thing which would be certain to diminish that income, and to recoil on all of us, would be that war of classes which many people seem anxious to stir up.  Nothing could be more fatal to prosperity, and to the fairest hopes of social progress, than if the great body of the upper and middle classes of the community had cause to regard that progress as indissolubly associated with an attack upon themselves.  And that is why, if reforms such as I have indicated are costly—­as they will be costly—­you must find some better way of providing for them than by merely giving another turn to the income-tax screw, or just adding so much per cent. to the estate duty.

From my point of view, social reform is a national affair.  All classes benefit by it, not only those directly affected.  And therefore all should contribute according to their means.  I do not in any way object to the rich being made to contribute, even for purposes in which they are not directly interested.  What I do object to is that the great body of the people should not contribute to them.  It is thoroughly vicious in principle to divide the nation, as many of the Radical and Labour men want to divide it, into two sections—­a majority which only calls the tune, and a minority which only pays the piper.

I own I am aghast at the mean opinion which many politicians seem to have of the mass of their working fellow countrymen, when they approach them with this crude sort of bribery, offering them everything for nothing, always talking to them of their claims upon the State, and never of their duties towards it.  This is a democratic country.  It is their State and their Empire—­theirs to possess, theirs to control, but theirs also to support and to defend.  And I for one have such faith in the common sense and fair-mindedness of the British people that I believe you have only to convince them that you have a really sound national policy, and they will rally to it, without having to be bought by promises of a penny off this and twopence off the other—­a sort of appeal, I regret to say, which is not only confined to Radical orators, but in which Unionists also are sometimes too apt to indulge.

And, now, gentlemen, only one word in conclusion—­a brief and inadequate reference to a vast subject, but one to which I am at all times and seasons specially bound to refer.  After all, my chief quarrel with the Radical party—­not with all of them—­I do not say that for a moment—­but with a far too large and influential section—­is their anti-patriotism.  I use the word advisedly.  It is not that they are unpatriotic in the sense of having no affection for their country.  It is that they are deliberately and on principle—­I do not asperse their motives; I do not question their sincerity and conviction—­anti-patriotic, opposed to national as distinct from cosmopolitan ideals.  They are not zealous for national defence; they have no faith in the Empire; they love to show their impartiality by taking sides against their own