Authors: Winston Churchill
Never Give In! (18 page)
16 September 1925
Midlands Conservative Club Dinner, Birmingham
In 1922 the wartime coalition government, led by Lloyd George, had been driven from office by the Conservatives, who went on to win a resounding victory. However, just a year later, the new leader of the Conservative Party called a further election, which led to the formation of the first Labour Government. Meanwhile Churchill, by a 10,000-vote margin majority, lost his Dundee seat to a Prohibitionist by the name of Scrimgeour, whom Churchill described as ‘possessed of all the virtues I despise and none of the sins that I admire’. He was to be out of Parliament for a whole year, in the course of which he gravitated back to the Conservative Party, which he saw as the most effective bulwark against Socialism. In October of 1924 he was returned for the Conservative seat of Epping and the Conservative Party, under its new leader, Stanley Baldwin, won an overwhelming victory. As Churchill commented in his memoirs: ‘I was surprised, and the Conservative Party dumbfounded, when he [Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin] invited me to become Chancellor of the Exchequer.’ Thus, in the space of twenty tumultuous years he had ‘crossed the floor’ for a second time and was once again back in the Conservative fold. He later commented: ‘Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.’
Electioneering on the way back to Westminster, 1924.
It is almost a quarter of a century since I was president of the Midland Conservative Club, and addressed its members in this room. Twenty-five years is a long period in our brief lives, and an appreciable period in the history of a nation. But what a period is this twenty-five years, through which we have passed! Never have there been so many gigantic and terrible events crowded into an equal span, and never have there been so many changes, and such deep changes, in the same period in the social, political and economic structure of Britain, of Europe, and of the world. Five great Empires – the German Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire, the Turkish Empire, and the Chinese Empire – have been overwhelmed by various forms of destruction.
When we survey this tremendous and frightful panorama which has unfolded itself before us, it seems almost miraculous that our small island, with its crowded population and widespread possessions, should have survived intact, united, safe; and it ought to arouse in us feelings of deep thankfulness about the past and inspire us with confidence and courage in the difficulties of the present and of the future, (
Cheers.
)
But, even here in England, where the thread of historical continuity has alone among ancient states remained unbroken, immense changes, some good, some bad, have swept across our national and political life. The old order of government and society has largely passed away. Women have begun to play a part in our public life hitherto unexampled in the world. The union between Great Britain and Ireland has been repealed, and the Irish question has sunk in a grim yet hopeful solution. Thirdly, and not the least among supreme domestic events, millions of electors, who were or whose fathers were accustomed to seek progress under the direction of the Liberal Party, have transferred their allegiance to Socialist standards, and are now, poor fellows, mouthing the dreary fallacies of Karl Marx. (
Laughter.
)
Finally, there has been erected in Moscow a vast organisation of revolutionary propaganda, directed by a sect of able, ruthless men, armed with the remaining resources of a once mighty Empire, whose avowed purpose is to involve all other countries in the same ruin and enslavement which they have meted out to Russia. (
Cheers.
) I said ‘all other countries’, but can we be blind to the fact that British interests and the British Empire and Britain herself have been singled out as the first and main object of their malice. This island community of ours, which in all the great quarrels of the last 400 years has always defended, and hitherto always successfully defended, the cause of ordered freedom, stands as a massive obstacle in the path of the Bolshevist revolutionaries. To lay it low, to shatter it to pieces, to grind it to powder by every resource of violence or cunning – that is their task. They have recognised it. Let us recognise it too. (
Cheers.
)
These are the principal immense changes which have come into our British political life, and I think you will agree with me that they make it necessary for us, each and all, to choose with resolution the path we must take. . . .
The present Conservative Government and its Prime Minister stand as a solid central body of stalwart common sense and moderation. After three General Elections in three years, with all their waste and worry, with governments rising and falling like houses of cards, the nation, a year ago, returned a new House of Commons containing an overwhelming Conservative majority, elected on what is practically universal suffrage, and entitled, under the Constitution, to a five years’ term of office. The wish of the nation, unmistakably expressed, was that there should be a period of stability and tranquillity, during which law and order should be firmly maintained and constitutional practices strictly observed: during which, also, a policy of peace, patience and perseverance should be given a fair chance over a number of years.
11 December 1925
Town Hall, Battersea
The follies of Socialism are inexhaustible. They talk of comradeship and preach the brotherhood of men. What are they? They are the most disagreeable people. Talk about worldwide common brotherhood! Even among themselves they have twenty discordant factions who hate one another even more than they hate you and me. Their insincerity! Can you not feel a sense of disgust at the arrogant presumption of superiority of these people? Superiority of intellect! ‘We are looking forward,’ they say, ‘to a state of humanity far better than the present squalid human race will ever attain.’ Then when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average. (
Laughter and cheers.
)
Then there is this foreign element in Socialism, which I think deserves to awaken a sense of repulsion in every British breast. Why, they never thought of one single idea for themselves! They borrow all their ideas from Russia and Germany. They always sit adulating every foreign rascal and assassin who springs up for the moment. All their economics are taken from Karl Marx and all their politics from the actions of Lenin. With feelings of indignation I sometimes contemplate the harm the Socialists have done in corrupting and perverting great masses of our fellow-countrymen with their absurd foreign-imported doctrines. (
Cheers.
) If they want to speed up a movement of social reform is it necessary to teach people to dance to their ugly tune?
Behind Socialism stands Communism. Behind Communism stands Moscow, that dark, sinister, evil power which has made its appearance in the world – a band of cosmopolitan conspirators gathered from the underworld of Europe and America – which has seized the great Russian people by the hair of their heads and holds them in a grip, robbing them of victory, of prosperity, of freedom. This plaguish band of conspirators are aiming constantly to overthrow all civilised countries and reduce every nation to the level of misery to which they have plunged the great people of Russia. They strike everywhere, by every method, through every channel which is open to them, but there is no country at which they strike so much as at this island of ours.
22 April 1926
House of Commons
The rules of what constitutes ‘Parliamentary language’ were evidently more liberally interpreted in the 1920s than in more modern times. Certainly the barrage of epithets cast at the Chancellor of the
Exchequer must constitute something of a record.
A great deal of hard and strong language has been used in these Debates, and I shall claim, as I am sure I shall be accorded, the fullest liberty and latitude of debate in replying to the serious charges that have been made. I asked a gentleman very kindly to look through the Debates and let me have a statistical appreciation of the strength of the language used, and his analysis is very interesting. The word ‘robbery’ or ‘robbed’ was used 67 times; ‘confiscation’, 10; ‘plunder’, 10; ‘steal’, 3 – and once more by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his last remarks, but that arrived after the list was closed; ‘Raid’, 11; ‘theft’, 2; ‘filch’, 1; ‘grab’, 1; and there was one ‘cheat’. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is entitled to the credit of that. ‘Breach of faith’, 19; ‘betrayal’, 5; ‘outrage’, 1; ‘infamy’, 1; ‘rascality’, 1; ‘perfidy’, 1; ‘mean’, 15; ‘paltry’, 1; ‘despicable’, 1; ‘shabby’, 1; and ‘dastardly’, 3. I received the following compliments: ‘the villain of the piece’, ‘robber’, ‘marauder’, ‘cat-burglar’ and ‘artful dodger’. I think that is rather complimentary having regard to the quarter from which it emanated. The more exuberant Members of the party opposite have for some years, at elections at any rate, been accustomed to salute me by the expression ‘murderer’, and from that point of view ‘robber’ is a sort of promotion. It shows that I am making some headway in their esteem. Words which are on proper occasions the most powerful engines lose their weight and power and values when they are not backed by fact or winged by truth, when they are obviously the expression of a strong feeling, and are not related in any way to the actual facts of the situation.
22 October 1928
Chingford
When the General Election came in May 1929, the Liberals gained a slim majority over the Socialists. The Conservative Government resigned, a minority Labour Government under Ramsay MacDonald came to office with Liberal Party support, as Churchill had predicted in this address to his constituents. This marked the end of Churchill’s career as Chancellor of the Exchequer. His decision to return Britain to the Gold Standard was controversial and the timing, coming shortly before the ‘Great Crash’ of 1929, proved unfortunate. The Annual Register for 1929 records: ‘Mr Churchill had proved himself the most able debater in the party, if not in the House, but as a financier his success has been questionable.’
There can be only one issue at the General Election: whether there should be a Socialist Government in power or not, I am astounded at the levity with which this dire choice seems to be contemplated in some quarters. Mr Lloyd George will perhaps be allowed to join the Socialist Government, to give them stability – financial stability – and to teach them Parliamentary tactics. Some of the newspapers are busy arranging a Liberal–Socialist pact. The blushing Liberal bride is to be wedded to the somewhat reluctant Socialist swain. Lord Rothermere will apparently present himself in the guise of the heavy father giving his blessing to the happy pair: ‘Increase and multiply, my children. Be virtuous and you will be happy. Be economical and you will be rich.’ The Wedding March, played on organs of a million horse-power, will be ‘We all go the same way home. ’ (
Laughter.
)
24 October 1928
Aldersbrook
In 1925 Germany had been brought back into the comity of nations and became a signatory of the Locarno Pact, under the terms of which the European victors of the Great War, Great Britain and France, obliged themselves to disarm. But all the discussion of arms and disarmament only served to make the nations involved view one another with heightening suspicion and distrust – a situation to which Churchill alludes in his mocking allegory.
The discussion of the last two years has tended to bring naval, military, and air matters into a position of international consequence and prominence which is not at all warranted by anything in the present peaceable state of the world. Governments have been forced to examine all sorts of imaginary and immature possibilities which will never be translated into reality if any of the great and free democracies of the world are able to make their opinion prevail.
In order not to give offence to anyone, I will use a parable: Once upon a time all the animals in the Zoo decided that they would disarm, and they arranged to have a conference to arrange the matter. So the Rhinoceros said when he opened the proceedings that the use of teeth was barbarous and horrible and ought to be strictly prohibited by general consent. Horns, which were mainly defensive weapons, would, of course, have to be allowed. The Buffalo, the Stag, the Porcupine, and even the little Hedgehog all said they would vote with the Rhino, but the Lion and the Tiger took a different view. They defended teeth and even claws, which they described as honourable weapons of immemorial antiquity. The Panther, the Leopard, the Puma, and the whole tribe of small cats all supported the Lion and the Tiger. Then the Bear spoke. He proposed that both teeth and horns should be banned and never used again for fighting by any animal. It would be quite enough if animals were allowed to give each other a good hug when they quarrelled. No one could object to that. It was so fraternal, and that would be a great step towards peace. However, all the other animals were very offended with the Bear, and the Turkey fell into a perfect panic.