The fortunes of the trade unions are interwoven with the industries they serve.  The more highly organised trade unions are, the more clearly they recognise their responsibilities; the larger their membership, the greater their knowledge, the wider their outlook.  Of course, trade unions will make mistakes, like everybody else, will do foolish things, and wrong things, and want more than they are likely to get, just like everybody else.  But the fact remains that for thirty years trade unions have had a charter from Parliament which up to within a few years ago protected their funds, and gave them effective power to conduct a strike; and no one can say that these thirty years were bad years of British industry, that during these thirty years it was impossible to develop great businesses and carry on large manufacturing operations, because, as everybody knows perfectly well, those were good and expanding years of British trade and national enrichment.

A few years ago a series of judicial decisions utterly changed the whole character of the law regarding trade unions.  It became difficult and obscure.  The most skilful lawyers were unable to define it.  No counsel knew what advice to tender to those who sought his guidance.  Meanwhile if, in the conduct of a strike, any act of an agent, however unauthorised, transgressed the shadowy and uncertain border-line between what was legal and what was not, an action for damages might be instituted against the trade union, and if the action was successful, trade union funds, accumulated penny by penny, year by year, with which were inseparably intermingled friendly and benefit moneys, might in a moment have been swept away.  That was the state of the law when his Majesty’s present advisers were returned to power.  We have determined to give back that charter to the trade unions.  The Bill is even now passing through the House of Commons.

We are often told that there can be no progress for democracy until the Liberal Party has been destroyed.  Let us examine that.  Labour in this country exercises a great influence upon the Government.  That is not so everywhere.  It is not so, for instance, in Germany, and yet in Germany there is no Liberal Party worth speaking of.  Labour there is very highly organised, and the Liberal Party there has been destroyed.  In Germany there exists exactly the condition of affairs, in a Party sense, that Mr. Keir Hardie and his friends are so anxious to introduce here.  A great social democratic party on the one hand, are bluntly and squarely face to face with a capitalist and military confederation on the other.  That is the issue, as it presents itself in Germany; that is the issue, as I devoutly hope it may never present itself here.  And what is the result?  In spite of the great numbers of the Socialist Party in Germany, in spite of the high ability of its leaders, it has hardly any influence whatever upon the course of public affairs.  It has to submit to food taxes and to conscription; and I observe that Herr Bebel, the distinguished leader of that Party, at Mannheim the other day was forced to admit, and admitted with great candour, that there was no other country in Europe so effectively organised as Germany to put down anything in the nature of a violent Socialist movement.  That is rather a disquieting result to working men of having destroyed the Liberal Party.