The danger, as it seems to me, of the Unionist party going off on a crusade against Socialism is that in the heat of that crusade it may neglect, or appear to neglect, those social evils of which honest Socialism is striving, often, no doubt, by unwise means, to effect a cure.  If the Unionist party did that, it would be unfaithful to its own best traditions from the days of “Sybil” and “Coningsby” to the present time.

The true antidote to revolutionary Socialism is practical social reform.  That is no claptrap phrase—­although it may sound so; there is a great historical truth behind it.  The revolutionary Socialist—­I call him revolutionary because he wants to alter the whole basis of society—­would like to get rid of all private property, except, perhaps, our domestic pots and pans.  He is averse from private enterprise.  He is going absurdly too far; but what gave birth to his doctrine?  The abuse of the rights of private property, the cruelty and the failure of the scramble for gain, which mark the reign of a one-sided Individualism.  If we had not gone much too far in one direction, we should not have had this extravagant reaction in the other.  But do not let us lose our heads in face of that reaction.  While resisting the revolutionary propaganda, let us be more, and not less, strenuous in removing the causes of it.

You may think I am now talking pure Radicalism.  Well, but it is not to the objects which many Radicals have at heart that we, as Unionists, need take exception.  Why should we make them a present of those good objects?  Old age pensions; the multiplication of small landholders—­and, let me add, landowners; the resuscitation of agriculture; and, on the other hand, better housing in our crowded centres; town planning; sanitary conditions of labour; the extinction of sweating; the physical training of the people; continuation schools—­these and all other measures necessary to preserve the stamina of the race and develop its intelligence and productive power—­have we not as good a right to regard these as our objects, aye, and in many cases a better right, than the supporters of the Government have?

It is not these objects which we deprecate.  On the contrary, they have our ardent sympathy.  What we do deprecate is the spirit in which they are so often preached and pursued.  No progress is going to be made—­quite the contrary—­by stirring up class hatred or trying to rob Peter in order to pay Paul.  It is not true that you cannot benefit one class without taking from another class—­still less true that by taking from one you necessarily benefit another.  The national income, the sum total of all our productive activities, is capable of being enormously increased or diminished by wise or foolish policy.  For it does not only depend on the amount of capital and labour.  A number of far subtler factors enter into the account—­science, organisation, energy, credit, confidence, the spirit in which men set about their business.  The one