As a supporter of the Government that came into power as a Government of peace, and with a sense of my responsibility to my Constituents, I do not feel that I can keep quite silent on this stupendous occasion, when we are asked practically to assent to a course which may involve us in this terrible war. No part of this country has been invaded at present; no vital interest in this country has been attacked. Yet we are asked to assent to war with all its terrible consequences. The Government have no right to plunge this country into this war for anything short of our own vital interests. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his presentation of the case to-day, said that he would be very frank with the House. I can only say that I regret that in the statements which have been made by him and by the Government in regard to this matter on various occasions we have not been treated with equal frankness, because I feel that we have been placed in a false position by these statements. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that we were under no obligation, and that the House was perfectly free to come to a decision on this matter. Yet, before he had got very far, he told us that we were under such obligations that, in his opinion, we could not get rid of them. I may remind the House of the attempts that have been made to ascertain what was the real position of the country in the event of a European war. I will first recall what the Prime Minister said last year in the Debate on the Address. Lord Hugh Cecil, in the course of the Debate, said:—

"There is a very general belief that this country is under an obligation, not treaty obligation, but an obligation arising out of an assurance given by the Ministry in the course of diplomatic negotiations to send a very large armed force out of this country to operate in Europe. That is the general belief."

"I ought to say that it is not true."

"Whether the foreign policy of this country is at the present time unhampered by any treaties, agreements, or obligations, under which British military forces would, in certain eventualities, be called upon to be landed on the Continent, and join there in military operations, and whether in 1905. 1908 or 1911, this country spontaneously offered to France the assistance of a British Army to be landed on the Continent to support France in the event of European hostilities."

"As has been repeatedly stated, this country is not under any obligation not public and known to Parliament which compels it to take part in any war. In other words, if war arises between European Powers there are no unpublished agreements which will restrict or hamper the freedom of the Government or of Parliament to decide whether or not Great Britain should participate in a war. The use that would be made of the naval or military forces if the Government and Parliament decided to take part in a war is for obvious reasons not a matter about which public statements can be made beforehand."

"Whether he is aware that demands have been recently put forward for a further military understanding between the Powers to the Triple Entente, with a view to concerted action on the Continent in case of certain eventualities, and whether the policy of this country still remained one of freedom from all obligation to engage in military operations on the Continent?"

"The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; and as regards the latter part, the position now remains the same as was stated by the Prime Minister in answer to a question in this House on 24th March, 1913."

"Whether any naval agreement has been recently entered into between Russia and Great Britain, and whether any negotiations with a view to a naval agreement have recently taken place or are now pending between Russia and Great Britain?"

"The Prime Minister replied last year to the question of the hon. Member that if a war arose between European Powers there were no unpublished agreements which would hamper or restrict the freedom of the Government or of Parliament to decide whether or not Great Britain should participate in a war. That answer covers both the questions on the Paper. It remains as true to-day as it was a year ago. No negotiations have since been concluded with any Power that would make that statement less true. No such negotiations are in progress and none are likely to be entered upon so far as I can judge. But if any agreement were to be concluded that made it necessary to withdraw or modify the Prime Minister's statement of last year which I have quoted, it ought in my opinion to be, and I suppose that it would be, laid before Parliament."

May I ask the Government what business will be taken to-morrow?

The Motion will be made to put forthwith all outstanding questions in Supply and Ways and Means. Then thereafter—

• Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Bill;
• Expiring Laws Continuance Bill;
• Education (Provision of Meals) Bill; and other measures.

In reference to the announcement just made by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask him where the Home Office Vote comes in? There was a definite and distinct arrangement made through the usual channels that has been broken, and, without the Labour party being in any way informed of the change, a new arrangement has been entered into.

I am very sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. I thought that what I now propose was agreeable to my hon. Friends, and, in suggesting this course, I absolutely deferred to them.

I have been speaking with Members of the Labour party, and they made no such understanding with the Patronage Secretary, and we have been very anxious to get this date in order to discuss the question of accidents, and other very important points in connection with the Factories Department. We have been held up for some weeks until the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories appeared. It-has now been published and circulated, and, as I have stated, I think this is the third time this Vote has been put down, and now, so far as I am aware, without any agreement with the Labour party the discussion of the Factory Report is once more abandoned. It seems to me if it is abandoned this time it is abandoned for the whole of the Session, and I want to enter a very strong protest against the course that has been outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Government.

If, as the hon. Member says, there has been a misunderstanding and if the hon. Member desires to take the Vote to-morrow, I, of course, will fall in with his wishes, but that means that we could not take the outstanding Votes until half-past ten o'clock at night, according to the Standing Orders. If the hon. Member wishes to press it, I, of course, will try to comply.

May I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I hope immediately after he makes his statement tomorrow with regard to the supply of food in this country that he will be able to touch on that other subject, namely, the alleviation of distress, whether there be a war in which this country is involved or from the economic effects of war in this country. In asking that question I desire to dissociate myself entirely from the meaning and tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) on this subject. I sincerely believe that the Government have had this matter under serious consideration, and I only ask that they will make some statement upon it to-morrow so as to dispel the impression which some hon. Members are trying to spread throughout the country, that the Government are conducting a campaign in the interests of certain classes only and not for the welfare of the whole community. I was very sorry to hear also the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), delivered in his usually exaggerated tone, of which, I think, nobody now takes very much notice, and in which he tried to suggest that the people should rise and take food if there is not food possible in the ordinary course. No one will feel more sympathy, not only in his private capacity but also in a business capacity, than I do, and as one connected with the food supply, and no one will feel more anxious to do everything possible to make it easy for those who are short of wages and money, to obtain goods at reasonable prices, and I do dissociate myself from the remarks to which I have referred, and I wish that such remarks had not been made, as they will do something to make the situation more difficult than it is. May I say one word in regard to the suggestion as to the regulation of prices. It has been suggested that those engaged in the food trade are a gang of thieves, anxious only to make money out of the situation. I think that is a calumny and a slander which ought not to be uttered at this stage.

What did the contractors do during the Boer War? They robbed everybody.

There are certain increases owing to a limited supply, owing to the obligations to supply the Government with food for war purposes, and owing to the increased cost in consequence of financial difficulties, and in financing business. As far as I have had any experience during the last few days, it has been the anxious thought of every firm I have been associated with or have talked with, and everyone desired, and desired only that they may not make one single extra penny of profit out of this sad situation, but as far as they are able, and if they are supported by the Government, in the financial operations, to distribute the food fairly and evenly throughout the country.

I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I think the question put to me by my hon. Friend is a very important one, and I am sure that the House would like to be assured that the Government have taken steps. In fact, as soon as there was any apprehension in the mind of the Government, not that this country should be engaged in war, but that there would be a European war, one of the first questions they took into consideration was the question of the food supply for the people of this country, and we have been considering it, and been considering it carefully and anxiously. For days we have been in consultation with those who are specially informed upon the subject, because we realise that, even if we were not engaged in war, there would be difficulties which might interfere very seriously with the supply of food in this country. Some of the difficulties have already been indicated by my hon. Friend. With regard to some portions of the problem we have already arrived at a decision, very important parts of the problem, those dealing with war risks, and as my hon. Friend knows that is a very serious question; because, unless there is some guarantee as to war risks, we might not be able to get our ships to carry goods at all during war. With regard to that we arrived at a decision.

Does the right hon. Gentleman, as well as food supplies, mean raw material?

Yes, raw material, which we regard as equally essential. We mean all cargoes brought to the United Kingdom, and not only all cargoes brought to the United Kingdom, but by British ships anywhere in all parts, as we consider they are engaged in the essential trade of Great Britain wherever they apply. We propose to take every step for the protection of British shipping, and to enable the trade and commerce of this country to go on whatever happens. That was the first consideration which we have been giving our minds to, and to-morrow we hope to be able to make a statement with regard to some parts of the problem. I am not quite sure whether we shall be able to make an exhaustive statement with regard to the whole problem, and I am sure my hon. Friend and the House generally would infinitely prefer that we should take time to have a carefully thought out scheme rather than prematurely launch a scheme which might be found to be unworkable and productive perhaps of more mischief than good. For that reason, it is quite possible that tomorrow I may have to confine my statement with regard to the question of war risks, but if the Government have come to a definite conclusion with regard to something which is more than that, we shall announce it at once to the country, because we realise the importance of allaying the very natural anxiety which prevails, not merely in one quarter of the House, but in every quarter of the House, that this terrible calamity which has befallen civilisation should be productive of as little misery and suffering to the people of this country as possible.

I suppose every one of us who sit on these Benches must have been very much exercised in mind as to whether he ought to speak his mind here to-night or not. I have always been, since I have been a Member of this House, some eight and a half years now, I hope a perfectly loyal Member of the Liberal Party, and a loyal follower of the Government of the day. I have among the Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench men whom I am proud to hold, not only as leaders but as personal friends, and men in whom I have every confidence. Therefore it is with deep and profound feeling that I rise to-night to dissociate myself from the policy which has been enunciated to-day. I listened very carefully to what the Foreign Secretary said, and I hope the House will believe me when I say that I listened with every anxiety to feel exactly as the Foreign Secretary felt, and to agree with him. The first question I asked myself was this: What British interest is there involved in this war which entitles the Government to intervene in it? No trade route is endangered as far as I was able to understand. At all events as long as this country remained neutral with its overwhelming Navy, you could keep clear any trade route for its own supply both of food and raw materials. I asked myself whether there had been any hint or suggestion that either Egypt or India or any British possession in any part of the world was menaced either by Germany or by Austria; and, as far as I could understand from the speech of the Foreign Secretary, not a single one of our possessions is endangered in any way by Germany or by Austria, or indeed by any of the belligerents. I asked myself, if that be the case, has there been an ultimatum or anything in the nature of an ultimatum addressed to this country as was addressed to France?—and I could hear no hint or suggestion of any such menacing message having been sent to this country.

It is a painful thing at all times for one to oppose a war once it has been inaugurated, but I think that men who feel as I do in this matter would be lacking in courage if they did not at this late hour—if it is not too late—raise their voices against it. At any rate, I am going to free my hands from the shedding of blood by saying what I have to say. I know all regard this matter as serious, but there is a greater seriousness in the matter for such a constituency as mine than in the case of the constituencies of hon. Members opposite. They will go back to their constituencies, which are largely agricultural, and there they will find the price of the things which their constituencies sell rising; war will mean an immediate profit to them. I go to my constituency tomorrow; there the factories are already closing down—for they do not make war with earthenware. I have not heard to-night any justification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the bringing of such a terror upon this land. All through his speech he seemed to be actuated by a veiled hostility to Germany. Germany was the enemy. What we had to fear as the outcome of war, if we do not enter into it, was a predominant Germany terrorising the world and eating up smaller states in military aggrandisement. I say that the injustice of that speech, the sinister injustice of it, makes the position more difficult for hon. Members who think like myself, for the right hon. Gentleman suppressed one great main factor. I do not think that during the whole of that speech the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the name of Russia. We might have supposed from that speech that it was powerful Ger-many making an attack upon weak France! He did not tell us that the origin of this war, so far as France is now involved in it, was the mobilisation of the Russian forces, which prevented the localisation of the war between Austria and Servia. I have a picture in my mind as the outcome of this war. I think this war may end with the inevitable aggrandisement of Russia and the increase of her power in Europe and Asia. I do not see an all-conquering Germany as a result of this. I see a Germany crushed, and an all-conquering Russia. Power in the end in such a war as this rests with that nation which can bring its last hundreds of thousands to the slaughter, and it is Russia which can bring her peasantry last into the field. A powerful appeal was made by the right hon. Gentleman, an appeal that he knew would carry weight in this country, and the only one that would carry weight in this country—an appeal on behalf of Belgium. He spoke of a small nation in danger of oppression. He talked of the neutrality of Belgium. While I can undoubtedly see a technical violation of the neutrality of Belgium in the marching of troops through Belgium, that is very different to the conquest of Belgium by force and the holding of Belgium by force.

"I cannot believe that civilization in its journey towards the sun will enter with endless night to gratify the ambition of those men who seek to wade through slaughter to a throne and shut the gates of mercy on mankind."

I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but for the purpose of asking a question, and that question is this: Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to make his statement to-morrow, will be able to give us some information as to what steps it is intended to take with regard to the currency, and especially with regard to the circulation of notes?

I propose to make a statement which will cover that particular question to-morrow.

Will that include the possibility of fixing the price of food stuffs?

I am not sure I shall be able to say anything about that to-morrow.

This is a question which certainly deserves long and considerable discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! Divide!"] I do not see why those who are disinclined either to listen or to speak should stay at all. I feel very flattered myself when they begin to shout "Divide! Divide!" because then I know the remarks I am making are going home. There are one or two aspects of this Debate which struck me as rather remarkable. One of these is this. That although we have evidence of great numbers of supporters of the Government still backing them up—although we have the whole of the official Opposition supporting the Government—we have heard during the course of this Debate, I think, only one whole-hearted speech supporting the policy outlined by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Why is it that supporters of this policy have lost their voice? Are they afraid or are they ashamed, or why is it that we heard practically no defence from either side of the House, with the one exception to which I have referred, for the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? This is all the more remarkable in the case of the Opposition, because only a fortnight or three weeks ago they described Gentlemen sitting on the Government Bench as the most incompetent, policyless people you could find. It was said that their only policy was that they were drifting to disaster, and I remember that the Leader of the Opposition, in the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote, telling the Foreign Secretary that if he could not use his influence to preserve peace in his own land, he could do no good at all abroad. Why is it that the Leader of tie Opposition is not here now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!" and interruptions.]

This is a matter of the utmost gravity. The hon. Member should not be interrupted.

It is a subject of the deepest interest, I venture to say, to the country and to the House, and if this policy is supported by the Opposition, why should we only have a few perfunctory words from the Leader of the Opposition? I feel the more compelled to ask this, because the whole of the policy which has brought us to this pass is in direct opposition to the traditional policy of the late Lord Salisbury. His policy was not the balance of power, but the concert of Europe, not making agreement on one side with one Power and having understandings on one side with another Power, but freedom from all foreign complications. It is that traditional policy of the Conservative party by one of the greatest Foreign Ministers that party has ever had up to the present day, Lord Salisbury, which was thrown overboard some ten years ago, and which has brought Europe to certainly the most lamentable condition which it has ever been in since the days of Napoleon. There is another question or two which I should like to address to the Government Front Bench. I want to know whether the policy on which we are embarking has the support of the united Cabinet. We hear rumours, both inside the House and outside, that there are divisions, and that even one Cabinet Minister has resigned. I hope that is not so. I admire the Cabinet, and I admire some of its Members much more than others, and if it is one of those I most admire, I should find my confidence in them much shaken. If, on the other hand, they are all united, having as they have a much better opportunity for judging this question than I have, if I am told to-night that there is a united Cabinet upon this subject, I shall be very much relieved, and much more inclined to support the Government in this matter.

That is a wicked suggestion!

The hon. Gentleman has no right to make that remark. The only suggestion I made was that we should have some information from the Front Bench: to say that is a wicked suggestion, I will not stigmatise in the way I should like the conduct of the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman said there was one bright spot in connection with this question, and it was Ireland. Why have we not had some assurances from the Conservative Members from Ireland that they are going to stand patriotically by the Nationalist Members in this crisis? I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Waterford say that the difficulties of the nation and the Empire were going to have prior consideration in his policy, even above the demands of Ireland. Why have we not had some similiar statement from the Ulster Tories?

There is no doubt about our patriotism.

A short time ago the hon. Members with whom the Noble Lord opposite works were declaring that they would invite the Kaiser over—

We are discussing a matter of such great gravity that I hope the hon. Member will not enter into any irrelevant questions

I beg to withdraw my remark. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is scandalous!"] I do not think what I am going to say is irrelevant. If we are going into a war against Germany, and if that war is going to be enthusiastically supported by the Ulster Tories, let them remember this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, "Order!"]

The matter is too serious.

I ask hon. Members opposite to remember this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] What I am going to say is perfectly in order. They are going to fight against the most Protestant Power on the Continent of Europe—

In this matter I think I may act for the House, and say that we are discussing a matter of the deepest gravity, and it is most undesirable to complicate it with matters which have nothing to do with it. I hope the hon. Member will observe that.

I still maintain that I have said nothing which is out of order.

I have not attempted to deal with the hon. Member on a matter of strict order. We are here on a graver occasion than to deal with matters of order.

I pass from that, and I say without any hesitation that the House and the country has not sufficiently realised that if we are going into this war, it is a war against German civilisation, and the German people who are our friends, and the German Government is not. The bureaucracy and the military caste that mismanaged, and I believe grossly mismanaged, the affairs of Germany, are the enemies of the peace of Europe, and it is that caste and those men that we have to stand out against. Old man as I am, if I were asked to take up arms and fight myself against those men, I would be glad to do it. But the misery and tragedy of the position is this: We cannot fight against those masters of tyranny, and against those men who misgovern, without fighting at the same time against the German people. That is what puts many of us in the gravest difficulty. That is what makes this matter to me personally a question of intense pain and trial, I have many dear personal friends in Germany whom I value and respect and love as much as any men on earth, and to think that from this time forward, not only for a few years but perhaps for the rest of my life, I am to be estranged from the influence of those men by a tragedy of this sort is something which I cannot contemplate in silence or light-heartedly say that it must come, and it is not something I can allow to come to pass without uttering one more warning, and if it be not too late a plea for a reconsidera- tion of this question. When we are going into a war like this, we cannot say we are fighting for the small independent State of Belgium. I admit that is a noble object on which to shed blood and money. We cannot even say that we are fighting for the integrity and independence of a great Power like France. We must look upon this question as a whole, and remember that we are fighting for Russia when we are fighting against Germany, and that if Germany stands for tyrannical Government, Russia stands for atrocious tyrannical Government.

Is the hon. Member in order in accusing a friendly Power of atrocious tyrannical government? I believe it has been ruled that an hon. Member is not in order in using such language in regard to this particular Power.

I do not think the hon. Member was going quite so far as the hon. Baronet has indicated. I may perhaps again suggest that it does not add to the strength of the hon. Member's case to use language of that kind.

I shall be glad to withdraw anything I have said which is inappropriate or objectionable, but I cannot put aside this plain fact, that in Russia at the present moment you have 100,000 people in prison without a trial. You have three executions a day, or over 1,000 a year, of men who are executed under martial law without even a semblance of a trial at all. You have, moreover, this fact, that a few weeks ago, just before the time of mobilisation in Russia, you had uprisings, strikes, and threats of civil war, such as have not been known there for half a dozen years. As one who has tried to understand the affairs of Russia, I believe that this diabolical mobilisation of the forces of Russia was largely occasioned by her own internal difficulties. In order to save the position, the emoluments and the prerogatives of men in power in that land, they have mobilised their Army, and thrown the whole of Europe into a conflagration of war. They have done that not from any patriotic motives, not because they really want to preserve any great ideal, but because their own position, power, and place are in danger. Remember—I remember it, and I cannot forget it, and as far as it is in my power I will make others remember it—that if we are fighting against Germany we are fighting for Russia, and if we are fighting for Russia at the present time we are fighting for an amount of tyranny and injustice and cruelty which it is quite impossible to think of without the deepest indignation. We must not look merely at the question of the neutrality of Belgium, and the freedom of attack of the Northern ports of France—after all, these ports are only small spots in the great field of war. Let us at least carefully consider the whole question, and let us realise something more of the great issues involved.

(indistinctly heard): I feel the gravity of this occasion, and I think that I may be pardoned for saying plainly what I think about the speech made by the Foreign Secretary to-day and the policy he has outlined. As a Liberal sent here two or three times by my Constituents to carry out peace, retrenchment, and reform, I feel with the deepest seriousness any approach of war, because I know that war contradicts all those three topics. The one thing which gave me most satisfaction in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the statement that up till now no ultimatum has been presented to Germany, nor has any threat been made. It was said, too, that there was no war proclaimed between Russia and Austria, and that neither had Germany declared war against France. There seemed therefore to be some opportunities for further negotiations. That appeared to be clear from what was said about an offer made by the German Government as regarded Belgium, and as regarded the French ports on the British Channel. The Foreign Secretary would greatly add to the laurels he has already gained in diplomacy if he could carry those negotiations further. It may take up time, but if by any chance the nation can avoid going into hostilities with Germany the gain will be immense. There are ways in diplomacy of settling without war the tearing up of a treaty, as we saw on the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and when a great Power sent her ships through the Dardenelles. I think, therefore, the matter of going through Belgium might be accomplished without loss of honour even to a great nation. After all, the one great consideration is this: What are we going to gain or lose? In nearly every war the warlike nation loses a great deal. Our commerce and our manufacturing business will be injured. The effect will be felt throughout all the British Colonies in the world, in the commercial centres, and widespread ruin is likely to occur there. Already it has begun. The working class in Germany are dead against this war. Many in France, too, are strongly against it, and I have not the least doubt when the right hon. Baronet's speech comes to be read in the manufacturing towns in the North there will be a strong feeling against our entering into hostilities under the circumstances.

It is always a painful thing for a Member of this House, and especially one with comparatively little experience, to give expression to criticisms of his own party, and it is more especially painful to do it on a great and tragic occasion like this, and against what appears to be the strong stream of opinion of one's fellow countrymen. Nevertheless every Member must remember that he has a responsibility for the bloodshed and suffering which may be caused not only to his own fellow country-men, but to all the nations of Europe in the course of the next few weeks, and I therefore feel I cannot "it silent without stating that I am not satisfied the Government has done all it possibly could for peace. It may be that within the last few-weeks or months they may have done so, but I for one cannot forget the anti-German policy which had been pursued for many years, and I cannot shut my ears to the anti-German tone which, I regret to say, seemed to be so evident in the speech of the Secretary of Stats for Foreign Affairs to-day. The policy which the Government is now pursuing is one which has been demanded by the anti-German Press in this country with great violence for a week or more, and the Government are now receiving the most enthusiastic sup-port from those who have been crying out against Germany for years past. I feel bound to support, however feebly, the definite suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), because it seemed to me that even, at the last hour, it contained some glimmer of hope and that it constituted a chance which ought not to be thrown away. The suggestion was that we should make a definite and unmistakable offer to Germany. We should not tell her in general terms that her offer is not broad enough, but we should make a definite offer that we on our part will remain neutral in this war on two conditions. The first condition, of course, is that the Northern ports of France shall not be attacked. We have been told to-day that we have no obligation to France except in regard to those Northern ports. As I understood that statement it was that the French fleet had been removed to the Mediterranean in order that our fleet might be brought into Northern waters, and to-day we were told that that had practically created on our part an honourable obligation to defend the Northern ports of France in return. That pledge seems to have been given yesterday, and it strikes me that it is totally inconsistent with the assurances that have been given from time to time by the Government in this House—assurances quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire—which amounted to this, that we were under no obligations. However, that is done with. I think the House has been misled in that matter, and I think the House would rather have sacrificed a very large sum of money in building additional ships than that we should come under an obligation to defend the French ports in the way that we seem to have done. On this point Germany has expressed a willingness to meet us. Therefore, the remaining point is the one of greater difficulty—I mean with regard to Belgium. Here it is very easy to fix our eyes upon the wrong which Germany has done within the last few hours, but great matters between great nations cannot be wholly settled by such a short view as that. I venture to say that if the attitude of Great Britain towards Germany for years past had been different from what it has been, we might not to-day have to lament the lawless act Germany has committed towards Belgium.

(indistinctly heard): I feel irresistibly impelled to trouble the House with two or three thoughts which are passing through my mind on this exciting day. We saw here a remarkable scene. The House crowded at every corner, the galleries crowded, and great eagerness on the part of Members. If one goes outside the House one sees the same excitement, because England is plunging into war, which I am afraid will far too soon become popular. We heard the shouts of exultation which came from the other side. It is not more than a dozen men in Europe that have brought this thing about, yet tens of hundreds of thousands of people in these four or five nations will be reduced to terrible want and misery. That is what men shout about with glee! It is not a war to defend our hearths and homes. If it were, I could understand this exultation. It is to defend our honour. I hope I do not value honour more lightly than any of my colleagues. It is for honour that a German duellist fights his fellow officer. Whether he kills his opponent or is killed by him, honour is revenged. So it is to be now. We are to hire a number of men, a number of soldiers, to go and blow out the brains of another number of men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not serve yourself?"] To vindicate our honour. [Interruption.] I want to put considerations before the House which come from Mr. Norman Angell, the man who has, perhaps, done more to undermine the spirit and theory of war than any other living man. He asks, if England is to go to war with Germany, if the German soldiers cross the frontier, would England go to war with France if French soldiers violated the neutrality of Belgium?

Suppose Germany declares war?

England contracted in. 1870 that she would help either France or Germany to defend Belgian territory, but there was this proviso in the first article of the Anglo-German and the Anglo-French agreement:—

"It is clearly understood that Her Majesty the Queen, does not engage herself by this treaty to take part in the general operations of the war beyond the limits of Belgium."

The hon. Member (Mr. Aneurin Williams) assumed that he was speaking against the general stream of opinion in this country when he opposed the making of war and the giving up of neutrality by this country. I do not think he is right. I believe the great body of opinion in this country is for maintaining our neutrality in this war, and the striking evidence of that was that during the whole course of the speech of the Foreign Minister this afternoon there was not one single cheer from this side of the House. The whole of the cheering came from the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is absolutely untrue!"]

I hope no such statement as that will be made. I sat in that part of the House, and the Foreign Secretary was cheered time after time. Hon. Members above the Gangway were in complete sympathy with him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

If the hon. Member inadvertently made an incorrect statement, which he of course believes, hon. Members must allow him, if he desires, to explain his statement.

He ought not to make an untrue statement.

An hon. Member can inadvertently make an in-correct statement, but he is not likely to make any exaggerated statement unless he believes it to be true.

I am sorry if I made a statement which was incorrect. I was only speaking from my own observation. I was standing at the Bar during the whole of the speech, and attempted to estimate what respective support the Foreign Secretary derived from expressions of opinion in the House on the statement which he made. My impression was the impression to which I have given utterance, and if I was wrong, I am very sorry. At all events, only one Member from this side has spoken in favour of the statement of the Foreign Minister. That, at all events, is an accurate statement.

There are plenty of Liberals who will support you.

That we shall see in the future. In the meantime I think the country will want more explanation than we have had to-day as to the reasons why the Government is taking the course which they propose to take. The Foreign Minister promised papers. One interesting thing to be seen in the papers will be what efforts he has made to get the French to refuse to join in this enterprise. He dealt very lightly with the question of the participation of France with Russia. He said it was a matter in which the French had no interest any more than we, but they felt themselves bound in honour to support the Servian and the Russian case against Austria and Germany. He made one remarkable statement that he did not know what the obligations of the French were towards the Russians under the Treaty of Alliance between those two Powers. It is a curious thing that the Foreign Minister of this country should not know what must be an elementary fact necessary for the proper diplomatic handling of various questions. However, we must accept the statement which he has made. But there is another remarkable fact that the Italians are taking up an attitude of absolute neutrality in these enterprises. If the Italians were able to withhold from this participation, how does it come that the French were not equally able to withhold from participation in the Russian enterprise? In this course of events, we have the French joining the Russians on a point of honour and we are joining the French on a point of honour—a regular house that Jack built. The French have no direct interest and we have no direct interest, and yet we are both going to compromise the future of our history. Everyone knows that the real interest of the French is not under their engagement with Russia, but because they wish to get back Alsace-Lorraine. We have no such object. Are we going to help the French to get back Alsace-Lorraine? In fact, we are being asked to undertake an enterprise which is going to lead to the loss of perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives and certainly millions of money to us.

The value of this Debate is to show that there is in this country a certain volume of public opinion—how strong we cannot yet tell—that has not yet lost its patience. The position as we have it to-day is that the door is not yet closed. There is no declaration of war, and the speech of the Foreign Secretary did not imply that in the immediate future there would be a declaration of war. The position that we on this side, or at any rate I myself, take is that of urging that the door shall not be lightly closed. It is very easy in these moments for patience to become exhausted, and I think the great mass of the people would feel that we in this House had committed a crime unless we, before the outbreak of war, had shown the utmost patience consistent with our national honour. What, after all, is it that we are to go to war about? It is the obligations and the vital interests in connection with two Powers. The first of these Powers is France and the second is Belgium. We have already learned regarding France that our obligations of honour and our direct interests are not inconsistent with neutrality and agreement with Germany. With regard to Belgium, I do put this one consideration to the House: How are we to enforce Belgian neutrality? There are three possible ways. We are urged to undertake a naval war with that object. Surely it is clear to everybody in this House that no naval war could preserve that neutrality! If our desire is to prevent the passage of German troops across Belgium, what naval war would prevent that? The second alternative is to wage a military compaign and land an expeditionary force in Belgium. Does anyone really think that it is in the best interests of Belgium to make it the cockpit of this Armageddon? To make Belgium the scene of a vast European War is not in the best interests of the country whose neutrality we wish to guarantee. Surely, if we were that country, small and comparatively defenceless, desiring to maintain our independence, would we not prefer that a force should pass through our boundaries rather than that our territory should be the scene of one of the bloodiest conflicts in modern times, provided that our ultimate independence was absolutely secure!

I want to express my own appreciation, and I think the appreciation of the country, of the efforts made by the Foreign Secretary in endeavouring to localise the war. I desire to dissociate myself from the attacks made to-day upon the right hon. Gentleman. I think I can go further and say that whatever may be the result of the crisis in which we find ourselves, the country undoubtedly appreciates the efforts both of the Government and the Opposition to secure an honourable peace. There can be no doubt in my mind that the paramount interest of this country is peace. The great desire of the people of this country is that the Government should, if it is in any way possible, maintain neutrality in the conflict which is taking place. I venture to ask whether it is yet too late to consider the proposal made by Germany, because I understand that the latest information is that there has been no violation of the neutrality of Belgium. If that be so, I wish to add my appeal that the suggestion put forward by Germany may be seriously considered. I can claim that I have voted for a strong Navy, costly as that has been, because I desire to see this country placed in a position not only to defend its own interests, but also to defend the interests of those with whom we may be allied. After being in the country, I know that I am expressing the feeling of the enormous majority of the people with whom I came in contact when I say that their earnest prayer is that the Government and the Opposition should put forward every effort possible either to localise the war in Europe, or, in any event, to maintain our neutrality in the conflict that is going on.

I regret, in the first place, to dissociate myself from a number of Friends with whom on other occasions I am proud to serve. I think it is unfortunate that we have had almost a stream of speeches all on a single line on this side of the House. I think it is important to show that that section on these benches has been vocal out of proportion to its numbers, I regret some of these speeches, because of the attacks made upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Personally, I have not always supported his foreign policy. I had always grave doubts of the policy of engagements with Continental Powers, but we have in the present situation to consider our obligations in view of the policy adopted by successive Governments in this country. But that was not the primary consideration in my mind. Like, I believe, hon. Members in all parts of the House, I have viewed the situation to which this crisis has given rise with grave anxiety, and I have endeavoured, so far as I possibly could, to reach a just conclusion regarding the proper course for this country to adopt. As a Liberal I thought the best policy to adopt was to go to the fountain of the Gladstonian tradition. The hon. Member for Leicester to-day accused the Government of departing from the traditions of the Liberal party. I do not know what title he has to speak of the traditions of the Liberal party, but I think that no Liberal can find any better exponent of the traditions of the Liberal party than the late Mr. Gladstone.

I do not rise to continue the argument upon the policy of the Government announced so eloquently and so admirably by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. I rise simply in consequence of an observation that fell from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Pringle), at the beginning of his speech. With the general tenor of that speech I am greatly in agreement. But he began by expressing a regret, in the first instance, that there should have been a series of speeches delivered one after another on this Motion which might give, I will not say the public of this country, but the people in foreign countries, less acquainted than we are with our Parliamentary procedure and the weight and value of particular Parliamentary transactions, an entirely false view of what the impression of this House is, or of the whole public of which this House is the representative. I hope the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is mistaken in that. I believe he is mistaken. The facts are so palpable and so obvious that I do not think that anybody who really studies the Debate doubts what those facts are. We are not now discussing in any effective sense the policy of His Majesty's Government. We are not dealing with any Resolution which touches the policy of His Majesty's Government.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, that we have had only the dregs of the Debate. I have listened to the speeches on both sides of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU have not been here!"]—and I do not think that that is a correct description. I do know, although as the right hon. Gentleman knows well that I hold strong views on this subject, and no one knows better, I do know that the views expressed on this side are views which cannot be dismissed so lightly.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct that statement. Let him remember, in the first place, that I made no criticism of the speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dregs!"] In the second place, I said that, undoubtedly, the section of opinion represented to-night ought to find its full expression in the great Debate, but this was not the occasion.

It was for that reason I rose. I had not intended to take part in this Debate until I heard the right hon. Gentleman make his speech. I think it would be more unfortunate that there should go out from this House to the country the idea that the views we have heard expressed to-night are irresponsible views—

I never said irresponsible.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish—that there should go out the idea that the views expressed in the majority of the speeches represent the majority of this House. I hold most strongly that the Government are right, and at the proper time I shall have occasion to give my reasons for so thinking. I may perhaps say that I have a special responsibility in this matter to which I must then refer. But I do protest against any idea that the speeches made to-night on this side—

Which you have not heard.

Yes, I have heard every speech but two in this Debate. I hope it will not be assumed that the views so expressed are irresponsible views. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Nobody said they were!"] At the proper time I hope we may have a debate on this subject, which will raise the true issue. To-night I agree with the right hon. Gentleman it might be well that we should adjourn the discussion. But I wished to say that I do not think it would be well that we should assume that the views so far expressed are the dregs of the Debate. They are not. I wish to combat those views at the proper time, but I think it would be well that the Debate should now be concluded.

A splendid contribution.