First World War.com - Primary Documents - British Prime Minister's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914
What's New
Primary Documents - British Prime Minister's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914
Reproduced below is the        text of the speech given to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Herbert        Asquith .
Sponsored Links
Given on 6 August 1914 -        two days after Britain entered the war against Germany in defence of Belgium        - Asquith recounted the background to the outbreak of general war in Europe        in July/August 1914, placing great emphasis on the efforts of the British        Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey , to secure continued peace in the face of        German aggression.
Asquith finished his speech        by stating that Britain would throw her entire Empire's resources into the        struggle against Germany in order to ensure victory.
British Prime Minister        Herbert Asquith's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914
With the utmost reluctance        and with infinite regret, His Majesty's Government have been compelled to        put this country in a state of war with what for many years and indeed        generations past has been a friendly Power.
The Papers which have since        been presented to Parliament will, I think, show how strenuous, how        unremitting, how persistent, even when the last glimmer of hope seemed to        have faded away, were the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign        Secretary (note: Sir Edward Grey) to secure for Europe an honourable and a        lasting peace.
Every one knows in the        great crisis which occurred last year in the East of Europe, it was largely,        if not mainly, by the acknowledgment of all Europe, due to the steps taken        by my right hon. Friend that the area of the conflict was limited, and that        so far as the great Powers are concerned, peace was maintained.
If his efforts upon this        occasion have, unhappily, been less successful, I am certain that this House        and the country - and I will add posterity and history - will accord to him        what is, after all, the best tribute that can be paid to any statesman:        that, never derogating for an instant or by an inch from the honour and        interests of his own country, he has striven, as few men have striven, to        maintain and preserve the greatest interest of all countries - universal        peace.
The Papers, which are now        in the hands of hon. Members, show something more than that.
They show what were the        terms which were offered to us in exchange for our neutrality.  I trust        that not only the Members of this House, but all our fellow-subjects        everywhere will read the communications - will read, learn and mark the        communications which passed only a week ago to-day between Berlin and London        in this matter.
The terms by which it was        sought to buy our neutrality are contained in the communication made by the        German Chancellor to Sir Edward Goschen on the 29th July.  I think I        must refer to them for a moment.  After alluding to the state of things        as between Austria and Russia, Sir Edward Goschen goes on:
"He [the German          Chancellor] then proceeded to make the following strong bid for British          neutrality.  He said that it was clear, so far as he was able to          judge the main principle which governed British policy, that Great Britain          would never stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there          might be.
That, however, was not          the object at which Germany aimed.  Provided that neutrality of Great          Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British          Government that the Imperial Government"
Let the Committee observe        these words:
"aimed at no territorial          acquisition at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any          war that might ensue."
Sir Edward Goschen        proceeded to put a very pertinent question:- "I questioned His Excellency        about the French colonies".
What are the French        colonies?  They mean every part of the dominions and possessions of        France outside the geographical area of Europe - "and he said that he was        unable to give a similar undertaking in that respect."
Let me cone to what, in my        mind, personally has always been the crucial and almost the governing        consideration, namely, the position of the small States:
"As regards Holland,          however, His Excellency said that so long as Germany's adversaries          respected the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was          ready to give His Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do          likewise."
Then we come to Belgium:-
"It depended upon the          action of France what operations Germany might he forced to enter upon in          Belgium, but, when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected          if she had not sided against Germany."
Let the Committee observe        the distinction between those two cases.  In regard to Holland it was        not only independence and integrity, but also neutrality; but in regard to        Belgium, there was no mention of neutrality at all, nothing but an assurance        that after the war came to an end the integrity of Belgium would be        respected.
Then His Excellency added: "Ever since he had been Chancellor the object of his policy had been to        bring about an understanding with England. He trusted that these assurances" - the assurances I have read out to the House - "might form the basis of        that understanding which he so much desired."
What does that amount to?  Let me just ask the Committee.  I do so, not with the object of        inflaming passion, certainly not with the object of exciting feeling against        Germany, but I do so to vindicate and make clear the position of the British        Government in this matter.
What did that proposal        amount to?  In the first place, it meant this: That behind the back of        France - they were not made a party to these communications - we should have        given, if we had assented to that, a free license to Germany to annex, in        the event of a successful war, the whole of the extra European dominions and        possessions of France.
What did it mean as regards        Belgium?  When she addressed, as she has addressed in these last few        days, her moving appeal to us to fulfil our solemn guarantee of her        neutrality, what reply should we have given?  What reply should we have        given to that Belgian appeal?
We should have been obliged        to say that, without her knowledge, we had bartered away to the Power        threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted word.
The House has read, and the        country has read, of course, in the last few hours, the most pathetic appeal        addressed by the King of Belgium, and I do not envy the man who can read        that appeal with an unmoved heart.  Belgians are fighting and losing        their lives.  What would have been the position of Great Britain        to-day, in the face of that spectacle, if we had assented to this infamous        proposal?
Yes, and what are we to get        in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our        obligations?  What are we to get in return?  A promise - nothing        more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities; a        promise, be it observed - I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put        upon record - given by a Power which was at that very moment announcing its        intention to violate its own treaty and inviting us to do the same.
I can only say, if we had        dallied or temporized, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves        with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this country,        of which we are trustees.
I am glad, and I think the        country will be glad, to turn to the reply which my right hon. Friend made,        and of which I will read to the Committee two of the more salient passages.  This document, No. 101 of the Papers, puts on record a week ago the attitude        of the British Government, and, as I believe, of the British people.
My right hon. Friend says:
"His Majesty's Government          cannot for a moment entertain the Chancellor's proposal that they should          bind themselves to neutrality on such terms.  What he asks us in          effect is to engage to stand by while French Colonies are taken if France          is beaten, so long as Germany does not take French territory as distinct          from the Colonies.  From the material point of view -"
My right lion. Friend, as he always does, used very temperate language:
"- Such a proposal is        unacceptable, for France, without further territory in Europe being taken        from her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great Power, and        become subordinate to German policy."
That is the material        aspect.  But he proceeded:-
"Altogether, apart from          that, it would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at          the expense of France, a disgrace from which the good name of this country          would never recover.  The Chancellor also in effect asks us to          bargain away whatever obligation or interest we have as regards the          neutrality of Belgium.  We could not entertain that bargain either."
He then says:- "We must        preserve our full freedom to act, as circumstances may seem to us to        require."
And he added, I think in        sentences which the Committee must appreciate:-
"You should... add most          earnestly that the one way of maintaining the good relations between          England and Germany is that they should continue to work together to          preserve the peace of Europe... For that object this Government will work          in that way with all sincerity and goodwill.
"If the peace of Europe          can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavour          will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party, by          which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be          pursued against her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves,          jointly or separately.
"I have desired this and          worked for it" - the statement was never more true - "as far as I could,          through the last Balkan crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object,          our relations sensibly improved.
"The idea has hitherto          been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, but if this          present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone through          for generations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the relief and          reaction which will follow may make possible some more definite          rapprochement between the Powers than has been possible hitherto."
That document, in my        opinion, states clearly, in temperate and convincing language, the attitude        of this Government.
Can any one who reads it        fail to appreciate the tone of obvious sincerity and earnestness which        underlies it; can any one honestly doubt that the Government of this country        in spite of great provocation - and I regard the proposals made to us as        proposals which we might have thrown aside without consideration and almost        without answer can any one doubt that in spite of great provocation the        right hon. Gentleman, who had already earned the title and no one ever more        deserved it - of "Peace Maker of Europe," persisted to the very last moment        of the last hour in that beneficent but unhappily frustrated purpose?
I am entitled to say, and I        do so on behalf of this country - I speak not for a party, I speak for the        country as a whole - that we made every effort any Government could possibly        make for peace.
But this war has been        forced upon us.  What is it we are fighting for?  Every one knows,        and no one knows better than the Government, the terrible, incalculable        suffering, economic, social, personal and political, which war, and        especially a war between the Great Powers of the world, must entail.
There is no man amongst us        sitting upon this bench in these trying days - more trying perhaps than any        body of statesmen for a hundred years have had to pass through - there is        not a man amongst us who has not, during the whole of that time, had clearly        before his vision the almost unequalled suffering which war, even in a just        cause, must bring about, not only to the people who are for the moment        living in this country and in the other countries of the world, but to        posterity and to the whole prospects of European civilization.
Every step we took we took        with that vision before our eyes, and with a sense of responsibility which        it is impossible to describe.
Unhappily, if in spite of        all our efforts to keep the peace, and with that full and overpowering        consciousness of the result, if the issue be decided in favour of war, we        have, nevertheless, thought it to be the duty as well as the interest of        this country to go to war, the House may be well assured it was because we        believe, and I am certain the country will believe, that we are unsheathing        our sword in a just cause.
If I am asked what we are        fighting for I reply in two sentences: In the first place, to fulfil a        solemn international obligation, an obligation which, if it had been entered        into between private persons in the ordinary concerns of life, would have        been regarded as an obligation not only of law but of honour, which no        self-respecting man could possibly have repudiated.
I say, secondly, we are        fighting to vindicate the principle which, in these days when force,        material force, sometimes seems to be the dominant influence and factor in        the development of mankind, we are fighting to vindicate the principle that        small nationalities are not to be crushed, in defiance of international good        faith, by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering Power.
I do not believe any nation        ever entered into a great controversy - and this is one of the greatest        history will ever know - with a clearer conscience and a stronger conviction        that it is fighting, not for aggression, not for the maintenance even of its        own selfish interest, but that it is fighting in defence of principles the        maintenance of which is vital to the civilization of the world.
With a full conviction, not        only of the wisdom and justice, but of the obligations which lay upon us to        challenge this great issue, we are entering into the struggle.  Let us        now make sure that all the resources, not only of this United Kingdom, but        of the vast Empire of which it is the centre, shall be thrown into the        scale.
Source: Source Records        of the Great War, Vol.  I, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923
Sponsored Links
Saturday, 22 August, 2009 Michael Duffy
A "Dixie" (from the Hindi degci) was an army cooking pot.
- Did you know?