1900 i i ( -■ w THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES Fighting Notes for Speakers WITH A FEW . • • GENERAL DIRECTIONS UPON CANVASSING. 1909. PUBLISHED BY ■ The National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations, St. Stephen's Chambers, Westminster S.W. Price THREEPENCE LARGE QUANTITIES AT REDUCED RATE. 11 printed by Bembosk ft Sons, Ltd.. 4. Snow Hill. London, E-C. Fighting Notes for Speakers WITH A FEW . . . GENERAL DIRECTIONS UPON CANVASSING. 1909. PUBLISHED BY The Rational Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations, St. Stephen's Chambers, Westminster, S.W. m U 22 OG INDEX. Page A AGRICULTURE— Unionist Land Policy, Balfour, Mr 57 Chamberlain, Mr. A. ; Lansdowne, Lord ... 58 ALIENS ACT— Radicals and 99 Unionist Legislation 99 AMERICA— See " United States." ARMY— American Horseshoes 41 Battalions destroyed by Radicals 88 Indian Government's Contribution 88 Radical Part}'' and 88-90 Special Reserve — Strength 90 Strength— Reduction of 89 Territorial Forces— Strength 90 ASQUITH, MR.— Church in Wales 96 German Naval Strength 86 Radical Party and Home Rule 105 Lords 48 Licensing Bill, 1908 ,.... 73 Navy , 86 Unemployment 3- Unionist Party and Old Age Pensions 4. ATHEISM— Blatcliford, Mr. R. . ,.,. 2Q Socialism and 20, 21 BALFOUR, MR. A. J.— -Agriculture, Revival of .... 57 British Industrial Conditions 8 Colonial Preference !4 Fiscal Policy, Four Principles of ..., 9 Licensing Act of iooj. 7 T -"^ Old Age Pensions— "The Radical Lie" 4 c, 46 Small Holdings «,' ^7 Social Reform .7. xq Social ism x q Tariff Reform o 1 " BARNES, MR. G. N.-LaV^r "Fx-hVn^" -6 BAX, BELFORT— Free Love i.Z'.Z 22 •J87896 Page BEER, Duty on 06 BIRRELL, MR.— Depression in Building Trade 37 BLATCHFORD, MR. R. Atheistical Declaration 20 Criminal Law Amendment Bill Smashed by Tories 25 War against Religion 21 BOWERMAN, MR. C. W.— Factory and Work- shop Act, 1 901 30 BROADHURST, MR. H.— Unemployed Work- men Act, 1905 34 BUDGET— See "Finance." BUILDING SOCIETIES— Conservative Party and 32 BUILDING TRADE 37 BURNS, MR. J. — Government and Unemploy- ment 35 BUXTON, MR. S. C. —Chinese Slavery 91 C CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, SIR H.— House of Lords 48 Unemployment ?6 CANADA— British Exports to 13 Preference Offered to Great Britain 14 CAWDOR PROGRAMME Si, 84 CHAMBERLAIN, MR. A.— Small Holdings 58, 59 CHAMBERLAIN, MR. J.— Old Age Pensions, ' Work for 41 "CHINESE SLAVERY LIE" 01 CHURCH OF ENGLAND— Antiquity of q 4 Disestablishment 95 Established Church — Meaning of Q4 Not State-aided 94 Tithes 04 CHURCHILL, MR. WINSTON— Chinese Slavery 9I Colonial Preference , I4 Radical Party and Home Rule 10c £ •CLARION' , — Influence of "" 20 COBDEN, R.— Free Labour 7 r ree Trade 7 Trade Unions, Tyranny of 7 Page COLONIAL PREFERENCE— Benefits to United Kingdom 13 Radical Party's Answer 14 Unionist Party's Answer 14 CONSERVATIVE PARTY— Employers and Workmen Act - 28 Factories and Workshops Act 29 Thrift encouraged by 32 Trade Unions, Attitude towards 24, 25 CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES— Conservative Party and 32 COURTNEY, LORD— Naval Expenditure 84 £REWE, LORD— Budget Licensing Clauses... 61 D DISESTABLISHMENT— See " Church." DREADNOUGHTS— See " Navy." E EDUCATION— Act of 1902 — Satisfactory nature of 79 Explanation of Technical Terms 74 Number of Public Elementary Schools — Denominational Support 75 Radical Record 78 Real Point at issue 76 Unionist Record 77 What Voluntary Effort has done for 75 ELLIOTT, SIR C. A.— Education Act, 1902... 79 EMIGRATION— Comparison of United King- dom and Germany 10 ESMONDE, SIR T.— Unionist Government and Ireland 101 F FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS ACT— See 11 Labour." FELS, MR.— Socialism of the Budget 68 .FINANCE— Budget— Confusing Nature of 6t, 62 Increment Duty 61, 63 Licensing Clauses 65 Lords and /»?, 6q Radical Members Opposed to 65, 67 Reversion Duty 63 iii Pa< <. Socialistic Nature of \ 68 Taxes included in ..' ci, ti Tobacco. Spirits and Beer Duties 62, 66 Lords' Powers as to— Mr. W. E. Gladstone... 69 National Debt— Socialists would Repudiate... 2^ FISCAL POLICY— Balfour, Mr 9 Food Stuffs sent in Free of Tax 59 Four Principles — Mr. A. J. Balfour 9 Free Imports 8 Free Trade — Mr. Cobden 7 Protected Markets 8 Tariff Reform — Balfour, Mr. A. J 15 Effect on working men 10 Protection afforded by 1.2 Revenue from 12 FREE LABOUR— Effects of 7 FREE LOVE — Socialists advocating 22 FREE TRADE— See "Fiscal Policy." FRIENDLY SOCIETIES— Unionist Party and 32 G GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1 GERMANY— Emigration — Comparison with United King- dom 10 Navy — Construction 83; 86, 87 Manning Strength — Increase in ................ 87 Strength of '. 86 Unemployment ^3, ^8 GLADSTONE, MR. HERBERT— Home Rule.. 106 GLADSTONE, MR. W. E.— House of Lords 48 House of Lords and Finance Bills 6q Land Nationalization .'.! 6a GREAT BRITAIN— " The World's Workshop;" 8 GREY, SIR E.— German Naval Strength \. 86 u HALDANE, MR. R. B.— American Horseshoes ■..;.■ 42 Army, Reduction of Strength '. 89, 90 Lords 70 Woolwich Discharges 40 iv Page HARDIE, KEIR— Socialism of the Budget .... 68 HARTLEY, MR. «. R.— Budget 67 HARVEY, MR. A. G. C— Education Act, 1902 79 HENDERSON, MR. A.— Naval Expenditure ... 84 HERSCHELL, LORD— House of Lords and Finance Bills 70 HOLE, MR. C. W.— Education Act of 1902 ... So HOME RULE— See "Ireland" HOUSING— Unionist Legislation p INDIA — Government's Contribution to Army... 8$ IRELAND— Agrarian Outrages — Statistics 102 Boycotting — Increase under Radicals 102 Crime under the Radicals 102, 103 Home Rule — Abolition of Lords* Veto would mean grant- ing of 107 Consequences of 107 Dangers of 104 Radical Party pledged to ioc ; , 106 Nationalists' Compact with German-Ameri- cans ...,/ '. ;......:...... 107 Shooting Outrages— Increase in 10 > Unionist Policy 104 ' Unionist Government in 101 * J JOICEY, LORD- Budget 6 7 Workmen's Compensation Act 2-j L LABOUR— Building Trade— Best Test of Prosperity... :p Employers and Workmen Act Factories and Workshops Acts— Tory Legislation ma 2 q Fines in Factories— Unionists and 26 Foreign Prison-made Goods Act— Opposed by Radicals 27 Free Labour— Mr. Cobden 7 Labour Exchanges Bill ->5 Labour Members and Unemployment in Germany ; ?g Facb Socialistic Nature of ." 68 Taxes included in ci, 62 Tobacco, Spirits and Beer Duties ......... 62, 66 Lords' Powers as to — Mr. W. E. Gladstone.;. 69 National Debt — Socialists would Repudiate... 2} FISCAL POLICY— Balfour, Mr 9 Food Stuffs sent in Free of Tax 59 Four Principles — Mr. A. J. Balfour 9 Free Imports 8 Free Trade — Mr. Cobden 7 Protected Markets 8 Tariff Reform — Balfour, Mr. A. J 15 Effect on working men 10 Protection afforded by 12 Revenue from 12 FREE LABOUR— Effects of 7 FREE LOVE — Socialists advocating 22 FREE TRADE— See "Fiscal Policy.'' FRIENDLY SOCIETIES— Unionist Party and 32 G ^ -r-TVT-nT) *T •pjjp-p/^'-rTOtXTn LANSDOVVNE, LORD— Agricunue.^;; *" *' LAURIER, SIR W.— Canadian Preference t '■ Great Britain and the Empire LICENSING— See "Temperance Questions"; also " Budget." LLOYD-GEORGE, MR.— Budget — Revolutionary Proposal of 47 Building Trade — The best test of Prosperity 37 Chamberlain, Mr. J., and Old Age Pensions 431 Chinese Slavery oj Land Nationalization 64! intents Act 16 LOG (IE, CARDINAL— Socialism and Atheism 21 LORDS, HOUSE OF— Abolition of, means Home Rule 107 Analysis of Professions of Members 52-j Asquith, Mr., and 48 Budget, Action as to Finance Bills, Powers as to 6q Gladstone, Mr. W. E., on 48, 6q Haldane, Mr., on O'Connor, Mr. T. P., and 108' Page HARDIE, KEIR— Socialism of the Budget .... 68 HARTLEY, MR. fi. R.— Budget 67 HARVEY, MR. A. G. C— Education Act, 1902 79 HENDERSON, MR. A.— Naval Expenditure ... 84 HERSCHELL, LORD— House of Lords and Finance Bills 70 HOLE, MR. C. W.— Education Act of 1902 ... So HOME RULE— See "Ireland" HOUSING— Unionist Legislation 31 i INDIA— Government's Contribution to Army... 88 IRELAND— Agrarian Outrages — Statistics 102 Boycotting — Increase under Radicals 102 Crime under the Radicals 102, 103 Home Rule — Abolition of Lords" Veto would mean grant- ing of , 107 Consequences of 107 Dangers of 104 Radical Party pledged to 105, 106 Nationalists' Compact with German-Ameri- can e ,, -»*- 11a , canonist Party and 85, 86 Why Britain requires a Powerful Navy ... 85 NEW AGE, THE "— Education Act of 1902 80 Socialism of the Budget 68 NEW HEBRIDES— Labour Conditions 93 O O'CONNOR, MR. T. P.— Raising Money in the Home Rule Cause 10S OLD AGE PENSIONS.— Poor Relief Disqualification — Radical Cabinet Ministers voting in favour of t 44 Unionist Members voting against 44 "The Radical Lie" 45-46 Unionists 1 Attitude 43 P PATENTS ACT— Protective nature of 16 Work and Money brought to England by... 17 Page PERKS, SIR IL— Budget 6 7 POOR LAWS, ROYAL COMMISSION ON ... 34 PRUSSIA— Savings Banks Deposits 11 PUBLIC HEALTH— Unionist 'Legislation 31 PUBLIC HOUSE COMPENSATION 72- Q QUELCH, H.— Free Love 22 R RADICAL PARTY— Aliens' Act, Attitude to 99 Army — See ' ' Army. ' ' Cabinet Ministers who voted in favour of Poor Law disqualifications for Old Age Pensions 44 Colonial Preference 14 Disestablishment 95 Disestablishment, Welsh 98- Education, Records as to 78 Foreign Prison-made Goods Act opposed by 27 Home Rule, Pledged to 105-6 Ireland — Increase in Crime under 102-^ Land Policy 60 Lords, Denunciation of 47-8, 50 Navy and 81, 84 Peers created by .'. 49 Peers in the Cabinet jq c: Retrenchment, " so-called 88 Small Holdings Bill , 56 Trade Unions, attitude towards 25 V n e m pi oy m e u t — Growth of, under 39 Record as to ■-$- REDMOND. MR. J.— Home Rule, Abolition of Lords' Veto would mean granting of 107- Home Rule and the General Election... 107 Home Rule means Separation 107 RIDSDALE, MR. A. E.— Budget 67 $ ST. DAVID'S, BISHOP OF— Work of the Church in Wales DERS, MR. W. S.— Education Act of 1902 80 viii Page SAVINGS BANKS DEPOSITS'— Increase in- United Kingdom, United States and Prussia compared n SINGLE CHAMBER GOVERNMENT 53-4 SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY— Programme 23 SOCIAL REFORM— Mr. Balfour 19 SOCIALISM— Aims of 23 Atheism and 20, 21 Balfour, Mr., on 19 Free Love advocated 22 Land Policy 23 National Debt, Repudiation of ....: 23 Real Meaning of 18 Unionist Party and 18 SOUTH AFRICA.— See " Chinese Slavery." SPENCER, LORD. ..Lords and Finance Bills... 70 SPIRITS— Duty on , 66 STEWART, MR. A.— Tribute to Unionist Legislation 26 SUMMERBELL, MR.— Socialism of the Budget 68 T TARIFF REFORM.— See "Fiscal Policy/ 1 TEMPERANCE QUESTIONS— Licensing — Budget, Clauses of 65 Asquith'Sx Mr., Bill of 1908 73 Balfour's, Mr., Act of 1904 71-2 Public House Compensation 72 THRIFT — Unionist Party and 32 TITHES 94 TRADE UNIONS.— See "Labour." TOBACCO, Duty on 17 U UNEMPLOYMENT— See £C Labour." UNIONIST PARTY AND POLICY— Aliens Act gq Colonial Preference 14 Education, Records as to 77 Factory and Workshops Act, 1901 30 Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897 27 Fines in Factories 26 Friend of the Workers 24-^2- Housing Legislation 31 Page Ireland, Government of 101 Ireland, Policy for 104 '.arid Policy 55"^ Members who Voted against Poor Law Disqualification for Old Age Pensions 44 National Party, the Real 24 Navy, attitude to 85, S > Old Age Pensions, attitude towards 43-4^ Public Health Legislation 31 Socialism, Fight against 18 Thrift encouraged by 32 Trade Unionism, attitude to 24 Truck Acts 27 Unemployment, Efforts to decrease ^ Workmen's Compensation Act 27 IJMTED STATES— Dingley Tariff 12 Dutiable Imports 12 Duty Free Imports 12 Horseshoes for British Army 41 Irish Nationalists' compact with Germans 107 Imports for Revenue, Increase in 12 Savings Banks Deposits ,. n Senate, Powers of 54 Unemployment Statistics 33 URE, MR.— Labour Exchanges 36 Old Age Pensions — The Radical Lie 46 V VINCENT, SIR H.— American Horseshoes for the British Army 41 W WALES— Disestablishment 98 Work of the Church in 96 WELLS, MR. II. G. — Socialism and Marriage 22 WHITBREAD, MR. S. IL— Budget Licence Duties 65 "WORLD'S WORKSHOP, THE" 8 WOLVERHAMPTON, LORD— Mr. J. Cham- berlain and Old Age Pensions 43 WOOLWICH ARSENAL— Discharges from ... 40 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.— See " Labour." General Directions. Immediately you get instructions make a point of calling on the Voter at once, because in some districts it not unfrequently happens that the first caller creates the best impression and consequently secures the promise for his Candidate. Although in some Constituencies it is not possible yet, as a rule it is best for Can- vassers to go calling in pairs, it gives them more confidence. As far as possible they should work in the districts which they know best and with whose inhabitants they are in sympathy. Canvassers should carry with them : — 1. Their Canvass Cards- 2. Three or Four kinds of Leaflets dealing clearly and simply with the issues before the Electorate. 3. A Pencil. 4. A Box of Matches. 5. In Country Districts and on dark nights a lantern is very often useful. The most convenient thing is a small pocket Electric Lamp, which can now be pur- chased for a few pence. ■* You must be careful to make no gift or promise of money, refreshments, employment, or favour of any kind, directly or indirectly, otherwise you might be in the unenviable position of serving His Majesty for twelve months, at some inconvenience to yourself, or paying a fine of ^"200. Never, under any circumstances, leave the Canvass Card with the Voter or at his house. You will see that the remarks are made as near the top of the Card as possible. This is done so as to leave room for any future callers either by way of Canvass or on the Polling Day, because these Cards will be used on the Poll Day. It is important to return finished Cards to the Committee Room as quickly as possible. Do not wait until they are all completed. One of the principal advantages of the Card system is that directly you have some Cards completed they can be returned. Remember those in charge of the Committee Room have a vast amount of detail to get through, therefore, the sooner they have these Cards back the better. It is especially necessary that the removals from other parts of the Constituency should be promptly dealt with and the Ward Committees advised of the result of the Canvass. If the Cards are kept until the eve of the Poll and all bundled into the Committee Room, then they are diffi- cult to cope with and confusion is created. If the Canvass has been systematically and properly done and the information clearly written on the Cards, they speak for them- 2 selves and it is not necessary for the Canvasser each time he visits the Committee Room to go through every card with those who are in charge, and explain all the items of conversation that he has had with the various Voters. A CANVASSER'S MANNER should combine Confidence and Cour- tesy — Confidence because you are perfor- ming a public duty, Courtesy because, if combined with Tact, it goes a long way towards winning Voters. Do not be content with calling once at a house ; if the Voter himself is out call again and again until you do see him, and each time leave a different Leaflet for him to read. Make a note of the floor on which the voter resides. Wives are sometimes very useful allies ; by all means endeavour to enlist their support in their husband's absence, but make a point of seeing him as well. Do not stay too long with any one Voter unless you are very sure that you are influencing him. Recollect that it is waste of time arguing with a decided opponent, and such will frequently thus try and waste your time. If, on calling at a house, a Window Card or Poster is exhibited, do not take this a sufficient evidence and imagine that indicates how the Voter named on your Card is going to vote. It may not be the person whose nime you have at all, but a new tenant, and even if it were the name of the Voter you are to call upon, then in the case of an opponent the Card or Poster may be exhibited under some misapprehension which a call from you would possibly remove, and in the case of a sup- porter the call should be made, otherwise he will probably say that no one from our side has looked him up. In cases of genuinely doubtful Voters, make a note of their trade, &c, and point or points on which they are doubtful, so that someone who has influence with them, and understands the question on which they are undecided, may see them after you have yourself done your best. Report these Voters then to Headquarters for this purpose by marking " Doubtful" on the card. If the Polling Stations are fixed, it would be as well to make yourself acquainted with them, so as to be able to inform a Voter, although you should tell him that he will receive a Poll Card later on, giving all the^ necessary particulars. This is very necessary in the case of removals, because in the num- ' ber of Cards you have to canvass, you may have removals from other portions of the Constituency and it helps very much if you can at once tell the Voter his Polling place. MARKING YOUR CARDS. Never mark a doubtful vote as a Unionist ; only put Unionist or Conservative where you are absolutely certain. If you mark anyone as a Unionist who votes the other way, he will probably be brought up to the Poll in your Candidates' vehicles, while genuine Unionist Voters may be left behind. REMOVALS are of great importance. If the present occupier does not know, then it is usually possible by inquiring of the neighbours to find where the Voter has gone and the new address should be written most clearly and distinctly on his Canvass Card. You should also ascertain the name of the new occupier and where he has come from, for it is quite likely that he is on the Register of Voters for his previous address. Do your best to induce Voters to walk to the Poll, but careful inquiry should be made if Voters are pressed for time in the morning, or only just returning in time in the evening, and in either case would like a conveyance. It will often happen that a Voter is in- firm and. ill, and expresses a doubt, as to whether he Would be able to go to the Poll. An offer should be made to fetch him at any time convenient to himself, and you should give these particulars on the Card and state K ether a closed conveyance is required. CANVASSER'S ARGUMENTS. The issues on which an Election is fought vary, and they are always changing. Some of the main issues before the Electorate at the time of writing this Booklet are dealt with in the following pages. .As a general rule make your arguments as clear and simple as possible, keep to the main points and avoid details. If in doubt as to any particular point apply at Headquarters for information, and do not be content until you have what you want in a simple form. If necessary write and ask Headquarters to send someone to help you if you find a doubtful voter who may be brought round by an expert on any particular subject being sent to him. 'x^xkst* FISCAL POLICY. FREE TRADE Means absolute freedom to buy and sell un- hampered by any tariffs and duties. This was what Richard Cobden believed in. In Genoa on January, 1847, he said : — "The Free Traders have only had one object in view, the removal of those restrictions which impede the progress of commercial intercourse between the different nations of the earth." — Reminiscences of Richard Cobden (p. 44). Cobden honestly believed that universal free trade would come about if only one country were to take the plunge. In Manchester on Jan, 15, 1846, he said : — " I believe that if you abolish the Corn Lav/ honestly, and adopt Free Trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years to follow your example." We know that this has not come to pass. Foreign countries have raised their tariffs, not lowered them. This fact prevents the realization of Cobden 's Free Trade ideal. FREE LABOUR. While. Cobden believed in absolute freedom of exchange, he believed also in absolute freedom in industry. He was opposed to Trade Unions, and in a letter dated August 16, 1842, he wrote :— "They (Trade Unions) are founded upon principles of brutal tyranny and monopoly. I would rather live under a Dey of Algiers than a Trades Committee." The system of free labour, which Cobden believed in, meant unlimited hours of work, no factory in- spection and the unrestricted employment of women and children, and has been discarded by all political parties. The present system of highly protected labour is entirely opposed to Cobden's views. Fiscal Policy— continued. PROTECTED MARKETS. The first object for which protective duties wei imposed was to protect home manufacturers froi foreign competition. With the institution of tariff the home manufacturer is afforded a mark< where he can be sure of a reasonable sale for h goods. This enables him to manufacture on a mo: extensive scale, and thus he is better able to compe in neutral markets than the manufacturer in country such as the United Kingdom whose hon market is exposed to competition from every side. FREE IMPORTS. This is the reverse of protecting the hon market. It means the free admission of goods into country without the exaction of any toll or dut; THE WORLDS WORKSHOP. The early Free Traders, with Cobden at the head, were quite certain that the commerci; supremacy of the United Kingdom would never I challenged. Our country was the workshop of tl world, as Cobden said, and so it would remai. These Free Traders never imagined that oth countries would develop their manufacturer industries in the way that Germany and the Unit* States, for instance, have done. So instead of beii Britain's customers for manufactures and returnii us simply raw material and food, they have becoE cur rivals. As Mr. Balfour said in Birmingham on Sej 22, 1909: — " . . The condition of this counts is not now, and never again will b< what it was in those halcyon das of British industrial supremacy which the old system of financ found its birth. . . The posting ofj letter, a postage stamp, may send an ore from Britain to America, from America | Germany — all are equipped for some of t greatest industrial work of which once we hi the monopoly. . .•' — Times, Sept. 25, 190 Che liiionist Fiscal Policy. It is often said by Radical objectors that the Jnionist Party has no definite Fiscal Policy. This » absolutely wrong, as the following pronouncement y Mr. Balfour shows. In Birmingham on November 14, 1907, the £t. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., said:— "... There are Four Principles vhich may be laid down as practically incontro- r ertible, or, at all events, which I am prepared to upport bv argument if necessary. The first is that your duties should be widespread. The second is that they should be small. The third is that they should not touch raw naterial. The fourth is that they should not alter the >roportion in which the working classes are asked to £>ntribute to the cost of Government. They should be small, because it is small duties vhich do not interfere with the natural course either >f production or of consumption. They should be mmerous, because if you require revenue and your luties are small, you must have many articles of :onsumption subject to those duties. Need I argue he other two questions — the question as to whether hey should be applied to raw material or whether hey should be used to alter the balance of Imperial mrdens on the working classes ? Those require no argument. They have always both been the common- )laces of the Unionist Party in this controversy and he subject of the grossest misrepresentation by jentlemen who differ, from us in opinion. . . ." Birmingham Daily Post, Nov. 15, 1907. That is the Unionist Fiscal Policy. 9 . WILL TARIFF REFORM INJURE THE WORKING MAN? TWO TESTS. Emigration. If a country is prospering and wealthy, naturally people will not want to leave it. These are the figures for Free Trade United Kingdom and Protected Germany. 1 Emigration. Kate per 10,000 of Rate per 10.000 From the estimated From of estimated U.K. Population. Germany. Population. 1900 ... 71,188 I7'3 20,921 37 1901 72.016 I?'3 20 874 37 1902 ... 101,547 24*2 3°>9 l 5 5*4 1903 ... 147,036 347 35453 6-o 1904 ... 126,854 297 27,265 4-6 1905 ... 139,365 32-2 27,403 4*5 1906 ... I94. 6 ? 1 44-6 30^64 4*3 1907 ... 235,092 50-0 32,000 5'o The Savings Banks Test. No country which suffers from hard times and uncertain employment can show a great increase in the deposits in its savings banks. Both Germany and the United States show a much bigger increase than the United Kingdom. xo Will Tariff Reform Injure the Working Man? —continued. 1875 .. 1898 .. 1907 .. United States. Population. 86 Millipns. Mill. £ i 185 • 405 . 699 Prussia. Population. 37 Millions. Mill. £ 250 439* United Kingdom Population. 44 Millions. Mill. £ 68 173 210 Increase since 1875 .. • 5H 389 142 Increase per cent. 278 778 209 * 1906 figures. Note.— The United States figures are taken, at 5 dollars to the £ % from the United States Statistical Abstract. The Prussian figures are taken from Mr, Consul -General Schwabach's Report on the Trade of the Consular District of Berlin for the year 1907, The United Kingdom figures are taken from the Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom. These figures prove conclusively that in countries in which the industries are protected by Tariffs, the workers do not emigrate as in Free Trade England, and therefore must be more contented. They save more and therefore must be better paid. II TARIFF REFORM WILL AFFORD BOTH REVENUE AiSSQ PRO TECTIOqI. A favourite argument of Free Traders and one always in use on the platform is that if we keep out foreign goods — and so protect our home industries — we shall get no revenue. As a matter of fact, the operation of a Tariff will restrict the import of wholly finished goods, which provide no employment, and in a lesser degree goods which are only in a semi- manufactured state, whilst raw material will come in free. The following table, showing the Imports into the United States is a crushing answer to the Radical Free Trade argument. The United States has a very high Tariff, which admittedly protects her industries most effectively, yet it will be seen that dutiable imports continue to flow into the country. In one column is shown the revenue raised ; in the second, the duty-free imports ; and in the third, the dutiable imports under the American Dingley Tariff since its introduction in 1897 : — Revenue Duty Free Imports, Dutiable Imports, million dollars. million dollars. million dollars. 1897 ... 176 382 383 1898 ... 149 291 3*5 1899 ... 206 300 397 1906 ... 233 367 483 1901 ... 238 339 484 1902 ... 254 3.97 506 1903 ... 284 426 600 1904 ... 261 454 537 1905 ... 262 517 600 1906 .... 300 549 677 1907 ••• 33 2 644 790 Here we have an increase in revenue colSected amounting to 70 per cent, in ten years, and yet no one has ever disputed the protective character of the United States Dingley Tariff. 13 Is Colonial Preference worth having ? Our self-governing Colonies are in every case protected, but they give the Mother Country a preference over foreign competitors. How greatly this benefits us can be seen from the following table, which clearly shows how the preferential tariff of Canada has benefited the United Kingdom. EXPORTS TO CANADA OF BRITISH PRODUCE AND IVIAF4yFACTURES. Decline before Pre ference. 1892 . ... ... £6,870,000 1893 , .. • t« ... 6,658,000 1894 ... ... ... 5,531,000 1895 ... ... 5,284,000 1896 .. .. ... 5,352,000 1897 .. ... 5,172,000 Pr eference first given in 1897. Rise after Preference. 1898 .. ••• ... ... Z"5,838,000 1899 • •• ... 6,967,000 1900 ... ... ... 7,605,000 1901 ... ►•• ••• ... 7,785,000 1902 r. ... 10,345,000 1903 .. ... 11,112,000 1904 .. .. ... 10,624,000 1905 ... >•• ... ••• 11,909,000 1906 ... • • ••• ••• 13,688,000 1907 .. ... 17,101,000 ONE SIDED PREFERENCE. The question asked by the Unionist Party is whether this preference on the part of our Colonies is always going to be one-sided. The Unionist Party holds that it is imperative that we should give our Colonies a preference in return, as they desire. *3 Colonial Preference. The Offer of the Colonies. " We have introduced the doctrine and policy of Preference towards Great Britain and ail the British Empire, and this is the policy by which we stand." — The Rt. Hon. Sir W. Laurier, G.C.M.G., Premier of Canada, in April, 1907. ( Tribune, April 3, 1907. ) " They declared that, if it so pleased the British people to meet them on that policy and to grant them preference for preference - , they were ready to meet the British people with concession for concession. That offer was made ten years ago. It stood to-day as it had stood ten years ago." — The Rt. Hon. Sir W. Laurier, G.C.M.G. Premier of Canada, in April, 1907. (Times, April 19, 1907. ) The Radical Answer : — To bang the door against the offer of the Colonies. In Edinburgh on May 18, 1907, Mr. W. S. Churchill, M.P. (R.) t then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, said ; — "They had banged it, and locked it, and barred it, and bolted it." Scotsman, May 20, 1907. The Unionist Answer : — To re-open wide the door the Radicals haYe banged. In Birmingham, on Nov. 14, 1907, the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., said: — " Were we installed in office to-morrow, clearly our first duty would be to summon again that Conference, which was so hastily dissolved, and open that door which was so rashly closed, and see if we cannot do something towards tha,t great ideal of Imperial unity in which every respon- sible statesman of the Colonies has borne a share." Times, November 15, 1907. 14 Tariff Reform. Mr. Balfour sums up the Question. The Poop IWIan's Policy. In Birmingham on September 22, 1909, he Baid :— " . . . What we want is business. The policy which gives you business is the polioy of the poor man. . . ." The only possible choice. " . . . Are you going to begin, what at all events I think, is the upward movement, the forward movement, the hopeful move- ment of Tariff Reform — or are you going to take the first, but yet no short step, on that downward track which leads you to the bottomless confusion of Socialistic legislation ? . . ." Birmingham Daily Post, Sept. 23, 1909. No increase in the cost of living. In Manchester on November 17, 1909, he said : — " . . . I should never touch, I should never give my adhesion to any fiscal change of importance which increased the cost of living — the ordinary Budget expenditure of the working classes of this country. . " Tariffs the only effective weapon, % . . It is quite impossible for us under modern conditions to hold our own against countries not less well equipped than our- selves for the great industrial fight — international fight — when we deliberately throw away the one weapon which they find effective. . ." Manchester Courier, Nov. 18, 1909. 15 The Patents and Designs Act, 1907. Protection— uncles another name! The Radicals do not like this Act to be called a protective measure, yet as a matter of fact it is so. It is Protection — neither more nor less. The object of the Act is, briefly, to exclude from Great Britain any goods patented in this country which are made abroad. That is to siy that a typewriter for instance, which was patented in Great Britain and manufactured in America, should now be made in this country or the patent which prevented other makers from copying the design would cease to have any effect. In Carnarvon on March 13, 1908, the Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M.P. (R.), then President of the Board of Trade, said : — " . . The Patents Bill was going to tell a great tale on the industries of the country. It was already bringing over a good many foreign industries, and he anticipated that before long the Bill would provide employment for tens of thousands of British workmen. ..." Times, March 14, 1908. Unionists have no quarrel whatever with this particular piece of Radical legislation. They think that the Patents Act is a good Act. But they do maintain that it is Protection, and that if those " tens of thousands " of British workmen are going to get employment by the Act, it is due simply to the fact that it is a Protective Act. If Protection will give employ- ment in this way — why not in others? 16 Patents and Dt** « *% "v o Paths Work and Mone> ^ ^_ to Britain by the Act. On Oct. 13, 1909, The Daily News (Radical published an interview with Messrs. Leopold Farmer & Sons, Auctioneers and Surveyors, of Gresham Street, London, in which it was stated that after 14 months* working of the Act, £538,000 was brought into the country by 24 foreign firms starting factories here. This is how the money was spent : — Land and premises acquired ... £138,650 Buildings and workers' houses ... £200,750 Plant, equipment, etc £ I 98,972 /538,372 Nothing could prove more clearly how Tariff Reform would bring money into this country by making it profitable for foreign firms to manufacture in the United Kingdom. We have protection already for some trades! Take the tobacco trade for instance. The Radicals in taxing tobacco, in spite of their cry of Free Trade, charge unmanufactured tobacco, containing 10 per cent, or more of moisture, 3/8 per lb. duty if unstripped, if it is stripped it pays an extra halfpenny per lb. For completely manufactured tobacco the difference is greater. In the Budget of 1909 the duties for unmanufactured tobacco were from 3/8 to 4/1 per lb., and for cigars (manufactured tobacco), 7/- per lb. — differences of from 2/1 1 to 3/4 per lb. This is quite satisfactory and Unionists don't grumble at it at all — BUT it is not Free Trade ! n »in. The Pate J is pledged to fight the evil "Uocti'xjLioa ^. vjucialism with all its power. Socialism means that the Factories, Mills, Work- shops, Railways, Canals, and Steamships shall be taken from their present owners and be worked by the State and by State officials. When this has been accomplished, the Socialists maintain that Poverty and Misery will cease to exist in the land. , Every thinking man must know that this is a fallacy. Every thinking man must know also that under Socialism there would be no more Freedom. To-day if a man does not like his master, he can go and work for another. Under Socialism there would be but one master — the State. What the State decreed, the man would have to do. There would be no appeal. The Power of the Officials. It is plain also that in the State Factories there must be some people to direct the others. These men would be the officials, and the working man would be completely under their thumb. Under Socialism there would be officials everywhere. Nothing could be undertaken without the consent of the officials. A man would not be able to marry without the permission of the officials. A man's children would be under the sole con- trol of the officials. Under Socialism everyone — except the officials — would be in a state of abject slavery. How would this decrease the misery in the world? THE UNIONISTS ARE PLEDGED TO OPPOSE SOCIALISM. The Radicals onlnge to the Socialists. 18 The Two Paths Clearly mapped out by Mr, Balfour, In Birmingham, on November 14, 1907, the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, MP., Leader of the Unionist Party, said : — ". . . . It seems to me that there is no difficulty or ambiguity about the subject at all. Socialism has one meaning, and one meaning only. Socialism means, and can mean, nothing else than that the community or the State is to take all the means of production into its own hands, that private enterprise and private property are to come to an end, and all that private enterprise and private property carry with them. That is Socialism, and nothing else is Socialism." [N.B.— Unionists refuse to follow this path, because they know it leads to destruction.] 11 Social Reform is when the State, based upon private enterprise, based upon private property, recognising that the best results can only be attained by respecting private property and encouraging private enterprise, asks them to contribute towards great national, social, and public objects. That is Social Reform. There is, there can be, or ought to be, no ambiguity between the two, and we need not discuss either liberty in its positive or liberty in its negative sense when we are dealing with this plain proposition n — Birmingham Daily Post. November 15, 1907. This is the path chosen by the Unionist Party. It leads to the desired goal of a Prosperous and Contented Country. 19 Socialism means Atheism. Little comment is needed on the blasphemous creed printed below, saving only to point out that Robert Blatchford is one of the Leaders of the Socialists and that The Clarion is the foremost Socialist periodical. The Times says of The Clarion, on January 14, 1909 : — ". ... It has been placed at the head of the list because it has by far the largest circulation and unquestionably exercises the widest influence. ..." That proves that the blasphemy we regretfully set out below is generally accepted by Socialists. Robert Blatchford's Socialist Creed: "I deny the existence of a Heavenly Father. I deny the efficacy of prayer. I deny the Providence of God. I deny the truth of the Old Testament and the New Testament. I deny the truth of the Gospels. I do not believe any miracle ever was performed. I do not believe that Christ was divine. I do not believe that Christ died for man. I do not believe that He ever rose from the dead. I am strongly inclined to believe that He never existed at all. " I deny that Christ in any way or in any sense ever interceded for man or saved man or reconciled God to man or man to God. I deny that the love or the help or the intercession of Christ, or Buddha, or Mahomet, or the Virgin Mary is of any use to any man. 20 SOCIALISM MEANS ATHEISM— (contd.) " I do not believe there is any Heaven, and I scorn the idea of Hell." — The Clarion, September 23, 1904. Robert Blatchford, Socialist, declares War on Religion. " I took my own course years ago, . . . believing that the Christian religion was untrue, and believing that all supernatural religions were inimical to human progress, and foreseeing that a conflict between Socialism and religion (so-called) was inevitable, I attacked the Christian religion .... It had to be do*?e, and it will have to be finished. No half-and-half measures will serve I believe that I did right, aid I believe that I did wisely." The Clarion, October 4, 1907. Cardinal Logue's Warning. Ir Londonderry on Sept. 29, 1907, His Eminence Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh, Roman Catholic Primate of all Ireland, said : — "... Socialism as it is preached on the Continent and as it has commenced and begun to be preached in these countries, is simply irreligion and atheism. Its policy is to banish God from the schools and from the hearts of the people. ..." Freeman' s Journal, Sept. 30, 1907. 21 Socialism means Free Love. There is no need to go into this nauseous subject at any length. The extracts given below will prove clearly that the leaders of the Socialists — try to wriggle out of it as they may — advocate Free Love with no uncertain voice. H. G. Wells says :— " He (the Socialist) no more regards the institu- tion of marriage as a permanent thing than he regards a state of competitive industrialism as a permanent thing." — Fortnightly Review. Nov., 1906. This is what William Morris and E. Belfort Bax say : — ". . . With the advent of social economic free- dom . . . property in children would cease to exist, and every infant that came into the world would be born into full citizenship . . . There would be no vestige of reprobation weighing on the dissolution of one tie and the forming of another . . ." "... A new development of the family would take place ... an association terminable at the needs of either party." "Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,** N.B. — William Morris was one of the founders of Socialism, and E. Belfort Bax is at the present moment acknowledged to be the most authoritative writer on the subject. Plain Speaking. In Kentish Town on Nov. 12, 1907, " Comrade n H. Quelch, a leading member of the Social Democratic Party, said : — " I am in favour of Free Love. What love are we in favour of if we are not in favour of Free Love? I do want to abolish marriage ..." Birmingham Evening Despatch, Nov. 13, 1907. There we have the evil thing proclaimed in its true colour* I 22 The Socialist Programme. At their Annual Conference held at Bristol on April 9, 1909, the Social Democratic Party revised their programme. The following are some of the reforms which, they assert, " must immediately be carried through." "Abolition of the Monarchy and all other hereditary authority." (This of course includes the House of Lords.) "Payment of Members of Legislative and Administrative Bodies and of Official Election Expenses out of the Public Funds." " Adult Suffrage." " Repudiation of the National Debt." " All Education to be . . . secular." " State Maintenance for all School Children." "The Public Ownership of Electricity, Water Power, and New Inventions." "Public provision of useful work for the unemployed at not less than trade union rates of wages." " The Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches." " Entire abolition of imprisonment for debt." ' ' Abolition of all indirect taxation and the institution of a cumulative tax on all incomes exceeding £300 a year." 4 ' The legislative enactment of a minimum wage for all workers." " Public ownership of the Land and all other Monopolies and Public Services." A careful study of this programme should con- vince anyone of the dangers and wickedness of Socialism. It must be remembered also that this is not the pronouncement of any individual Socialist, but the official programme of the Socialist Party. 23 The Unionist Party always the Friend of the Workers- The Radicals have a way of claiming that everything that^has ever been done in the way of labour legislation has come from their side. The Unionist Party absolutely denies this. The Unionist Party is the National Party, embracing the interests of every class and every member of the State. For this reason they have led the way towards Labour reforms of all kinds. Trade Unionism , It may be news to some people to learn that formerly it was criminal for workmen to combine together for any such purposes as those of obtaining better wages or shorter hours. It was the Conservative (then called the Tory) Party which remedied this most unjust state of affairs. In 1824 and 1825 a Tory Government passed Acts in favour of freedom of combination among working men. Mr. Sidney Webb (Socialist) in his " History of Trade Union- ism," 1902, says . . . The Act of 1825 . . . effected a real emancipation. . . . Trade Unionism therefore owes its existence to the fact that the Tory Party saw to it that every class should be fairly dealt with. The Unionist Party to-day, as the Tory Party of old, stands for justice, not for one class but for all classes, for the rich, the middle classes and THE WORKING CLASSES. 2 4 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS.— contd. The Radicals and the Trade Unions. A meagre record. Now we come to what the Radicals have done. In 187 1, Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister, and what he and his party did is best told by Mr. Robert Blatchford (Socialist), who wrote in an article on the subject in The Clarion of Feb. 16, 1906. "... The Act of 1 87 1 gave the Unions some advant- ages, but it made it dangerous to claim them. In fact the laws against the liberty of workmen were made worse than ever ..." What the Radicals did. The Radicals also passed a Criminal Law Amendment Act which imposed penalties on Trade Unions. This is what Mr. Blatchford says of it : — *' , . . This Criminal Law Amendment Bill . . . was a kind of English ' Crimes Act ' and an infamous attack on the liberty of the workers . . . Although Mr. Gladstone refused to repeal it, that abominable Act was smashed by the Tories a few years later.'* What the Conservatives did. "... At the beginning of 1875, the Tories being in office, Lord Cross passed . . . 'two Acts which completely satisfied the Trade Union demands' . . . [Mr. Blatchford is here quoting from Mr. Sidney Webb's "History of Trade Unionism "J of these Bills, which * formally and unconditionally repealed ' the Liberal Crimes Act, Mr. Webb speaks in a footnote on page 275 of his History thus : 'It is not surprising that this sweeping Parliamentary triumph evoked great enthusiasm in Trade Union ranks ! . . . * . . . And this Bill [Mr. Blatchford goes on] was described by Mr. Odger as •THE GREATEST BOON EVER GIVEN TO THE SONS OF TOIL.'" The Conservatives passed it! 25 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS. —contd. Some more Unionist Labour Laws. The Truck System. The truck system means the payment of a man's wages not in money but partly in kind, such as food, goods, etc. This system was very general in the past, and in some cases employers would keep stores and pay in goods — very often goods that the employee did not want. It can easily be seen that such a system was open to the gravest abuses. There was for one thing no check on the quality of the goods supplied. The Tories recognising these facts made one attempt at Reform in 1830, but the obstruction of the Radicals rendered their efforts fruitless. But in 1831, Bills were introduced in the House of Lords, which enacted that in future the entire amount of a man's wages should be paid in coin. The Conservative and Unionist Government, under Lord Salisbury, passed an Act in 1887, revising and extending the Acts mentioned above. Pines in Factories. The system of inflicting fines on workpeople for bad or careless work is one which requires very careful regulation to prevent it from becoming harsh and oppressive; so in 1896, the Unionist Government introduced an Act which regulated the levying of fines, and enacted that if fines were to be levied, a proper contract between the employer and workman must be signed, setting out what the fines are to be and what they are to be imposed for. A Radical Tribute. On April 1, 1897, Mr. Aaron Stewart, Secretary of the Notts. Miners' Association, said: — " If it had been any other Government in power, the measure would have been lauded up to the skies. He considered it to be of great benefit to the working claises." a6 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS— ( continued. Workmen's Compensation . The Charter -of Workmen's Compensation was the Unionist Act of 1897. This Act which has been of the greatest possible benefit to the working classes, made the employer in many trades liable for the death of, or injury to his workmen, although not in any way to blame for the accident through faults in his factory, etc. What a Radical member said of the Bill. In the House of Commons on May 18, 1897, Sir J. Joicey, M.P. (R.) (now Lord Joicey), said : — " In his opinion no more important Bill had been introduced during the last fifty years." Authorized Debates, vol. xlix., col. 767. In 1900, the benefits under this Act were extended to Agricultural labourers under a Bill introduced by Mr. Harry S. Foster, Conservative M.P. for North Suffolk, which the Unionist Govern- ment supported. Don't be misled — the Unionist Party has led in the matter of Workmen's Compensation as it has in all labour legislation. The Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897. This most useful Act absolutely keeps out of the country goods made by foreign prisoners — who are, of course, working for nothing except their food. The importation of such goods was bad for both manufacturers and workmen. The Unionists kept them out by passing this Act, but the Radicals opposed it. These measures proYe which is the working men's party. 37 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS— continued. Employers and Workmen Act, Another old law which was very unfair to the worker and manifestly unjust, was that which decreed that if a workman broke his contract with his employer he might be summarily imprisoned. Although this punishment could be inflicted on the workman, there was no redress to be had if the master broke his contract. The Conservative Party considered this a very unfair state of things, and so in 1867 they passed the Master and Servant Act. It prevented the workman being summarily arrested, improved the conditions of his trial, and lowered the penalties which could be inflicted. But that Act was far from being perfect, for the outstanding fact remained that while the workman who broke his contract was liable to be punished, the master who did the same thing was free from any penalty. The Radicals were in power from 1869 to 1874, but they did nothing to remedy this state of affairs. But as soon as the Conservatives came back into power they passed the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, which put master and man on an equality so far as breach of contract was concerned. The Conservative and Unionist Party is the Party that guards the interests of the working man. The Conservatives passed these Acts because there were abuses to bo abolished. The Acts were not mere Yote catching measures. 28 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS— continued. Factories and Workshops Acts, As was pointed out when dealing with Tariff Reform, the old school of Radicals was bitterly opposed to any interference whatever with the hours or conditions of labour. They were always Free Traders in the very fullest sense of the word. The result was that men, women and children were cruelly overworked. In this battle for the defence of the weak and poor — and remember that in those days it was an infinitely harder battle to fight than it would be now — the Tory Party bore the leading part, their opponents being THE RADICALS. In 1802 a Tory Government passed an Act reducing the hours of women and children in the mills, and making night work illegal. In 1819 ^ e Tories strengthened this Act. Lord Shaftesbury, then sitting on the Conservative side of the House as Lord Ashley, fought the cause of the children, the Liberals then being in power. In 1833 he succeeded in passing an Act which limited the hours of work and established Government Factory Inspection. The Radical mem- bers opposed this Bill most bitterly, Mr. Potter, member for Wigan, declaring that "a blow would be inflicted on the cotton trade from which it would never recover." — Hansard. Third Series, vol. xvi., p. 1002. In 1843 and 1844 the Conservatives under Sir Robert Peel introduced two Bills to regulate con- ditions of labour. The first was defeated by the action of the Dissenters and the second was passed as a modified measure, which by the way was opposed by John Bright. The Unionist record does not end here. 29 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS— contd. Factories and Workshops Acts. The Conservative and Unionist Record continued. In 1866 the Conservatives were in power once more and, true to the cause of the people, they introduced further factory legislation. In their first year of office, ventilation, cleanliness and overcrowding of factories were dealt with, while next year the Acts were extended to various other trades with the result that 1,500,000 women and children were admitted to the benefit of the Acts. During Mr. Gladstone's Govern- ment from 1 868- 1 874 only two very trifling measures were passed. In 1886 the Conservatives were once more in power, and in that year and in 1889 labour measures were passed. In 1891 the Factory and Workshop Act, the result of a House of Lords' Committee on the Sweating system, initiated by Lord Dunraven, a Conservative peer, was passed. This was a most thorough piece of work, which made drastic regulations for all workshops. It caused women's work to be more carefully supervised, it improved factory inspection and increased penalties. The Shop Hours Act of 1892 regu- lated the hours of young persons, and the interests of shop assistants were further guarded in 1899 when it was enacted that seats must be provided for female assistants. The Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 consolidated all the previous Acts and strengthened them. Of this Act the Radical Daily Chronicle of September 16, 1901, said : — " ... It cannot fail to be endorsed by the House as a practical and serviceable piece of legislation.** In his Presidential Address to the Trade Unions Congress, at Swansea, on September 3, 1901, Mr. C. W. Bowerman (now a Labour M.P.) said : — " ... In all respects it was the most comprehensive measure of the kind yet placed on the Statute Book . . . " Daily News, Sept. 4, 1901. 30 THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS- contmued. The Housing of the Working Classes — Unionist Record. They passed Acts in 1851 dealing with the regu- lation of lodging houses. In 1875 two important Artisans 9 Dwellings Acts were passed. In 1885 The Housing of the Working Classes Act was made law, and further Acts for the same purpose were passed in 1890 and 1900, while the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1899. Public Health. The Unionist and Conservative Party has safe* guarded PUBLIC HEALTH. Mr. Disraeli, in 1872, said that " the first consideration of a Minister should be the health of the people." The Radicals sneered at him and said that his was "a policy of sewage." But in 1875 his Government passed the Public Health Act. Various Acts were passed afterwards by the Unionist Party strengthening this measure. The provision of open spaces and the prevention of the adulteration of food have also beea dealt with by the party. 3* THE UNIONIST PARTY ALWAYS THE FRIEND OF THE WORKERS.-con^ Friendly Societies. Conservatives and Unionists have always been friends of thrift, and Mr. Disraeli's Government in 1875 passed an Act regulating Friendly Societies and making arrangements for their registration. Before this it often happened that the funds of Friendly Societies were embezzled by dishonest officials. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES were first recognised as separate institutions by Lord Derby's Conservative Govern- ment of 1852. BUILDING SOCIETIES were first put on a satisfactory footing by the Con- servatives in 1874. Note well that all these great popular movements were launched on the voyage to success by the Conservative Party. That party tended these move- ments in their youth, when they were weak and powerless ; and it has their interests equally at heart now that they are strong and powerful. The Unionist Party works for all Classes. 33 UNEMPLOYMENT. Unemployment is unfortunately one of our greatest and most pressing problems, and it is an evil which cannot very well be dealt with by the mere making of laws. Unemployment depends upon trade, and the best way to decrease this evil is to increase trade. The Radical contention that unemployment is worse abroad than it is in England is quite disproved by the following figures : — January February March April May ... June ... July ... August September . (The German figures are taken from the Reichs-Arbeitsblatt of Berlin ; the British from the Board of Trade Labour Gazette and the American from the American Fedevationist.) This means that in Germany and the United States unemployment has dropped some 50 per cent., while in the United Kingdom during the same period it has only dropped 15 per cent. How the Unionist Party has dealt with the subject. So far as legislation goes, Unionists can boast that at least they have done something. The Radicals, on the other hand, since they have been in power have done nothing. 3a ;rmany. U.K. U.S.A. 4/2 . .. 87 .. 9*8 4'i . 8-4 .., 7*4 3*5 • .. 8*2 .. . 8*6 2-9 . . 8*2 .. 5'6 2'8 . .. 7*9 - . 67 28 . .. 7*9 - 5*3 2*5 . .. 7'9 -. 57 2'3 • .. 77 •• ' 5 1 2'I .. 7-4 .. . 4-8 UNEMPLOYMENT--*™*!****. The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905. This Act was passed to deal with the question, and it was a sincere effort to do something at all events towards relieving the problem. Bad times were ahead and it was necessary by means of grants of money to tide over deserving cases of unemploy- ment until trade revived. But at the same time it must be remembered that the Unionist Party does not believe that the problem of unemployment can be solved by means of doles of money, or by making up jobs that supply no public want. British men want work — not charity, and work is only to be had by putting our manu- facturers and working men on an equality with their foreign competitors. This can only be achieved by Tariff Reform. A Good Act — although but a stop-gap. What a Radical— Mr. H. Broadhurst, M.P., said of the Bill in the House of Commons on June ao, 1905 :— " . • . In so far as the Bill aimed at helping men out of work to obtain profitable employ- ment, he thought it ought to be supported by the House as a good measure which ought to be passed into law this session . . . He thought the Government had shown some courage in producing such a Bill, which he welcomed.'' — Times, June 21, 1905. Following the passing of this Act, the Unionist Government appointed the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, whose report was published in 1909. 5f What the Radicals have done for the relief of Unemployment, NOTHING BUT DOLES! 1906— THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT! (A dole of ^200,000 was given). 1907— THEY HOPE THAT TOO MUCH WILL NOT BE EXPECTED FROM THEM! In the House of Commons on Feb. 20, 1907, the Rt. Hon. John Burns said : — "As to what the Government intended to do for the amendment of the Act (The Un- employed Workmen's Act passed by the Unionists in 1905) . . . Too much must not be expected from the Government at once in a matter so difficult and anxious. , . ." Times, Feb. 21, 1907. TN.B. They never amended this Act.] (£200,000 was voted for the unemployed.) 1908— THEY GO ON TALKING! In the House of Commons on Oct. 21, 1908, the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P. (R.), said : — ". . . Be that as it might, there could be no doubt that during the present autumn and winter we should be face to face, if nothing were done, with a large body of industrious men and women reduced, through no fault of their own, to idleness and want. ..." Times, Oct. 22, 1908. A dole of ^"300,000 was given. 1909— STILL TALKING! What HAVE the Radicals done for the relief of Unemployment? 95 The Radical Labour Exchanges Act, 1909. The object of this piece of legislation is to pro- vide buildings in all large towns and cities where a register will be kept of men who want work, and employers who want men. Now there is nothing in this scheme to which the Unionist Party take exception, beyond pointing out that there is a danger that the Radicals, with their mania for spending money and increasing the number of officials, will administer these exchanges in a very wasteful way. It is no good pretending, as some Radicals do pretend, that the question can be solved by such simple means. For instance, in Blairgowrie, on August 6, 1909, Rt. Hon. A. Ure, K.C., M.P. (R), the Lord Advocate of Scotland, said : ". . . Labour Exchanges ... in order to pre- vent dislocation in our industrial system, resulting from men seeking work where there was none, and employers seeking men and finding none." Dundee Advertiser, Aug. 7. 1909. Unfortunately the last mentioned cases are not often found in Free Trade England. Employers can always find men, but men can't find employers. In short, where there is no work the Labour Exchanges are no good, and where there is work they are not wanted. Labour Exchanges won't make work, and it is no good blinking the fact. Labour members don't think they will either. In an article in the Labour Leader of June 18, 1909, Mr. G. N. Barnes, M.P. (Labour) writes: — "... The number of unemployed will probably not be lessened thereby by a single person ..." If we had Tariff Reform, Labour Exchanges might be some good. Under Free Trade, the Labour Exchange system may be likened to the man who hurries to the railway station when there is no train to eatch. 36 Unemployment at Home. The Radicals will say that Great Britain is pros- pering under Free Trade — yet somehow it is difficult to believe them. See what has been said. Terrible Figures. In Perth, on June 5, 1903, the late Sir H. Campbell -Bannerman, afterwards Radical Prime Minister, said : — "In this country we know . . . that there is about 30 per cent, of our population underfed, on the verge of hunger ... 30 per cent, of 41 millions comes to something over 12 millions . . . " — Daily News, June 6, 1903. In Brighton on November 6, 1908, the Rt. Hon. A. Birrell, K.C., MP. (R.), said:— ". . . Unemployment is a chronic question, and a temporary question ... At present the buiiding trade is the most depressed trade in the whole country. There is more unemployment and more suffering connected with the building trade and timber trade than any other . . ." — Sussex Daily News, Nov. 7, 1908. Another Radical Minister explains what this means. At the Colonial Conference in London on May 6, 1907, the Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M.P. (R.), then President of the Board of Trade, said : — ". . . If you find a country which is not prosper- ing, its buildings are tumbling down, there is not much building going on . . . On the whole, building is about the best test of the prosperity of the country. It means that you are putting up new factories, new quays and new railways. ..." — Conference Blue Book. Cd. 3523 of 1907, p. 381. Here we have one Radical Minister who says that our Building Trade is in a bad way — ( that was in 1908 and no improvement has occurred since) — and another who says that by the Building Trade, the prosperity of a country may be tested. IS all well with England? Unemployment Abroad. The Working Classes in Germany. In the report on Workmen's Insurance Systems in Germany, published on Feb. u, 1909, Messrs. D. J. Shackleton, M.P., C. W. Bowerman, M.P., W. Thorne, M.P. and W. C. Steadman, M. P., Labour Members, say: — ". . . The absence of si urns in the manufact- uring quarters of the Towns visited (Berlin, Leipsic, Dresden, Frankfort-on-Main, and elsewhere) was also noticeable. ... No beggars, feeble or emaciated men in tatters and rags, were en- countered in the streets. Hundreds upon hundreds of unemployed were seen by the deputation, but they seemed to lack that dejection and absolute misery that unfortunately is so frequently met with in the streets of English towns. . . ." In quoting from the above report Unionist Tariff Reformers have no wish to disguise the fact that there is some unemployment in Germany. In every industrial community lack of work arises now and then. But what Tariff Reformers do maintain — and the Labour members quoted above bear out their contention — is this : That while Unemployment is ohronio in England — it is only oooasional in Germany. 38 THE GROWTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT UNOER THE RADICALS. The following table shows the percentage of unemployed in the last year of the late Unionist Government (1905) and the four years with the Radicals in power. The figures are compiled from returns made to the Board of Trade by certain Trade Unions, and they only represent about a quarter of the total number of Trade Unionists. They do not show the number of Non-Unionists, the casual labourers, who are without work. There are no figures to show this, but it is very probable that the percentage of Non- Unionists unemployed is considerably higher than that of the Trade Unionists. Figures that speak for themselves. Percentage unemployed at end of each month in 1905 1906 1907 1908 January- 6*3 4*3 3*9 5-8 February . . . 57 4* 1 35 6'o March 5'2 3*4 3'2 6-4 April 5'2 3'2 2'8 7'i May 47 3*i 3'° 7*4 June 4-8 3*2 3* 1 7'9 July 47 3*i 3' 2 7 - 9 August 4*9 3*3 3-6 8'5 September ... 4-8 3*3 4" 1 9"3 October 4 -b 3*9 4-2 95 November ... 4*3 4-0 45 87 December ... 4*5 4*4 5* 9-1 Mean 5.o 3.6 3-7 7.8 87 8-4 8'2 8'2 7*9 7'9 7*9 77 7*4 7*i 7.9 (iomths.) NOTE. The first four columns of figures for the years 1905-8, inclusive, constitute the "revision" as published in January, 1909, in the Labour Gazette. To these are added, in the fifth column, the figures, so far as available, for the present year from the same source. 39 Discharges from Woolwich Arsenah Economy run macL In the House of Commons on Oct. 15, 1909, the T U. Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P. (R.), the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question, said : — ". . . The total number discharged on reduc- tion from Dec. 1, 1905, to Oct. 10, 1908, is 3,187. The total number discharged on reduction frum June 1, 1902, to Nov. 30, 1905, was 4,567 " — (Official Paper). It must be recollected that the South African War terminated in 1902, and that therefore it was necessary, in order to bring the numbers down to the normal figure, for the Unionist Party to reduce the large staff which had been engaged while the war was in progress. The Radical Party has gone beyond that and has made its discharges as a result of a cheese-parins: economy. These wholesale discharges imperil the efficiency of the Ar-enal. In time of war we should need every man available. Discharges still going on* In a letter to the Daily Mail of March 29, 1909, Mi. Gilbert Slater, Chairman, Borough of Woolwich Discharges Conference, writes : — " During the past fortnight eighty more men have been discharged from Woolwich. It has been stated in the House of Commons that, within last year, 38,000 men have been taken on in the German (Krupps) National Arsenal. . ." 40 American Horseshoes for the British Army! AND British Work for American Hands ! In the House of Commons on August 28, 1907, the late Sir Howard Vincent elicited from the Radical Seer? tary for War an admission which illustrates the hidebound views of the " free importers." "In reply to Sir H. Vincent, who asked the Secretary for War if an order for 100,000 pairs of horseshoes had recently been placed by the War Department in America; if 417 kegs of horseshoes which arrived this month for C. & Co., per steamer Minnetonka, 808 kegs per steamer Minneapolis, and 435 kegs per steamer Minnehaha, from New York, were in reality for the shoeing of British Army horses; and, having regard to the depression in the horseshoe trade in the United King- dom and among farriers generally, owing to the increase in the use of motors why If s Majesty's Government did not give this order in a way to support British industries and British workers. American Horseshoes for the British Army!— contd. " Mr. Haldane said : — " The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative ; to the second that these are probably the shoes ordered on the contract referred to. As regards the final paragraph, I can only say that in the interests of the econom- ical administration of the Army, I cannot disregard sources of supply which are satisfactory both as regards price and efficiency ."—Timet, August 29, 1907. " This," said Mr. Haldane, in a speech at Abernethy on September 7, 1907, " is an illustration in the concrete of a FREE TRADE POLICY!" Electors, what do you thinK of this from the Radical-Socialist Government who always din into your ears that they are the "friends of the people." At the lowest calculation 50 per cent, of the cost of the manufacture of horseshoes repre- sents workmen's wages. 42 Old Age Pensions. The Unionist Party is entirely in favour of Old Age Pensions. It has always believed that aged toilers should be assisted by the State, and a distinguished member of the Party, the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., did most of the early spade-work which has rendered the grant of pensions possible. Radicals admit this. Lord Wolverhampton (R), better known as Sir Henry Fowler, said in the House of Lords on July 20, 1908 :— "Of all the Hying Statesmen who had taken a great interest in Old Age Pensions, Mr. Chamberlain stood out most distinctly as the person who had popularised the question."— Times, July 21, 1908. In the House of Commons on June 15, 1909, the Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M.P. (R), said :— ". . . The Statesman who on the whole has done more to popularise the question of Old Age Pensions in this country than any- one else — I mean the Rt. Hon. gentleman the member for West Birmingham, Mr. J. Chamberlain. . . ." Authorised Debates, col. 566. Had it not been for the South African War tha Unionist Party would have been able to grant Old Age Pensions. That unavoidable conflict prevented them from passing this most necessary measure of relief for the aged poor. Let it be remembered that this war received the assent of the vast majority of the nation, including many prominent members of the Radical Party. It is utterly untrue to say that the Unionist Party never intended to give Old Age Pensions. 43 Old Age Pensions, A case where actions speak louder than words. A great defect of the Radical Old Age Pensions scheme is that any poor old man or woman who has received Parochial Relief is not allowed to receive the weekly sum which makes all the difference between happiness and misery. The members of the Unionist Party do not believe in this exclusion. The fact should be noted that 142 members who voted that this relief should be given included : — Mr. A. J. Balfour, M.P. Sir A. Acland-Hood, Bart., M.P. Mr. J. Austen Chamberlain, M.P. Mr. Jesse Gollings, M.P. Mr. A. Akers-Douglas, M.P. Mr. A. Bonar Law, M.P. Mr. Walter H. Long, M.P. Mr. F. E. Smith, M.P. Among the 257 Radical members who voted that these old people should have nothing were the following Radical Cabinet Ministers : — Mr. H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P. Mr. Winston S. Churchill, M.P. Mr. H. J. Gladstone, M.P. Mr. R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P. Mr. R. M'Kenna, M.P. Mr. A. Birrell, K.C., M.P. Mr. S. C. Buxton, M.P. Sir E. Grey, Bart., M.P. Mr. L. Y. Harcourt, M.P. Mr. W. Runciman, M.P. Mr. D. Lloyd George, M.P. That tells its own story. It proves that the Unionist Party is the real National Party. It has the interests of ALL classes at heart. 44 Old Age Pensions. The Radicals, not ashamed at the exposure of the Chinese Slavery lie, are now spreading a tale that if the Unionist Party returns to power Old Age Pensions will be stopped. Mr. Balfour's absolute denial of this Statement. On being written to about these statements the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., leader of the Unionist Party, replied : — " The electioneering methods revealed in your letter must cause surprise and in- dignation even in the minds of those who remember the campaign of mendacity set on foot at the last General Election in con- nection with Chinese Labour. THE NATIONAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE OLD- AGE PENSIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1908 IS ONE WHICH NO PARTY AND NO GOVERNMENT WOULD VIOLATE IF THEY COULD, OR COULD VIOLATE IF THEY WOULD. THEY MIGHT AS WELL RE- PUDIATE THE NATIONAL DEBT. And this fact must be perfectly well known to the unscrupulous persons who endeavour to make political capital out of the fears and anxieties of aged and helpless people on whose ignorance they think they can im- pose with impunity. I am loth to believe that many persons are to be found ready to lend themselves to methods of political warfare so utterly degraded." Times, September 30, 1909. A Radical Paper Disowns the Latest Radical Falsehood. The " DAILY CHRONICLE," the leading Radical paper, on September 30, 1909, admits that : "There \s no truth in the state- ment that 'If the Unionists were returned to office they would discon- j tinue the payment of old age pensions.' " 45 i The Old Age Pensions Scandal. In Newbury, on October 18, 1909, the Rt. Hon. A. Ure, K.C., M.P. (R.), the Radical Lord Advocate of Scotland, said that if the Unionists were returned to power the pensions of the old people would be imperilled. This lie he repeated during the next few days. On October 26, 1909, the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., speaking in London, said that this statement of Mr. Ure's was "a frigid and calculated lie." On November 3, 1909, the subject was discussed in the House of Commons, and in the course of the debate the Radical Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith, K.C. (R.), said :— ". . . . It is an insult to their (the Unionist Party's) honour and conscience to suggest^that they could possibly bring to a conclusion a system of non-contributory old age pensions. The old age pensioner may sleep peacefully in his bed." — The Times, Nov. 4, 1909. The Unionist Party is the friend of the old age pensioner. The Unionists will never stop old age pensions, and any statements that the pensions will cease are lies, 4$ THE HOUSE OF LORDS. The Radical Party are lashing themselves into a fury because the House of Lords has passed the following Resolution about the Budget : — " That this House is not justified in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the Country." All the violent talk of Radicals is because the House of Lords has asked that the people may be allowed to vote on the Budget. Inquire of the Elector if he does not think himself that on so serious a matter as this Budget he ought to give his vote ? That the Budget is a new and revolutionary venture is proved by Mr. Lloyd George, M.P., himself. In the House of Commons, on October 22nd, 1909, he said : — " Here, I confess, there is a larger number of New and Novel Methods of Raising Taxation than have been incorporated in any single Bill within the last 48 or 50 years." Official Report. The Radical Government wanted to pass this Budget without consulting the Country at all ! ! and it is the House of Lords who have made them do so. Every bit of violent language against the House of Lords by Radicals is therefore an insult to the people because all the House of Lords has done is to refer the Radicals to the people. When statements are made against the Con- stitution of the House of Lords, it is well to remember that the great majority of the Peers have been created in recent times by Radical Governments. 47 Down with the House of Lords 1 WORDS ! The Radicals declare that they are determined at all costs to deprive the House of Lords of its powers of rejection. As far back as 1894, Mr. Gladstone in his last speech in the House of Commons, on March 1, said : " In some way or other a solution will have to be found for this tremendous contrariety and incessant conflict upon matters of high principle and profound importance between the represent- atives of the people and those who fill a nomina- ted chamber." NOTHING HAPPENED! Then again on June 24, 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman moved the following resolution in the House of Commons : — " That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representa- tives, it is necessary that the power of the other House, to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law, as to secure that within the limits of a single parlia- ment the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."— Times, June 25, 1907. BUT NOTHING HAPPENED! Finally Mr. Asquith, just after the House of Lords had rejected the Licensing Bill, said, at the National Liberal Club, on December 11, 1908 : — "... I invite the Liberal Party to treat the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics — dominating issue because, in the long run, it overshadows and absorbs every other."— Daily Chronicle (R.), Dec. 12, 1908. BUT STILL NOTHING HAPPENED! except this : — THE RADICALS EVERY YEAR CREATED NEW PEERS! 48 Down with the House of Lords! ■ How the Radicals are abolishing the Upper House ! They created : — In their first year of office JlO P^fS. In their second year of office +£ pCCrS. In their third year of office / pCCrS. In their fourth year of office fj pCCrS. Total - PEERS CREATED 1830— 1909. By the RADICALS 255 By the CONSERVATIVES 181 In the Radical Cabinet of 19 members, in November, 1909, there were 6 Peers! No comment is needed! 49 Past and Present. The Radicals object to the House of Lords very strongly for many reasons. The principal one is that it does not pass every hasty and ill-conceived Bill that they choose to put before it. But of course they cannot be expected to admit that, so they look about for other reasons. They say, therefore, that the House of Lords is TOO OLD, that it is a relic of the Middle Ages ; that it is com- posed, not of great men, but of the descendants of great men. But they contradict themselves by saying also that the House of Lords is TOO NEW! In a leaflet which is published by the Radicals they complain that of the members of the House of Lords " four-fifths have been created since 1750, more than three-fifths since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and more than one-half in the nineteenth century alone." What do these Contradictions Prove ? They prove — much as the Radicals may dislike the idea of if— that the House of Lords combines the virtues of the Past and the Present. The Past is represented by descendants of the famous Peers of other days. The Present by the great men who have been elevated to the House because of services to the Country by Sea and Land, as Judges, and as Men of Business. 50 Some Members of the House of Lords. These are descendants of Famous Peers of the Past. They are known to be just landlords, and men who have done much for agriculture and the dwellers in the country : The Duke of Norfolk (title created in 1483). The Duke of Bedford (title created in 1694). The Duke of Portland (title created in 1716). The Marquess of Salisbury (title created in 1789). GREAT STATESMEN (Radical as well as Unionist). The Marquess of Lansdowne. Viscount St. Aldwyn. Viscount Milner. The Earl of Rosebery (R). Lord Curzon. The Earl of Cromer. Viscount Morley (R). Earl Cawdor. Viscount Wolverhampton (R). The Earl of Aberdeen (R). The Marquess of Londonderry. GREAT MEN OF BUSINESS. Lord Avebury (Banker). Lord Airedale (Manufacturer [R]). Lord Strathcona (Railway Magnate). Lord Rothschild (Banker). Lord Pirrie (Shipbuilder [R]). Lord Allerton (Railway Director). FAMOUS LAWYERS. The Earl of Halsbury. Lord Loreburn (R). Lord Alverstone. Lord Coleridge (R). FAMOUS SOLDIERS. Viscount Kitchener. Earl Roberts. Viscount Wolseley. This list does not exhaust the number of f: mous men who sit in the House of Lords. Need \\s fear that Laws passed by such men as these \ J bt other than just, fair and well considered ? 51 The House of Lords and the Men who are in it. The Radicals in their attacks upon the House of Lords say that it is composed of wealthy idlers, men who have no idea of the way in which a country should be governed. Like most Radical statements, this will not bear close examination. Cold facts absolutely disprove it. Does this list bear out the argument ? Of the members of the House of Lords, at the end of 1908, the following members had been engaged in the various professions set out below : — 170 Service in the House of Commons Service in Offices of State (exclusive of Royal Household) War Service (including 68 in South Africa) Royal Navy (Service in) Regular Army ,, Yeomanry Militia Volunteers Judges and Eminent Lawyers ... Colonial Governors and Ministers Civil and Diplomatic Service ... Clergy (exclusive of Bishops) ... Mayors and County Councillors 89 104 19 181 156 133 104 19 38 41 2 140 Of the existing members of the House of Lords, 124 owe their seats to personal services, or hold them in right of bishoprics or by election, and not through hereditary title. This is not a Bad Record, is it ? 52 Single Chamber Government means Tyranny, The Socialists and many of the more advanced Radicals wish to abolish the House of Lords altogether. Other Radicals say that they would not mind having a second Chamber (that is a House of Lords) provided that it had no powers. They would let it make humble suggestions as to what should be done, but they would not give it any power to carry them cut ! What this would Mean ! It would mean that the House of Commons could force a measure on the country abso- lutely against its will. What countries are governed by One Chamber only? Andorra Costa Rica Korea Bulgaria Honduras Afghanistan Greece Salvador Abyssinia Nicaragua Morocco Two Questions. Can it be said that these nations are so truly great and flourishing that our glorious British Empire must follow their example at the bidding of the Socialists ? Every great country has its House of Lords — shall England descend to the level of Abyssinia? 53 SINGLE CHAMBER GOVERNMENT — (contd). SAFEGUARDS AGAINST HASTY LEGISLATION. The Constitution of the United States recognises the necessity for checking hasty and ill-considered legislation. In that country there is the House of Representatives, the equivalent of our House of Commons, and the Senate, which fulfils the office of our House of Lords. What the Senate does. It can originate Bills. It has to give its assent to all treaties, and thus influences the foreign policy of the country, but the assent of the House of Representatives is not required for this. It has to give its assent to the appointment of Judges and Ambassadors. It has the right to propose amendments to financial Bills, and to increase the amount voted. It can refuse its assent enever the Nation had been In V ©with a measure, the House of In the® co in the end been no permanent Mr. T. Sum^v ^South Wales Daily News, Oct. 31, beginning majority i ^ ment tax w3 „ Licensing, Mr. BALFOUR'S ACT OF 1904. What it has accomplished. Between the beginning of 1905 (when the Act came into operation) and the end of 1908, no less than 4056 licensed houses were closed, and compensation was paid to those who were interested in them. For the first time the 30,000 ante-1869 beer- houses were brought under the discretion of the magistrates, so that they could be closed if not required by the neighbourhood. Public houses are better managed. In 1904, before the Act came into operation, 1133 licensed victuallers were proceeded against. By 1908 this number had dropped to 642. People are more sober. In 1908, the number of people convicted for drunkenness compared with 1905 showed a decrease of 19,368 cases. With the country making such steady progress towards sobriety what need was there for further Licensing Laws? 71 Licensing. Mr. Balfour's Act of 1904. The Unionist Government under Mr. Balfour saw plainly that in many places a reasonable reduc- tion in the number of public houses was a thing to be desired. The question was — how was this to be managed so that everybody, innkeeper, brewer and the general public who had taken shares in brewery companies, should be treated fairly. Now — although the Radicals deny it — there is no doubt whatever that public house licences have been treated for generations as the property of the holder, to be taken away only if the house were badly con- ducted. They have been bought and sold for years on this understanding, and the State has taxed them as if they were the property of the holder. Would it be fair or honest to take away licences without giving any compensation in return ? The Unionists have always said that it would not he honest to do this. That is why they passed their Licensing Act of 1904. This Act provides that the licensed traders in a district shall all contribute so much every year to a fund, which — when it has accumulated sufficiently — shall be used to buy out the public houses that are not required. This is fair, because the houses that remain are enabled to do a larger trade on account of competition being less. Not a penny of this compensation is drawn from the Public Purse. It is collected from the trade ! When the Radicals say that the Unionists have endowed the Brewers and the Publicans, ask them to prove it by showing you the amounts in the Parliamentary Estimates. Licensing, Mr. Asquith's Licensing Bill, 1908. There is not sufficient space here to set out in full all the monstrous proposals of this Bill. Here are five good reasons against it : FIRSTLY, it was unjust because it proposed to take away the licences of public houses and hotels at the end of fourteen years. (This was afterwards extended to 21 years). In plain language this means that the man who paid for his licence already, would, at the end of the time limit, have to pay for it all over again ! SECONDLY, it interfered with the liberty of the subject, because it proposed all kinds of worrying restrictions, such as increased closing on Sundays. It would have made the distance to be covered by bona fide travellers on Sundays, SIX miles instead of three. THIRDLY, it would have caused incon- venience and privation, because by shutting up inns wholesale, travellers in the country would have been deprived of means of rest and refreshment. FOURTHLY, it was not a temperance measure because it would have increased the number of drinking clubs and led to secret drinking. FIFTHLY, it would have caused ruin to thousands of investors in Brewery and Hotel Companies. The Trades of brewing, distilling and innkeeping are perfectly lawful trades, and those people engaged in them have the same rights as other people. There are scores of other reasons why the Licensing Bill was a thoroughly Bad Bill. But as, happily, it is dead and gone, there is no need to set them out here. But remember that the Licensing Bill is a good example of the kind of laws, harsh, restrictive and unfair, that Radicals will pass if you give them a chance. 73 The Education Difficulty. The question of Education is a very confused one, and it is very hard to write of it without using a good many technical terms. It will be well, therefore, to give here a brief explanation of their meaning. DENOMINATIONAL TEACHING.— This is a religious teaching given according to the beliefs of an accepted religion. For instance, a Jew in teaching the Old Testament would consider a passage to have one meaning, while a Roman Catholic would maintain that, according to his religion, it meant something very different. It also means that besides the Bi|?le, the dogmas of a Religion are taught ; in the case of a child belonging to the Church of England this would include the Prayer Book and Church Catechism. VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS (now called Non- Provided Schools). — Schools built and endowed by the Church of England, Roman Catholics, Jews, Wesleyans, etc., for the teaching of their own religious beliefs. Up to 1902 these schools were supported almost entirely by the voluntary contribu- tions of the members of those religions. BOARD SCHOOLS (now called Provided Schools). — These are the schools which have been built out of public money in consequence of the passing of the Education Act of 1870. They are maintained out of the Rates. COWPER - TEMPLE CLAUSE.— A pro- vision of the Education Act of 1870, which laid down that in no Board School were the creeds or catechisms of any particular religion to be taught. It means in practice that nothing but the Bible and the Lord's Prayer may be learned. SECULAR EDUCATION.— Education from which all reference to religion is omitted. The Bible may be read in schools where Secular Educa- tion is the rule, but it is treated as history only, and not in any way as an inspired message to mankind. 74 THE EDUCATION DIFFICULTY — (contd.) What Voluntary Effort has done for Education. The following figures show the number of public elementary schools in the year 1907-8. Council Schools 7,408 Voluntary Schools ... 13,213 20,621 The various denominations which supported these voluntary schools were as follows : — Church of England 11,180 Wesleyan 294 Roman Catholic 1,064 Jews 12 British and other schools 602 Not maintained by local authorities 61 13,213 Educational Statistics, Cd. 4885, 1909, Note that Church of England schools form more than half of the above total. M Education, The Real Point at Issue. The one thing that makes the whole question of Education so very difficult of settlement is : That members of the Church of England, Jews and Roman Catholics — and to some extent Wesleyans — believe that their children should be taught, not the Bible merely but all the tenets of their faith. This teaching should be given by members of these religions, and should form a portion of the daily instruction. To those bodies undenominational teaching is insufficient, they want more than simple Bible teaching, which may be given by a teacher professing any religion, or possibly, no religion at all. But — this one point must always be borne in mind — Simple Bible teaching such as is given in the Board Schools is, and has always been, quite accept- able to the great majority of Nonconformists. Konconformist beliefs may to some extent be said to consist of " plain Bible teaching," and therefore the instruction of the Board Schools is denominational as far as Nonconformists are concerned. What does this mean? It means that Nonconformists have since 1870 been provided by the State with rate-supported schools in which a form of religious instruction (Simple Bible teaching) has been given which does not clash with their beliefs. But it did clash with the beliefs of Church people, Jews and Roman Catholics, who both paid for the upkeep of their own schools out of their own pockets and paid Rates which provided Simple Bible teaching for Nonconformist children. This state of things was unjust and no amount of argument can prove the contrary, 76 What the Unionists have done for Education, THE ACT OF 1902. Why the Act was wanted. A glance at the state of things existing prior to 1902 will show quite plainly that the Act was wanted — and wanted urgently. At this time there were two kinds of schools, Board Schools maintained entirely out of the rates, and Voluntary Schools which were kept up partly by a Government Grant and partly by the contributions of members of various religious bodies. But as the requirements of Education became more and more exacting the supporters of Voluntary Schools found that they could not afford to pay rates for the Board Schools and keep up the Voluntary Schools out of their private charity. Education suffered in consequence. What the Act did. It put the Voluntary Schools — now called Non- Provided Schools — under public control, supported them from the rates, and insisted that a system of education should be carried out in them, equal to that given in the Board — now called Provided — Schools. As a return to the various religious bodies who had paid the money for the building of the schools, denominational instruction, whether Church of England, Roman Catholic, Jewish or Wesleyan, was permitted to go on as before, but under public control. The Act created one single central authority for the whole country. It simplified and improved the working of the schools throughout the country. It afforded a ladder by which the child of the poorest parents might rise from the public elementary school to the University. The Act of 1902 has done more for Education than any other law on the Statute Book. 77 The RADICALS and EDUCATION. What they have attempted: — (1.) Mr. Birrell's Bill of 1906. (2.) Mr. M'Kenna's Bill of 1907. (Passive Resister's Bill.) (3.) Mr. M'Kenna's Bill of 1908. (4.) Mr. Runciman's Bill of 1908. What they have done: — (1.) Nothing. (2.) Nothing. (3.) Nothing. (4.) Nothing. What they have done for the Administration of Education : — They have administered Education unfairly. They have favoured the Provided Schools and have dealt hardly with the Non-Provided Schools (that is, Schools where denominational teaching is given) . The Radicals have not played the game. It has always been the boast of Englishmen that when a party is in office it administers the laws impartially, whether it holds with them or not. The Radicals have altered all that. This is no fancy picture. Listen to what the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., said in the House ot Commons on February 16, 1909 : — •* What is the inevitable comment which we are driven to make? It is that the Government, having failed to carry through Parliament any of their education plans, are determined to revenge themselves upon the voluntary school*. ■ • t ."—The Times, Fsbnuury *7 fl 1909. ft The Result of it all. What has been the result of all this desperate fighting over the Education problem ? This is a most important question to ask. If — as the Radicals say — Mr. Balfour's Act of 1902 was so unjust and oppressive, surely there should be a general feeling all over the country that the law should be altered, at whatever the cost of time and trouble. But it is a matter of common knowledge that Mr. Balfour's Act is working admirably, and that the country, generally, is well satisfied with it. The agitation against the Education Act is kept up by such political Nonconformists as " Dr." Clifford and his band of Passive Resisters. While Unionists are only too ready to grant any concessions which would make for permanent peace between the great body of Nonconformists and the great body of Churchmen, they refuse, absolutely, to sacrifice religion and education at the bidding of " Dr.*' Clifford and his brother fanatics. RADICAL PRAISE. In the House of Commons on July 11, 1907, Mr. A. G. C. Harvey, M.P. (R.), said :— " . . Re admitted that the Act of 1902 had had the effect of improving elementary education by the raising of the salaries of the teachers and by stimulating public interest in education . . . " Author iz$d Debates. 79 The Result of it all — (continued). SOCIALISTS APPROVE OF IT. The New Age of Nov. 25, 1909, says that the Act was a " a wise and salutary " measure. A LABOUR MAN SPEAKS. In an interview on Nov. 19, 1909, Mr. W. S Sanders, the Labour candidate at Portsmouth, said : — "... I am interested in getting all the elementary schools placed upon an efficient footing. The Education Act on its secular side has done that. It has brought the buildings of the non-provided schools up to the highest standard, given the schools more highly qualified teachers, and furnished them with improved equipment. The public authorities have now control of all the schools. . . ." — Times, Nov. 20, 1909. THE TEACHERS' OPINION OF IT. In Morecambe on April 12, 1909, Mr. C. W. Hole, President of the National Union of Teachers, said : — "... In 1902 the beneficent Bill of Mr. Balfour — for beneficent it was in many of its provisions — provided that all the elementary schools of England and Wales should be financed by the local education authorities. Many of these schools had previously been wretchedly staffed, and were furnished with apparatus almost prehistoric, while in some the education of the children was necessarily far from being satis- factory. . . . Unfortunately a few education authorities, particularly some in Wales, appeared to regard the teachers of the non-provided schools as the pariahs of their profession, and unjustly refused to place them upon the same scale of remuneration as their colleagues in the provided schools. Yet generally after 1902 the authorities rose to the occasion. . . . The consequence had been that a far higher level of education now prevailed in the voluntary schools than was possible before. . . ."—Times, April 13, 1909. 80 THE NAVY. The Cawdor Programme. In 1905 the Unionists laid down a fixed programme for future naval construction. It was issued by Lord Cawdor, First Lord of the Admiralty, on behalf of the Unionist Government ; and it came to be known as the " Cawdor Programme " (Cd. 2791 of 1905. ) The "Cawdor Programme" laid down a plain and simple plan. It declared (p. 7) that "at the present time strategic requirements necessitate an output of four large armoured ships annually." It therefore pro- posed that four ships of the Dreadnought class should be begun in each year ; so that — the period of building being two years — there would be eight of these ships in the course of construction in any given year. What the Radicals did. In pursuit of their reckless policy of " economy " — at any cost, the Radicals set aside the "Cawdor Programme." In their first year the Radicals laid down three ships of the Dreadnought class ; in their second year, again three ; in their third year, only two. So that, instead of twelve large ships (built or building) which the " Cawdor Programme *' would have given us in these three years, the Radicals have given us (built or building) only eight. That is, the Eadicals in these three years per- mitted our shipbuilding programme to fall by four ships below the number which the ''Cawdor Programme %} prescribed as necessary for safety. 81 The Radicals and the Navy. Mr. ASQUITH confesses he was wrong. In the House of Commons on March 16, 1909, the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquitbj K.C., M.P., the Prime Minister, said : — 41 In a speech I made exactly a year ago on this subject . . I made two assumptions . The first assumption was that the German paper programme was one which might not be realized, and certainly would not be ex- ceeded. That has turned out not to be true. . . . The second hypothesis was as to the rate of shipbuilding. ... I said, with some confidence, that whereas it would take the Germans thirty months to build one of these ships, we could do it in twenty-four. . . I am sorry to say that is not the case." Times, March 17, 1909. Mr, M'KENNA did not know. In the House of Commons on March 16, 1909, he Rt. Hon. R. M'Kenna, M.P., First Lord of the kdmiralty, said : — 1 ' The difficulty in which the Government find themselves placed at this moment is that we do not Know — as we thought we did 82 The Radicals and the Navy— contd — the rate at which German con- struction is taking place* • . . We have to take stock of the new situation, in which we reckon not nine but 13 German ships may be completed in 1911, and in 1912 such further ships, if any, as may be begun in the course of the next financial year, or laid down in April, 1910 • . We shall in the course of 1911 have 16 of these modern ships, as against 13 ships for which Germany is already making provision. The German law provides for four more ships to be laid down in 1910-11. But if the construc- tion of these ships is accelerated — as I under- stand was the case of the four ships of the 1909-10 programme — they would be com- pleted by April, 1912. Therefore on that date Germany would have 17 Dreadnoughts and Invincibles. But even if no acceleration takes place before April, 1910, this number would be completed in the autumn of 1912. This is a contingency which His Majesty's Government have to take into account. We cannot afford to run risks. " Times, March 17, 1909. These two oonfessions of ignorance from two prominent Radical Ministers absolutely disprove the assertion that the Unionists raised a Naval " scare.' ' It was the Radicals who raised the scare ! 83 THE KIAVY. The Little Englanders at Work. In the House of Commons on May 9, 1906, the Radicals passed a resolution protesting against the increase of armaments. On June 21, 1906, a deputation of Radical members waited on the Prime Minister (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) to induce the Government to build fewer warships. Their request was backed by a memorial bearing the signature of 120 Radical members. In the House of Commons on March 5, 1907, Mr. J. A. Murray Macdonald, M.P. (Radical), said: — ". . . He knew some people thought Germany was strengthening her fleet against us. He did not believe that ; but even were it the fact, he still held it would be wiser for us to reduce expenditure.*' Times, March 6, 1907. In the House of Commons on March 14, 1907, Mr. A. Lupton, M.P. (Radical), said:— ". . . The Two-Power Standard was a vain idea for this country to cherish . , . This country couid be very happy if it were a little humble, like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland . . .'' — Times, March 15, 1907. In London on Feb. 27, 1908, Lord Courtney of Pen with (Radical), said : — ". . . They did not ask for disarmament, but they should be ready to take some risk, if risk there was, in not increasing armaments." — Daily News, Feb. 23, 1908. In the House of Commons on March 17, 1909, Mr. A. Henderson, M.P. (Labour), said : — ". . . There was no justification whatever for asking the country to agree to this alarming expenditure . . ." — Times, March 18, 1909. Our Yery existence depends upon the Nayy— yet the Radicals play with it in this way 1 84 Britain's Safeguard- Her Wavy, Why does Great Britain require a Powerful &§avy? First. Because the sea is our frontier and therefore we require a strong Navy to guard it. France, Germany, and Russia who have no ocean flowing between them and their neighbours are obliged to keep great battalions of soldiers always ready along their borders. We in Britain can do without the immense armies — but we must have a b?g Navy. Second. Because we are dependent for our food supplies on what comes to us from abroad. If war were to break out there would immediately be a risk of a shortage of food, because the enemy would attack the ships which were bringing our bread to us. For this reason we must have a Navy so strong that we can keep absolute command of the trade routes and guard the ships which bring us food. Third. We have dependencies and colonies all over the world and it is necessary that we should have ships ready to quell local disturbances and uprisings and to protect British men and women in foreign parts. The British Navy has to do the police work of the world. We have never shirked our duty in this respect, and we are never likely to, so long as the Unionist Party has any voice in the ordering of the affairs of the nation. Our Navy comes before everything — it is our all-in-all. A strong Navy allows us to get about our daily work without fear of invasion. A strong Navy in time of war means bread — a weak or a defeated Navy means STARVATION! Which do you choose? The Unionist Party stands for a Strong Navy. EIGHT DREADNOUGHTS! The Danger to be Faced! In the House of Commons on March 29, 1909 : — The Rt. Hon. Sir E. Grey, Bart., M.P. (R.), the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said : — ". . . The House and the country are quite right to view the situation as grave. A new situation is created for this country by the German programme. Whether that programme is carried out quickly or slowly, the fact of its existence makes a new situation. When that programme is completed Germany, a great country close to our own shores, will have a fleet of 33 Dreadnoughts. That fleet will be the most powerful the world has ever yet seen. . . ." Times, March 30, 1909. Where the Danger Lies. In the House of Commons on March 29, 1909, the Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P. (R.), the Prime Minister, said : — ". . . In April, 19 12 — I am speaking now of Dreadnoughts, and Dreadnoughts only — we shall in any case have 16 Dreadnoughts. That is not taking into account the four ships of what I call the contingent programme. The Germans of that time will certainly have eleven. But for the statements which have been made in Germany and to which we are, of course, bound to pay regard, I should have been disposed to say they would have thirteen . . . and if their rate of production was accelerated in the same way and to the same extent as it has been, they may conceivably have seventeen. . . ." Times, March 30, 1909. It was for this reason that the Unionist Party fought for Eight Dreadnoughts. The Radicals, as a result of this agitation, con- sented to lay down the extra four ships. But they will not be laid down until April, 1910, nor completed until March; 1912. Have no more of the Radicals and their tricks with Britain's Navy! 86 The Navy, Great Britain failing behind in New Construction Parliamentary Return No. 251 issued in Sept., 1909, gives the amounts spent by the various Powers on building of new ships. Great Britain's expenditure for the v^ir 1909-10 is £10,256,194. Germany's expenditure for the same period is £10,751,488. Great Britain is spending £495,274 less than Germany on ships this year ! In the number of sailors to man the ships. In the House of Commons on March 9, 1909, the Rt. Hon. R. M'Kenna, M.P. (R), the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a question stated that the following was the personnel provided for in the estimates of Great Britain and Germany. Great Britain. Germany. Voted 1904-5 ... 130,490 ... 38,191 ,, 1909-10... 128,000 ... 53,981 2,490 decrease 15.790 increase Official Paper, Reducing the Royal Naval Reserve. In the House of Commons on June 16, 1909, the Rt. Hon. R. M'Kenna, M.P. (R), the First Lord of the Admiralty, said : — ". . . The strength of the home Royal Naval Reserve on April 1, 1908, was 1,965 officers, 27,209 men—total 29,174 ; and on April 1, 1909, 1,836 officers, 20,216 men— total 22,052." Tinies, June 17, 1909. All this proves clearly that the Radicals starve he Navy and so imperil the safety of Great Britain. 87 The Army. One of the favourite Radical catch-phrases is * Peace, Retrenchment and Reform." They never, act up to it but they like to keep on saying it. Whenever they can pretend to have "retrenched," they do so, even though they have really been spend- ing more money than ever. This is what they did over the Army, In the Spring of 1909 they announced with much rejoicing that they had saved £24.000 on the year's Army Estimates. It is true that it was not a very large sum, but still it was something and they were proud of it. But they had not saved that money at ail. They had really spent very much more money than usual on the Army, but the Indian Government makes a grant every year to the British Government because of the troops we send out there, and this grant has been increased by /300.000. So that the real fact of the matter is that we are spending £276,000 MORE on our Army and we are not saving at all ! X.B. — Since the Radicals came into power our Army has become smaller. Lost Legions. The Radicals have destroyed ten battalions of Infantry. On Sept. 13, 1906, the following list of the " lost legions " was issued by the Army Council : — 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards. 3rd Battalion Scots Guards. 3rd Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers. 4th Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers. 3rd Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment. 4th Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment. 3rd Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers. 4th Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers. 3rd Battalion Manchester Regiment. 4th Battalion Manchester Regiment. 88 The Army under the Radicals FEWER REGULARS. In the House of Commons, on March 11, 1909, the Rt. Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P. (R.) t the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question, said : — u The total reduction in the establishments of the Regular Army for which I am responsible is 22,055, including 4,158 Colonial and Indian Troops : — 1905/6. 1909/10. Total of Vote A ... 221,300 183,200 Less additional num- bers voted to cover possible temporary excess 13,000 1,300 Establishment ... 208,300 181,900 Less Garrison Regi- ment disbanded by late Government, but included in Estimates, 1905/6... 4,345 — 203,955 181,900 Reduction of Estab- lishment by present Government ... 22,055 This total includes 4,158 Colonial and Native Indian troops." — Official Paper. 89 The Army under the Radicals (contd.) THE AUXILIARY FORCES. Parliamentary Paper Cd. 4494 of 1909 gives the following strength on Oct. 1, 1905 (when the Unionist Party was in power), for — The Militia. Total strength ... 88,209 The Yeomanry and Volunteers. Total strength ... 275,454 (excluding permanent staff.) In the House of Commons, on October 18, 1909. the Rt. Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P. (R.)-, stated that — The Territorial Force on October 1, 1909, numl Total Establishment ... 313,314 ,, Strength ... ... 270,054 The Special Reserve on October 1, 1909, numbered Total Establishment ... 78,974 ,, Strength 69,473 THE RADICALS HAYE REDUCED OUR AUXILIARY FORCES I 90 The Chinese Slavery Lie. Although it is "slaying the slain," it is only right that this WICKED LIBEL on the Unionist Party should be nailed to the counter Once more. BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION. RADICALS VOTE-CATCHING. The Radical Postmaster-General, The Rt. Hon. Sydney C. Buxton, M.P., in his pamphlet : "The T.ansvaal Ordinance Analyzed (published by the Liberal Publication Department in 1904), said: — ". . . The immigrants {i.e., the Chinese labourers) and their wives and children are to be confined together in large numbers in compounds, and kept in them under lock and key. . . ." (Page 14.) The Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Lloyd George, speaking at Bangor, on Dec. 22, 1905, said : — "... /"80.000 has been spent on building com- . pounds for slaves in South Africa. ..." Carnarvon & Denbigh Herald (R) , Dec. 29, 1905. AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION. A MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT OWNS UP. In the House of Commons on Feb. 27, 1906, The Rt. Hon. W. S. Churchill, M.P., then President of the Board of Trade, said : — "It is not at present proposed to rescind the regulations of the first Labour Ordinance by which the Chinese coolies are kept within the premises of the mines. They are not kept in compounds." — Official Debates. In the House of Commons on Feb. 22, 1906, The Rt. Hon. W. S. Churchill, M.P., said — "... It could not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be classified as slavery, in the extreme acceptance of the word, without some risk of terminological inexacti- tude. . . "—Times, Feb. 23, 1906. WHAT BETTER EXPOSURE OF RADICAL METHODS COULD BE FOUND? 91 THE CHINESE SLAVERY i\l—{contd) Although the Radicals were so horrified at the idea of imported labour when it happened to come from China, they don't object at all to the importa- tion of natives from Portuguese territory, Of the 176,995 natives employed in mines and works on Sept. 30, 1909, 86,469 (or about 50 per cent.) came from Portuguese territory. These natives are imported into the country as the Chinese were, and they arc housed under the same conditions. That these natives are not so well suited for the work as the Chinese is proved by the fact that the death-rate for the first quarter of 1909 was : Chinese 16 per thousand. Natives 35 per thousand. STILL CHINESE IN SOUTH AFRICA. In spite of the Radical assertion that the Chinese should not remain in South Africa, there were on Oct. 31, 1909, still 3,199 Chinamen in the country. 92 The New Hebrides* Rn Rmazinq Radical Story. The unblushing falsehood of the Chinese Slavery Cry should have prepared the country for a good deal, but even those who were used to the ways of the Radical Party were surprised when the facts of the New Hebrides Convention were made public. CHAPTER I.— From 1904 to 1906 the Radi- cals, then out of power, stumped the country crying out against the employment of Chinese labourers in South Africa. CHAPTER II.— In 1906 the Radicals were in power, largely on the strength of the Chinese Slavery lie. Forced into a corner in the House of Commons they admitted that the Chinese were not slaves. CHAPTER III.— The next chapter in this unsavoury story now unfolds itself. In 1906 the Radicals agreed to the New Hebrides Ordinance which allowed black labourers to be recruited under three years agreements. Women and children were included and were obliged to work. No holidays were provided. Repatriation was compulsory at the end of the labourers' engagement. No provision was made for the labourers' wives to accompany them. Hours of work were from sunrise to sunset, with one hour's rest. The standard wage was 10s. a month. No steps were taken that ignorant labourers should understand or have explained to them the terms of their agreement. In short, the conditions of this Convention were far harsher than in the case of the Chinese in South Africa. CHAPTER IV.— The Radicals tried to wriggle out of the difficulty, but did not succeed. The Moral of the Story is— Don't trust Radical Election Cries. 93 The Attach on the Church. The Antiquity of the Church. The Church of England was not set up by Act of Parliament, it existed before the State came into being. Many people have a very hazy idea of what is meant by an Established Church. No Money from the State. Some people are so ignorant as to suppose that the Church of England receives a yearly grant from the State. This is absolutely wrong. You may search all through the Estimates for the year and you will not find an instance of a single penny being paid to any Church of England Bishop or Clergyman, with the exception of the Chaplains to the Forces and to prisons. Mr. W. E. Gladstone laid this down plainly in The Tunes of Dec. 5, 1892, when he said : — "The Church of England receives no assistance whatever from Public Funds.'' Tithes. Some people think that if the Church were disestab- lished, no more tithes would have to be paid. This is not the case. Tithes are a charge on the land which was devoted to the Church, in many cases before the Norman Conquest. Land is bought and sold subject to this charge being paid. In some cases the tithes have been paid up in one lump sum, and where this has happened the land is so much dearer, because it is free from tithe. Disestablishment and disendowment would not put an end to the payment of tithes. They would simply be devoted to some other, and not higher, purposes: they would go to secular instead of religious purposes. 94 Should we gain anything by Disestablishment ? No ! If the Church were disestablished and disen- dowed to-morrow tithes would still have to be paid. The only difference would be that they would go to the State instead of to the Church. It is very doubtful indeed that that would prove to be of any advantage whatever to the people of the country. The good that is done to outlying country districts by the presence of parish churches cannot be reckoned in mere Pounds, Shillings and Pence. If the tithes were taken away from the Church numbers of small country churches would have to be shut up, and their parsonages would be left untenanted. The Plight of the Poor Parish. What would these poor parishes do without the friendly presence of the parson? They need spiritual assistance as much as any parishes in the Kingdom, but, because of their poverty they would be unable to support a clergyman of their own by voluntary contributions. Disestablishment would mean the plunging of Rural England into Heathendom I 95 The Work of the Church in Wales. Mr. Asquith— when leading the attack upon the Church — could not help paying a tribute to it, and in the House of Commons on April 21, 1909, he said : — u . . . Everybody knows that during the last 70 years, at any rate, in the Church of England and Wales there has been opened a new chapter, a new, beneficent and fruitful chapter, in their history. She has learnt, alas, too late ! the lessons of the past. She now, by every means which an enlightened ecclesiastical statesmanship, and a strong spiritual devotion to the best needs of the Welsh people could dictate, is overtaking or endeavouring to overtake, the arrears of the past " Official Report, col. 1526 THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S GIVES SOME CONCLUSIVE FIGURES. In a letter to The Manchester Guardian of April 30, 1909, he writes : — " . . . What are the facts ? Let me take the diocese of St. David's as an example. The population of this diocese was 482,245 in 1881, and 509,943 in 1901. In 1880 the number of communicants in the diocese, Q6 The Work of the Church in YitAtu—continu&d. according to the Visitation Returns, was 30,129, the number of communicants in 1905, as proved in evidence before the Welsh Church Commission, was 63,565. Between 1881 and 1901 the population of the diocese increased 574 per cent., while the number of communicants in the diocese between 1880 and 1905 increased 110*9 per cent. Likewise, for the same period the number of Sunday scholars in the diocese increased from 28,763 to 47,847, being an increase of 66"3 per cent . . . ." A WARNING TO ALL CHURCH MEN AND WOMEN! The Radicals wish to disestablish and dis- endow the Church in Wales, because it will prepare the way for meting out the same treatment to the Church in England* It is a campaign of pillage — resist it with all your might ! 97 Radical Arguments in favour of Disestab* lishment for Wales. The Radicals say that as there are more Noncon- formists in Wales than there are Church people, it is unjust that there should be an Established Church in th? country. But the number of members of the Church of England is growing, while the Nonconform- ists are decreasing. The Radicals say that because the Church in Wales was lax during the eighteenth century, they have a just cause for despoiling the Church in the twentieth century. Even the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, has paid an eloquent tribute to the work of the Church in Wales to-day. Is this, therefore, the time to hamper the Church in its work by depriving it of the funds with which its members — but not the State, have endowed it? The Radicals claim that the funds of the Church should be devoted to Education and Hospitals, and that the deficit should be made up from the pockets of Church people. The Welsh Church is a poor Church and the- salaries of clergymen in Wales are much lower than the salaries of clergymen in England. The endowments of the Church were given to her in order to maintain churches and to support the clergv, it would be wrong and unjust to devote them to any other purpose. 9 3 THE ALIENS ACT» 1905 . This Act was the work of the Unionists and it has proved to be a useful enactment — even in sis present mutilated fcrm. The Radicals oppose it. They always objected to this Act. They love the- foreigner so much that whether it is a question of admitting his goods into the country or opening our oorts to pauper aliens, the Radicals are always on his side and against the interests of the Englishmen, The Heart taken out of the Act , The Act, although passed by the Unionists, did not come into force until after the General Election or 1906. One of the first things the Radicals did was to issue the following instructions to the Immigration Officers :— " In all cases in which immigrants, coming, from the parts of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition, aMeg^ that they are flying from religious or political persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation will be allowed, and leave to land will be given." — From PavHa- mentavy Paper, cd. 287901 1906. This practically takes all the force out of the Act, and allows any pauper or diseased alien to come into England and compete with our own workpeople. But in spite of this the Act has still power for good* On March 12, 1906, The Daily Chronicle (Radical) says : — ". . . After all, the Act contains some valuable clauses. The power which it gives of refusing admission into this country of criminals, lunatics, idiots, and diseased persons is highly necessary for our own self-protection. . . ." Yes, the Act does contain some good clauses — it is a pity, from the working man's point of view, that the Radicals don't administer those clauses better !' 99 The Aliens Act, 1905— continued. The Alien Danger , The Third Annual Report on the Aliens Act (cd 4683 of 1909) gives the following particulars of the alien question in 1908. The total number of aliens arriving from European and Mediterranean ports was 399,289 persons ; after making various allowances, H.M. Inspector con- siders that 21,776 were actual immigrants into this -country. 612 persons were refused leave to land. The number of aliens and children of aliens to whom Poor Law Relief was given in London and twelve large towns was 11,332. -The number of aliens received into local and con- vict prisons in the United Kingdom was 3,239. This proves that the alien question still requires to be dealt with. The Unionist Party will administer the Act in a proper spirit. 100 Unionist Government in Ireland. Speaking in 1905 after TEN YEARS of Unionist government in Ireland, Sir Thomas Esmonde, M.P, (Nationalist), was able to say in Manchester, on March 19, 1905 : — "... They had succeeded in obtaining from the* English Parliament (N.B.— With a Unionist Government in power) legislation in favour of the Irish agricultural labourer which was more advanced than that which existed in any country in Europe ... In a few years they had effected a complete revolution in. Ireland which made for happiness. Ireland, he maintained, had by means of constitutional agitation obtained more than many countries could have obtained by blood- shed:' Morning Post, March 20, 1905. That result was obtained through just and fair Unionist government. 101 Crime under the AGRARIAN OUTRAGES. Table showing the number of agrarian outrages reported by the police in Ireland in t'e rear 1889, and in the years 1906 1 3 1908 inclusive-, and the number of threatening letters and notice- included therein. 'hreatening letters Other Year. and notices. offences. Total .. 194 340 534 1906 105 129 234 1907 1S2 190 372 190S (Mr "Riri 233 •a11 TTrmQ£> r\i Cr 343 576 hrna.rv 15 1909.) Note. — The year 1889 is selected for comparison . for the reason that, as Mr. Birr ell admitted in furnishing the above statistics, it was " the last year in which the number of agrarian offences approximated closely" the total for 1908. HOW BOYCOTTING HAS INCREASED under the RADICALS. Date. Total. Cases. Persons. With the Unionists in power. November 30, 1905 ... 37 162 With the Radicals in pewer. December 31, 1905 December 31, 1906 December 31, 1907 December 31. 1908 February 28, 1909 — (Compiled from Parliamentary Papers, Nos. S9 of 1908 and 57 and 116 of 1909 ; and frosn sfcati given by Mr. Birrell in the House of Commons on November 25, 1908.) 102 40 174 44 202 125 420 197 746 226 889 Crime under the Radicals. - contcL imher of Shooting Outrages. Year. Total cases 1904 ... 13 1905 . . . ... 11 190G ... 1-2 1907 ... 49 1908 ... 81 — (Mr. Birrell, House of Commons, October 19, 1908, and February 19, 1909.) Note i. — The Peace Preservation Act of 1881, restrict- ing the sale and use of firearms, was allowed by the Government to lapse on December 31, 1906. Note ii. — Including those shooting outrages classified as non-agrarian, the totals for the years 1905 to 1908 inclusive were, respectively, 29, 39, 87 and 132. — (Mr. Birrell, House of Commons, February 19, 1909.) 103 Grave Dangers from Home Rule. Ii ish Home Rulers wish to make Ireland an independent Republic. They have admitted this plainly enough. The Republic would be hostile to Great Britain. This is admitted by the Nationalists, and after their behaviour during the Boer War, few could doubt that this would be the case. Yet it may be asked — what would be the danger to Great Britain from such an insigni- ficant country as the Irish Republic would be ? The Reply is this : — If Ireland were an inde- pendent Republic she could make Alliances with any Continental Power, and in the event of war she could open her ports to the enemies' warships, offer- ing a base of operations which would expose our country to the risk of invasion and ruin. Yet in spite of this the Radical Party makes Home Rule one of its Battle Cries 1 Unionism means — The Safety of the Country, Protection for Loyal Ulster, The Integrity of the Empire, Just and Fair Government for Ireland, but NO HOME RULE. 104 The Radical s are pledged to Home Rule, That is one fact that must never be forgotten. It may suit their purpose to put Home Rule in the background for the time being, but nevertheless it is part of their programme. Proof. The Prime Minister-— Mr. H. H. Asquith, K.C., M.P., In Earlsferry on Oct. 11, 1905, said : — 1 . . . Neither I nor any other leader of the Liberal Party, as I believe, has ever gone back either in spirit or letter on Mr. Gladstone's policy (Home Rule). ..." Dundee Advertiser, Oct. 12, 1905. In London, on Dec. 10, 1909, Mr. Asquith said : — "... The solution of the (Irish) problem can "be found only in one way — by a policy which .... will set up in Ireland a system of full self-government in regard to purely Irish affairs. . . . That is the Liberal policy. ... In the new House of Commons the hands of the Liberal Government and the Liberal majority will be in this matter entirely free. ..." Times, December 11, 1909. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs— Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., asked, in Alnwick, on Dec. 10, 1909, "Are you a Home Ruler ? " said : — " My answer is, yes." — Times, Dec. 11, 1909. The Rad icals are pledged to Home Rule, — icontd.) The President of the Board of Trade- Mr. Winstosi S. Churchill, M.P., In Manchester on April 20, 1908, said :— "... I say tills with the full concurrence and approval of the Prime Minister, I am strongly of opinion that the Liberal Party should claim full authority and a free hand to deal with the problem of Irish self- government without being restricted to measures of administrative devolution of the character of the Irish Council Bill." Times, April 23, 1908. The Home Secretary — Mr. H. J. Gladstone, M.P,, In Leeds on June 7, 1907, said : — "... I have never concealed rrry Home Rule sympathies and my Home Rule wishes and aspirations. . . Yorkshire Daily Observer, June 8, 1907. The Secretary g! State for India — Lord Morley. "He denied that the Liberal Party had abandoned Home Rule. He did not know a man of the first importance in the party who had abandoned the Irish cause." Times, April 20, 1903. 106 The Consequences of Home Rule, What would be the consequences of Home Rule ? The answer is that however the Nationalists may disguise the fact their ultimate object is to bring about the absolute separation of Ireland from England. How can this he proved ? Out of the mouth of Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P. (Nationalist), who at Worcester, U.S.A., in the Autumn of 1901 said : — "... First of all our ultimate goal is the national independence of our country. I say, in its essence, the National movement of to-day as it was in the days of Hugh O'Neill, of Owen Roe, of Emmet, or of Wolfe Tone, is to overthrow the foreign domination in our land, and to put Irishmen in charge of their own affairs. . . ." Worcester Spy (United States), Nov. 14, 1901. What would happen then ? Ireland would be formed into a Republic ! This will give some idea of the way in which the members of that Republic would act towards Great Britain : — In New York the Hon. M. Cummings, one of the envoys delegated by the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America to visit Ireland, said : — "... They had made a compact with the Germans, who made a large factor in American life. He wished England to clearly understand that, in the event of war with Germany, the Irish and Germans in America would be united in opposing them." Freeman's Journal (N), April 13, 19G9. 107 The HOME RULE DANGER, The Home Rule danger is greater now than it has been for many years. The Nationalist Party hopes that in the turmoil of an election over the Budget the question of Home Rule may be forgotten by the English elector. The House of Lords the only obstacle. On October 7, 1909, Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P. (N.J, appealing for more help from abroad, cabled to the President of the United Irish League of America : — "A General Election is certain. . . . The veto of the House of Lords will be at stake, and with the veto of the House of Lords v/ill disappear the last obstacle to Home Rule. . . '* The Times, Oct. 8, 1909. Raising Money for the Home Rule Cause. On Oct. 16, 1909, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P. (Nationalist), left London for the United States, where he hopes to raise money to fight the campaign for Home Rule. He has issued an appeal for 1,000,000 dollars M to wipe out the Lords." English electors must remember that this money is being collected in order to bring about the disintegration of the Empire. XJNIVERS ? CALIF0 los AT I ; ELES LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELBS LIBRARY 3 1158 01011 4881 <%