Henry Campbell-Bannerman Quotes

I rise to move, "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail."

I hold that the growth of armaments is a great danger to the peace of the world. A policy of huge armaments keeps alive and stimulates and feeds the belief that force is the best, if not the only, solution of international differences. It is a policy that tends to inflame old sores and to create new sores. And I submit to you that as the principles of peaceful arbitration gains ground it becomes one of the highest tasks of a statesman to adjust those armaments to the newer and happier condition of things. (Cheers.) What nobler role could this great country assume than at the fitting moment to place itself at the head of a league of peace, through whose instrumentality this great work could be effected? (Cheers.)

For ten years they [the Conservative Party] have been supported by an immense majority in the House of Commons. ... The period over which we are looking back presents itself to me, I confess, as a well-nigh unbroken expanse of mismanagement; of legislation conducted for the benefit of privileged classes and powerful interests; of wars and adventures abroad hastily embarked upon and recklessly pursued. The legacy which they have bequeathed to their successors...is in the main a legacy of embarrassment, an accumulation of public mischief appalling in its extent and ramifications.

I am half-surprised to find that as I go on I get more and more confirmed in the old advanced Liberal principles, economic, social, & political, with which I entered Parliament 30 years ago.

The proper way to lead the Boers into harmony with us and restore contentment and prosperity to the whole community was to leave them alone as far as possible—to leave them with their old form of government, with their own ways, with their own machinery of government—in order that the burgher, when he went about his daily life, should discern as little as possible the difference between that which happened to him as a British subject and that which happened to him when he was the subject of an independent State.

Now, everybody was a "pro-Boer" who did not agree to everything Mr. Chamberlain did, and who said "Here is a people fighting gallantly for the independence of their own country; for goodness sake do not attribute every sort of evil to them while you are fighting them; when you have got them down, treat them with the respect and honour that such a people ought to receive—a people who, though they may be mistaken and entirely wrong, are conscientiously fighting for the independence of their own land." For taking this view he was called a pro-Boer. That again was a gross slander and falsehood, and that newspapers and politicians should stoop to a mean artifice of that kind was a scandal and a disgrace to the political life of to-day.

[W]e must give to the Irish people, in one form or another, the self-government they desire.

We want two things. We want relief from the pressure of excessive taxation, and at the same time we want money to meet our own domestic needs at home, which have been too long starved and neglected owing to the demands on the taxpayer for military purposes abroad.

My recent connection with the Government of Ireland has only served to increase my appreciation of the difficulties to be met by those who administer the affairs of that country. I am desirous of seeing at the earliest possible moment a large extension of local self-government in Ireland; but I would give no countenance to the scheme of those who seek to injure this country, as they would assuredly ruin their own, by separation under one name or another.

If an Imperialist means a man who would maintain at the highest pitch the power by land and sea of the Empire, who would secure perfect safety for these islands from hostile attack, but who is not content to confine his view to these islands; who would preserve the territorial integrity and interests of the Empire; who would guard our rights of trade either within the Empire or beyond its bounds; and who would strengthen by every means in his power the ties that bind us to our kinsmen in every quarter of the globe—if that is to be an Imperialist, then, ladies and gentlemen, there is not a man here, there is not a man in this great Liberal meeting, who is not as unflinching an Imperialist as those who have the word always on their lips. We are not afraid of the responsibilities of Empire, we are proud to be the guardians of the heritage handed down by our fathers, nay, we do not shrink from adding to it if duty or honour compels us; but we abjure the vulgar and bastard Imperialism of irritation, and provocation, and aggression, of clever tricks and manoeuvres against neighbours, and of grabbing everything even if we have no use for it ourselves.

Self-government is better than good government.

In general, we, who are in favour of compulsory education, are told that it is impracticable...because it is opposed by the general feeling of Scotland. Now, I can assure the House that that is not the case. As far as my experience goes, I believe our countrymen in the North are far too shrewd to be misled by any fear of the horrors attendant on compulsory education, and the interference which it is supposed to create with the liberty of the subject.

[O]ur aim is...to secure a national and not a denominational system, public and not sectarian, on the general basis of a common Christianity instead of a sectional Christianity, to make our educational system the handmaid of the community and not the handmaid of any church or sect, and to prevent the common schools of the country, which are maintained out of the public purse, from being provided and worked with two doors...one bringing in the poor little children from the streets, and the other ushering them into a particular church.

What is that policy? That now that we had got the men we had been fighting against down, we should punish them as severely as possible, devastate their country, burn their homes, break up their very instruments of agriculture.. It is that we should sweep – as the Spaniards did in Cuba; and how we denounced the Spaniards! – the women and children into camps...in some of which the death-rate has risen so high as 430 in the thousand. I do not say for a moment, because I do not think for a moment, that this is the deliberate and intentional policy of His Majesty's Government...at all events, it is the thing which is being done at this moment in the name and by the authority of this most humane and Christian nation. Yesterday I asked the leader of the House of Commons when the information would be afforded, of which we are so sadly in want. My request was refused. Mr. Balfour treated us with a short disquisition on the nature of war. A phrase often used is that "war is war", but when one comes to ask about it one is told that no war is going on, that it is not war. When is a war not a war? When it is carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa.

Now, what is the position of us Liberals with regard to the government of Ireland? ... We have a constitutional demand to which you and I as Democrats cannot refuse to listen. We have a desire for self government which you and I as Liberals must see to be the basis of good order and prosperity. We have a recognition of the patriotic feeling of nationality of which we and those who have gone before us have been the champions again and again, and we see the supremacy of the Imperial power and Parliament fully maintained. Why, gentlemen, how then can we, as long as we use the name of Liberal—how can we abandon, as they invite us to do, our Irish policy? We will remain true to the Irish people as long as the Irish people are true to themselves.