Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition.  Socialism has its own formulas and aims.  Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.  Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right.  Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.  Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass.  Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man.  Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.

These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will agree I am right in drawing at this election between our respective policies and moods.  Don’t think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a creed to which there is no expanding future.  As long as the world rolls round, Liberalism will have its part to play—­grand, beneficent, and ameliorating—­in relation to men and States.

The truth lies in these matters, as it always lies in difficult matters, midway between extreme formulas.  It is in the nice adjustment of the respective ideas of collectivism and individualism that the problem of the world and the solution of that problem lie in the years to come.  But I have no hesitation in saying that I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective element should be introduced into the State and municipalities.  I should like to see the State undertaking new functions, stepping forward into new spheres of activity, particularly in services which are in the nature of monopolies.  There I see a wide field for State enterprise.  But when we are told to exalt and admire a philosophy which destroys individualism and seeks to replace it absolutely by collectivism, I say that is a monstrous and imbecile conception, which can find no real acceptance in the brains and hearts—­and the hearts are as trustworthy as the brains—­in the hearts of sensible people.

Now I pass over the revolutionary Socialists, who, I admit, if they feel inclined, are justified in throwing away their votes on Saturday next, and I come to the Labour and to the Trade Union element in our midst.  There I have one or two words to say of rather a straight character, if you don’t object, and which, I hope, will be taken in good part, and will be studied and examined seriously.  Labour in Britain is not Socialism.  It is quite true that the Socialistic element has imposed a complexion on Labour, rather against its will, and is now supported in its action by funds almost entirely supplied by Trade Unions.  But Trade Unions are not Socialistic.  They are undoubtedly individualist organisations, more in the character of the old Guilds, and lean much more in the direction of the culture of the individual than