The Liberal Tradition

6. ARMAMENTS

113. SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Speech at the Albert Hall, 21 December 1905

We Liberals, let us not forget it, are the heirs of a great and inspiring tradition. That tradition was founded in days when public opinion was opposed to any attempt to regulate differences by an appeal to the reason and conscience of mankind. Mr. Gladstone defied the public opinion of his day. He took his stand on higher ground, and by referring the Alabama dispute to arbitration he established a precedent of priceless value to mankind. . . . I rejoice that since that time the principle of arbitration has made great strides, and that to-day it is no longer counted weakness for any of the Great Powers of the world to submit those issues which would once have been referred to the arbitrament of self- assertion and of passion to a higher tribunal. . . .

I hold that the growth of armaments is a great danger to the peace of the world. A policy of huge armaments keeps alive and stimulates and feeds the belief that force is the best, if not the only, solution of international differences. It is a policy that tends to inflame old sores and to create new sores. And I submit to you that as the principle of peaceful arbitration gains ground it becomes one of the highest tasks of a statesman to adjust those armaments to the newer and happier condition of things. What nobler role could this great country assume than at the fitting moment to place itself at the head of a league of peace, through whose instrumentality this great work could be effected?

Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Liberal Policy. A speech delivered . . . 21 December 1905 (Liberal Publication Dept.).

114. Debate on the Army Estimates, House of Commons, 28 February 1907

W. P. BYLES (Salford N.) . . . There was another class of members who were not military men at all and had no love of militarism. They represented a large number of people outside the House—men and women who believed that the greatness of England rested, not on the science of war, but on the arts of peace. . . . He thought the whole conception of our military system was out of all proportion to what was really necessary if only they cultivated a friendly policy with the nations of the earth instead of destroying one another. . . .

What did we want a striking force for? Whom did we want to strike? Why did we not shake hands instead of striking at all? . . . There were some who held what was called the ‘menagerie theory’, that they were kept from one another by barred cages and that they were ready to fly at one another’s throats the moment they got loose. He did not believe in any such theory. . . .

He had for years addressed crowded meetings of poor men and women, and he had told them that when a Liberal Government was in power it could run the country on £100,000,000; but that, after ten years of Tory rule, it cost £150,000,000. . . . He told them also that for every shilling the Liberal Government took out of their pockets for the Army and other purposes the Tories had been taking eighteen pence, and that when a democratic Government came into power again they would restore things as they formerly were. It was on those pledges that he got his seat and it was on those pledges that he was supporting the present Government. He therefore expressed sincere disappointment that such an enormous proposal should have been put before the House in the second session of the present Parliament. . . .

The burden of the peace charges in this country was worse, because it was more permanent, than an occasional war. It was like the case of a man who paid a high premium for insurance. It was better to run the risk of a fire. . . . Fifty years ago Mr. Disraeli had said there was a niche in the temple of Fame for the ruler or Minister who would be the first to grapple with the question of military expenditure. He wished his right hon. friend would occupy that niche. He had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would in his proposals have shown a greater desire for the reduction of armaments.

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 4th Series, clxx, cols. 325-7.

115. SIR EDWARD GREY: Speech in the House of Commons, 29 March 1909

I will, in conclusion, submit to the House the general views on which I approach this great problem. There are those who like and those who dislike naval and military expenditures; there are those who like the martial spirit and those who dislike it. Well, Sir, the martial spirit, I should be the last to deny, has its place, and its proper place, in the life of a nation. . . . That I sympathise with entirely, but I would ask the people to consider to what consequences the growth of armaments has led? The great countries of Europe are raising enormous revenues, and something like half of them is being spent on naval and military preparations. You may call it national insurance, that is perfectly true, but it is equally true that half the national revenue of the great countries of Europe is being spent on what is, after all, preparations to kill each other. Surely the extent to which this expenditure has grown really becomes a satire and a reflection on civilisation. Not in our generation, perhaps, but if it goes on at the present rate at which it has recently increased, sooner or later I believe it will submerge that civilisation. . . . Sooner or later, if it goes on at this rate, it must lead to national bankruptcy.

Is it to be wondered that the hopes and aspirations of the best men in the leading countries are devoted to trying to find some means of checking it. Surely that is a statement of the case in which, however attached a man may be to what I may call the martial spirit, he may at least see that the whole of Europe is in the presence of a great danger. But, Sir, no country alone can save that. If we alone, among the Great Powers, gave up the competition and sank into a position of inferiority, what good should we do? None whatever—no good to ourselves, because we cannot realise great ideals of social reform at home when we are holding our existence at the mercy, the caprice if you like, of another nation. That is not feasible. If we fall into a position of inferiority our self-respect is gone, and it removes that enterprise which is essential both to the material success of industry and to the carrying out of great ideals, and you fall into a state of apathy. We should cease to count for anything amongst the nations of Europe, and we should be fortunate if our liberty was left and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger Power. That is a brutal way of stating the case, but it is the truth. It is disagreeable that it should be so, but in matters like this I know of no safe way except to look at what is disagreeable frankly in the face, and to state it, if necessary, in its crudest form.

Speeches on Foreign Affairs, 1904–1914, by Sir Edward Grey, ed. P. Knaplund (1931), pp. 142-3.

116. SIR EDWARD GREY: Speech in the House of Commons, 13 March 1911

If you are to have these great burdens of force piled up in times of peace, as it has been in the last generation, it will become intolerable. There are those who think it will lead to war precisely because it is becoming intolerable. I hear it said that as the burden grows it will be felt so strongly that some nation will seek relief in war. I think it is much more likely that the burden will be dissipated by internal revolution. . . . But it does not follow from that that one nation can, as the hon. members who moved and seconded this Resolution suggested, put a stop to the rivalry by dropping out of the race. If one nation, and especially a nation of this kind, dropped out of the competition, I do not believe we should be serving the purpose of which I have been speaking by reducing the general rivalry. On the contrary, it might very well be that if one nation dropped out of the competition it might momentarily give a spurt of expenditure in some other.

The hon. member for Merthyr Tydvil (J. Keir Hardie) spoke not more strongly than I have spoken of the growing feeling there was against this policy of expenditure, and he spoke of the Socialist vote. Yes, but that growing feeling must find its expression and make itself felt not in one country alone but in countries simultaneously. He spoke of the growth of the Socialist vote, but it had no effect on the passing of the German Navy Estimates the other day. And until that feeling has reached greater power in the nations generally than it has at the present time, we shall not reap the benefit of it.

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5th Series, xxii, cols. 1985-6.

117. SIR JOHN BRUNNER, President of the National Liberal Federation: Speech at the 35th Annual Meeting, Leeds, 26 November 1913

The Prime Minister . . . has told you, in public speech at the Mansion House but a few days ago, that it is your duty to take counsel together to secure a saner and more fruitful appropriation of the vast sums we are pouring out in preparing for war. I hate this gross, growing, mad expenditure. Sir Edward Grey told us in the House of Commons that the hideous expenditure of Christendom in preparing for war will, if not checked, submerge civilisation. I warn you to resist the secret international organisation of the makers of war material in Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Turkey, America, Canada and England, whose object is to promote suspicion and misunderstanding. I warn you that the daily Press of all these countries will be suborned in the future, as it has been in the past, and induced to publish statements inciting to international hatred. It is a devil’s business. I warn you that the Governments of these countries, our own included, may be influenced, as they have already been influenced, by these statements of the Press. Our answer to Mr. Asquith is that he himself, as the head of the Government, has already indicated other saner and more fruitful appropriations of these vast sums, and we shall promise him our united, ardent support in their adoption. We are for peace, we are intent upon securing ample food, wholesome houses, the cultivation of health in body and mind. We desire the blessings of civilisation for every home and every family. With all the warmth of my heart, with all the force of my mind, I commend to you the final Resolution which will come before this meeting:

‘That this Council views with grave anxiety the continued growth in armaments, which, unless checked, must inevitably lead to an increase in taxation. The Council expresses its most earnest hope that, in view of the conspicuous improvement in the relations between Great Britain and foreign Powers, no opportunity will be lost in continuing to press forward friendly negotiations with these Powers, in order that an end may be put to suspicion and misunderstanding, the most fruitful causes of the disastrous rivalry in armaments between the nations of Europe. . . .’

Annual Report of the National Liberal Federation for 1913, pp. 47-8, 62.