represents the British and the Irish people, 
 which faithfully and closely reflects the true public mind ; and 
 no one who has ever had any experience of going about among 
 the people for political purposes, or who has had any experience 
 of coming before great audiences such as the present, can have 
 the smallest doubt of the earnest and, I may even say, the stern 
 desire of the people that the business of the nation shall be 
 ti'ansacted in a creditable and satisfactory manner, and that the 
 traditions of the House of Commons shall be honourably and 
 permanently maintained. 
 
 1 turn to another topic of equal interest — the state of 
 Ireland. Contrast the state of Ireland now with the state of 
 Ireland at the time I had the honour of addressing you last year. 
 It is altogether transformed. What is the state of Ireland at 
 the present moment ? You heard a great deal this time last 
 year about the Plan of Campaign. The Plan of Campaign was 
 being widely adopted by the Irish tenantry, and was a purely 
 illegal and violent course of action. Now you hear very little 
 about the Plan of Campaign, and where it is now pursued it is 
 on a very limited scale and with great secrecy on the part of the 
 Irish leaders. Then turn to the position of that organisation, 
 the National League, and contrast it with the position of the 
 National League last year. Last year it was full of activity 
 and destructive energy. This year we find it comparatively 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND 323 
 
 quiet. It is, as it were, lying low ; and really except for the de- 
 monstration of yesterday — which seems to have been a very half- 
 hearted affair, not at all supported by the bulk of the population 
 of the districts in which it took place — except for the demonstra- 
 tion of yesterday we might almost say that the National Tjcague 
 for all practical purposes had ceased to ex'st. Not only that. 
 Some very unpleasant features of Irish society liave been a 
 great deal modified. I take boycotting, of which we heard so 
 much last year — a cruel, a barbarous, and a detestable practice. 
 Boycotting, as is proved by official statistics, has largely dimi- 
 nished, and diminished to such an extent that really for practical 
 political purposes we need hardly take count of it. More than 
 that : the persons in Ireland of one class and another who were 
 under special protection of the police — the number of those 
 persons has also decreased. More than that : you find in Ireland 
 that juries, for the first time for some years, are beginning to 
 do their duty without fear, and that they are beginning to convict 
 criminals who are justly proved to have been criminals On the 
 evidence which is laid before them. The consequence is, that 
 crime in Ireland no longer has the character of being committed 
 with impunity. Crime in Ireland is no longer unpunished ; and 
 what is the result ? I do not believe, if you go back ten years 
 or more, you will find a time when crime in Ireland has been 
 so slight and so insignificant as it is at the present moment. 
 Suppose I turn to the position of the Irish tenantry. I learn 
 on the highest authority from many quarters that contracts 
 are being fairly carried out ; that rents are being fairly paid 
 wliere the ability to ipaj rent exists ; and that where the ability 
 to pay rent does not really exist, the landlords of Ireland are 
 making large and due remissions of rent, and are treating their 
 tenants with all consideration. And the consequence is that 
 you have in Ireland at the present moment a great revival of 
 confidence and a great revival of the feeling of security. I 
 do not believe that will be denied, even in the ranks of our 
 opponents, by those who may be men of thought and of informa- 
 tion. If that is the case, we may be satisfied with the great 
 justification which that affords of the line which we, the Unionist 
 party, take on Irish matters. But we must be careful to be 
 
324 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 on our fjuartl against tlie clanorer of relying too exclusively 
 on what is called a coercion policy, or what I should call a 
 strong and a severe administration of the law. T have seen 
 two (Jovernnients, gentlemen, make that error. I saw the Tory 
 (rovennnent of 1871' make that error, and 1 saw Mr. CJladstone's 
 (lovernment of 1880 make that error. Having been goaded 
 into passing exceptional measures for the government of Ireland, 
 and finding that those exceptional measures produced the results 
 which they were sure to produce if they were properly adminis- 
 tered — viz. tranquillity and order — they were disposed to rely 
 solely upon the results of those measures, and were apathetic 
 and indisposed to recur to what I would call the more perma- 
 nent, the more lasting remedies for Irish grievances. Gentle- 
 men, against that we must be on our guard, because we have 
 the lessons of the past to inform us. I hold that the present 
 Government are perfectly right, perfectly justified, in making 
 the present session of Parliament a British session. I trust 
 that they will pass many measures which will tend to the 
 development of British prosperity ; but I must remind you that 
 there is much to be done in Ireland in the way of legislation, 
 and I think that probably next session, we shall find, will be 
 to a great extent an Irish session. We owe much to Ireland, 
 Ireland has gone through great social crises, great political 
 crises, on account of the blunders or the shortcomings of 
 British administration ; and we Unionists have always asserted 
 that it is in our power to do as much for the prosperity of 
 Ireland through the machinery of the Imperial Parliament as 
 Ireland could do if she possessed a Parliament of her own. 
 Therefore I venture, in this time of comparative tranquillity, 
 and in this time of comparative promise, to put in a word of 
 timely warning, and to remind you, who represent the rank and 
 file and strength of the Unionist party, that, whether on the 
 land question in Ireland, or Avhether on the question of local 
 government, or whether on the question of Irish education, 
 there is much which Parliament can do, and much which Par- 
 liament must do ; and I rejoice at the present condition of Ireland, 
 at its tranquillised condition, because I believe that if that condi- 
 tion continues as it ought to continue, we shall find the House 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLxVND AND IRELAND 325 
 
 of Commons next session most busily and arduously engaged in 
 the solution of tlie three great Irish problems — of the land, the 
 development of Irish local libert}^, and the education question. 
 
 I pass from the state of Ireland, and I come to another 
 subject of great importance and great interest at the present 
 moment, and that is the Bill which has been introduced by the 
 present Administration for the government of our rural districts. 
 That is perhaps the largest question that Parliament will be 
 called upon to deal with for some years, but the Government 
 have acted wisely in dealing with a large question in a large 
 spirit. The foundation of the Bill which they have introduced 
 is like the foundation of the British Constitution — a purely 
 democratic foundation. I was never more relieved in my life 
 than when I found there was no nonsense in that Bill with 
 regard to the plural vote, with regard to ex officio representation, 
 or with regard to proportionate representation. It is a Bill 
 based upon a purely democratic foundation. Every ratepayer 
 will have an equal voice in the selection of a representative for 
 the government of local affairs. Not only have the Govern- 
 ment proposed to constitute councils for the administration of 
 localities whicli are to be elected in a purely democratic manner, 
 but they have given to these councils large, responsible, and 
 heavy duties ; and to aid them in the performance of those 
 duties they have given them large financial resources and 
 authority. On this question of the new county councils, a pro- 
 position which I believe to be as great and as wide, and almost 
 as revolutionary — I use that word in a good sense — a proposi- 
 tion as has ever been proposed, the only danger I see is, that 
 the county councils may be tempted into financial extravagance. 
 That is the principal danger. You constitute a new body, you 
 give it great duties, you give it considerable financial resources ; 
 and that body, fearful, perhaps, of risking its popularity with 
 those who elected it, prefers for its expenditure to have recourse 
 to a mortgage on the future rather than on the pockets of those 
 who called it together. That is a great danger. It has been a 
 danger which to some extent your town councils have fallen 
 into ; and if we learn a lesson from the operations of our town 
 councils and of our corporations, we shall be very careful to 
 
o2() SPEECHES OF LOKD KANDOLril CHUKCHI LI. 
 
 restrict very rigidly iiml \ery severely the borrowing powers 
 of the new comity councils ; and I think it would be an iniprove- 
 nient, and a proposal worthy of consideration, either absolutely 
 to prohibit the new county councils from contracting a loan 
 under any circumstances whatever, or, if they want to contract 
 a loan, to force them to go to Parliament, lay their case before 
 l*arliament, and to get the law passed to give them power for 
 the special purposes which they require to borrow for. That, 
 I think, would be an improvement on the Bill, and if we can 
 put in the way of these county councils, in their recourse to 
 loans, I will not say an insuperable obstacle, but a gi'eat fence 
 which they will find it most difficult to jump without a fall, I 
 believe we shall obviate the only real, serious danger which 
 attaches to the proposals which the Government have made. 
 I know there are objections brought against the Bill by our 
 opponents to the effect that it does not go far enough, that 
 there ought to have been included within the duties of the 
 county councils the administration of the Poor Law and the 
 administration of education. On that point I have only this to 
 say — and I think it is an effectual answer — that nothing would 
 have been more imprudent and nothing more foolish or short- 
 sighted than to overweight these new bodies at the outset of 
 their career. They have been given large duties. Suppose 
 they get to work rapidly, and suppose they work well, nothing- 
 will be easier than to proceed to a further amalgamation and a 
 further consolidation of our local government ; nothing will be 
 easier than to hand over to them the administration of the 
 Poor Law and the administration of education ; but I think 
 you probably would have broken them down at the outset, you 
 might have destroyed all their chances of success, if you had 
 given them, in addition to the duties given them under the Bill 
 now before Parliament, the heavy duties, the difficult duties of 
 the administration of the Poor Law and of education in this 
 country. I know the Radical party were terribly flustered and 
 taken aback when this Bill was introduced. They could not 
 believe it wns possible the Tory party would introduce so good a 
 Bill. I had been telling them for a long time that if the Tory 
 party got a chance of legislating, they would legislate wisely 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND o27 
 
 and well. But they paid no attention to uie, and they were 
 terribly put about and terribly disappointed when the Tory 
 Government produced a Bill which, by the consent of all, was 
 an admirable measure, and they consoled themselves with the 
 thought that the Bill could not possibly pass into law. They 
 said, ' The Bill will not pass, that is one great comfort.' Well, 
 why should it not pass ? I believe it will pass. I believe so 
 for several reasons. I believe it will pass, because I know that 
 the Government are determined to pass it ; and I believe it will 
 pass, because I do not know who is going to oppose it. The 
 country gentlemen are not going to oppose it. The country 
 gentlemen have had opportunities lately in their meetings at 
 quarter sessions of considering the Bill, and I think that, with 
 hardly an exception, the great body of country gentlemen have 
 accepted the principle of the Bill. The country gentlemen have 
 acted, with regard to this Bill, with that patriotism and that 
 broadness of mind and that strong common sense which through- 
 out history have distinguished the country gentlemen of 
 England, and the possession of which has given to English 
 country gentlemen that great and high position which they 
 possess and have possessed. The country gentlemen consider- 
 ing this Bill have come to the conclusion that the Bill is a 
 sound Bill, that the principles of the Bill contain nothing in 
 reality revolutionary ; and the country gentlemen, although un- 
 doubtedly they had pride, and rightly had pride, in their own 
 limited administration of county affairs, have come to the con- 
 clusion that the duties which are to be placed upon those new 
 bodies are far too large and too heavy to be performed by a body 
 which was not thoroughly representative and elective, and they 
 have come to the conclusion that, for the proper administration 
 of local affairs, and for the more simplified and, I hope, for the 
 more economical administration of local affairs, it was their duty 
 to accept this Bill, to give the best of their experience and the 
 best of their knowledge and the best of their energy towards 
 the good working of this measure, and to put aside altogether 
 any personal feeling of prejudice or of, perhaps, disappointed 
 ambition which might have tended to make them disapprove of 
 or oppose the measure. Nothing that 1 know of in tlie history 
 
328 SPEKCHKS 01' LORD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 of English country geutleiiieii has been niore creditable to them 
 than their acceptance in principle of the great proposals which 
 lvd\e been laid before Parliament with regard to local government. 
 But who else is going to oppose ? The country gentlemen 
 are not going to oppose. Are the licensed victuallers going to 
 oppose it ? AVell, I do not think they will ; besides, if they do 
 it does not much matter ; because, suppose they were to carry on 
 an effectual opposition to the Bill, we must recollect that the 
 licensing clauses are not essential to the Bill. By no means. 
 They might be dropped out of the Bill, and the Bill might 
 equally well pass into law,^ But I have this to say to the 
 licensed victuallers, and it is really the sincere warning of a 
 friend, that if they do succeed either in destroying this Bill, or 
 in throwing out of the Bill the part which affects their interests, 
 of this they may be certain, that they never will get such terms 
 again as are offered to them in this Bill. Never — never. Their 
 interests are recognised under this Bill as vested interests, and 
 for those interests they are entitled in one form or another to 
 receive compensation, and if they are so imprudent as to throw 
 away the offers which are now made to them by a Government 
 essentially Conservative, and by a Government which, I think I 
 may say, is naturally their friend, they will have made a mistake 
 which before many months, and certainly before more than two or 
 three years are over, they will bitterly and unavailingly regret ? 
 Who, then, will oppose the Bill ? If the country gentlemen and 
 the licensed victuallers, who are sensible and practical people, do 
 not oppose the Bill, will the temperance party oppose the Bill ? 
 Well, I have great sympathies with the temperance party. I 
 do not think they are at all sensible or practical people. But I 
 thoroughly respect the object at which they aim, and I am in 
 entire accord with the great national object of reducing as far 
 as possible and practicable our great national expenditure upon 
 alcoholic liquor. The temperance party will surely recognise 
 that the great principle of local option is embalmed and enshrined 
 in the Bill, though that principle may not be carried to the 
 
 ' This Avas what really happened. The licensing clauses were all with- 
 drawn, the opposition to them having proceeded to some extent from the 
 licensed victuallers as well as from the temperance party. 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND 329 
 
 extreme length wliich tliey would wish, and though it may not 
 be likely to produce the extreme eftect which they desire to 
 produce. Still the principle of local option is there, and the 
 temperance party, I think, will not be foolish enough to imperil 
 the acceptance by Parliament of the principle of local option by 
 any unholy alliance either with unscrupulous Radicals, or un- 
 scrupulous licensed victuallers, or people of that kind,^ Therefore 
 I look in vain for the quarter where any opposition to this great 
 Bill is to come from. When Mr. Gladstone introduced the Reform 
 Bill of 1884 he admitted that there were many shortcomings 
 in that Bill, but he appealed to Parliament to pass it, ' because," 
 he said, ' it is in itself a great Bill and a good Bill. Do not risk 
 it.' And so I, speaking to you, and speaking, if I might, to the 
 classes whom I have alluded to, say, ' Do not risk this Bill. 
 Use all your influence in whatever way you possess influence, 
 whether you possess it locally or outside the limits of your 
 locality, to put pressure upon those who are your friends to pass 
 this Bill into law.' Just as the reform of the municipal corpor- 
 ations was the natural sequence of the great Parliamentary 
 reform of 1832, so the reform of your county government is the 
 natural sequence of the great Parliamentary Reform Bill of 
 1884. And just as tlie eftect of the Municipal Corporations 
 Bill was excellent on the whole and beneficial to your town popu- 
 lation, so, I believe, will be the effect of the Local Government 
 Bill now before Parliament upon the interests of your rura 
 population. Where you have, I regret to say, at the present 
 moment political stagnation and political inactivity, you will 
 have, under the operation of this Bill, political circulation and 
 brisk political activity ; and I cannot but think that the condition 
 of the labouring classes in our rural districts must be sensibly 
 elevated and sensibly improved when the labouring classes feel 
 and know that, for the first time in English history, the manage- 
 ment of their own local affairs and the development of their local 
 interests are absolutely in their own power. 
 
 [After referring to the Budget then before the House of 
 
 ' The temperance party resisted the licensing clauses because they em- 
 bodied the principle of compensation for interference with public-houses. It 
 was maintained that by this principle a right of property in connection with 
 the liquor traffic was established for thelii"st time. 
 
3:iO SPKKCHES OF LORD IJANDoI-PH CHUHCHIIX 
 
 ( ummons. and sub.se(jueiitly <;i-(';itly uiotlitied, Lord JIaiidolpli 
 Cliurcliill made a coucliidiiiu: reft'reiice to the question, AVhat is 
 a Tory deniocvacy ?] 
 
 I should like to have dwelt upon the subject of imperial 
 expenditure and of the great importance of economy in the 
 public service. But the question is too large to begin upon at 
 this hour of the evening. It will keep for another occasion. 
 There is a great deal to be said on it, and the progress Avhicli 
 we have made has been very small, and there is an immense deal of 
 work to be done in that direction. But, to bring all these 
 remarks of mine to a conclusion, I go back upon the observations 
 which I made at the commencement of my speech. I think I 
 have shown you by actual proof, whether in the proceedings of 
 the House of Commons, whether in the state of Ireland, whether 
 in the legislation proposed to the House of Commons, or whether 
 in the financial propositions, that the political sky is serene, 
 and that the prospects of our party are bright and hopeful. I 
 can truly say that such a state of things is most satisfactory to 
 me personally, because I cannot but feel that we have nearly 
 realised what was some years ago apparently only a dream, the 
 dream of Tory democracy. You remember Avith what scoffs and 
 scorniugs and with what sneers and ridicule the phrase ' Tory 
 democracy ' was received when I first made use of it in the House 
 of Commons in the year 1882. Nothing was too bad, nothing 
 was too taunting, nothing was too absurd to apply to the idea, 
 or to those who dared to sustain such an idea in public. You in 
 Birmingham were the first publicly to associate yourselves with 
 the policy which is contained in the phrase Tory democracy. 
 What is Tory democracy ? Tory democrcy is a democracy which 
 supports the Tory pai-ty ; but with this important qualification, 
 that it supports a Tory party, not from mere caprice, not from 
 momentary disgust or indignation with the results of Radicalism, 
 but a democracy which supports the Tor}" party because it has 
 been taught by experience and by knowledge to believe in the 
 excellence and the soundness of true Tory principles. But Tory 
 democracy involves also another idea of equal importance. It 
 involves the idea of a Government who in all branches of their 
 policy and in all features of their administration are animated 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND 331 
 
 by lofty and by liberal ideas. That is Tory democracy. It may 
 be that I am premature in thinking that we have attained 
 absolutely and permanently that great ideal in our political life ; 
 but, at any rate, surely it is not too much to say that we are on 
 the high road to that end. I rejoice exceedingly at the present 
 state of things for two reasons — in the first place, because for 
 this idea you and I and others have laboured long and hard ; 
 and, secondly, because it is in the realisation of that idea that I 
 believe, and that I know, will be found the real strength of the 
 empire and the only hope of Britain. 
 
332 SrEECHES OF LORD KA>!D0L1'H CflUKCHJLL 
 
 REFORMED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND. 
 
 House of Commons, April 25, 1888. 
 
 [Tliis speech gave some offence to many membei-s of the Tory 
 liarty, who had forgotten, or had never properly acquainted them- 
 selves with. Lord Randolph's Churchill's previous uncompromising 
 dechirations on the same subject. Not by Coercion Bills alone can 
 any party hope to govern Ireland or settle the 'Irish Question.' 
 This was the burden of all Lord Randolph's Irish speeches ; but be- 
 cause some people chose to shut their ears to it, they accused 
 the speaker of inconsistency. The very demand for ' simultaneity ' 
 in dealing with local government for England and Ireland, which 
 was made in the speech of August 1886, was enough to prove that 
 Lord Randolph was not now taking up a new position. That demand, 
 as he here stated to the House of Commons, was fully recognised by 
 Lord Salisbury's Government. Their opinions had changed, and it 
 may be urged that circumstances had also changed ; but it cannot 
 for a moment be affirmed that Lord Randolph Churchill Avas to 
 blame for this, or that he had receded from an attitude which he 
 still held to be sound and wise. In this, as on so many other ques- 
 tions, it was the painty itself which had shifted its ground — not Lord 
 Randolph Churchill.] 
 
 IN all the now not inconsiderable number of years during 
 which 1 have been in this House, I have never found 
 myself placed in so difficult a position as at the present moment. 
 The question of local government in Ireland is by no means a 
 novelty. Parties have taken up different attitudes upon this ques- 
 tion after long deliberation and much discussion, and the respec- 
 tive attitudes of those parties cannot, I think, be lightly changed. 
 I observed in the speech of the right honourable gentleman ' 
 who has just sat down a strong tendency to a course of oiDinion 
 and policy which would not, to my mind, if carried out prac- 
 ' Mr. Balfour, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. 
 
EEFORMED LOCAL GOVEENMENT EOE IRELAND 333 
 
 tically, 1)6 at all in accordance with the attitude taken up 
 uiion local government in Ireland by what, I believe, is the vast 
 majority of the Unionist party. The Chief Secretary must be 
 aware, although he was not in the Cabinet at the time T am 
 going to speak of, that at the critical, the very anxious, and 
 the very difficult moment at which Lord Salisl)ury's (Tovern- 
 ment succeeded to power, they had, within a comparatively brief 
 period, to decide upon what policy they would announce to 
 Parliament as representing mainly the Tory party, and to a 
 great extent the whole of the Unionist party, with regard to 
 local government in Ireland. All the circumstances upon which 
 the Chief Secretary has enlarged this afternoon, or, at any rate, 
 circumstances of a very similar character showing all the defects 
 which exist at the present moment in the working of popular 
 institutions in Ireland, and showing all the dangers that might 
 be anticipated from the extension of popular institutions or the 
 establishment of new ones, were before the Government of Lord 
 Salisbury at the time when they had to take a decision — a most 
 momentous decision — with reference to this question. It has 
 been supposed — and this supposition I have never before noticed, 
 although it has been rather widely given effect to in the press — 
 that in the declaration which it was my duty to make at that 
 table in August 1886 ^ I was stating that which was more my 
 own opinion than the opinion of her Majesty's Govei-nment. I 
 think it right to say that that was not so in any degree what- 
 ever. The declaration which I made at that table at that time 
 was, as far as it related to Ireland, a written declaration. Every 
 sentence of it, I might almost go as far as to say every word of 
 it, represented the opinions of the Government, and had been 
 submitted to and assented to by the Prime Minister himself, 
 and by the Chief Secretary for Ireland of that day.^ More than 
 that : the declaration I made with regard to Ireland — I recollect 
 it as well as if I had made it yesterday — I made without one 
 dissentient voice, and without one dissentient murmur being 
 raised among the honourable gentlemen who belong to the Tory 
 party. More than that : I was given to understand in the 
 plainest way that the declaration of the Government thus made 
 ' See vol ii., p. 56, - Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. 
 
334 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 received tliofull iuid entire approval of the leaders of the Liberal 
 Unionist party. But wliy am I anxious to dwell upon these 
 matters ? It is because on this point, which, I fear, is likely 
 to raise some difference of opinion before long, if it does not 
 now, the idea of the (rovernment at that time was that a certain 
 just extension, within reasonable limits, of local government in 
 Ireland was to be looked upon as a remedy for the great evils 
 which have been dwelt upon by the Chief Secretary this after- 
 noon. I venture to say that if those who are on this side of 
 the House will carry back their minds to the terrible struggle 
 in which we had all to take part in 1886 — one in which I may 
 without egotism claim to have borne no inconsiderable part — 
 they must agree that there is not a single member of the Unionist 
 party who would under the stress of that struggle have stood 
 up on an English platform, and taken the line upon the 
 extension of local government in Ireland which has been 
 assumed this afternoon by speakers representing the Unionist 
 party. I feel certain that there are none (murmurs of dissent) 
 — well, very few. It fell to my lot to have to watch very closely 
 the course of that election, and the attitude taken up on this 
 question by members of the Tory party at that time ; and I do 
 recollect that the pledges given by the Unionist party were 
 large and liberal, were distinct and full, and that there was no 
 reservation in those pledges, with respect to all the defects 
 pointed out this afternoon in the Irish character and in respect 
 of Irish unfitness for local government — nothing of the kind. 
 "We pledged ourselves that we would at the very earliest oppor- 
 tunity extend to Ireland the same amount of local government 
 which we might give to England and Scotland. I venture to 
 say — and I do not care how much I am contradicted or what 
 the consequences may be — that that was the foundation of the 
 Unionist party, and I venture to say more — that that is the 
 only platform on which you can resist Repeal. If you are going 
 to the English people, relying merely upon the strength of your 
 executive power — if you are going to preach to the English 
 people that the Irish must for an indefinite time be looked upon 
 as an inferior community — that they are in every respect unfit 
 for the privileges which the English people themselves enjoy — 
 
EEFORMED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND 335 
 
 then I tell you tliatyou may retain that position for a time, but 
 only for a time, and that the time will probably be a short one. 
 1 do not know whether I am justified in asserting that the 
 Chief Secretary, in representing the policy of the Government 
 on this Bill, wishes the House and the public to understand that 
 the question of local government in Ireland is to be dealt with 
 only when, in the opinion of the Government, the state of the 
 country will be so tranquil or so orderly as to justifv it. 
 (Ministerial cheers.) Yes, that may be cheered ; but that was 
 not your position at the general election. Are we to understand 
 that in the event of Parliament settling the great principles of 
 local government for England this year, they will be prepared 
 next year, so far as circumstances will permit, to extend similar 
 privileges to Ireland ? The words I used in representing the 
 Government at that table were, that in approaching this momen- 
 tous question of local government we should do so with similarity, 
 equality, and simultaneity, as far as the circumstances of the 
 three countries would permit. The time has gone by altogether 
 for me to bear, and I will be content no longer to bear, solely, 
 the responsibility of those words, in which I represented the 
 policy of the Government ; and I do not think that there would 
 be a houd jide carrying out of the policy I then announced if 
 Ireland is not to have a measure of local government until the 
 state of order in that country is satisfactory to the Executive 
 Government. The hist/)ry of the question of Irish local govern- 
 ment is somewhat interesting, but we on this side of the House, 
 who pride ourselves on being a progressive party, must take care 
 that we do not expose ourselves to a well-sustained indictment 
 of being responsible for a reactionary policy. The House will 
 remember that the Tory party have already dealt, or attempted 
 to deal, with local government in Ireland. You must go back 
 a great many years — I do not know whether that attempt is 
 within the knowledge of the Chief Secretary or of any of his 
 colleagues, but it happens to be within my knowledge, because 
 I have for many years closely followed the course of Irish affairs. 
 Is the Chief Secretary aware that at a period of Irish history 
 when the state of the country was in no respect better than it 
 is now, the Tory Government proposed a Bill for the county 
 
336 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 governmt'ut of Ireland whicli provided for tlie abolition of grand 
 juries, and for the establishment of an elected representative 
 council, and with respect to that county council there was only 
 this main difference between that Bill and the Bill proposed to- 
 (Jay — that under this Bill the barony is to elect three repre- 
 sentatives, under the formin- Bill the ratepayers were to elect 
 two representatives and the justices one ? Who was the person 
 who introduced that Bill into the House of Commons ? It was 
 that pure representative of unbending Toryism the Bight Honour- 
 able James Lowther, without any exception most representing 
 the ne phis ultra of unadulterated Toryism, What will be our 
 position if, having in the year 1879, when the Tory Government 
 in respect of executive power was very differently situated to 
 what it is at present, proposed a Bill for the county government 
 of Ireland, we now decline to give to Ireland local privileges 
 which we are willing to give to England until we are satisfied 
 that those local privileges will not be abused, and that the state 
 of the country is perfectly tranquil ? It would have been im- 
 possible for me, having taken the line I have taken in the 
 country, in this House, and in the position which I had the 
 honour to occupy — it would have been impossible for me, con- 
 sistently with common honesty, to have sat silent and allowed 
 it to be supposed that I personally associated myself with the 
 views whicli seem to have been expressed by the Chief Secretary 
 and bv certain Irish members on this side of the House to-day. 
 It often happens that I am asked to go down into the country 
 to address audiences, and when I go down I never lose an 
 opportunity of telling the people to the best of my ability that 
 it is the intention of the Tory party — the Unionist party — to 
 legislate largely and liberally for the removal of Irish grievances, 
 (Cheers,) Yes, but I claim a specific performance of that pledge. 
 I look for a hona fide and a prompt interpretation of it ; and 
 though honourable members do not in the least object to my 
 winning applause at great mass meetings in the country by the 
 utterance of such opinions, there seems to be a considerable 
 difference of opinion when I attempt to carry them to a practical 
 conclusion. At any rate I have made my protest, I have de- 
 clined to remain silent under what I believe to be not only a 
 
REFORMED LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND 337 
 
 departure from tlie original policy of the Government, l)ut what 
 is also, I think, a ruinous line to follow. If you give to the 
 Irish the same liberties which you give to the English, and 
 if you tell them that after you have settled the English local 
 government measure yon will give to them the same or similar 
 privileges, you will do much to mitigate the ill-feeling that has 
 been produced in recent years, and you will do much to wile 
 away from the ranks of the right honourable gentleman opposite 
 many who are now following him because they despair, and not 
 unreasonably despair, of getting from a Government on this side 
 of the House the legislation which they desire. It is very well 
 now for you to think that a general election is far off, that your 
 position is still a very strong one, and that nothing can hurt it. 
 You may persist in an attitude which is a denial to Ireland of 
 what are her rights ; but the day will come when you will have 
 to argue this question again before the English people, when you 
 will have to point to the fact that the promises you made with 
 regard to local government in Ireland have not been redeemed. 
 If an election came next year you would have to admit that ; 
 and nobody can tell when an election may come. At any rate, 
 you defeated the policy of Repeal which was advocated by the 
 right honourable gentleman opposite, but you defeated it only 
 because the nation believed you would not withhold from Ireland 
 for one day longer than Parliamentary possibility allowed the 
 same liberties which you claim for your own people. I shall 
 certainly not vote for this particular Bill ; viewing the inter- 
 pretation which has been placed by the Chief Secretary on the 
 amendment, I cannot conscientiously consent to vote for the 
 amendment. Therefore I shall be obliged to follow the most 
 unpleasant course of taking no part in the division ; but I wish 
 the House, and those outside the House who may look upon me 
 as at all responsible for Irish policy, to know that I adhere in 
 their integrity, their fulness, and their distinctness to the pledges 
 which I made at that table as representing the Government of 
 the Queen and the Unionist party — that a large and liberal 
 measure of local government would be meted out to Ireland 
 without undue delay. 
 
 VOL. y. Z 
 
338 SP]EECHES OF LOUD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.— PUBLIC 
 EXPENDITURE. 
 
 Preston, May 16, 1888. 
 
 [It will be observed that in this speech the duty of the Conserva- 
 tive party to carry out reform of Local Government in Ireland was 
 again urged, and it is worthy of being placed on record that the im- 
 mense audience, thoroughly representative of Lancashire, received 
 these remarks with hearty approval. The necessity of reform in the 
 public service, one of the great features of Lord Randolph's domes- 
 tic policy, was also most thoroughly endorsed by the meeting. It 
 was only by a limited section of the press or the party that attempts 
 were still made to discredit this policy. The absurd charge that 
 Lord Randolph Churchill was endeavouring to cripple the defences of 
 the country was once more thoroughly disposed of in this speech. 
 He showed that the effect of his policy would be to prevent waste and 
 jobbery, and greatly to strengthen all our resources.] 
 
 I ASSURE you that it is with feelings of unusual gratifica- 
 tion and pleasuT-e that I find myself in Preston this evening. 
 It recalls to me pleasant recollections, because I remember 
 that I was here in the last days of 1880, in this very building, 
 addressing a large and important meeting,' and I look back 
 upon that meeting with feelings of peculiar interest, because it 
 was the first public meeting of any importance or any considerable 
 dimensions which I had had the honour of addressing, and the 
 great indulgence and the cordial welcome which the inhabitants 
 of Preston accorded me on that occasion, and the patience and 
 generosity with which they listened to the remarks which I then 
 made — I, who at that time occupied a position of the utmost 
 
 ' See vol. i., p. II, for the speech delivered at that time. 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 339 
 
 insignificance in the political world — were really, I may say, the 
 main and principal cause which has induced me in all subsequent 
 times never to shrink, never to hesitate, from laying my opinions 
 on political matters frankly and freely before great assemblies 
 of my countrymen. In 1880 was my first experience of ad- 
 dressing a public meeting and my first visit for a political 
 purpose to Lancashire. Since then I have often had the honour 
 of addressing Lancashire audiences. I have always accustomed 
 myself to look upon Lancashire as, I may say, the mainspring 
 of the Tory party in England, and I have never addressed a 
 public meeting in Lancashire without going back to political 
 life and political work with renewed energy and renewed hope. 
 Since the end of the year 1880 many things have happened. 
 Many changes have taken place, but as far as I can make out 
 in Preston you have not much changed. The Tory party here 
 occupies at the present moment, as it did in the year 1880, 
 the position of proud and indomitable preponderance which 
 was so manifest in the dark days of that period. Now you have 
 become so strong, and your opponents are relatively so feeble, 
 that I have a sort of idea you have within recent years once 
 or twice permitted yourselves the luxury of slight differences 
 of opinion amongst yourselves — a most wholesome and healthy 
 exercise so long as you are perfectly convinced that the enemy 
 can derive no advantage from the dispute. It must be, to those 
 fi-iends of mine who are on this platform, and who are members 
 of Parliament, a most encouraging spectacle — the spectacle of 
 a great town like Preston, one of the leading manufacturing towns 
 of England, and one of the glories of England — that a town such 
 as that should through so many years and over so long a period, 
 through good report and evil report, through good fortune and 
 through ill-fortune, have steadfastly and unhesitatingly adhered 
 to the principles which the Tory party profess. 
 
 The Tory party has changed since those days in one very 
 material feature. In 1880, when I was last in Preston, the Tory 
 party was in the position of a weak minority in the House of 
 Commons. It had before it long and weary years, apparently, 
 of hopeless opposition ; but now its position has totally altered. 
 It occupies the most powerful position in the House of Commons; 
 
 z 2 
 
540 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 and the destinies of the Empire and the ruling of the for- 
 tunes of tlie people of this country are now in the hands of 
 a Tory administration. In 1880, when I was here last, the 
 whole of the remarks which I ventured to address to the meet- 
 ing were directed to the state of Ireland. At the time Ireland 
 was a subject uppermost in men's minds, as it indeed occupies 
 them now. Ireland was just then either commencing, or had 
 altogether entered upon, a terrible period of disorder, of anarchy, 
 almost of revolution, a period marked by much crime, by much 
 illegalit}^, by much suffering, and by much distress. That was 
 a period when what might be called Gladstonian remedies were 
 being tried in Ireland under circumstances of apparently the 
 most favourable character. Nothing at that time could resist 
 Mr. Gladstone's Government. He had a free hand. He had no 
 opposition to deal with worth speaking of. He was at liberty to 
 work his will in Ireland, and that will he certainly worked, and 
 with what effect did he work it ? He tried the severest repres- 
 sion. He tried concessions to popular agitation of the most reck- 
 less kind, and what was the result ? For five years in Ireland 
 law and order practically ceased to exist. For five years in Ire- 
 land the Government of the Queen had no hold upon the people, 
 and I suspect it is the bitter recollection of those five years of 
 Irish government which more than anything else gives us a 
 warning never again, if we can help it, to run the risk, under 
 any circumstances whatever, of placing Mr. Gladstone at the 
 head of the British Government. 
 
 Compare the state of Ireland now with the state of Ireland 
 in 1881. What is the state of Ireland now? It is not at- 
 tempted to be denied that order is being restored in that 
 country ; that law is now recognised and asserted ; that all 
 lawful contracts are being fairly carried out and fairly abided 
 by ; that occupiers of the land are paying the rents for the land 
 which they contracted to pay ; and, moreover, the land is to a 
 large extent being purchased by the occupiers from the land- 
 lords, and to a large extent the occupying tenantry of Ireland 
 are, by the facilities which the law has placed in their power, 
 assuming to themselves the responsibilities of freeholders — a 
 great guarantee for the future tranquillity of the country. But 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 341 
 
 more than tliat, the prices of produce are rising ; they have 
 risen most remarkably within the last six months, and the 
 danger of failure or of distress arising from very low prices has 
 been practically removed. A friend of mine once told me that 
 some one once said to Mr. O'Connell, ' Why don't you get up an 
 agitation on this question of Ireland ? ' And Mr. O'Connell 
 said, ' How can you get up an agitation when butter is fifty-six 
 shillings a firkin ? ' And so I think that, as an agitation in 
 Ireland depends mainly on real agricultural distress, the fact 
 should be brought to your notice that since October last store 
 cattle have risen *ll. per head in price. On all these grounds 
 Her Majesty's Government occupy, perhaps, a stronger posi- 
 tion in Ireland than any Government has occupied for many 
 years. They possess — I am glad they do possess — very large 
 powers for asserting the supremacy of the law among the 
 Irish people. But not only do they possess those powers, 
 but as far as I can judge they are being rewarded with con- 
 siderable success, simply because they are fighting a dying 
 agitation. With the people who have lived on agitation the 
 most powerful influences have been at work. I allude to the 
 remarkable pronouncement of the Pope with regard to the 
 proceedings and methods by which the National League in 
 Ireland has hitherto sustained this desperate agitation.^ Those 
 methods have been condemned by the highest religious autho- 
 rity whom the bulk of the Irish people recognise. Other 
 Governments in former days often longed for such an interven- 
 tion and such a pronouncement from the Church of Rome. 
 Other Governments in former days have often earnestly striven 
 to obtain such a pronouncement, but they did not succeed ; and 
 it is not to be denied that persons who have been involved in 
 the management of Irish affairs, and persons who have been 
 interested in the fortunes of that country, have often deeply 
 regretted that the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland had not as 
 a rule been found on the side of law and order in that country. 
 I cannot venture on that account to cast upon them any severe 
 censure. It required, I consider, great moral courage and the 
 
 ' A decree from the Vatican had recently denounced the ' Plan of Cam- 
 paign,' and incidentally condemned the National League. 
 
342 SPEECHES OF LORD KANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 exercise of very liigli statesmanship on the part of the Roman 
 Pontiff to make the pronouncement with regard to Irish agita- 
 tion which he has recently made. We must recollect that the 
 Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland are dependent for their tem- 
 poral support upon the Irish people. Irish people, moreover, 
 make an offering of a most respectable, and indeed, I may say, 
 of a most generous character to the annual revenues of the Holy 
 See : and it has been very difficult — and I quite understand the 
 difficulties in which the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church 
 have found themselves — for them to set themselves in open and 
 strong hostility to an agitation in Ireland which was genuinely - 
 a national agitation ; and we cannot pronounce hasty blame 
 because the attitude of the Catholic clergy in Ireland has not 
 been in recent years of that character which we might have 
 wished. 
 
 There is one thing which confirms me in my view of the 
 improved state of Ireland, and I say it in no disparagement 
 whatever of the recent action of the Vatican. The one thing 
 which makes me feel certain that the agitation, which has proved 
 such a stumbling-block to other Governments, is dying out, is 
 that I do not think if that agitation had not been dying out, 
 if that agitation had not ceased to be a genuinely national agita- 
 tion, the Church of Rome would have ventured to take up the 
 strong position which it has taken. At any rate we have the 
 fact, and a most important fact it is, that there has emanated 
 from the Vatican a forcible condemnation of the methods by 
 which the National League sustain their agitation in Ireland. 
 I said a few moments ago that the intervention of the Church of 
 Rome on the side of the Executive Government, on the side of 
 law and order in Ireland, had often been hoped for and often 
 tried for. I observe from the speeches of members of the Repeal 
 party in England and Ireland, and I am informed also that in 
 the opinion of Mr. Gladstone himself, the action of the Pope 
 has been a most injudicious action, an action which will have 
 no good effect on Ireland at all. But, curiously enough, while 
 they express this opinion, they also commit themselves to ex- 
 pressions of the greatest possible indignation against Her Ma- 
 jesty's Government, whom they suspect of having prompted the 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 343 
 
 action of the Pope. But, on this subject, as ou so many others, 
 Mr. Gladstone is terribly embarrassed by former utterances and 
 former actions. It will be no surprise to you to learn, or to 
 be reminded, that although many Ministers, including Lord 
 Palmerston and Lord Derby, have tried to get the Church of 
 Rome on the side of law and order in Ireland, no Minister 
 made more desperate efforts to gain that support than Mr. 
 Gladstone himself. Have we forgotten the Errington mission ? 
 If ever a negotiation descended to the level of intrigue — ay, 
 and a very shabby intrigue — that negotiation was the Errington 
 mission, for which Mr. Gladstone's Government, and Lord 
 Granville in particular, were responsible. What was the object 
 of the Errington mission, the main object or the particular peg 
 rather, on which it at last most utterly broke down ? It 
 was no less than this : that an un avowed and secret agent of 
 the British Government — a spy, as it were, of the British 
 Government in the courts of the Vatican— attempted to come 
 between the free choice of the clergy of the diocese of Dublin 
 and the decision of the Pope, and to get the Pope to nominate 
 as Archbishop of Dublin a certain Dr. Moran, in opposition to 
 the wishes of the clergy of the diocese of Dublin, who had 
 elected Dr. Walsh. ^ That was the object of Mr, Gladstone's 
 Government for which Mr. Errington was sent out to Rome. 
 Dr. Walsh was a priest, a most eminent and respectable cleric, 
 who represented strong Nationalist views, and Dr. Moran was 
 supposed to represent more directly the views which had been 
 held by Cardinal Cullen, of whom, I believe, he was a rela- 
 tive. But imagine Mr. Gladstone, who now with all his 
 followers finds so much fault with the Government for being 
 suspected of interfering with the actions of the Roman Pontiff, 
 imagine that Mr. Gladstone, who through Mr. Errington en- 
 deavoured to upset the free nomination of the clergy of the 
 
 ' In the House of Commons (August 3, 1885) Mr. O'Brien read a letter 
 from Sir G. Errington to Lord Granville, in which the writer spoke of the 
 ' strong pressure ' he could bring to bear upon the Pope, and announced his 
 intention of keeping ' the Vatican in good humour about you." At this time 
 it was denied that Sir G. Errington represented the Government in any way 
 at the Vatican. Sir G. Errington was in the House when the letter referred 
 to was read, and did not deny its authenticity. 
 
344 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 diocese of Dublin and impose on tliat diocese an arclibisliop 
 whom the diocese of Dublin would not elect, now accusing the 
 Government of intriguing with Home. I cannot find that the 
 action of the Pope, which undoubtedly is action of immense weight 
 and value to the cause of law and order in Ireland, has in any 
 way been prompted or promoted, directly or indirectly, by the 
 present Government. If the present Government had any agent 
 in Rome, that agent was an avowed agent. He was an agent 
 who went out with an avowed mission. He occupied one of the 
 highest positions any gentleman can occupy in this county. I 
 am alluding to the Duke of Norfolk, who brought to the Pope 
 the congratulations of our Queen on the completion of the 
 jubilee of His Holiness. I think it is extremely rational to 
 suppose that the Duke of Norfolk represented to his Holiness 
 the views which were held generally by the vast majority of the 
 English people as to the state of things in Ireland, and as to 
 the remedies which that state of things required. But we have 
 it on the highest authority that there was no official communi- 
 cation of any sort or kind on that subject. The action of the 
 Pope — and that makes it all the more valuable — has been purely 
 spontaneous, because long before the Duke of Norfolk went to 
 Rome the Pope sent his own agent to Ireland, for he had reason 
 to doubt whether he was receiving accurate reports from that 
 country, and he sent his own agent to Ireland to report exactly 
 as to what was occurring ; and it is upon the report of his own 
 agent that he has taken action, and that action has been a 
 purely spontaneous action, and it has not only been spontaneous, 
 but it has been most deliberate. More than a year and a half 
 elapsed before the Vatican authorities would bring themselves 
 to pronounce a final decision. It has been spontaneous and it 
 has been deliberate, and as it has not been the result of a 
 scrubby intrigue like the Erringtou mission, as it will be valu- 
 able, so it will be weighty, so it will be accepted by the people 
 of Ireland. What I am leading up to is this, that you have 
 three forces for good working in Ireland. The first force is a 
 negative force : it is the collapse of the agitation— the collapse 
 of the agitation from the sheer process of the conflagration 
 burning itself out. The second force for good is the advanta- 
 
THE GOVERNIVIENT OF IRELAND 345 
 
 geous position which the Government occupy for the preserva- 
 tion of law, the restoration of tranquillity, and the revival of 
 confidence and individual security. The third force for good is 
 the weighty condemnation by the Pope, speaking as the head 
 of the Church, of the methods of boycotting and of those im- 
 moral and illegal methods known as the Plan of Campaign, by 
 which, and by which alone, the National League laid hold of 
 the Irish people. 
 
 What is the moral which I draw from all this ? I am not 
 afraid to proclaim that the moral for the Unionist party is, ' Stick 
 steadily to your programme.' I know there are some who will 
 say — and it is a very natural frame of mind, one you very often 
 come across in various other spheres of life — ' Oh, let well alone ; 
 do nothing; trust in your coercive powers.' I think that would 
 be a shortsighted policy. Suppose a farmer ploughed a field, and, 
 having expended a great deal of labour in bringing it into con- 
 dition, said, ' I will do no more with it. I a\t.11 leave it. It is 
 a great expense and trouble. If I sow it, weeds will grow up 
 and I will have trouble. I will allow it to remain fallow and 
 let it produce nothing.' Do you think he would be a sen- 
 sible agriculturist ? You are rapidly getting the fields of Ire- 
 land into the condition when you can proceed to sow the seeds 
 of conciliation and concession. We, Unionists, must be very 
 careful to fulfil our pledges to the people of this country. No 
 Government can go before the electorate with any hope of salva- 
 tion unless they have fulfilled the promises they have made 
 to the people. Former Governments have fallen because they 
 have been obliged to go before the electorate with a record of 
 broken promises, and you never had a more signal and con- 
 spicuous instance than the fate of Mr. Gladstone's Government 
 in 1885, when that Government, having broken and violated 
 every pledge which it had made, was decisively repudiated by a 
 large majority of the borough constituencies of this country. I 
 think that the position which I take up upon the subject of future 
 policy in Ireland, is an unanswerable position. If in the year 
 1879, when the Tory party was in office, when the Tory party 
 had no great powers for asserting the law in Ireland, when the 
 country was ravaged by famine and distress, when agitation was 
 
34G SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 rife, when the general election was impending — if at that time 
 the Tory party came forward and offered to the Irish people a 
 Bill for the extension of their local liberties, of by no means an 
 illiberal character; if in January 1886, when the Tory Govern- 
 ment occupied a position in the House of Commons of a very weak 
 minority, when Ireland was in a state of acute disorder, and the 
 ICxecutive had no special powers by which to preserve the autho- 
 rity of tlie law — if at that time the Tory Government told Parlia- 
 ment and the country that a Local Government Bill for Ireland 
 was in course of preparation and was being considered by the 
 Ministers of the Crown; if in August 1886 the Tory Govern- 
 ment — again in a minority, not possessing a majority of the 
 House of Commons, not possessing special powers for the enforce- 
 ment of the law, and Ireland still being in a state of disorder — 
 came before Parliament and solemnly pledged itself to extend to 
 Ireland some measure of local government : I say, if that is so, 
 then, when the Government occupies a very much more advan- 
 tageous position for preserving the tranquillity and for develop- 
 ing the prosperity of Ireland, a fortiori we can pursue confidently 
 the policy of extending to Ireland similar and equal treatment 
 with that we give England and Scotland. You can imagine I 
 have reasons for bringing this most vital question to your notice. 
 Before passing to that I wish to allude for a moment to an argu- 
 ment which was brought forward with great effect in the House 
 of Commons against my views, and I do not like to pass it by 
 without notice. I will call it the ' scandals ' argument. The 
 persons who use this argument say, ' Oh, you cannot give an ex- 
 tension of local government to Ireland such as you are giving to 
 England, because the Irish boards and the Irish public bodies 
 which already exist mismanage their affairs and are guilty of 
 such shocking administrative scandals.' That reminds me of 
 another argument which was brought forward some time ago 
 against extending the franchise in Ireland, and that is the 
 argument which I used to call the ' mud-cabin ' argument. In 
 England then it was said by many, ' You must not give the Irish 
 people the Parliamentary franchise as you give it to England, 
 they will misuse it. They are sure to misuse it. They cannot 
 help misusing it.' And why ? ' Because they live in mud 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 347 
 
 cabins.' But we had to point to the fact that, whereas Irish 
 peasants lived in mud cabins, there were undoubtedly many 
 classes of voters in England living in dwellings that were no 
 better than mud cabins, and that if you were going to make the 
 dwelling of the voter the criterion of his capacity to vote you 
 would have to disfranchise not only large numbers of the Irish 
 but large numbers of English people too. Well, the ' mud- 
 cabin argument disappeared, and I should like to point out 
 that the ' scandals ' argument against the extension of local 
 government in Ireland is of a very similar character. It is a 
 very double-edged argument if you say, ' We cannot give any 
 local government to Ireland because of the scandals connected 
 with popular boards in Ireland.' In the first place, if your 
 argument is worth anything, you ought to take away what little 
 local government they possess already. But it is a very double- 
 edged argument. Are there no scandals attaching to the ad- 
 ministration of local affairs in this country ? I take you to the 
 great metropolis — we may call it the greatest metropolis in the 
 world — I take you to London. The other day we were told that 
 one of the vestries, one of the boards of guardians in county 
 Gal way, had indulged in the pleasurable emotion of a free fight 
 among its members. But the gentlemen who used that argu- 
 ment could hardly have been aware that scarcely a month passes 
 without a vestry in London either positively indulging in a free 
 fight or coming to the very verge of a free fight, and that never 
 does a month pass without one or more vestries in London 
 giving themselves the amusement of seeing in connection with 
 the administration of their affairs that which the adjectives 
 ' outrageous ' and ' scandalous ' would be perfectly inadequate 
 to describe. I am glad to notice the scandals connected with 
 these local bodies in the metropolis, and, being a metropolitan 
 member, I like to draw public attention to them in the hope of 
 putting an end to them. I invite your attention to another 
 great public board in this country — the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works. There is a Board dealing with millions of money annu- 
 ally, a Board supposed to be representative, a Board supposed 
 to be composed of the respectable classes, of classes who have 
 a stake in the country, and who have got something to lose. 
 
348 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 What lias liappenecl to that Board ? The allegations against 
 that Board of corruption and jobbery were so serious, and, what 
 is more, were prima facie so well founded, that the Government 
 passed a law to constitute a Royal Commission with almost un- 
 precedented and unparalleled powers to investigate the proceed- 
 ings of the Metropolitan Board. I refer you to a great body of 
 historic importance and of ancient renown. I refer you to the 
 Corporation of the City of London. You will recollect that last 
 year that Corporation was literally hauled before a committee 
 of the House of Commons and accused of the grossest malversa- 
 tion of public funds, and not even the warmest friends of the 
 Corporation will assert that it left the Court without a stain 
 upon its character. Well, do her Majesty's Government propose, 
 because of these scandals connected with local governing boards, 
 to refuse popular and representative local government to London ? 
 On the contrary, they have brought in a Bill which will esta- 
 blish in London a municipal government of a far more popular 
 and representative character. Are they deterred from doing 
 that by seeing that the people of London do not condemn these 
 scandals and tolerate them ? The people of London have tole- 
 rated these scandals for years, and it is notorious that the 
 government of the metropolis has been in the hands of persons 
 who have been most inefficient and possibly corrupt. And yet 
 does that deter the Government from giving popular municipal 
 government to the metropolis ? The argument will not hold 
 water for a moment. We have had riots in London just as we 
 had in Ireland, and we had the West-end half sacked eighteen 
 months or two years ago by a mob that paraded through the 
 streets and destroyed and stole a great deal of valuable property. 
 We have had the most serious riots between the police and 
 the people in Trafalgar Square. Has that deterred the Govern- 
 ment from extending popular government to the metropolis ? 
 No. Why ? If things of this kind, scandals, riots and disorder, 
 do not deter us in London, why should they deter us in regard 
 to the case of Ireland ? Depend upon it, scandals will always 
 occur from time to time in popular representative assemblies. 
 Scandals of the gravest kind have occurred even in our own 
 House of Commons. But the progress of an enlightened public 
 
the; government of IRELAND 349 
 
 opinion tends to correct and remove those scandals, and it is 
 because we regard popular institutions in Ireland as the great 
 cure and remedy for much of the disorder and trouble which 
 has distracted that country that we bound ourselves at the last 
 election to extend popular institutions in Ireland. 
 
 All these arguments were in my mind when I made a speech 
 in the House of Commons just three weeks ago, which caused a 
 good deal of comment, and I fear some comment of an unfavour- 
 able character. When I made that speech on Irish Local 
 Government there was great indignation among certain persons, 
 and there was some very bad language, I am afraid, used 
 against me. I fancy I was very generally called in the lobby of 
 the House of Commons a traitor to the Union and the Unionist 
 party. Others who were more charitable said, ' He is such an 
 unreliable person. You never know what he is going to do 
 next.' There were other persons who were not quite so chari- 
 table, and they said, ' You need not pay any attention to it, for 
 it is caused by the mean motives of envy, hatred, malice, and 
 all unchantableness.' That was stated and hinted at in the 
 press and in political circles in London. I am glad to think, 
 from the kind way in which you have received me to-night and 
 from an article which I saw in a newspaper which may claim to 
 represent very closely the opinions of Preston people, I am glad 
 to think that such opinions as those I have alluded to do not 
 find any currency in this great town. But I am not the least 
 alarmed at the circulation or the growth of accusations of that 
 character. I am so accustomed to them. I have constantly 
 been the unfortunate victim of these outbursts of sudden in- 
 dignation. Many times it has happened to me in my Parlia- 
 mentary experience for persons to come up to me and say, ' Well, 
 ray dear fellow, I am really very sorry, but you have done for 
 yourself this time.' I was told the other day that a noble lord 
 of position wrote to a friend of mine and said, ' It is a thousand 
 pities, but this time Randolph has cut his throat.' Why this 
 fearful outburst ? What had I done ? I had only insisted, as 
 I shall always insist, on a literal performance of pledges given 
 by the Unionist party to the people of this country. But, as I 
 said, I am not in the least alarmed. These tempests arise very 
 
a.50 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 suddenly likr tropical storms, and then pass away, and, althougli 
 T liave often done for myself and cut my throat time after time, 
 I find, on the whole, I get along fairly well, and certainly what 
 passes this evening in this hall does not encourage me to think 
 that I am in any way politically dead. 1 will tell you why I am 
 not alarmed, because I find, that her Majesty's Government — 
 and I give them credit for it — are ploughing with my oxen. I 
 find that the Dartford programme is being steadily but unmis- 
 takably carried out. That is why the Government and I can 
 get along so admirably together, with the exception of an occa- 
 sional turn u)) now and then. What was the feature of the 
 Dartford programme— a programme which people said was my 
 programme but was not my programme — it was the programme 
 of the Government ? The feature was English measures first, 
 Irish measures next. What were the English measures alluded 
 to in that programme ? The allotments question, the tithes 
 question, the question of land law reform, railway rates, and 
 last, but not least, the question of local government in the 
 counties ; and with those English measures there has been made 
 progress. What were the Irish measures ? The questions of 
 land, local government, and education. What was the main 
 principle of that programme? The main principle was that 
 the same measure of generous, confident trust and liberality of 
 treatment should be meted out in legislating for the people of 
 both countries. What Avas the main object of that programme? 
 That the representatives of the English and the Irish peoples in 
 the Imperial Parliament at Westminster should generously and 
 equitably legislate for the people of the United Kingdom, and 
 thus demonstrate the inexpediency of setting up a separate 
 Parliament in each country of the United Kingdom. I have 
 supported the Government all along in carrying out that pro- 
 gramme, and the only time when I sound a note of warning and 
 alarm— and I shall continue to sound a note of warning and 
 alarm — is when I see a sign or an indication or a tendency of 
 that great programme being departed from. 
 
 The line of demarcation between the Unionist party, and 
 the Repeal party which is led by Mr. Gladstone, is sharp, definite, 
 and unmistakable. Nothing has changed. It is now as it 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 351 
 
 was at the election of 1886. Mr. Gladstone's method of dealing 
 with Ireland was to build up local government from the top by 
 constructing a practically independent Parliament in Ireland, 
 which should be allowed to establish what local institutions it 
 might please. That was Mr. Gladstone's method. What is our 
 method ? The Unionist method was diametrically the reverse. 
 It was to build up local government from the bottom on sound 
 and sure foundations. It was to establish local institutions 
 under the guidance and under the protection of the Imperial 
 Parliament at Westminster, and it was to educate and to train 
 the Irish people by degrees in the art of self-government, which, 
 partly from their own fault and partly from our fault, they had 
 so long neglected. I know there are people who say, ' The Irish 
 are not fit for the institutions which we English can enjoy; they 
 would make a bad use of them.' I came across the other day 
 a passage from Lord Macaulay which I should like to read to 
 persons who may hold that opinion. Lord Macaulay's writino-s 
 are the favourite arsenal for the defenders of the Union to have 
 recourse to, and certainly no one has written more strongly in 
 defence of the Union between Ireland and England. What did 
 Lord Macaulay — perhaps the greatest Whig thinker and writer 
 that this country has ever seen — say with regard to the argument 
 that certain people were not fit to possess free institutions until 
 they asked for them ? Let me read you the passage. It is out 
 of his essay on Milton, which I dare say many of you have read. 
 He says : ' Many politicians of our own time are in the habit 
 of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people 
 ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The 
 maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not 
 to go into the water until he had learnt to swim. If men 
 are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, 
 they may indeed wait for ever.' No, gentlemen, we must not 
 make mistakes in this matter. We are prospei'ous now ; we are 
 powerful now ; but we must always have our eye on the future, 
 and we must always be guarding against misfortune and danger 
 in the future. The foundation of the Act of Union was not 
 separate Parliaments nor diverse laws for the two countries. 
 The foundation of the Act of Union was one Parliament and 
 
352 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLrH CHURCHILL 
 
 e(jual laws for the two countries, and to tliat solemn national 
 compact tlie two peoples of Britain and Ireland are reciprocalh* 
 and solemnly pledged. I have never held, and I have never 
 been willing to admit for one moment, that the existence 
 of the Crimes Act in Ireland implies any inequality of treat- 
 ment. On the contrary, I always said that, if similar circum- 
 stances existed in England to those which necessitated the 
 passing of the Crimes Act in Ireland, it would be the duty of 
 any English Government to propose similar measures. I know 
 perfectly well, and I am not surprised, that there are some in 
 this country, perhaps many, to whom the operation of the Crimes 
 Act in Ireland appears harsh and severe, and who think that 
 the Irish people are being oppressed. In considering this 
 subject we may draw a useful analogy from the science of 
 medicine and of healing disease. There are many forms of 
 disease for which the only cure is the surgeon's knife. The 
 surgeon's knife cuts boldly, and you would think ruthlessly, 
 into the patient's body, extirpating and removing all the putre- 
 fied and diseased portions of the body, and the patient himself 
 by his cries of agony would lead you to think that he was being 
 maltreated and butchered and even killed. But you look on 
 sympathetically but unmoved, because you know the remedy is 
 scientific and that a real cure is being established. So with the 
 Crimes Act in Ireland. The Act cuts boldly and ruthlessly into 
 the diseased Irish body; it removes from the diseased Irish 
 society all that malignant and cancerous tumour of intimidation, 
 and terror, and illegal combination which was sapping the Irish 
 vitality and destroying the Irish strength. That is the effect of 
 the Crimes Act in Ireland. We may pursue that analogy even 
 further, and just as in the treatment of disease, after the sur- 
 geon has used his knife with effect, there comes the physician 
 with his gentle healing remedies, with his stimulants, and with 
 his tonics to restore nature and to aid the process of revival, so 
 I feel sanguine, no matter what anybody may say in the House 
 of Commons or out of it, that the Unionist party next year will 
 apply to Ireland a policy of generous concession and conciliation ; 
 that they will inaugurate an era of liberal legislation for the 
 satisfaction of Irish grievances and of Irish wants ; that by such 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 353 
 
 a policy they will mitigate and obliterate the apparent harshness 
 and severity of the Crimes Act ; that by such a policy they will 
 justify and ratify the courage and enlightened wisdom of the 
 Head of the Church of Kome ; and that by such a policy, before 
 no long time is over, they will demonstrate beyond all denial, 
 beyond the reach of all carping and captious criticism, that the 
 Irish and the British are one people, one in interest, one in 
 progress, one in Imperial dominion, one in the possession of all 
 those traditions and aspirations which make peoples and nations 
 great and free. 
 
 I turn to another matter of vital importance — the question 
 of public expenditure — and I regret to announce to you that I 
 see very little progress as yet being made with any reform of the 
 public expenditure. The subject of economy and of administra- 
 tive reform is still, I deeply lament to say, almost untouched. 
 The majority of the members of Parliament up to the present 
 appear to be somewhat callous and apathetic regarding public 
 expenditure. Some members, I think, are not only forgetful of 
 the speeches they made to their constituents, but are forgetful 
 of the duties they owe to the taxpayer. There are a few gentle- 
 men like Mr. Hanbury, whom I see on this platform, and Mr. 
 Jennings, of Stockport, and others — a remnant who have not 
 bowed the knee to Baal — and they labour hard and long ; but 
 not only do they incur a great deal of abuse and dislike by their 
 labours with regard to this most necessary reform, but they are 
 also, I think, from time to time impressed like me by the 
 despairing nature of the struggle. There seems to be a kind 
 of determination, an invincible resolution, on the part of the 
 majority of the House of Commons to permit or to support the 
 reckless expenditure of money. I should like to bring a few 
 facts before you to illustrate that position. There is a tendency, 
 a most dangerous tendency, at the present moment, a precedent 
 for which I do not recollect — a tendency to create new offices. 
 I am quite certain of this, that if any of you went into the 
 House of Commons and saw some thirty- eight ministers — I think 
 about thirty-six or thirty-eight ministers — seated on the front 
 bench in the House of Commons, and then went into the House 
 of Lords and saw a dozen more ministers seated on the front 
 VOL. II. A A 
 
354 SPEbX'HES OF LORD lllNDOLLMI CHURCHILL 
 
 bench in tlie House of Lords, you would say, cousideriug the 
 very amateur manner in which this country is governed, you 
 would say, I think, ' We have quite enough of Ministers.' There 
 is the new office of Under Secretary for Irehind which it is 
 proposed to create, and which has excited my attention in a 
 different manner to that which it has excited in Parliament. I 
 quite understand, and am prepared to admit, that the Irish 
 Secretary is a very hard-worked man and requires assistance. 
 I quite understand that ; and I have not a word to say against 
 it ; but, to give him that assistance, I object to the creation of a 
 new ]\Iinister ; because you can give that assistance without 
 creating a new office. There are representing the Treasury in 
 the House of Commons the First Lord of the Treasury, the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, two Secretaries and three Lords of 
 the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer are Cabinet Ministers and have some hard 
 work. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasuiy is one of 
 the hardest- worked men in the Government. The Patronage 
 Secretary of the Treasury has merely party duties to perform ; 
 but the three Lords of the Treasury, who each receive 1,000L a 
 year, have absolutely uo official duties of any sort or kind. They 
 are engaged in the work of what is called whipping up the 
 Ministerial majority. That is an important work, no doubt ; 
 but I think it is a fair question whether the charge for that 
 work should come upon the public funds. But do they do it 
 alone ? On the contrary, to assist them in that arduous duty 
 they have the assistance of four Court officials, who between 
 them receive 4,000L a year. These are the Comptroller of the 
 Household, the Vice-Chamberlain, the Parliamentary Groom-in- 
 Waiting, and the Treasurer of the Household ; and the four 
 Court officials and three Lords of the Treasury and the Patronage 
 Secretary of the Treasury are all engaged in the Avork of whip- 
 ping up the Ministerial majority. And what do you reckon 
 that work costs us ? Eight thousand a year ; and this is spent 
 in whipping up a Ministerial majority. I say this, that if the 
 Irish Secretary wants Ministerial assistance — and I quite con- 
 ceive he might do so — his duty is to single out one of the Lords 
 of the Treasury and make that gentleman work for the large salary 
 
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 355 
 
 wliich lie receives. You have often heard it said that honesty 
 is the best policy. I will prove to you that economy is the best 
 policy. Suppose that Government had taken that course, and 
 suppose they had appointed Colonel King-Harman — who is a 
 very good man and not justly open to the abuse which the Irish 
 very improperly and ungenerously heap upon him — suppose 
 they had appointed him a Lord of the Treasury, what would 
 have happened ? He would have been re-elected ; he would 
 have received his office, he would have assisted the Irish 
 Secretary, and there would not have been one single moment of 
 the time of the House of Commons taken up in making that 
 appointment. Instead of which you have had hours, days, and 
 nights taken up in discussing a Bill to create a new office, and 
 I do not hesitate to say before this meeting, whether it may be 
 pleasing or not to some persons in London, that the discussion 
 of that appointment, the opposition to the appointment, has 
 been by no means an unjustifiable opposition. 
 
 It is proposed to create a Minister of Agriculture. I know 
 that agricultural representatives think that the progress of 
 agriculture will be forwarded by the creation of a Minister of 
 Agriculture. How they may have got that idea into their heads 
 I cannot imagine. But I have no objection to the Government 
 creating this office if they will do away with the office of Lord 
 President of the Council and the office of Chancellor of the 
 Duchy of Lancaster. Both those offices are absolutely sinecure 
 posts, and I decline to sanction the creation of a Minister of 
 Agriculture, receiving a salary, when the work of that office can 
 be done by existing ministers if they like to do it. But it is not 
 only proposed to create a Minister of Agriculture, but to add a 
 new judge to the bench at a salary of 5,000L a year, to be paid 
 out of the Consolidated Fund, a fund beyond the control of Par- 
 liament, and the salary removed from the control of Parliament. 
 Again, it will be perfectly easy to prove to the House of Com- 
 mons that the creation of that new judge is totally unnecessary, 
 that if the common law judges like to work harder, as they 
 ought to do, considering the great salaries they receive, the 
 arrears which have accumulated in the Court of Chancery might 
 be easily disposed of, and if the Government were a Government 
 
3o() SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 bent on economy they would not listen to the proposal to create 
 a new judge. But we are threatened with the proposal. I hope 
 I have knocked that new judge on the head. But I am not 
 quite sure of it, and I call public attention to the scandal — the 
 positive scandal — of creating a new judge for an already over- 
 crowded bench. But I cannot leave this question of the 
 judicial bench without bringing to your notice the state of the 
 Irish judicial bench, the misdeeds of the GoveiTiment with re- 
 spect to that bench. When I was at the Treasury, and when 
 my predecessor was at the Treasurj^, we were perfectly deter- 
 mined, under no circumstances whatever, to tolerate any addition 
 to the Irish bench. We were determined to cut down the Irish 
 bench. It is notoriously overmanned for the comparatively 
 few duties it has to perform as compared with its strength. But 
 I am sorry to say that after I left the Treasury two vacancies 
 occurred on the Irish bench. The common law judges, who 
 numbered ten, were reduced to eight, a number in excess of 
 what is absolutely necessary for the discharge of the judicial 
 business in Ireland. I made sure that the Government would 
 not consent to fill up those two appointments. Unfortunately, 
 the mischievous genius of Dublin Castle was too strong. They 
 secured the appointments for themselves ; and the public scan- 
 dal — what amounts to nothing more or less than a public 
 scandal — was witnessed of the Irish bench being kept up to the 
 strength often common law judges when, by the confession of all, 
 it was ludicrously in excess of the duties which the Irish bench 
 had to perform. What does that mean ? It means a charge of 
 at least between 7,000?. and 8,000?. a year on the Consolidated 
 Fund. It means that we have appointed two gentlemen to do 
 duties which it was not at all necessary they should be appointed 
 to do, and after fifteen years these two gentlemen will be able 
 to retire on pensions of 3,000?. a year. I say these are public 
 scandals, and must be brought before public meetings. I say 
 that with regard to these new appointments a large unnecessary 
 burden is placed upon the taxpayers, and that unless the public 
 take notice of these matters and bring pressure to bear upon 
 Parliament the taxpayer will not receive from Parliament and 
 from the Government that relief to which he is entitled. 
 
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 357 
 
 I come to another and more serious question, which I can 
 only deal with in a few brief remarks — the expenditure on the 
 Army and Navy. I ask you to consider in relation to that 
 expenditure the revelations which we have had as to the con- 
 dition of the two services. I brought to the public notice the 
 other day as well as I could the opinion of the Commander-in- 
 Chief that the whole condition of the Army was never more 
 unsatisfactory, and that he was most dissatisfied with it. Lord 
 Wolseley — who is, next to the Commander-in-Chief, one of the 
 most important persons in the Army, whom I had the dis- 
 appointment of seeing execute a strategic but at the same time 
 a rapid and rather disorderly movement to the rear, under cover 
 of that retreat, shot a Parthian arrow at the Government, and 
 this was what Lord Wolseley said. Let me draw your atten- 
 tion to his words : ' That so long as the Navy is as weak as it is 
 at this moment, her Majesty's Army cannot hold its own all over 
 the world, dispersed as it is ; that our defences at home and 
 abroad at the present time are in an unsatisfactory condition ; 
 and that our military forces are not organised or equipped as 
 they should be to guarantee even the safety of the capital in 
 which we are at this present moment.' The Roman Senate, 
 when a Roman general came home, having lost a Roman army, 
 addressed its general and said, ' Varus, what have you done with 
 our legions ? ' I say to the great English general, I say to 
 my Lord Wolseley, ' What have you done with our millions ? ' 
 Because for the last ten years or more there has been a gross 
 expenditure on the Army and Navy considerably exceeding 
 30,000,000^. a year ; and I own that I am exasperated, and I 
 think the public ought to be exasperated too, when, in view 
 of that great expenditure, generals representing the War Office 
 come before you and state to you on their responsibility that 
 you, the British public, who have paid so much, are in an 
 absolutely defenceless position. That is rather too strong an 
 order. It shows that there is something very wrong some- 
 where which must be very rapidly remedied. Lord Wolseley, 
 you observe, condemns the weakness of the British Navy. You 
 may recollect what Mr. Cobden said more than once publicly as 
 to the necessity for a strong British Navy to the safety of the 
 
358 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 empire. Lord Wolseley condemns in the House of Lords the 
 weakness of the British Navy, and the Prime Minister does 
 not seem at all to realise the nature of the charge, because he 
 says, ' How can you talk of the weakness of the British Navy ? 
 Why, for the last three years we have spent five millions a year 
 as an extra charge for the purpose of strengthening the Navy, 
 whereas in 1880 we only spent two millions.' But that has 
 nothing whatever to do with the question. The question is 
 that you have wasted your five millions a year as you have 
 probably before wasted your two millions. I can prove, and I 
 have proved — in my speech at Wolverhampton last year which 
 never was contradicted — that the enormous portion of the vote 
 of credit taken in 1885 to increase the Navy was wasted. The 
 Admiralty built ships which they said were armoured ships. 
 When the ships were launched and went to sea, it was found 
 that the whole of their armour was under water and useless. 
 They took millions to build what they called protected ships. 
 When those ships went to sea they were absolutely unprotected ; 
 and yet they are gravely put down by the Admiralty in their list 
 of armoured vessels, and the expenditure on them is quoted by 
 Lord Salisbury to show the strength of the Navy ! But further : 
 we have this shocking spectacle, that many of your ships, on 
 which this great expenditure of which the Prime Minister is so 
 proud has been laid out, cannot go to sea for want of guns — that 
 they are waiting for guns, and w^ill have to wait for guns for 
 some time. More than that : it has been stated publicly, and 
 never denied, that our fortresses at home from Portland to the 
 Tweed have no heavy guns for their defence. More than that : 
 we have been told that our Mediterranean fortresses have no 
 heavy guns for their defence, and the First Lord of the Treasury 
 announced to an astonished House of Commons last night that 
 he hoped, by the new measure which he had introduced, that 
 possibly in three years the Mediterranean fortresses might be 
 provided with heavy guns. Not only that : the Army, in spite 
 of this tremendous expenditure of twenty millions a year upon 
 it, is admitted not to be armed with a good rifle. It is admitted 
 to be armed with an inferior and an obsolete weapon. We have 
 no reserves, either of gunpowder or of military stores. We have 
 
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 359 
 
 no transport whatever for tlie Army except a kind of scrappy 
 and ragged transport for the First Army Corps of 25,000 men. 
 But the Second Army Corps and the whole of the reserve forces 
 necessary for the defence of the country are without transport 
 of any sort or kind. More than that : speaking generally, we 
 have no organisation under the present system for a time of 
 war. If war was to break out to-morrow there would be most 
 terrible and probably fatal chaos and confusion at the Admiralty 
 aiid War Offices — departments to which the British people have 
 entrusted scores of millions by the year. Have I not the right 
 when I talk upon these subjects to be exasperated, and have I 
 not the right to call upon the British people to be exasperated 
 too, and to exercise their great and invincible energy, to find 
 out where that fault lies and to remedy that fault without delay ? 
 I know perfectly well there are people in London who will 
 say when they read these words to-morrow, ' How can he have 
 the face to make such remarks ? Why, he resigned because he 
 wished to cut down the estimates.' I did not resign at all 
 because I wished to cut down the estimates. I resigned as a 
 great pi-otest — the strongest protest that I could make — against 
 waste and extravagance. I knew, and nobody will deny 
 that subsequent disclosures have borne out, that waste and 
 extravagance were going on to an incredible degree, and I 
 called upon them to reduce that waste and extravagance. 
 The departments said that they could not, and the depart- 
 ments got the best of me ; but which has the best of it now ? 
 The view I took at that time has been borne out by two of the 
 highest authorities. The Secretary of State for War, in a speech 
 the other day, said, ' It is not so much the money is wanted as a 
 good system of organisation.' Well, that is exactly what I said 
 when I went out. Lord Charles Beresford, writing the other 
 day to a gentleman, said, ' If we had a good system of organisa- 
 tion the present estimates would be sufficient, nay, more than 
 sufficient, to maintain that organisation.' I have never changed 
 from this position regarding the expenditure on the Army and 
 the Navy; and I may really call in my defence the Prime 
 ]Minister of this country, because the Prime INfinister said the 
 other dav in the House of Lords — and 1 do not think he would 
 
360 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 say more in my praise than he could possibly help — that he did 
 not believe there was a single public man in this country against 
 whom the accusation could by any possibility be made that he 
 would risk the safety of the empire on the chance of a popular 
 Budget. I believe I am the only public man against whom that 
 charge has been recently brought, and so I take Lord Salisbury's 
 observation and carefully apply it to myself. 
 
 I have never changed from this position. What I stated to 
 the departments, and what I have stated over and over again to 
 Parliament and the people, is this — Prove to me that money is 
 wanted for the safety of the empire. More than that : prove to 
 me that that money will be well spent ; prove to me that the 
 nation will get a full and adequate return for that expenditure ; 
 prove to me that you have got a rational system of organisation 
 which should secure that for every sovereign you take out of the 
 taxpayers' pockets a sovereign's benefit shall result ; prove that 
 to me, and there is no demand which I would not cheerfully sug- 
 gest or become responsible for in Parliament or on the platform. 
 Any demand for the safety of the empire or the efficiency of 
 the forces I would gladly support. But these securities for the 
 proper expenditure of the money granted, so far as I am con- 
 cerned, I will have ; and I will not vote money if I can help 
 it, to be expended under the present system — a system which 
 has been convicted before Parliament and before the people of 
 being utterly rotten and bad ; a system under which, for every 
 sovereign of money spent, the people do not get even half-a- 
 crown's worth of benefit. This matter is coming to a crisis. I 
 am happy to say it has for a year or more been coming to a 
 crisis ; but it has come to such a ci'isis in Parliament that the 
 Government are pledged to consider the matter practically and 
 immediately with a view to radical reform. I trust that that 
 pledge will be redeemed. I watch and I wait with great 
 patience, but not, I fear, with very great hope. I cannot exag- 
 gerate — no one can exaggerate ; it is not in the power of any- 
 body to overstate to you, representing as you do so directly the 
 wealth and commerce of England — the importance of this 
 matter. Look at the present state of Europe. Everybody admits 
 that it is volcanic. I know that there are some in this country — 
 
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 361 
 
 aud for aught 1 know there may be many — who are in favour of 
 what they call a spirited foreign policy. I am not much in 
 favour of a spirited foreign policy, because I have always thought 
 it meant we should receive a great many more kicks than half- 
 pence. I can understand, however, that there is something to 
 be said for a spirited foreign policy when you have behind it the 
 means and the material force to give effect to it if necessary ; 
 but to pursue a spirited foreign policy in our present military and 
 naval condition does not appear to me to be wise or safe. I have no 
 doubt that David pursued a spirited foreign policy when he went 
 out against Goliath with a sling and a stone, but I think that the 
 narrative shows that there was a supernatural force exerted on 
 his side on that occasion which we, as prudent, practical people, 
 should hardly be justified in counting on in our own case; and I 
 do not hesitate to say before this meeting that a spirited foreign 
 policy, in our present military and naval condition, would be a 
 policy for which I should be sorry to become in any way respon- 
 sible. I feel that I have trespassed upon you long. I apologise 
 to you for the length of my remarks, and I thank you for your 
 great patience. All I would venture to express to you, in con- 
 clusion, is, that you should allow these remarks of mine not only 
 this evening, but from time to time in the course of the next 
 few weeks, to occupy your mind and attract your consideration : 
 I trust that they will influence you towards the more effectual 
 formation of a sound, healthy, and strong public opinion which 
 shall guide the Unionist party in a safe course of government, 
 and aid them to carry out and perform their great task and high 
 duty of promoting and consolidating the unity of the United 
 Kingdom and of maintaining and extending the strength of the 
 British Empire. 
 
362 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPU CHURCHILL 
 
 POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS AT THE 
 CLOSE OF 1888. 
 
 Paddixgton, November 17, 1888. 
 
 [It will be seen that in this speech, which is necessarily abridged, 
 Lord Randolph Churchill strongly supported the Government in 
 the general lines of its policy, as lie had supported it in many other 
 speeclies delivei-ed after his resignation. He was immediately in- 
 formed by a Ministerial journal that it was useless for him to make 
 these ' civil speeches ' — he ' was no longer wanted in the Ministerial 
 galley.' At the same time it was continually represented that he 
 was making war on the Ministry. Much confusion of fact was fre- 
 quently to be observed, in officially ' inspired ' journals, throughout 
 this controversy.] 
 
 IT is a fact, a very remarkable one, and possibly almost a unique 
 one in modern history, that the foreign policy which has 
 been pursued by the Government of Lord Salisbury has com- 
 manded not only the general but the unstinted approval of the 
 entire nation ; and when we consider the state of Europe — how 
 anxious is that state — I think we must feel that the course of 
 foreign policy which at such a time commands the unanimous 
 approval of the nation is a course of foreign policy which is 
 distinctly creditable to the Government w^hich carries it out ; 
 therefore it is unnecessary for me to examine foreign affairs 
 with any minuteness to-night. If foreign affairs be well con- 
 ducted the best thing is to let them alone ; but there is one 
 point in connection with foreign affairs about which I would, 
 with your permission, address to you some observations to 
 which I attach serious importance. I allude, gentlemen, to 
 our relations with the United States of America. With regard 
 to our relations with the United States of America, there are 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 363 
 
 three questions pending — questions which are perhaps awkward 
 questions now, and which may become more awkward still. I 
 allude to the question connected with the fisheries ; I allude 
 to the question connected with certain boundaries of territory ; 
 and I allude to the question of negotiating a treaty for extra- 
 dition of criminals. I think you will agree with me if I 
 attach enormous importance, in the negotiation of these ques- 
 tions, to the maintenance of an attitude towards America of 
 the most imperturbable and most friendly good-humour. No 
 doubt the Americans are very good hands at driving a hard 
 bargain. They perhaps a little resemble the Dutch of the last 
 century, who were said to be distinguished for giving too little 
 and for asking too much. No doubt they like, if they can, to 
 get six to four the best of their opponents ; but I do not know 
 why we should blame them on that account. We should try 
 to the best of our ability to uphold our own rights, and we 
 can with advantage remember — that the Americans are essen- 
 tially a just people, and that although the Americans are a 
 proud people, and that though they have a right to be a proud 
 people, they are by no means a quarrelsome or an excitable 
 people, and therefore they are a people with whom it is not 
 difficult to remain on excellent terms. But it cannot be denied 
 that certain incidents have recently taken place which have to 
 some extent strained the relations between the two countries. 
 I allude to the action of President Cleveland after the rejec- 
 tion by the Senate of the treaty which Mr. Chamberlain had 
 negotiated. I also allude to the action of President Cleveland 
 in dismissing our Minister from Washington the other day.' 
 There is no doubt that these incidents have somewhat strained 
 the relations between the two countries ; but I think we ought 
 to make the utmost allowance for the position in which the 
 Americans were placed. I think if you search the modern 
 history of England you will find that even our own Governments 
 
 ' Lord Sackville had written a most imprudent letter in the very height 
 of the excitement attending the Presidential election ; the letter had given 
 great offence, and injured the prospects of the Democratic party ; and in con- 
 sequence of all this, Lord Sackville was practically dismissed by the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. Unusual delay occurred in sending out his 
 successor, and to this delay Lord Randolph was referring in the above passage. 
 
364 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 at times have pursued a policy with respect to foreign affairs 
 when general elections were pending which they would not have 
 pursued if general elections had not been pending. With respect 
 to the dismissal of the British Minister at Washington, we must, 
 as fair and impartial persons, recognise that in the matter we 
 were primarily wrong. There is no doubt that our ]\finister at 
 Washington had committed a most unfortunate indiscretion and 
 a most unfortunate blunder ; and I do not hesitate to say it 
 seems to me that the blunder was without excuse, when we 
 recollect that Lord Sackville was a gentleman who had had long 
 experience of the nature of political strife in America. No doubt 
 we may have wished that President Cleveland had acted in these 
 circumstances in a manner less prompt and less brusque. But 
 still, looking at it fairly and with the desire to put the best 
 construction we can upon American action, I think, with 
 regard to the treatment of our Minister, we are hardly entitled, 
 nor would it be prudent on our part, to exhibit any great anger 
 or vexation. I dwell particularly on this point because I think 
 that the future contains matter for anxiety, I have observed 
 with grief a series of articles which have recently appeared in 
 one of the London morning papers which breathe the spirit 
 of insult and menace to the United States, and which appear to 
 me to be inspired by nothing else but mere bluster and bragga- 
 docio. Gentlemen, the prospect of war between England and 
 the United States of America — the prospect of any serious 
 quarrel between England and the United States of America — 
 is, to my mind, the most appalling prospect which I can picture. 
 I utterly refuse to consider it possible for a moment. A war 
 between England and the United States of America would be 
 more atrocious in its character, more utterly disastrous and 
 destructive to the interests of civilisation, than any war which 
 has ever been waged since war began upon this earth. And I 
 feel sure if the readers of the articles to which I allude had any 
 conception whatever, any decent realisation of the unspeakable 
 mischief which sentiments such as they produce might cause in 
 America, they would rather smash up their pens and tear up 
 their paper than write one line or one word of the articles to 
 which I have referred. But, gentlemen, there is another policy. 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 365 
 
 which I see a tendency to advocate in certain quarters, which 
 appears to me to fall not far short of the mischief of the former 
 policy, and that is the policy which, without intending offence, 
 I will designate as the policy of sneers and sulks. Nothing, I 
 think, would be more foolish or childish on our part than to 
 pursue such a policy. Nothing would be more unworthy of tlu' 
 might and the power of the British Empire than to indulge in 
 a policy of sneers and sulks when dealing with equals. What 1 
 would impress upon this meeting and upon the public is, the im- 
 portance of demonstrating to our American brothers as early and 
 as practically as we can, with regard to recent incidents which 
 have occurred, that no bad feelings of any sort exist in our minds 
 with regard to them. It is for that purpose I express a hope that 
 the post of British Minister at Washington may not be left 
 vacant for long. I do not think that any longer delay ought 
 to elapse in filling up the post than may be necessary for the 
 selection of a gentleman of ability and experience who will be 
 acceptable to the American people. 
 
 I have a special as well as a general reason for urging this, 
 and it is, that the fisheries question, as any one who is acquainted 
 with it will agree, from its very nature, may at any moment 
 become most acute, and the most serious issues — issues most 
 vital to the future fortunes of the two nations — may absolutely 
 depend upon the presence at, or the absence from, Washington 
 of an experienced British diplomatist. We must not pay much 
 attention to the loud and quarrelsome and disagreeable tone 
 which is assumed towards us by a portion of the American 
 press which is inspired by, or written to please, the Irish vote. 
 I have spoken on this question because I attach great importance 
 to it, and also because I hope I may be allowed to say I know 
 something of America. I have twice visited that country ; I 
 have travelled somewhat in that country ; and I have had the 
 pleasure of meeting Americans of various positions — gentlemen 
 Avell qualified to represent the opinion of America — and to speak 
 with authority as regards that opinion. I have often been 
 assured, I may say generally been assured, by Americans of the 
 prevalence throughout the whole length and breadth of America 
 of feelings most cordial towards this country — feelings of admira- 
 
3(56 SPEECllE.S OE LORD IlANUOLl'll CllURClllLL 
 
 tion, almost of affection, towards the motlier-countiy. It lias 
 often been stated to me by Americans of the character such 
 as I have described that if ever this country was involved in a 
 struggle for its existence, there would arise in America from 
 north to south and from east to west a strong, a predominant, 
 possibly an overwhelming feeling that the whole force and might 
 of the United States should be cast upon the side of the mother- 
 country. Whether that statement be true or not, whether it be 
 fanciful or exaggerated, or whether it be a real sentiment, I 
 cannot with any real certainty pronounce ; but it is right and 
 pleasing to acknowledge that is a sentiment which may well be 
 true, and it is right and prudent we should so act as if that 
 sentiment were true. I most earnestly hope and advocate that 
 with regard to the few outstanding disputes, and in all our 
 relations with the new Government at Washington, our policy 
 may be so directed by our Ministers that in the questions, by 
 no means remote, the solution of which may trouble, perplex, 
 and possibly destroy some European nations, we may find in the 
 people of the United States of America our best and our surest 
 allies ; and that a strong and indestructible friendship between 
 the English-speaking communities on the east and the west of 
 the Atlantic may preserve and guarantee to humanity the twin 
 blessings of liberty and of peace. 
 
 I content myself with a general allusion to the question of 
 Ireland. What was the condition of affairs when the Unionist 
 party succeeded to power ? Ireland was in a state of utter 
 anarchy — anarchy which was not only distinctly discreditable to 
 the reputation of this country, but dangerous to the interests 
 of the empire. It was the direct interest of the Eepeal party 
 to perpetuate and to increase that state of anarchy. It was 
 equally vital to the Unionist Government to put an end, and 
 a speedy end, to it. It is a very old proverb that those who 
 play at bowls must expect rubbers ; and those who directly par- 
 ticipate in what I decline to call political agitation, but what 
 is nothing more nor less than civic tumult, must not be surprised 
 if in gratifying their wish, if in indulging themselves in that 
 luxury, they suffer in their person and in their liberty — perhaps, 
 a little more now and then than they themselves may think 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCL\L PROBLEMS 307 
 
 absolutely right. To those Repealers and Nationalists who com- 
 plain so bitterly, and, as far as I can see, so inaccurately, as to the 
 administration of the criminal law in Ireland, who raise these 
 frantic outcries about the brutality of the Irish Government and 
 the arbitraiy interference with every kind of personal freedom, 
 which they assert to be the characteristic of the Irish Govern- 
 ment, I have only this to say : that if here and there — and I by 
 no means admit it is the case — but if here and there there has 
 been some rough-and-ready administration of justice, if here 
 and there some individual directly concerned in illegal agitation 
 has got a little more than his deserts, the responsibility for such 
 injustice, if injustice there be, lies upon those, and upon those 
 alone, who create disturbance, who maintain disturbance, and 
 who seek to attain political ends and political power by the 
 overthrow of all the foundations of society and by the total de- 
 struction of all order, liberty, and law. At the same time, we 
 must be on our guard against certain proclivities and certain 
 dangers which attach to coercion, and we must be careful not to 
 look for the regeneration of Ireland solely to the administration 
 of the criminal law. It is for that reason I am glad that the 
 Government has decided to appeal to Parliament, even at this 
 late period of the session, for further provision for the facilita- 
 tion of the purchase of land in Ireland by the occupier.' That 
 and other measures ought to demand our attention both on 
 grounds of policy and grounds of good faith towards the electo- 
 rate. We ought to consider it our duty to endeavour as far as 
 possible to construct in Ireland institutions which are sound and 
 healthy, as well as to extirpate institutions and customs which 
 are noxious and diseased. And strong, irresistibly strong, will 
 be the position of the Unionist party at the next general elec- 
 tion if they can demonstrate, not only by argument but by fact, 
 that they found Ireland a wilderness, and that they have trans- 
 formed it into an orderly, a fertile — ay, possibly, even a smiling 
 field. But for this purpose no one recognises more clearly than 
 I do that time is necessary, and a good allowance of time ; 
 and it is for that reason I protest most strongly against the 
 
 ' An extension of Lord Ashbourne's Act, proposed and carried in the 
 autumn session. 
 
 y 
 
368 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 donunciations which Mr. Gladstone has recently indulged in 
 of what is known as the Septennial Act, which assures to the 
 present Pai-liament ample time for the fruition of its policy in 
 Ireland. It is quite impossible that Mr. Gladstone can object 
 to the Septennial Act on constitutional grounds. I look upon 
 that as almost impossible, because Mr. Gladstone has proposed 
 two Reform Bills in the House of Commons and had the mould- 
 ing of another Reform Bill ; and neither in 1866 nor in 1867 
 nor in 1884 did Mr. Gladstone propose to repeal or modify the 
 Septennial Act. Not an expression came from his lips which 
 would lead us to suppose that he had the smallest objection to the 
 operation of that Act. But the case is very different now. He 
 said, I think, in so many words, at Birmingham, that what is 
 known as the Septennial Act operated evilly for his party. Well, 
 of course, I suppose he ought to be the best judge of what is good 
 or bad for his party ; but, as a perfectly disinterested looker-on, 
 I take leave to express my entire disagreement with him on 
 that point. I think you will agree that the longer the time, 
 the more ample the period which is given to the party which 
 follows Mr. Gladstone to reflect upon the folly and the danger 
 of the policy of Repeal, the better it will ultimately be for them. 
 No doubt it sounds very brave and very courageous on the 
 part of Mr. Gladstone to profess his anxiety to appeal to the 
 judgment of the people, and to taunt the Government with their 
 reluctance so to appeal, and to taunt the Government with 
 their fears of a dissolution. That is all very brave and very 
 courageous. It reminds me of a man who said he was the 
 bravest man in the world, and if anybody doubted his assertion 
 he would say to that person — ' Do you doubt me ? Well, now, 
 look ! come with me to the top of that monument, and let us 
 jump together from the top to the bottom ! ' That was valour 
 of a very splendid and startling character, but it does not seem 
 to me to have been valour of a very practical character, and it 
 resembles very much the kind of valour Mr. Gladstone displays 
 when he challenges the Government to dissolve this Parliament. 
 I most earnestly hope that the present Parliament has before 
 it at least three whole years. I earnestly hope that these 
 three years will be years of active life and of useful, honest 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 309 
 
 labour ; and I trust tliat nothing will induce the present Govern- 
 ment, or the loyal majority which supports them, to lay down 
 their burden of work and duty until they feel in their consciences 
 that the task and the trust which the people devolved upon them 
 and reposed in them has been amply, honourably, and adequately 
 fulfilled. I feel I am making rather a large demand upon your 
 patience ; but may I, before I conclude, indicate very cursorily 
 what I think, with all respect and deference to those whose 
 political knowledge and political experience is greater than my 
 own, is the direction which the future labours of this Parlia- 
 ment should take ? I put first and foremost — and I fear you 
 really will think me rather like Mr. Dick in Dickens's novel, 
 who never could keep the head of Charles I. out of his memorial 
 — administrative reform. I think you must see, if you have 
 studied recent Parliamentary discussions, that the need for ad- 
 ministrative reforms is obvious and is urgent. We had only 
 the other night a discussion in the House of Commons, raised 
 by my friend the member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), which 
 brought out very clearly and in a very striking manner the 
 extravagance, the useless bulk and clumsiness and overgrowth, 
 of our Civil Service. I made some remarks on the subject, and 
 ' The Times ' next day rebuked me for using strong language. 
 I think a rebuke for using strong language comes rather 
 cm'iously from ' The Times,' because, if I may make what 
 amounts to an Irish bull, ' The Times ' has a weakness for strong 
 language. And the proof of that weakness is that it has led to 
 the appointment of a Commission of Judges which is now sitting, 
 and which may be sitting for a very long time, to ascertain 
 whether the strong language of ' The Times ' was justified or 
 not ; but ' The Times,' I expect, resembles myself in this parti- 
 cular, although probably its pride will be insulted by the assi- 
 milation, that when it feels strongly it speaks strongly. There 
 is no subject on which I feel more strongly than this subject of 
 administrative reform, and I shall continue to speak strongly on 
 it as long as I have the honour to represent you in Parliament. 
 I was also rebuked by the Attorney-General in a very solemn 
 manner because I said I was anxious to excite the imagination 
 of the people. I am anxious to excite the imagination of the 
 
 VOL. II. JJ B 
 
;i70 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPTT CHURCHILL 
 
 people, and I will tell you why. Because these abuses are so 
 deep-rooted, and the persons who are interested in the main- 
 tenance of these abuses are so numerous and so strong, that 
 unless you excite public imagination 3'ou cannot get, and you can- 
 not hope to get, motive power which will enable you to sweep 
 away these abuses and to introduce reform. There is no economy 
 possible in your Civil Service expenditure without a large reform 
 taking the du'ection of simplification of the Civil Service of this 
 country. Closely allied with that is the condition of the Army 
 and Navy. That is a subject which excites gi-eat interest, and a 
 gi'eat deal has been written, and very powerfully written, to show 
 that the condition of the Army and Navy is by no means such as 
 the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect. We are 
 told there will be large demands made by the Government next 
 year upon the liberality and upon the patriotism of the House 
 of Commons in respect of the Army and the Navy. All I have 
 to say upon that point is that I adhere entirely to the position I 
 have always taken upon this subject. I believe — and from 
 what I have learnt in the last year I may say I know — that out- 
 lay, and possibly considerable outlay, is imperatively necessary 
 for the safety of the country. That I admit ; and I believe that 
 the demands which the Government may make to insure the 
 safety of the country will be cheerfully responded to by the 
 House of Commons, provided that those demands are accompanied 
 by a scheme of thorough, searching, and organic reform in the 
 system which administers these sums. What the House of 
 Commons will insist upon, and what it has an absolute right to 
 insist upon, and what it ought to insist upon, is that there shall 
 be given by the Government the most solid and the most sub- 
 stantial guarantees that the millions which they vote for the 
 defences of the country shall not follow the fate of former millions 
 and be wasted and thrown away. That is the position which I 
 take up, and of which I hope you will approve, with respect to 
 the outlay of large additional sums of money upon the Army 
 and Navy. 
 
 There are other questions which also seem to me to cry aloud 
 for legislative attention. Some years, I think nearly twenty 
 years, have elapsed since Lord Beaconsfield surprised and arrested 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 371 
 
 the ntteiitiori not only of liis party but of the entire country 
 by declaring that the legislative motto of the Tory party ought 
 to be 8anitas sanitqtum, omnia sanitas. That saying of Lore! 
 Beaconsfield, like many of his sayings, bears the closest examin- 
 ation, and will apply for a long time. There are, it seems to me, 
 three great social questions which urgently demand legislative 
 attention ; they demand legislative attention urgently on sani- 
 tary considerations, and they can, I believe, only safely be dealt 
 with for sanitary objects and on sanitary principles. I allude, 
 in the first place, to the great drink question. How can we 
 manage by legislation to divert to the maintenance of other 
 industries, and to the stimulus of other industries, a large portion 
 of the 120,000,000^. which this country year after year throws 
 away in drink. That is a great question. It cannot be 
 denied that the indiscriminate multiplication of establishments 
 for the sale of liquor — in which, I regret to say, the deceased 
 Metropolitan Board was a grievous sinner — and the abominably 
 excessive number in all our large towns of establishments for 
 the sale of liquor, are rapidly ruining both the health and the 
 morals of a large portion of our urban population, and that 
 abominably excessive number is the direct parent of more than 
 one-half the crime of this country, and of two-thirds of the 
 poverty, the misery, the disease, and the vice which tarnishes 
 and disgraces our English civilisation. What is the state of 
 things which we have ? We have the public-houses, or the 
 establishments for the sale of liquor, not oiilj filling our prisons 
 but filling to overflowing all our hospitals. We have these 
 establishments for the sale of liquor doing a roaring trade, reap- 
 ing golden harvests ; and we have our hospitals, many of them 
 seriously hampered, some of them absolutely insolvent, for want 
 of pecuniary support. I appeal to anybody, irrespective of 
 party, if that is not a true statement of the case, and a state- 
 ment of the case which ought to arouse the earnest attention of 
 the Legislature ? There was a most eloquent bishop — a bishop 
 who, 1 am happy to say, lives now, and for whom I have the 
 most sincere admiration — who said that he would rather see 
 England free than England sober. That was a fine general 
 expression, calculated to arouse applause in certain audiences ; 
 
372 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 but I can take anybody who believes in tliat sentiment — and I 
 think I coukl take the revered prelate himself — into parts of 
 London after dark, and he would agree with me, rather than 
 talk about freedom, that a strong despotic administration with 
 regard to the number of liquor-shops would be attended with 
 the most unmixed and unadulterated good. I point to this 
 subject in order to show that Lord Beaconsfield's maxim, ' Health 
 and the laws of health ' should be the great object of the Govern- 
 ment and of the people. Lord Beaconsfield's maxim calls atten- 
 tion to this question, and, I think, decides the proper method of 
 dealing with it. 
 
 I come to another most urgent question. It is the over- 
 crowded state of large portions of our great towns. It is a 
 source of pride to me to think that the Conservative party were 
 the first to initiate legislation on this subject. Both under the 
 Government of Lord Beaconsfield and again in 1885, under the 
 Government of Lord Salisbury, measures were passed which 
 aimed at dealing with the evil in this direction ; but it cannot 
 be denied these measures had not been adequate for this purpose. 
 Recent very appalling atrocities have sharply drawn the atten- 
 tion of the metropolis to the East of London; and we must 
 remember that terrible condition is by no means peculiar to the 
 metropolis. We shall find it repeated in all its wretched phases 
 in many of our large towns in this country ; and it cannot 
 possibly be denied that we have a prolific parent of vice, misery, 
 and crime in the condition of the dwellings of a great portion of 
 our labouring population. Closely allied with that subject is 
 a question which excites much attention in London — the immi- 
 gration of foreign paupers : how to check the undue flow into 
 this country of people who have no means to subsist upon, no 
 means by which they can maintain themselves, and who clearly 
 add by their influx to the evils arising from the overcrowded 
 state of our towns. Again I say that the laws of health impera- 
 tively call upon the Legislature to deal with the question, and 
 it is only by asserting the laws of health and by aiming at 
 objects of health that we can safely deal with the question. I 
 call attention to one other object, in conclusion — a subject of 
 immense importance — the question of cheap labour, better known 
 
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 373 
 
 as the sweating system. We have had a great deal of disclosure 
 with regard to the sweating system ; for not only has the 
 Committee of the House of Lords, set in motion by Lord Dun- 
 raven, brought to light much curious information on the subject, 
 but there has been a series of able articles in the ' Lancet ' 
 setting forth the state of things in other towns. The State can- 
 not regulate the price of labour, but the State can insist that 
 labour in the mass shall not be carried on under conditions 
 which violate all the principles of cleanliness, all the principles 
 of health, all the principles of decency, and all the principles of 
 morality. 
 
 These are the subjects which, I most strongly advocate, 
 should occupy the future time of this Parliament. In that 
 direction, I believe, lies the road to political success. No doubt 
 the path which I have indicated is a laborious and stony and 
 precipitous ascent ; but depend upon it, at the summit lies the 
 reward and the prize ; and if the people of England have it im- 
 pressed upon their minds by daily and by yearly experience — per- 
 sonal experience — that the policy of the Unionist party has been 
 of that nature — ^that these great Irish evils, these great adminis- 
 trative evils, and these great social evils which I have ventured 
 to put before you have been sensibly diminished, and, indeed, pos- 
 sibly to some extent swept away — then, when we recur to their 
 judgment, we shall find that we have established an invincible 
 claim upon their gratitude and confidence, renewed and sus- 
 tained ; and although the forces of our opponents may be im- 
 posing ; although their leader and their general may be the most 
 formidable foe whom political struggles have yet produced ; 
 although Ireland, Scotland, and Wales may, in a fortuitous and 
 unhappy combination, be for a time arrayed against us, the 
 common sense of England will again, as it did two years ago, 
 carry us triu>mphantly through the fight ; the voice and the will 
 of England will maintain the Union which the arm of England 
 alone created ; and posterity will commemorate, with affectionate 
 pride, the patriotism and the statesmanship of the Unionists of 
 to-day. 
 
374 SPEECHES OF LORD lUNDOLFU CflUEClllLL 
 
 EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM. 
 House of Commons, December 2, 4, a\d 17, 1888, 
 
 [It became known in November 1888 that Suakim was besieged 
 by the Arabs, and that the Egyptian soldiers there were not sufficient 
 to defend the place. The Government decided to send a force of 
 Egyptian troops and one battalion of British troops to its relief. 
 This being deemed insufficient by the military authorities, Lord 
 Randolph Churchill asked the Secretary of State for War, Mr. 
 Stanhope, on December 4, whether those authorities were consulted 
 before the step was taken, and whether 'they approved the policy 
 of sending so slender a reinforcement of British troops.' Mr. Stan- 
 hope admitted, in effect, that the military authorities at headquarters 
 had not been consulted, but stated that the commanding officer in 
 Egypt was 'confident of success with his present force.' It being 
 very uncertain what was the strength of the Arabs at that time, 
 and many disquieting reports being afloat as to the alleged capture 
 of Emin Bey and Mr. Stanley, Lord Randolph Churchill, on December 
 4, moved the adjournment of the House to gain an opportunity of 
 discussing the whole question. On the 17th the question was again 
 debated. It may be added that further reinforcements were de- 
 spatched, in accordance with the spirit of Lord Randolph's resolu- 
 tion, and the Egyptian papers subsequently published proved that 
 the commanders on the spot held such additional strength to be 
 necessary, in spite of their first opinions. These papers are quoted in 
 the general Introduction to the present volumes. The first speech 
 was delivered on December 2, on the vote for embassies and foreign 
 missions, a general debate having been raised by Mr. John Morley. 
 I have here brought together the material points of all three speeches.] 
 
 JN the last Parliament but one I was associated with my 
 right hton. friends in assaulting vigorously month by month 
 and sometimes week by week, the blundering policy which was 
 then pursued by the Government of which the right hon. gentleman 
 who has just spoken (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was a member. 
 
EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM 375 
 
 We held at that time that nothing could be more fatal than to 
 proceed to Egypt without making up our minds as to what 
 should be the definite policy of the country. The whole sum 
 and substance of the accusations brought against the Govern- 
 ment, accusations which were largely supported in the House 
 and the country, was that the Government had no policy what- 
 ever, and that they had not made up their minds what they 
 would do with the Soudan, and that till they did make up their 
 minds it was improper to grant them supplies. I have heard 
 with great sympathy the motion made by the right hon. gentle- 
 man opposite (Mr. Morley) in the form of a protest against the 
 sending of English troops to Suakim. It is most instructive to 
 read the speeches which were made one Saturday afternoon in 
 1884 or 1885, when the present Government were in opposition, 
 by Sir S. North cote, the present President of the Board of Trade, 
 and others, taking up practically the argument which has been 
 used on both sides this afternoon. On that occasion a motion 
 of refusal to grant supplies was made by the hon. member for 
 Northampton, much on the ground on which the right hon. 
 member for Newcastle has now made a similar motion, and the 
 hon. member had the pleasure and pride of leading into the lobby 
 the whole of the Tory party and coming within fifteen votes, if I 
 recollect aright, of defeating the Government of the day. It has 
 been stated that the cost of the expedition will naturally fall upon 
 Egypt. Why ? I am entirely at a loss to know. Egypt, as it 
 exists at present, has no interest at Suakim. That is an asser- 
 tion which at any rate would have commanded the support in 
 bygone days of right hon. gentlemen now sitting on the 
 Treasury bench. If it be said that the United Kingdom has 
 a great interest in Suakim, I can understand the proposition. 
 It is one capable of a good deal of argument. Great Britain 
 has a great interest in holding Suakim ; but why, then, should 
 the cost fall upon Egypt ? Egypt is a country whose finances 
 are embarrassed, and it has been extricated from insolvency with 
 great difficulty. If this additional pressure is put upon the 
 country, sooner or later the time will come when Egypt will 
 not be able to bear the burden and when she will come down 
 on the British Treasury to make good deficiencies which she was 
 
376 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 unable to provide. In my opinion, the policy of increasing the 
 military charges which Egypt proper lias to bear is a very danger- 
 ous policy. It may bring about a state of things in Egypt 
 amounting alniost to insolvency, and it may bring about what 
 we have been most anxious to avoid — international interference 
 on behalf of the creditors of Egypt, the result of which has 
 ■always been further exactions from the Egy^Dtian people. I 
 protest against that doctrine, which appears to be the doctrine of 
 the Government, that the cost of holding Suakim is to fall on the 
 Egyptian revenue. At any rate, if that is the proposition of the 
 Government, it must be supported, as it has not been hitherto, 
 by convincing arguments that Egypt has a direct interest in hold- 
 ing Suakim against the Soudanese Arabs, and that unless held 
 against the Soudanese Arabs the whole safety of the country would 
 be imperilled. The Government propose to send a small de- 
 tachment of some 500 men, without artillery and without cavalry, 
 to reinforce 3,000 or 4,000 native troops, which seems like adding 
 a drop to the ocean ; and is very inadequate for the purpose — 
 namely, stiffening the fighting qualities of the native troops. It 
 seems to be forgotten that this is not the first time Suakim has 
 been besieged. The besiegers have formerly no doubt been 
 dislodged after great effort ; but the moment they desired, that 
 moment they returned. This has happened not once, but three 
 times ; and now the besiegers are back again, just as if they had 
 never been beaten. Yet it appears we are going again to with- 
 draw the moment the Arabs have been dislodged, in spite of the 
 fact that, according to all experience, the besiegers are perfectly 
 ready to return the moment our troops go away. I earnestly 
 appeal to the Government, with their previous knowledge of this 
 question, to tell the Committee plainly what is really to be the 
 nature of the operations upon which British troops are going to 
 enter ; and what ground they have for thinking that Suakim 
 will be a bit more free from attack after the troops depart than 
 at the present moment. I should not have thought it neces- 
 sary to speak upon the subject this afternoon if I had not so 
 clearly before my mind the whole of the incidents of former 
 expeditions. I wonder whether the Government have them 
 equally clearly in their minds. The determination to send a 
 
EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM 377 
 
 British force to Suakim — a small British force — seems to me as 
 but the beginning of the letting out of water. In these matters 
 I think that lorincipiis ohsta is a very good principle for the House 
 to adopt. We have been pursuing, and hoping that we might 
 continue to pursue, a policy of the gradual withdrawal of the 
 British troops from Egypt. I do not know whether the policy . 
 of gradual withdrawal is one which commends itself to every one- 
 on the Ministerial side of the House. With that I have nothing 
 to do. But I say that the Government are committed to the 
 policy of the withdrawal of their troops from Egypt. Yet for 
 my part I would fifty times sooner send British troops to Cairo 
 than to Suakim. We know the duties they would have to per- 
 form at Cairo, and that there is a probability that the troops 
 might get away again at a certain time. But once we begin 
 operations in the Soudan, there is no limit which we can pos- 
 sibly foresee to our duties. I do not know how those sitting 
 on this side of the House will explain to their constituents why 
 they have been drawn into a repetition of the policy which did a 
 great deal of harm to the party opposite. I am very much afraid 
 of any repetition, or of any commencement of a repetition, of 
 operations by British troops in the Soudan. We are accustomed 
 to hear the homely proverb that a burnt child dreads the fire. 
 But the present Government is not the burnt child. The burnt 
 child is there (pointing to the Opposition benches), and I am 
 certain that nothing, not even the near prospect or probability 
 of repealing the Union, would induce hon. gentlemen opposite to 
 commence sending another expedition to the Soudan. I cannot 
 see what real success is to attend our efforts. I am certain that 
 the cost will ultimately fall on the British Treasury. I think 
 that the House, even if they do not succeed in inducing the 
 Government to reconsider their decision, are right in discussing 
 this grave question. I do not think that this ought to be 
 regarded as a party matter ; and, quite apart from party feelings, 
 with the information at my disposal, I am glad that a protest 
 has been raised on this occasion, and I strongly join in that pro- 
 test against the despatch of another expedition of this character 
 after the bitter and mortifying experience we have had of pre- 
 vious enterprises of the same kind. 
 
378 SPEECHES OF LORD EANDOLPII CHURCHILL 
 
 [Tlie next speech was delivered December 4, on the motion 
 to adjourn the House, this motion being raised on tlie reply given 
 by Mr. Stanhope to a question that day on the paper.] 
 
 The House may well imagine that nothing but the very gravest 
 imaginable reasons would have induced me to take so serious 
 a step as moving the adjournment of the House and interrupt- 
 ing business. But I have come to the conclusion that there 
 are reasons which must be weighed against the loss of a night, 
 and those reasons raise the issue of human life — they raise the 
 issue of the lives of British soldiers ; and if by the action of 
 the House to-night the danger to the lives of British soldiers 
 be averted, I think that the loss of a night for the despatch 
 of business may turn out for the advantage and interest of 
 the country. It is to be regretted, indeed, that the House 
 of Commons in matters of this kind is usually prevented from 
 taking what I may call anticipatory action. As a general rule 
 the Executive Government present the House of Commons with 
 a fait accomjyli, and the House has no other function to perform 
 than to act as a court of review in pronouncing whether the 
 action taken by the Executive is right or wrong. Its powers 
 are seriously hampered by the fact that such action has been 
 taken and cannot be undone. The House on this occasion is 
 placed on a different footing. Formerly, it has often happened 
 that action has been taken by the Executive Government, which 
 action would not have been taken had the full circumstances 
 been laid before the House of Commons, and had the House of 
 Commons had full opportunity of considering the circumstances. 
 I adduce in support of that statement the remarkable instance 
 of the bombardment of Alexandria. In all probability, if the 
 facts connected with the bombardment of Alexandria had been 
 laid before the House of Commons, that bombardment would 
 never have taken place, and the innumerable evils which have 
 followed would have been prevented. Now, what is the end 
 of the action which the Government propose to take, and which 
 I ask the House of Commons to use its great power to modify ? 
 The nature of the action is this — that it has been found 
 necessary to raise the siege of Suakim, that a British battalion 
 has been sent to Suakim, and that the force intended for that 
 
EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM 379 
 
 purpose is now composed of 4,000 Egyptian troops and one 
 battalion of British infantry. I will not discuss to-night, and 
 I hope the House of Commons will not discuss, the general 
 question of the Soudan, or any other general question, or the 
 advantages or disadvantages of our retaining our hold on the 
 Soudan ; or whether the advantages or disadvantages are mainly 
 Egyptian or British ; or whether our operations on the lied 
 Sea are for good or not for good ; nor will I discuss alternative 
 policies. I submit, without fear of contradiction, confident of the 
 approval of the highest Parliamentary authority, that it is not 
 the business of the House of Commons, when it differs from the 
 Government of the day, to suggest alternative action. I protest 
 against such an assertion as utterly destructive of the independ- 
 ence of the House of Commons. Circumstances arise with which 
 the Government of the day propose to deal by certain specific 
 methods, and all the House of Commons has to do is to pro- 
 nounce whether those plans are good or bad plans, defensible or 
 the reverse. The plan adopted by the Government of sending 
 an expedition to Suakim composed of 4,000 Egyptian troops and 
 one battalion of British infantry, is a plan which is not safe, is 
 not sensible, and which in no sense of the word can, in the light 
 of the experience of the past, be considered by the House of 
 Commons as a good plan. The ground upon which I venture 
 to press this motion upon the House is that the British contin- 
 gent is wholly inadequate to the work which it is expected to 
 perform. Sir, we have no business in employing British soldiers 
 in any part of the world, but more especially in such parts as the 
 Soudan, to run any unnecessary risks. Unnecessary risks are 
 at all times to be deprecated ; and that we are running an un- 
 necessary risk there can be no doubt whatever in sending this 
 small battalion of British infantry overwhelmed among a mass of 
 4,000 utterly unreliable Egyptian troops. 
 
 I should like to remind the House of the difficulties and 
 disasters which have arisen from the employment of inadequate 
 forces — of British forces too small for the work they had to do 
 — in meeting savage and warlike enemies. The Zulu war was 
 a case in point. That war was commenced with inadequate 
 British forces : defeat and disaster followed, and an immense 
 
380 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 expenditure and immense efforts were required to make up for 
 the primary and cardinal error of sending out inadequate forces. 
 Nothing contributed so much to the fall of the Government of 
 that day as the conduct of the Zulu war. The Boer war of 
 1881 was another instance of attempting to do work admitted 
 to be difficult with inadequate British forces. Again immense 
 expenditure and grave loss of life followed that cardinal error. 
 Those two instances alone would give point and force to the 
 contention, that one battalion of British infantry with a mass 
 of Egyptian troops is an inadequate force for the task set 
 before it. 
 
 Not only do those and other examples which I might quote 
 point to the danger of attempting considerable operations with 
 inadequate forces, but if we should want an illustration against 
 the employment of inadequate forces, we find it in past events 
 at Suakim itself. No doubt the Government of that day were 
 singularly unfortunate in their treatment of the Soudan, and it is 
 a matter now hardly denied that many blunders must be laid to 
 their charge. One blunder, however, they did not make ; they 
 did not attempt to encounter the Soudanese warriors with in- 
 adequate forces. The first expedition of General Graham was 
 essentially a strong force. Yet we know that very heavy fight- 
 ing attended that expedition. The second expedition to Suakim, 
 also, I think, under the command of General Graham, was nearly 
 double in size, and accompanied by Indian troops ; and, more- 
 over, the House must bear this in mind, because it brings out 
 the fighting qualities of those Arab troops : that expedition was 
 at one time in danger of total overthrow, and but for the 
 desperate gallantry of an Indian regiment, inevitable and over- 
 whelming disaster must have occurred. That incident is of great 
 importance in considering the sort of expedition we have to 
 contemplate, and it has a force which the House of Commons 
 will admit as an argument against sending any further expedition 
 without a strong and adequate force of British troops. Why do 
 I urge these points upon the House ? Because I hold that in 
 sending one battalion of British infantry to Suakim you are 
 flying in the face of all our experience. But I would not dare 
 to interrupt the business of the House on that plea alone; 1 
 
EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM 381 
 
 would not venture to set up my opinion against that of the 
 Executive Government, if it were not for this very very grave 
 fact — I state it as a positive fact, and I implore the House to 
 give that fact the weight which I think it deserves — that in 
 deciding to send one British battalion to Suakim, her Majesty's 
 Government have acted against the advice of responsible and 
 high military authorities here. That would appear to be per- 
 fectly clear from the cautious answer which the Secretary for 
 War gave to my question this afternoon. But if it did not 
 appear from that, I state it as a positive fact, and I defy contra- 
 diction, that high military authorities at home have disapproved 
 of this sending of one battalion of British infantry to Suakim. 
 Can anything better illustrate the curiosity of our military 
 organisation, that a military expedition can take place against 
 the advice and be composed in a manner disapproved of by high 
 military authority in command of the Army ? That, however, is 
 undoubtedly the fact. And, Sir, this is also the case, which 
 the House of Commons will also bear in mind, that if by any 
 chance these operations are not attended with success, no re- 
 sponsibility whatever can fall upon the high military authorities 
 at home. . . . 
 
 I do not hesitate to say that I hate the Soudan. The idea 
 to me of risking the life of a single British soldier in that part 
 of the world is inexpressibly repugnant. I do not believe that 
 any gain can accrue to this country, no matter how great may be 
 the military success, and I am certain that great loss and danger 
 may come if this military expedition is not successful. The risk 
 which we run is not only unnecessary, but, in the event of 
 success, the result is altogether incommensurate with the risk. 
 
 [On the 17th, Lord Randolph Churchill's remarks were 
 mainly directed to the general policy, or Avant of policy, pursued 
 by England in relation to Egypt.] 
 
 There is hardly any political question on which I have 
 stronger opinions than the question of the expediency of enga- 
 ging in British military enterprise in the Soudan, and when I 
 recall the language in which I attacked the Government of the 
 right hon. gentleman opposite for engaging British military 
 forces in the Soudan, I cannot refrain from expressing regret 
 
382 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 iind alarm at wliaf appears to be a vecomiiiencement of a course 
 which 1 then so strongly denounced, and still at the present 
 moment denounce. If there is one thing more than another 
 that misled the Government of the right hon. gentleman and 
 misled the House of Commons and the country in 1882, and in 
 subsequent years, it was that neither the Government nor the 
 House nor the public got really true information as to what was 
 going on. They received information from persons who were 
 interested in pursuing a certain line of policy, aiid all that was 
 likely to divert the House of Commons from that policy was 
 sedulously kept back. I think we are in the same danger at 
 the present moment. 
 
 If Suakim is of Egyptian concern and Egyptian interest, 
 and must be held for Egyptian security, undoubtedly the Govern- 
 ment is right in advising the Egyptian Government to transfer 
 troops for the defence of that place, and undoubtedly the expense 
 of that defence must fall on Egypt ; but if the place is not of 
 Egyptian importance and Egyptia.n interest, and if it is not for 
 Egyptian security that it should be retained, and if British troops 
 are moved there because it is a British interest and for British 
 security, and for British objects, the expense ought certainly 
 to fall upon the British Exchequer. I ask the House, if the 
 Governmenfc had announced to the House, as they probably will 
 some day, that Egypt will not bear the expense of this expedi- 
 tion, and that it will fall upon the British taxpayer, what do 
 they think would have been the effect of that statement upon 
 the debate of the 4tli instant, and how much do they think the 
 position would have been strengthened of those who object to 
 the expedition altogether ? If England has to pay, and con- 
 stitutional precedent had been followed, a vote would have been 
 taken before the expedition was sent out, and what would have 
 been the chances of such a vote being agTeed to by Parliament ? 
 I pass on to notice a remark of an hon. member who said, ' We 
 must show the Arabs that we are their masters ; ' but he forgets 
 that we have been for four years trying to bring this truth home 
 to the Arabs, and though we have in all conscience killed enough 
 of them, it seems we have not yet persuaded the dervishes that 
 the British are their masters. It seems to me that that is an 
 
EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM 383 
 
 argument which does not stand the test of experience. One 
 word about negotiations. Negotiations are ridiculed by the 
 Under-Secretary of State, but I think he is scarcely well 
 informed. He confounds the dervishes with the coast tribes, but 
 he omitted to tell the House — perhaps he does not know — that 
 the dervishes are absolutely dependent on the coast tribes for 
 subsistence, and that if the latter were to cease supplying^ them 
 with food the dervishes would have to retire in the course of a 
 very short time indeed. The object of negotiating with the 
 coast tribes was in the hope of inducing them by material rewards 
 and material interests to desist from giving those supplies, so 
 that the dervishes would have to retire. If negotiations are to 
 be condemned, at any rate let them be condemned on their 
 merits, and not be dismissed in an inaccurate manner by say- 
 ing it is impossible to enter into negotiations in the presence of 
 hostile tribes. The Government have told us to-night they 
 know clearly what their object is. They have told us they 
 know their own mind. I am delighted to hear it. It is an 
 unusual thing in the history of this country for a British Govern- 
 ment to know its own mind, and I am glad that this Govern- 
 ment is placed in such a fortunate position ; but I am rather 
 Sony they have not placed the House of Commons in an equally 
 fortunate position by telling us what their mind is. 1 defy 
 even the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. INIaclean) to say what 
 the policy of the Government is with regard to the Soudan, 
 or what the result of a battle would be, whether successful or 
 the reverse. Nobody knows what is to follow. The object of 
 the Government seems to be perfectly narrow and limited. It 
 is to send a force to Suakim, fight a battle, and then go away 
 (A Voice : ' No.') Did I hear somebody say ' No ' ? I will 
 engage to say that the Government will not extend their obliga- 
 tions by one inch, because if they did they would considerably 
 extend the scope of this debate. The object is to raise the siege 
 of Suakim, fight a battle, and drive away the dervishes — to what 
 distance we are not told, but at any rate they are not to be 
 pursued into the Soudan. Have I (turning to ^Ministers) accu- 
 rately stated the policy of the Government? Is that a fair 
 question to ask ? I must express my opinion again that that is 
 
384 SPEECHES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL 
 
 a silly and a stupid policy, an utterly unprofitable policy, one 
 that will not assist the pacification of the Soudan nor the 
 development of its commerce. It is a policy that will do no 
 possible good, unless you consider the decimation of the dervishes 
 a possible good. The Government say they are going to Suakim 
 to fight a battle, to kill a number of Arabs, and then to go away, 
 and for that we" are to impose on the Egyptian Treasury, and 
 ultimately, as I contend, on the British Treasury, a very con- 
 siderable charge. Against that thriftless and profitless policy I 
 gladly avail myself of this further opportunity of recording a 
 final protest. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PlllKTICD BY 
 
 3i'orn.s\vooDF, a\d co., xew-s-i-rkf.t square 
 
 LONDON 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 •RFTURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 R«iewed books are subject to immediate recall 
 
 — *^£ci 
 
 m- 
 
 "^n:^ 
 
 ^IBF^H^ 
 
 ^>^ CiCk ( 
 
 U'lti^^°*5-5i:ii'4kk^^ 
 
 , LUAN 
 
 FEB 16 1967 
 
 17 
 
 k^ 
 
 s^ 
 
 U^ 
 
 fts- 
 
 ^T 
 
 ^31^ 
 
 MAR 2 1968 5 4 
 
 fcCclVBD 
 
 MARl6'63-i':fii« 
 
 Fs^I^ 
 
 INTER-LIBRARY 
 LOAN 
 
 mR 2 6 1968 
 
 LD 21A-60m-3,'65 
 (F2336sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
U C BERKtLtY L 
 
 CD511i4Dfi2D 
 
 
 
 
 ^50869