thoroughly vicious idea that money should be taken out of the pocket of one man, however rich, in order to be put into the pocket of another, however poor.  That is a bad, anti-national principle, and I hope the Unionist Party will take a firm stand against it.  And this is an additional reason why we should raise whatever money may be necessary by duties upon foreign imports, because in that way all will contribute.  No doubt the rich will contribute the bulk of the money through the duties on imported luxuries, but there will be some contribution, as there ought to be some contribution, from every class of the people.

And now, in conclusion, one word about purely practical considerations.  We Unionists, if you will allow me to call myself a Unionist—­at any rate I have explained quite frankly what I mean by the term—­are not a class party, but a national party.  That being so, it is surely of the utmost importance that men of all classes should participate in every branch and every grade of the work of the Unionist Party.  Why should we not have Unionist Labour members as well as Radical Labour members?  I think that the working classes of this country are misrepresented in the eyes of the public of this country and of the world, as long as they appear to have no leaders in Parliament except the men who concoct and pass those machine-made resolutions with which we are so familiar in the reports of Trade Union Congresses.  I am not speaking now about their resolutions on trade questions, which they thoroughly understand, but about resolutions on such subjects as foreign politics, the Army and Navy, and Colonial and Imperial questions, resolutions which are always upon the same monotonous lines.  I do not believe that the working classes are the unpatriotic, anti-national, down-with-the-army, up-with-the-foreigner, take-it-lying-down class of Little Englanders that they are constantly represented to be.  I do not believe it for a moment.  I have heard Imperial questions discussed by working men in excellent speeches, not only eloquent speeches, but speeches showing a broad grasp and a truly Imperial spirit, and I should like speeches of that kind to be heard in the House of Commons as an antidote to the sort of preaching which we get from the present Labour members.  And what I say about the higher posts in the Unionist Army applies equally to all other ranks.  No Unionist member or Unionist candidate is really well served unless he has a number of men of the working class on what I may call his political staff.  And I say this not merely for electioneering reasons.  This is just one of the cases in which considerations of party interest coincide—­I wish they always or often did—­with considerations of a higher character.  There is nothing more calculated to remove class prejudice and antagonism than the co-operation of men of different classes on the same body for the same public end.  And there is this about the aims of Unionism, that they are best calculated to teach the value of such co-operation; to bring home to men of all classes their essential inter-dependence on one another, as well as to bring home to each individual the pettiness and meanness of personal vanity and ambition in the presence of anything so great, so stately, as the common heritage and traditions of the British race.