I say, then, that on the negative side, in the things it is called upon to resist, the Unionist party is strong and fortunate.  But are we to be content with that?  Should we not all like to feel that we appealed for the confidence of the people on the merits of our own policy, and not merely on the demerits of our opponents?  That, I take it, is the feeling at the bottom of what men are saying on all hands just now—­that the Unionist party ought to have a constructive policy.  Now, if by a constructive policy is meant a string of promises, a sort of Newcastle programme, then I can well imagine any wise statesmen, especially if they happened to be in Opposition, thinking twice before they committed themselves to it.  But if by a constructive policy is meant a definite set of principles, a clear attitude to the questions which most agitate the public mind, a sympathetic grasp of popular needs, and a readiness to indicate the extent to which, and the lines on which, you think it possible and desirable to satisfy them—­then I agree that the Unionist party ought to have such a policy.  And I venture to say that, if it has such a policy, the fact is not yet sufficiently apparent to the popular mind, or, perhaps, I should say, speaking as one of the populace, to my mind.

Many people think that it is sufficient for the purpose—­that it is possible to conduct a victorious campaign with the single watchword “Down with Socialism.”  Well, I am not fond of mere negatives.  I do not like fighting an abstract noun.  My objection to anti-Socialism as a platform is that Socialism means so many different things.  On this point I agree with Mr. Asquith.  I will wait to denounce Socialism till I see what form it takes.  Sometimes it is synonymous with robbery, and to robbery, open or veiled, boldly stalking in the face of day or hiding itself under specious phrases, Unionists are, as a matter of course, opposed.  But mere fidelity to the eighth Commandment is not a constructive policy, and Socialism is not necessarily synonymous with robbery.  Correctly used, the word only signifies a particular view of the proper relation of the State to its citizens—­a tendency to substitute public for private ownership, or to restrict the freedom of individual enterprise in the interests of the public.  But there are some forms of property which we all admit should be public and not private, and the freedom of individual enterprise is already limited by a hundred laws.  Socialism and Individualism are opposing principles, which enter in various proportions into the constitution of every civilised society; it is merely a question of degree.  One community is more Socialistic than another.  The same community is more Socialistic at one time than at another.  This country is far more Socialistic than it was fifty years ago, and for most of the changes in that direction the Unionist and the Tory party are responsible.  The Factory Acts are one instance; free education is another.