XVIII. That, at any rate, is the Anglo-Saxon ideal. The opposite is the German ideal, in which every citizen is organised for some function under the continual discipline of an army of red tabs.

It only remains to add a brief word upon the subject of tariffs. The general principle was clearly indicated by Mr. Asquith when he led the first Coalition.

We cannot and we will not repeat the errors of the past. We have reconquered economic freedom, recognising, as Mr. Asquith and his delegates at the Paris Conference realised, the errors and the tragic omissions of which we were guilty in pre-war days.

But we shall be honest enough to realise that the present collapse of European finance and the bewildering kaleidoscope of world exchange present a situation in which dogmatism is ludicrous, and a spirit of patient enquiry indispensable.

These, then, are the general principles upon which I think the National Party might be founded.

It would be a party combining many of the greatest traditions of our past with very noble aspirations for the future.

It would, above all, be a party whose programme would adapt itself to the natural desires and habits of the immense mass of our fellowcitizens, men and women, who are chiefly anxious to be allowed to manage their own lives in their own way, but are ready to take their full share in maintaining the honour and progress of their country and in promoting the well-being of their weaker or less fortunate fellow-citizens.

A LETTER FROM LORD BIRKENHEAD TO LORD XVIII.
AMPTHILL, WHO OBJECTED THAT THE TERM

"NATIONAL PARTY " HAD ALREADY BEEN
APPROPRIATED.

21st January 1920.

66

DEAR LORD AMPTHILL,-I received the letter which, as Treasurer of the National" Party, you addressed to me in Paris, and a copy of which has already appeared in the Press.

I was, I confess, genuinely unaware that the 66 National Party had survived the General Election. You complain in a letter to the Times - I do not know how justly- of a Press boycott against your movement. It is certainly true that, whatever the explanation may be, I do not recall any reference to it in Parliament or in the Press since the last Election.

And, if I may say so without offence, the fortunes of the Party at that Election were hardly crowned with such a degree of success as would obviously entitle its members to the monopoly of a somewhat important English adjective. There are, I am now informed, in the House of Commons, at the present moment, two members of your Party, Brigadier-General Page Croft and Sir Richard Cooper. But my friend Sir Richard Cooper, though previously announced as belonging to it, did not, I believe, think it prudent to stand at the Election as a member of your Party. On the contrary, he ran-unless I am misinformed as an Independent Unionist. I have no means of checking your estimate that 100,000 votes were given to your candidates in

XVIII. the course of the Election. But perhaps you can inform me whether the votes given to Sir Richard Cooper were included in that number? In any event, your claim, even if well-founded, would appear to be somewhat more modest than the title of your Party. It would, indeed, be a strange result if a Party represented by a single member in the House of Commons, and so far as I know by no member in the House of Lords, who takes part in the Debates of that Assembly, except yourself, could not only describe itself as a "National" Party, but could deny the name to a Party which might consist of hundreds of members of Parliament. To test the matter a little further, suppose that with the lapse of time the only two members of the National Party left in the whole country were yourself and Brigadier-General Page Croft. Would you still think it reasonable to deny to other and larger combinations the right to use the adjective "National" as descriptive of their aims? And you must allow me (again I hope without offence) to add, that it is no answer to this question to say that those who wish to call themselves members of a National Party can join your Association. They may dislike your organisation or your methods. I know nothing of either, so that I may indicate this risk without provocation. Equally they may prefer other leaders to yourself and BrigadierGeneral Page Croft.

I hope that you will forgive me if I do not answer the questions which you are so good as to put to me with reference to my views upon the points supplied to me under the name of

your policy. I have other opportunities which XVIII. I prefer to use of making my views upon public matters plain.

I trust that I have not given the impression in this letter that I attach undue importance to adjectives or labels. They have, in fact, considerable importance, but other matters, as you are well aware, are far more fundamental. I am sending this letter to the Press.

XIX.

XIX

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF CIVILISATION

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN WELCOMING

THE

DELEGATES AT THE OPENING OF THE LONDON CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ON MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1921. MR. CHAIRMAN, Ladies and Gentlemen, I attend here to-day, as you will have gathered from your Chairman's observations, to discharge a simple duty, and I shall discharge it with the brevity proper to one who speaks before those more detailed business discussions take place which are of course the proper and primary concern of such a Conference as this. My duty is, on behalf of the Government of which I am a member, to afford a hearty welcome to all those gentlemen from other countries who at this moment have come to co-operate with our own business men in the problems which await and will presently receive your attention. The Government of this country most warmly welcome the presence of our foreign guests here for the purpose of this Conference, and will give every assistance that is in its power now or hereafter for the purpose of your discussions. It