That is enough men to get us into trouble with a great European nation, and nothing like enough men to get us out again. (Hear, hear.) We do not want to have in England a large Regular Army for home defence. We do not want our Volunteers to remain a mere despised appendage of the War Office. (Cheers.) There is scarcely anything more harmful to the British Army than this perpetual imitation of the German system (hear, hear), of German uniforms, and of methods. Sometimes I think the whole Cabinet has got a touch of German measles (laughter), but Mr Brodrick’s case is much the worst. He is spotted from head to foot (laughter), and he has communicated the contagion to the Army.

Perhaps you would say to me, ‘You are very ready to tell us what kind of an Army we do not want, but will you tell us what kind of an army we do?’ Well, it is almost impossible for any one who has not got access to the machinery and knowledge of a great Department to make detailed positive propositions on such a very complicated question, but after what I have said I feel I ought to put forward some suggestions of a constructive character. First of all, the British Regular Army of the future would have to be, nearly all of it, serving abroad in the great garrisons of the Empire – India, Egypt, South Africa, and in the various fortresses and coaling stations which are so necessary to us; and for this reason we would only be able to have a very small Regular Army at home. It ought to be a very good Army (hear, hear) – perhaps much better paid and, I hope, better trained than at present; but, still, it could only be a very small Army – an Army big enough to send an expedition to fight the Mahdi or the Mad Mullah, and just the kind of Army to do that sort of thing very well, but not big enough to fight the Russians or the Germans or the French. Then we would have to entrust the defence of the soil of England from a foreign invasion to a great voluntary citizen army of Yeomanry, of Militia, and of Volunteers. (Cheers.) These would have to be our stand-by in the hour of need, as they have been in the South African war, and we would have to spend a great deal of money that we saved by reducing the number of Regular soldiers on making this citizen army worthy of our trust and equal to its responsibility. Last of all, and first of all, and in the middle all the time, we must place our faith and our money in the British Navy (loud cheers), which alone secures our island home from the foot of the spoiler, which alone safeguards the world-strewn commerce of our people and protects the wide-spread dominions of the King. (Cheers.) Some day, perhaps, the eminent statesmen who govern us – the men who really govern, I mean – will turn their minds to this tremendous question and will think it out with something of the care and labour and brain power, say, Mr Balfour devoted to the Education Bill or Mr Chamberlain devoted to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. (Hear, hear.) And whenever that fortunate day should arrive I would make so bold as to prophesy that the ambitious dreams of renewed military glory to be won by British Regulars on the Continent of Europe which distort our present Army policy will be roughly brushed aside, and that in their place will come a true conception of our varied needs and circumstances and a wiser and more thrifty employment of our resources; a professional Army to garrison the Empire; a volunteer citizen Army to defend it; and over all a British Navy, of which I need only say this – that it must be strong enough to preserve the peace of the world. (Cheers.)

‘THE MERE WASHPOT OF PLUTOCRACY’

4 June 1904

Alexandra Palace, London

On 31 May 1904 Churchill ‘crossed the floor’ of the House of Commons to take his place among the Liberal party on the Opposition benches. He did so on the issue of Free Trade which, bowing to Protectionist cartels, the Conservative party had abandoned. A few days later, in the company of the Leaden of the Liberal Party, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Lloyd George, he addressed a meeting to celebrate the centenary of Richard Cobden, the Liberal free-trader who founded the ‘Manchester School’ of economists.

And how is it with the Conservative party? They are not pleased with me. (Laughter.) They tell me I ought to join the Liberal party – (Cheers.) It is not a bad idea. (Renewed cheers.) I will consider it carefully. (Laughter and cheers.) I have a sincere respect for the Conservative party. They are an ancient party, and I believe that they will at intervals have a valuable and a useful function to fulfil in the government of the country. But the Conservative party has allowed itself to become the instrument of an ambitious man. It has allowed itself to advocate a reactionary and a dangerous policy. It has allowed itself to embark upon a gamble for another lease of power, a gamble with the food of the people. And in consequence the Conservative party will suffer, and will, I think, deservedly suffer, electoral defeat some day in a perhaps not too distant future. (Cheers.)

But a graver danger than defeat threatens the Conservative party. There are worse things than defeat – dishonour is worse. The Conservative party is threatened with a revolutionary change in its character and position, a change which will make it not a national party, not a constitutional party, not an Imperial party, not even an aristocratic party; it is in danger of becoming a capitalist party, (Cheers.) It is in great danger of becoming the mere washpot of the plutocracy, the engine of the tariff and the trust, and a hard confederation of interest and monopoly banded together to corrupt and to plunder the commonwealth. (Loud cheers.) That is the danger which many of the wisest men in the party are striving to save it from, and whatever our political opinions may be we must all hope that it may be preserved from that danger. What should we say of the statesman who is responsible for all this disturbance – Mr Chamberlain? How are the mighty fallen! (Laughter.) ‘But yesterday the word of Caesar might have stood against the world’ – now he has to sit next to Mr Chaplain. (Laughter.) Only a year ago Mr Chamberlain was going to sweep the country; now he dare not face a debate in the House of Commons.