CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

HL Deb 22 August 1945 vol 137 cc104-50

2.35 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)

My Lords, it falls to my lot to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Addison. I beg to move, That this House approves the Charter of the United Nations signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945. In rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I may, I hope, claim that indulgence which is traditionally given to speakers who are facing this ordeal. I do not conceal from your Lordships that I have had some experience in what, I suppose, I must now call another place in addressing the members, sheltering behind the Despatch Box and wearing very different sort of clothing. That gives me small consolation, for I clearly remember a conversation some twenty years ago which I had with Mr. Asquith, when he remarked to me how odd a thing it was that speakers who had succeeded in some manner in obtaining the ear of the House of Commons so seldom succeeded in the like task when they came to your Lordships' House. I have a recollection that, as was his wont, Mr. Asquith analysed the problem and gave an answer. I have racked my brains to try to find out what the reasons were and I confess I cannot remember. Had my memory been better I should no doubt have been able to avoid many of those pitfalls into which, owing to my imperfect memory, I shall now fall.

I feel especially the responsibility of addressing your Lordships for the first time on a subject of such extreme importance, of such intricacy, and of such vast scope. It is no exaggeration to say that the Charter of the United Nations contains in its articles the difference between life and death for civilization as we know it. By that I do not mean that any parchment, however solemnly signed and scaled, and whatever its provisions may be, can by itself assure the future. Far from it. The history of the world is written in broken treaties and covenants that were of no avail. What I mean is that the Charter is the outward and visible sign of the determination of those nations which have won the war to cooperate together until peace is established on such firm foundations that it cannot thereafter be overthrown. I believe that throughout the world this resolve is more deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of men and women than at any other moment of history.

The fifty nations whose representatives signed the Charter contain among them all the Great Powers of the world, who have indeed taken the lead in this great enterprise. They might have merely formed a permanent alliance among themselves. They have preferred to do something very different—a step which in itself gives great hope for the future of the United Nations. For they have submitted their proposals to prolonged discussion and debate by all the other nations, and I understand that every clause of this Charter has been passed by a two-thirds vote, the vote of the largest States counting no more than that of the smallest. No doubt many were influenced because the Great Powers, on whom the major responsibility must inevitably fall for the maintenance of peace, intimated that they could not agree to major departures from the scheme which they had propounded But your Lordships, who have more than once considered in this House the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, will be aware that the Charter breathes a very different spirit from that document. Many alterations have been made. I believe that these alterations will meet with your approval and that no doubt many of them are due to suggestions and criticisms here expressed. The result is, of course, not a perfect instrument, but it is an instrument which gives a real promise of fulfilling the fervent hopes and expectations which era enshrined in it.

I think the House would wish me, at the outset, to express it s thanks to those members of the present and past Governments who have laboured so long, with such pertinacity, with such skill and with such faith, in the production of this remarkable document. The former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Anthony Eden, bore for a long time the main responsibility, and he was the head of the delegation at San Francisco. The present Prime Minister was, from the first, deeply interested in the subject and presided over the Cabinet Committee which dealt with it. He too was present at San Francisco in the early part of the Conference. Then noble Lords are aware of the notable part played by the former leader of this House, Viscount Cranborne. He was no half-timer; he got there at the beginning of the Conference and he stayed there to the end, and to his skilful pilotage we owe very largely the chapter on dependent territories.

I would like to pay this tribute too, and I am sure Lord Cranborne would agree. The Dominion statesmen generally played a very large and worthy part, in particular in connexion with the subject of dependent territories, and Dr. Evatt and Mr. Fraser, the one from Australia and the other from New Zealand, played an outstanding part. I think the Dominions set an example of how the British Commonwealth worked. They did not slavishly follow this country or, indeed, each other. They took each their own independent part, but all the members showed an underlying faith in the great purposes of this document. We owe much to these and to others as well.

But, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to pay a tribute to another member of this House who, in a very real sense, is the progenitor of this Charter, a man who has done more than any other Englishman to make it possible for us to-day to have this great opportunity presented to us. I refer to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, for he was the main architect, with President Wilson, of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and it was he who, by his ceaseless advocacy of the principles laid down in the Covenant, gave life to that institution and thus provided the body of experience on which the Charter itself is based. I believe that when these tragic years come to be surveyed by the historian, the noble Viscount's contribution will stand out as a clear beacon light amidst much that is murky and obscure, and that his self-less devotion to a great cause, advocated with practical and unremitting energy, will always give him one of the highest places amongst the benefactors of humanity.

Having said that, may I say that I do not expect that either he or any other noble Lord will be able to express complete agreement with every provision of this Charter. I do not intend to make a detailed survey of all its clauses, nor indeed could I do so within any reasonable limit of time. Much of the ground has been covered by previous debates, and I think what I can most usefully do is to, call attention to some of the salient characteristics of the Charter. It bears, I think, the marks of its origin. It is pretty obvious to those who read it that it did not receive that final drafting by lawyers which such documents generally do receive. There is a good deal of repetition, and some of the words and phrases are certainly not those we are accustomed to find in such documents. In short, my Lords, it is obvious it did not come fresh from Lincoln's Inn. But, as a mere common lawyer, if I may say so without any irreverence, perhaps it is none the worse for that. There may be defects in form and style but those defects are, in my opinion, counterbalanced by the flexibility of the provisions of the Charter which give it life and which give it—and this is the most important feature—capacity for growth.

In happier days I used to be a keen and enthusiastic gardener, but I lacked that supreme virtue in gardeners—I lacked patience. I wanted quick returns and I used to be anxious to buy the larger trees and shrubs. I soon learnt the folly of my ways. I realized that if I would only be content with a much smaller plant, so long as the soil, the climate and the environment were suitable, by its own fresh and natural growth it would soon overtake and outstrip the larger plant which found it more difficult to adapt itself to its new surroundings. I think the framers of the Charter have borne in mind that rule and taken a similar point of view. They have endeavoured to set up institutions which can be adapted to the rapidly changing world in which we live. One of the most significant examples of these great technical changes is the release—at the present time for purposes of destruction only—of atomic energy. With regard to that I shall have something to say in a few moments. Other changes, some of which may be far-reaching, are taking place in the economic and social life of mankind.

The Charter has, for the most part, forborne to lay down rigid procedures or complicated details. It begins with a preamble the substance and spirit of which we owe to that grand old warrior and democrat, Field-Marshal Smuts. In thinking of him, may I say how valuable it was to the British representatives to have had preliminary discussions with the representatives from the Dominions in April of this year. The objects set forth in that preamble will command the respect of all men of good will. They represent the deep feelings of the common people and especially of the fighting men. It was thought right to emphasize this fact by the form given to the preamble, which begins with the words, "We, the peoples of the United Nations." It is obvious that that phrase springs from United States history, but I think it strikes a true note. It emphasizes the fact that it is not Governments but peoples that make the greatest decisions of history.

It follows with a chapter on purposes and principles which prescribe general standards of conduct for Members of the Organization. The purposes extend beyond the relationship of nation to nation, for one of the purposes is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedom for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. That statement of purposes is so far-reaching that if it is followed with good will and genuine resolve the peace of the world is assured. But the methods by which those purposes are to be carried out are less rigidly prescribed than, for example, those in the Covenant. It will be for the various organs of the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council, to work out the exact manner in which they are to be applied. All the organs of the old League are reproduced in the United Nations.

I think it is fitting, and your Lordships would expect me as head of the legal profession of this country, to make special mention of the Court of International Justice. I do indeed rejoice that the new Statute has been made an integral part of the Charter and that it would thus be adopted at the same time as that instrument. But the new Court is in all important respects the same as its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, whose procedure it inherits, whose precedents it will, I am sure, follow and whose Statutes I do not doubt it will observe. Some amendments and improvements have been made in the Statute by the very experienced international lawyers who were mainly responsible for drawing up this part of the Charter. Amongst them was that devoted public servant, the late Sir William Malkin, a man who combined great skill in his profession with a humane outlook which, it is sometimes said, all lawyers do not possess. His advice will be deeply missed by all of us who knew him and who were able to appreciate the value of his work.

There are two bodies which, though they are based on the experience of the League, I think had no exact counterpart in that institution—the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council, which it is hoped will prove valuable additions to international machinery. Moreover, the Charter con-templates the creation of new specialized machinery to meet the constantly increasing need for international co-operation in a number of different spheres. Indeed, it lays directly on the General Assembly the duty of constructing such machinery, if it is not otherwise provided. But the United Nations, to which in due course of time I hope other nations will adhere, is designed to be a world centre where all those bodies can be brought into harmonious working and gradually, though no doubt not without sometimes much patient and difficult negotiation, welded into a comprehensive and efficient machine capable of dealing with all the manifold necessities of the coming age. I have no doubt that the League of Nations, if it had received adequate support from all those who are now Members; of the United Nations, might have developed in a similar manner. But I do believe that in most particulars the new Organization is more suited to the needs of our time and is more likely to be able to adapt itself with sufficient rapidity to the great changes in human society which technical advances must inevitably produce.

The duties of these several bodies are prescribed in general language but they are very comprehensive. There are few activities transcending the domestic interests of States which are excluded. The powers of the General Assembly have been re-drawn at San Francisco in such a manner that there is no subject which cannot be discussed there; and if it is not already being dealt with by the Security Council recommendations can be made about any such subject by a two-thirds vote in a manner for which there is, I think, hardly any precedent. The introduction of majority decision into the Charter, severely limited though it is by the special decision of the Great Powers of which I shall speak in a moment, is of great importance. It is the introduction of a new principle into international affairs and it may be one of the main instruments in the progress towards a more ordered society of nations than has ever before existed.

Similarly, the Economic and Social Council, an organ dependent on the larger body from which it is derived, is given a wide range of subjects but is left to determine for itself how they shall be carried out. One of those duties which will, I know, be of special interest to members of this House, and in particular to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who has more than once drawn the attention of your Lordships to it, is the power to make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. For this purpose it is enjoined to set up a special Commission—the only specific subject that is singled out. How this beneficent purpose shall be accomplished is left for these bodies to determine, but all will agree, I think, that the acceptance of this duty by the United Nations marks a very definite advance in the recognition of those individual rights which have been so wantonly and outrageously attacked in recent years.

The Trusteeship Council, of which we shall hope to hear more from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is only partly an emanation of the General Assembly; but it shares its functions with the General Assembly itself and its activities can be reviewed by that body. It will, I am convinced, command greater authority than its predecessor, the Mandates Commission; and, again for the first time, the principle of trusteeship is laid down as applicable to all dependent territories, however long ago or by whatever method they may have been acquired. It is true that no power is taken to compel States to place dependent territories on trust; and trust territories which are controlled for strategic purposes are placed under the supervision of the Security Council. We must I think rely on the methods of accurate information, publicity and free expression of opinion to produce the results which we all desire. But I am sure that noble Lords will not underrate the great influence that these methods can have, and will be glad that principles which we have long recognized in this country, and which indeed I understand are largely the result of our advocacy at San Francisco, should now be recognized as those which ought to be followed in all dependent territories.

In all these matters the Members of the United Nations stand on an equal, or very nearly an equal, footing. Except for certain provisions as regards the constitution of the Trusteeship Council, in all these economic, social and humanitarian matters all States are given by the Charter an equal voice in the decisions. No doubt the voice of those States which have great economic power will carry greater weight than the voice of States not so endowed; but the votes of the greatest have no more weight than the votes of the smallest States. I hardly think that sufficient recognation has been given to this important aspect of the United Nations Charter, for, if peace is to be maintained, it is this constructive side of the Charter which will become the most important. It is through these activities that a real society of nations will be achieved. It is by positive international co-operation that institutions will arise which deal with matters which transcend activities within the State and gradually supersede them. In all these matters it seems to me that the principles on which the new Organization rests show no trace of unduly favouring the greater Powers.

In the maintenance of international peace and security, however, the Charter recognizes the special position of the Great Powers in the international society. They held that position throughout the nineteenth century, and indeed until the Covenant of the League was established they held it without laying any restraints upon themselves through the establishment of, a formal system in which other States participated. In the Covenant their position was recognized by their permanent seats on the Council, and their assent was necessary to every decision on other than procedural matters, with the important exception of occasions when they were parties to a dispute. The great distinction between the Covenant and the Charter is that under the Covenant the imposition of sanctions was determined by each State for itself, after certain conditions had been fulfilled, including the resort to war by a State, whilst under the Charter it is for the Security Council to decide upon and carry out sanctions, and all the other Members of the United Nations promise to assist it in that duty. The Great Powers have the same position under the Charter as they had under the Covenant, except that their assent is needed to the imposition of sanctions even if they are parties to a dispute, which means, of course, that enforcement action cannot be taken against a Great Power by the same process that is applied to other States.

This position of the Great Powers, which I have tried frankly to state, has been subject to much criticism both in this country and in many of the smaller States. Some of this criticism—indeed, perhaps the major part of it—has been directed not to the exemption from sanctions of a Great Power but to the necessity of the assent of all the Great Powers to enforcement action against any State, even when none of the Great Powers themselves is a party to the dispute. I do not pretend that there is no substance in this criticism, but does it pay sufficient regard to realities? No one claims that this Charter is a perfect instrument. If a draftsman had been given the task of drafting the Charter, and had been allowed to disregard all the national susceptibilities, all the suspicions and all the mistrust of the past—and, I may add, many chapters of world history—I do not doubt that he could have devised a scheme which would have been more satisfactory on paper. It would perhaps have been more rigid and it would have been more far-reaching; but certain it is that any such scheme, had it been propounded, would not have been accepted. Every word of the scheme adopted has been considered; every alternative has been debated. The fact is that we cannot, as things are to-day, obtain agreement to any such wider scheme.

It may be that in the future we may be able to agree to something wider. It may be that having worked together and reached a clearer understanding of each other's points of view the United Nations will be willing to go further. The scheme contains the machinery for amendment, though it is true that all the permanent members of the Security Council must give their consent to the amendment, and that I regard as quite inevitable. In the meantime, let us deal with the scheme as it is, and let us realize that it is on the Great Powers that the main responsibility for enforcement action will lie. As international society is now constituted, it is unreasonable to expect that they would undertake such a duty against their own judgment. Indeed, I feel it is essential that before so drastic a measure as enforcement action is taken by the Security Council, all the Great Powers should be in agreement that such a procedure is necessary. Without such preliminary agreement, the most dangerous situations might arise. The real protection of the smaller States lies in the fact that such unanimity is a pre-requisite of action, while once that unanimity is obtained very existence should in most cases suffice to make enforcement action unnecessary.

The peace of the world depends not on the Great Powers coming together on occasions of emergency to try to resolve some major crisis, but on their continual co-operation in international affairs, and their resolve so to conduct their foreign policies that differences are reduced, to proper proportions by the overriding necessity of maintaining peace. Unless this, spirit prevails, no provisions of the Charter can save the world from destruction. This fact was recognized at San Francisco. The Great Powers have given the most solemn undertakings that they will not use force for national ends, and if any one of them is accused of not keeping that solemn promise the Security Council can deliver judgment on its conduct without the party to the dispute participating in the decision. What the Great Powers have refused to do is to promise to inflict sanctions in the absence of complete agreement. They have taken this course because such sanctions might easily lead to a major war in which the United Nations Organization as at present constituted would inevitably perish. In such a war all the Great Powers might become involved, and I need not impress upon your Lordships what that would mean.

If that fact were already realized, does it not become even more clear now, when the new weapon of the atomic bomb has become a practical reality? It is asserted by some that this terrible weapon has already made the Charter out of date. I would rather say that it has made it an imperative necessity to bring the Charter into practical effect as soon as possible. The atomic bomb does not by itself solve any of these problems which those who made the Charter had to face. It can no more make an ordered international society than gunpowder could make an ordered national State. But it should contribute to produce conditions which will make all men realize that only by constituting themselves into an ordered society can they save themselves from destruction.

In the Charter, there is the necessary machinery for this problem to be solved, if the Governments and peoples of the world insist that it shall be solved. The drawing up of plans for the regulation of armaments is expressly laid upon the Security Council. It is furnished with a Military Staff Committee on which all the Great Powers are to be permanently represented. Moreover, the General Assembly has been given the right to discuss "the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments," and it "may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both." The Charter thus makes it possible to focus the public opinion of the world on all the implications of this new discovery, and to create the machinery to deal with it. More than that, it was not possible to do.

My Lords, it is a strange irony that the men who have made possible this death-dealing bomb are amongst the most internationally-minded of the world. Their own studies have made them realize the essential unity of men and women on whatever portion of the world's surface they may dwell, and how imperative it is that men of different nationalities shall work together if they are to attain to the infinite possibilities that lie in the human mind and soul. This bomb is due to researches conducted by scientists all over the world. I do not believe that its secrets can be kept indefinitely. Indeed, to try to do so would, I think, only be to encourage research in the methods of destruction in every country of the world. The problem is one that can only be solved by making effective the great principles that are incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations. I can say that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the heavy responsibility which lies upon them in this connexion, and that they have already begun to investigate the means by which these responsibilities can be met. They will do everything in their power to see that these new discoveries are made a blessing for mankind instead of being used for its destruction.

It is in this spirit, my Lords, that I commend this Charter to your approval. We are faced with a new challenge to the unconquerable spirit of man just at the moment when we have overcome the deadly menace of the Germans and the Japanese. We should be very foolish to underrate the gravity of the position or the difficulty of finding a solution. But it may well be that the very magnitude of the peril which confronts us will enable the way of salvation to be found. To those—and there are not a few—who view with alarm what the future has in store for us, who count the perils and discount the opportunities, I would commend that famous verse of Cowper's hymn: Ye fearful Saints, fresh courage take, The clouds ye so much dread Are big with mercy, and shall break In blessings on your head.

Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Charter of the United Nations signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

3.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

My Lords, I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but before I proceed to the subject of the debate, perhaps I might draw the attention of the Government to an error in the wording of the Motion itself. The Charter was signed on June 26 and not on July 26. I merely point that out now in order that what is, no doubt, merely a typographical error may be put right before the end of the debate.

It would be an impertinence on my part to attempt to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on what he has called his "maiden speech" The noble and learned Lord is so experienced a Parliamentarian that the term "maiden speech" seems rather out of place. But I do congratulate him, if I may say so, most warmly upon his remarkable exposition of this very difficult subject. I could not pay him a higher tribute, I think, than to say that it was an entirely worthy exposition of an immensely complex question. After the Lord Chancellor's extremely comprehensive and balanced account of the provisions of the Charter, there really remains very little for me—or for anybody else for that matter—to say. It may be suggested that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who was actually present at San Francisco, and who, himself, took part in the deliberations of the Conference. Of course, that is perfectly true, but there is an old English saying about not seeing the wood for the trees, and though, perhaps, I may know rather more than other noble Lords about the course of the debates in San Francisco and the methods by which the conclusions were reached, frankly I am extremely doubtful whether I am any better qualified than, or even so well qualified as, others who watched from a distance, to assess the value of the results which we achieved.

Many of your Lordships have long experience of international conferences, and those noble Lords will know the way in which such institutions work, and the methods by which international instruments are battered into shape. Each article is the subject of intensive examination by delegates who often start with widely divergent views, and then, as the result of lengthy discussions, the differences are gradually whittled down until finally, and almost unexpectedly, an agreed text emerges. That text is very often not regarded as perfect by any of the delegates, but it represents the greatest measure of agreement which it was possible to obtain. These international texts are very easy to criticize by those who did not take part in the battle, and, indeed, subsequent experience often exposes weaknesses in them which were not apparent at the time. Particular phrases, for instance, may be found to be open to two or more interpretations. That is a fact of which we have had unhappy examples in recent times. But the form of words agreed upon was probably the best that could be devised in the circumstances, and often the only alternative to a break-down in the negotiations. The essence, in fact, of all international conferences is compromise with all the advantages and disadvantages of compromise, and the San Francisco Conference was no exception to that rule.

The Lord Chancellor, with pardonable professional pride, suggested we should have done rather better if we had had more legal advice. Actually, I do not think I ever saw so many lawyers as were gathered at San Francisco, and if there is sometimes a lack of clarity in the wording I suggest that it may conceivably be a case of too many cooks! But what was satisfactory and encouraging was an obvious desire on the part of all, lawyers and non-lawyers, to achieve successful results. The discussions were always objective and serious and they were never acrimonious. Everybody wanted to agree. I think the other remarkable feature was that after nine weeks intensive discussions by the representatives of fifty nations, the structure of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals remained in essence unimpaired. The Lord Chancellor said this afternoon that the Charter was a very different document. That is perfectly true of course, because the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were expanded and improved at San Francisco; but the basis of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals was not fundamentally, altered, aid that should be a source of deep satisfaction not only to those who produced them but also to your Lordships who in the last debate on this subject on April 17 gave general approval to those proposals.

The main problems which had to be dealt with at San Francisco were first of all to ensure the unity of the five Great Powers, without which any world organization is bound to be doomed, and secondly to harmonize the views of the five Great Powers with those of the smaller nations so as to produce a world organization which so far as possible would be acceptable to all. To facilitate these results daily meetings were held of what were called the "Big Five," which were sandwiched in between the meetings of the Technical Committees of the Conference, so as to ensure that agreed amendments which were put forward represented the views of all the five. Some of these agreed amendments were designed to eliminate weaknesses which had become apparent in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals on further examination. Some of them were drafted to meet points raised by the smaller countries, and opportunity was also taken at those meetings to discuss the amendments of the small countries so as to agree on a common line with regard to them and, where possible, to accept them. Side by side with those meetings, day after day and night after night, the work of the Technical Committees proceeded, the great and the small countries sitting together on them. There was no question, as anyone who was at San Francisco will know, of the great nations over-awing the small. On the contrary, the small nations were commendably vocal and made most valuable suggestions many of which were incorporated in the Charter.

It will be seen that this method of work which was evolved in the course of the Conference was extremely elastic and allowed for the fullest possible discussion. Although this inevitably lengthened the time occupied by our deliberations, I personally believe it was well worth while, because there was no one at the end of the Conference who could say he had not had a fair chance of putting his point of view. To this, I believe, was materially due the final success of the Conference. Moreover, both the meetings of the "Big Five" and of the Technical Committees were held in private. But the extraordinary ingenuity of the Press ensured that the results were not withheld from the public.

I should like to refer to the United Kingdom delegation. At the start it was composed of representatives of all political Parties. They worked together throughout in the closest harmony. I do not remember any considerable difference of opinion and I think that the Liberal and Labour representatives were genuinely disappointed when they had to leave owing to some slight bickering on this side of the Atlantic. Their departure was soon followed by that of the Conservative members of Parliament, and eventually the position of the delegation approximated to that of the ten little nigger boys. Finally, no one was left but the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, myself and the expert advisers. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the work of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. His experience and his knowledge of the American scene made him peculiarly able to deal with the situation after the departure of Mr. Eden. I should also like to say how much we owe to the expert advisers, who, after the departure of the political representatives, had to take over a task which was unusual for them, of putting the British case in debate with political representatives of other countries, a task which they fulfilled with the greatest ability and skill. I would echo all that was said about Sir William Malkin. His charm and crystal clarity of mind made him an ideal representative of his country, and his loss was quite irreplaceable. Nor should we forget the very valuable contribution made by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee. Although he was only there for a comparatively short time his presence was conclusive evidence for all the other nations that if political Parties in this country do not see eye to eye on domestic questions, on questions of foreign affairs at any rate they are completely united. That was a fact of the greatest importance.

Finally, before I pass to the Charter itself, I should like to say one word as to our relations with the other Empire delegations. Here the United Kingdom was in a somewhat difficult, or at any rate curious, situation. We, as a member of the "Big Five," were essentially concerned to maintain the unity of the "Big Five" Powers. But we were equally concerned to give assistance wherever possible to the other members of the British Commonwealth. This put us in a position of some delicacy, but the British quality of political realism prevented serious difficulties arising. We acted in the closest contact throughout with the other Empire delegates. We held constant meetings and we discussed freely and frankly any difficulties which arose. We sometimes reached a common view; we sometimes agreed to differ. In a number of cases the United Kingdom was able to give material aid to the other Dominion delegates on matters to which they attached importance. For instance, Canada felt very strongly that in the event of action being necessary against a recalcitrant State, nations who were not represented on the Security. Council should have the right, if they desired, to be heard by the Security Council. We felt that the Canadian proposal was realistic. Indeed, it might be difficult for such nations as were not represented on the Council to carry public opinion with them without some such provision.

We therefore supported the Canadian proposal, and it was in fact incorporated in the Charter. Similarly, we were able to help the Australian delegation in connexion with an amendment to the Seventh Principle, to which they attached especial importance, in relation to the problem of migration. It certainly could not be said that the British Commonwealth always voted as one. To use the Lord Chancellor's words, they played no slavish part, and the fiction that the British Empire's six votes are always used together is now, I think, finally exploded. But the fundamental principle of close and constant consultation was fully maintained throughout the Conference.

To pass to the principal issues which led to debate and difficulty, the main discussions were first with regard to the character and extent of the veto which was to be exercised by the five Great Powers concerning discussions and decisions on the Security Council. Secondly, there was the machinery for amending the Charter. Thirdly, there was trusteeship for dependent territories; and fourthly, and lastly, the powers of the Assembly. These have all, I think, been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon, and I do not wish to weary the House with repeating what he has said. I would add, however, a few words with regard to two issues. First with regard to the veto. In principle none of us like the conception of a veto which is confined to the limited category of Great Powers. I have never concealed my views. In a debate in which I spoke just before I left for San Francisco I made it clear that I did not like it, and I have not changed my view. But there is no doubt that without some such provision in the present Charter you would have had no Charter at all. We must also recognize that unless the Great Powers are unanimous, any action which the World Organization could take would be liable to be ineffective. It would, in fact, not be a World Organization in the fullest sense of the term.

Moreover, there are at any rate certain substantial advantages, I think, gained in this document over the machinery of the Covenant. The Charter puts the responsibility for maintaining peace fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Security Council. It also provides machinery for carrying out decisions which was certainly not at the disposal of the Council of the League. Under Chapter VI of the Charter the right of the Security Council to make recommendations on the terms of settlement of any dispute affecting the maintenance of peace and security is made specific. In such a case no party to a dispute can exercise a veto over any judgment which the Security Council may wish to pronounce. It is only when actual action becomes necessary that complete unity of the Great Powers is required. I think it can fairly be argued that that is realistic. If one of the Great Powers opposes action by the World Organization, the Organization will have broken dawn. The nations immediately concerned will then have to fall back upon any regional arrangements which they may have concluded to meet any such emergency as that. This new machinery certainly represents an advance on the machinery of the Covenant, and I am clear that it was the best obtainable at San Francisco. The time may come when it will be possible to dispense with the veto, but that time is not yet, if the United Nations as an organization are to survive.

The other main issue to which I wish to make reference is trusteeship over dependent territories, with which I was mainly concerned myself as the United Kingdom representative on the Technical Committee. In one respect this presented greater difficulties than any other portion of the Charter. It had been hoped that the signatories of the Yalta Agreement might be able to meet before San Francisco and draw up proposals for the consideration of the Conference. But in fact time did not permit of that. The procedure which was finally adopted was that the various delegations tabled proposals on this subject and then Commander Stassen, of the United States, produced a working paper incorporating the greatest measure of agreement. This became the basis of discussion by the Technical Committee. I cannot pay too, high a tribute to the patience and statesmanship of Commander Stassen on whom fell the main burden of piloting the working paper through the Technical Committee.

The main innovation in the final text as compared with Article 26 of the Covenant has already been referred to by the Lord Chancellor. It is that the Charter concerns itself not only with territories which are put tinder international trusteeship but with all dependent territories. It incorporates a declaration, to which Colonial Powers subscribed, of the principles which should actuate them in administering dependent territories and the aims they should pursue. For this declaration I think the main credit may fairly be given to the United Kingdom and Australian delegations, both of whom included this innovation in the original proposals which they put before the Conference and on which the working paper was based. I feel that it is an innovation which we ourselves should warmly welcome, because it establishes internationally those principles of Colonial government which we have always carried out in practice in our Colonial Empire.

This declaration confers no rights on the World Organization with regard to Colonial territories which are not put under international trusteeship. This is the affair of the nations immediately concerned. It is their own domestic concern, just as much as the internal administration of their metropolitan territories. But the fact that all these nations agree to make a voluntary declaration of this character does represent, I feel, a step forward which should not be underestimated. There was considerable discussion as to whether independence for dependent territories should be included as a specific aim of Colonial policy. It was finally agreed to use a rather more general phrase by which the Colonial Powers undertake to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and their peoples and their varying stages of advancement. I believe that this decision to use a more general phrase was a very wise one. It does not exclude independence as the ultimate destiny of dependent territories, where appropriate, and indeed that is the last thing we ourselves should desire. For, after all, within the British Empire we have examples of every stage of constitutional development. First of all, there are the primitive areas where people are as yet fit to have only a small share in government. Next there are the more advanced areas where we have set up Legislative Councils, sometimes with official majorities and sometimes with unofficial majorities. Then there are territories like Bermuda and Barbados, with long-established Constitutions, where we have comparatively limited powers of interference. Finally, right at the top of the ladder, if I may so describe it, are the great self-governing Dominions of His Majesty the King, no longer dependent territories but nations in all respect equal to ourselves. We therefore certainly should not rule out independence as the ultimate stage of Colonial policy in appropriate places. But I think it would be quite absurd and irrational to suggest that independence is an appropriate status for all territories, whatever their stage of development and whatever the local conditions. Some of these territories, as many of your Lordships know, are not self-sufficient, either socially or economically, and it would be fantastic to suppose that within the foreseeable future they could be made responsible, say, for their foreign policy or for their defence. It just could not be done. Moreover, many of these territories are in need of constant assistance and advice from us and from the other Colonial Powers if they are not to slip back into the barbarism from which we have lifted them.

There seems to be, indeed, in the minds of many, both at San Francisco and, it may be, elsewhere, a strange confusion of thought, in this context, between liberty and independence. All of us believe in liberty—in liberty of thought, liberty of speech, equal justice for all: what we comprehend in the term "free institutions." We all believe in liberty in that sense, which is of course already the basis of government in the British Colonial Empire and, I think, in the Empires of other progressive Colonial Powers. On the other hand, we can all of us think of cases where countries, nominally independent, even in Europe, have no true liberty at all. To exchange liberty for nominal independence, in many cases, would be merely to change the substance for the shadow. Moreover, such a change, as I know from my experience at the Colonial Office, would be greatly resented in many places where the inhabitants are just as loyal subjects of His Majesty the King as any noble Lord in this House to-day. Independence must come, if it does come, by natural evolution; there is no other way. This view was accepted by the Conference, and the more general phrase which I have quoted was therefore adopted. I have gone into this point at some length because it was the subject of considerable debate at San Francisco, and it seemed to me that it might be a matter over which there might be some misunderstanding in this country also.

Now I would like to say a brief word about those provisions of the Charter which deal with that much more limited category of territories which are to be put under international supervision—what we used to call in the old days, mandated territories. The wording of this portion of the Charter is very clear and there is not ranch I need add. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor has already indicated quite briefly the lines on which the new organization is to work. It is envisaged that the system may be applied to territories within three categories: first of all, territories now held under existing Mandates; then territories which may be detached from the enemy as the result of the present war; and finally, territories which may be voluntarily placed under trusteeship.

With regard to the first category I would make only one observation. As your Lordships know, under the mandatory system as it was conceived under the League of Nations, there were certain very rigid limitations imposed upon administrative action by the mandatory. For instance, he could put up no defence works of any kind in a mandated territory, and secondly, at least in "A" and "B" Mandates, he was obliged to grant free entry both to the goods and nationals of all Member States: that is to say, what is known as the open door policy existed in those territories. These provisions have proved in practice, over the last years, not to be in the interests of the people of the territories themselves, and occasion has been taken in Articles 77 (d) and 84 of the Charter to modify those limitations in appropriate cases by agreement between the United Nations and the trustee Powers. These particular modifications to which I have referred apply equally to the new trustee territories.

There is another novel feature. Territories other than the old mandates—that is to say, the new ones created as a result of this war—are not to come under trusteeship unless they are designated by the administering country. In some cases they will, I imagine, be handed over by the victorious Powers to some country or another with an obligation attached that they shall be submitted to trusteeship; but where that is not the case the matter will be one for decision by the administering Power itself. That is, of course, different from the position under the League of Nations.

The task of watching over the administration of trust territories will be entrusted to a Trusteeship Council. This body will be composed of 50 per cent. of trustee Powers and 50 per cent. of other Members of the Organization, but it will include in one category or the other all the five Great Powers. It will have a higher status, too, than the Permanent Mandates Commission, because it will be directly responsible to the Assembly. It will have the same status as the Security Council and the Social and Economic Council. This, I think, is an indication of the importance that was attached by the nations at San Francisco to this aspect of the new Organization's work.

Such is the character of the provisions of the Charter regarding dependent and trustee territories. These provisions are, as your Lordships will see, very general in character. The practical application of them to individual territories must, of course, wait till later. We were not concerned at San Francisco at all with individual territories. If I have dealt with these provisions at considerable length—perhaps some of your Lordship; may fed at too great length—it is party, I suppose, because that portion of the Charter my own particular protégé, but also because it is new. Your Lordships had no opportunity in April, when we last discussed this subject, of dealing with this aspect of the Charter, as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals contained no mention of it at all. The trusteeship articles in one respect go rather beyond the ordinary scope of the Charter, which was mainly concerned with the maintenance of peace, but I believe they represent a solid achievement by the Conference of which we, who have so long a record of Colonial government, may well be proud.

Now I will conclude what I have to say. If any of your Lordships were co ask me "Will this Charter prevent a war?" I should be bound to reply that I really can not say: I do not believe anyone can say. In itself, of course, as I think the Lord Chancellor said just now, it is only a skeleton; it is for the Members, if they wall, to give that skeleton flesh and blood. But I do believe that it provides the means by which war can be prevented, if the nations of the world are willing to work it. And, my Lords, surely war must be. prevented. It was always an evil; it was, always cruel and wasteful, but until comparatively recent clays it was a limited evil. The world was too vast and the means of communication were too restricted to allow it to spread beyond a certain, point. But now, by the developments of scientific discovery, all such natural limitations are swept away. A small conflagration which flares up in some remote area can spread within a few weeks and engulf the whole world. Nor clearly is this a passing phase. It has come to stay. Indeed, it is only a mere foretaste of what is to come. Five years ago, at the beginning of this war a gun which could fire fifty miles was something of a phenomenon. Since then we have had the flying bomb, then the rocket (whose principle I understand is capable of indefinite expansion) and now in these last few weeks we have the atomic bomb, the most terrible achievement of the human brain, I suppose, that has ever been produced.

If we do not end war, it must he quite evident to us that war will end us. It has become a cliché nowadays to talk about the necessity for a higher standard of living, in the sense of greater material comforts for the peoples of the world. But I should like to-day, if I may, to use the word in a higher and I think a better sense. From the material point of view the standard of living, at any rate in countries not devastated by the recent conflict, has never been so high as it is to-day. But I am afraid that our moral standard has not kept pace with our inventive capacity. As a result, with all the resources of nature and science at our disposal as never before in the history of the world, we are hovering on the edge of an abyss of complete and utter destruction. That is not only a solemn but it is a very shocking thought. It is not merely a higher standard of living in the material sense which is now at stake; it is not merely the prosperity of this nation or that nation; it is the bare survival of the human race. In this Charter we are, I firmly believe, being given one more chance of putting our affairs upon a better basis. Please God we may grasp it.

3.53 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, the natural and proper spokesman from this Bench on this occasion would have been my noble friend Lord Perth who, with his long experience as Secretary-General of the League of Nations, speaks in this House always with unrivalled authority. But to his great regret, which I am sure is shared by all your Lordships, Lord Perth, who has had to undergo an operation, although he is now fully convalescent, is not yet able to resume his attendance in your Lordships' House and participation in its proceedings. To begin with, may I offer respectfully to the Lord Chancellor my congratulations on his first speech in this House, a masterpiece, we will all agree, of ex- position and explanation, and combining two virtues that are not always found together, being both comprehensive and compact. Having preceded him by a few years in the peregrination from one House to the other, I can assure him that he will find here an assembly always friendly and receptive, and ready to listen to what he and I would consider the most convincing arguments, if with a minimum of acceptance, at all events with a maximum of courtesy.

The subject which we are discussing to-day is vast in its extent and fundamental in its importance, but the duty that devolves upon us is brief and simple. We have to give merely a Yes or a No. We may think that in the Charter there are imperfections. It is the fruit often of obvious compromises. But it is not for us to discuss particular points with a view to amendment; that limitation is imposed by the necessity of the case. Fifty nations have come together to discuss this great document. We have been told that they have considered 1,200 amendments and they have now presented to us a Charter with 111 articles. Since almost all those States have bicameral Constitutions this matter will be debated in about 100 legislative chambers, and it is plain that it is an impossible procedure for particular amendments to be discussed in any one of them. The decision of a chamber that was most eagerly awaited was undoubtedly that of the Senate of the United States. Three or four years ago we all regarded the situation with extreme anxiety, for we knew how deep was the spirit of isolationism in America, how strong it was owing to historical causes, and we remembered only too vividly the lamentable fate that befell the League of Nations, so largely owing to the non-participation of the United States. It was a profound relief when public opinion in America moved so powerfully in favour of participation in world government, and when at last the Senate had passed this Charter with only three dissentients.

If the document may have defects, at all events it has the virtue of not being rigid. It provides for its own amendment, and it may be that this is only the first stage of a long evolution. I have, I think, previously quoted in this House a saying that no one can foresee the future, not even those who make it. The most astounding and unexpected things are continually happening. It is very unlikely that anyone before 1939 would have foreseen that in 1945 we should be hearing of a President of the United States playing Beethoven on the piano at Potsdam to a British Conservative Prime Minister and a Russian Bolshevist Generalissimo. Continually unexpected things are happening.

The chief controversy that has taken place with regard to the future working of the provisions of the Charter has had relation of course to the veto of a single Great Power on the use of force. But in the White Paper that has lately been presented to us by the Foreign Office, a Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations, a sentence runs as follows: If, indeed, a Great Power refuses to accept a judgment concurred in by all the other Great Powers not parties to the dispute and at least three other Members of the Security Council, and resolves to defy the public opinion of the world which such a judgment would express, it is impossible to predict the outcome or to lay down rules as to what ought to be done. That comment represents the fact, and, however much one may regret the failure to make provision for such an eventuality, we must recognize that it is impossible in existing circumstances to decide otherwise. It represents the fact because nothing could be worse than a system which places in the hands of one group the power to decide and devolves upon another group the responsibility for action—to leave to some the duty of deciding and to impose upon others the duty of doing. These matters can only be settled in the course of events. There is always a temptation to those who are amused by the parlour game of drafting written Constitutions, whether for a world federation or for an individual State or for any group of States, to attempt to provide neat rows of pigeon-holes with labels for future events, which often have a way of arranging themselves quite differently.

I desire to detain your Lordships only very briefly to-day, and to say nothing with regard to the terms and the provisions of this Charter. They have been dealt with fully from various aspects by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I would only mention and emphasize the importance of two sections which are not directly concerned with questions of peace and security, but which have a most important influence upon them—namely, those dealing with the Social and Economic Council, whose work may render immeasurable service to mankind, and with the trusteeship of Colonies and mandated territories, to which the noble Viscount has just referred. This last question was not dealt with, as the noble Viscount said, in the Dumbarton Oaks draft, and the White Paper which has been published mentions that this is the first comprehensive statement on Colonial policy to be included in an international instrument. It also mentions the fact that the initiative was due to the United Kingdom and Australian delegations, among whom the noble Viscount himself has taken the leading part.

When this simple issue comes before us, ass tiredly this House, If hope with unanimity, will say Yes, and with a sprit of deep thankfulness that so great and comprehensive a structure, to serve so noble a purpose and supported by such complete unanimity, should to-day be offered to us for acceptance. What are the consequences likely to flow from the enactment of this Charter? In colloquial language, where do we go from here? We do not now express the hope of a speedy, universal and general disarmament of the nations, such as was expressed al the time of the enactment of the Covenant of the League of Nations; but Article 26 of this Charter does devolve upon the Security Council the duty of formulating a plan for the regulation of armaments, and I think that the present proposals will command general assent in this country. We are working for a peaceful world. We have our hopes, our expectations and our resolves; yet we cannot refuse to recognize the possibility that things may turn out otherwise. This country would be very ready to participate in a universal and effective system of lightening the burden of armaments, yet we should wish that we should ourselves be safeguarded against all possible future risks.

Mention has been made of the invention of means for the utilization of atomic energy. The control of this new invention and discovery is surely a matter, if ever there was one, for the newly-created Security Council and Assembly. That body must intervene sooner or later to determine what use should be made of this invention or what control imposed. We cannot ignore that fact, and the Organization of the United Nations cannot ignore it, for, unless it exists for a purpose such as this, then indeed for what purpose does it exist? Let me say in parenthesis with respect to the organization of our Armed Forces—it is a minor point, though more than a verbal one—that I hope that this Government will consider the desirability of changing the name of the War Office to "Army Office." That is a change which has been overdue for many years. To call the Army Office the War Office is obviously a misnomer, because the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are obviously equally war offices.

LORD STRABOLGI

Why not "Military Police Office"?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

That might be misunderstood. People might expect all soldiers to be wearing white helmets with "M.P." on them and white gaiters and gloves! But it would be, perhaps, a desirable gesture for the present Government to make, at a time when war is to be outlawed by this new Charter, and at a time when, perhaps, our Armed Forces generally are to be reorganized, to change this old and outworn title for our military department.

My final point relates to the relationship between this Charter and the coming Peace Treaty which is to regulate the territorial pattern of Europe and Asia now that the war both in the West and in the East is over. That Peace Treaty is not to be attempted in the immediate future, but is to be prepared for beforehand by the Council of Foreign Secretaries. It will not be tinder this Charter that the peace settlement will be made; yet what is, done at the Peace Conference will most profoundly affect the working of this Charter, for under this Charter the aggressor is to be precluded from appearing, or, if he appears, he is to be suppressed. What is art aggressor? An aggressor is one who breaks the law. In what does the law consist? International Law consists mainly of treaties, and the principal treaty which will have to be administered in the future will be that which is to be arranged at the forthcoming Peace Conference. This country will readily make its contribution to the International Force to restrain the aggressor, but it is vitally interested to know what kind of action will be an aggression with regard to which its own Forces may have to be employed.

Frontiers must be just, and defensible not only strategically but also morally. Although your Lordships' House is not debating to-day the question of future frontiers, that question is exceedingly germane to the topic which is now before us. It is exceedingly germane to the topic before us this afternoon to consider in what spirit those frontiers will be arranged which it will be the duty of the United Nations Organization to maintain and preserve against aggression. In a very few words, I should like to address myself, for that reason, to this point. I ventured to make a protest in this House when the late Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, discussing after one of the Conferences the future frontiers of Central Europe, said that Poland should be properly compensated in the North and in the West for losses of territory in the East. I made a protest against the use of the word "compensation," which is a word belonging to eighteenth century diplomacy, to ideas of the balance of power and territorial bargaining, rather than to an age which would wish to direct itself on the princciples of the Atlantic Charter and of this Charter of the United Nations. If the Curzon Line, which successive British Governments have regarded as just for the last twenty or twenty-five years, and beyond which only one-third of the population are Poles, is to be regarded as a just line, then no question of compensation ought to be raised. If it is not just, the line ought not to be so drawn. On merits, if at all, the Curzon Line should be defended.

Similarly, on merits, if at all, East Prussia should be separated from Germany. There are many who hold that the outlying territory of East Prussia belonging to Germany was historically an injustice and geographically an impossibility. My noble friend Lord Perth, a perfectly impartial judge, holds strongly that view, and in this House has declared his opinion that the separation of East Prussia from Germany is right and proper. But it must be defended upon its own merits. With regard to the newly proposed Western frontier of Poland, the line within which at present the Polish Forces are the Army of Occupation, we have yet to learn on what grounds that is to be justified; whether it is to be on historical or ethnological or other grounds. For my own part, I must say that it seems quite illegitimate for the Poles to say that as they have been the victims of aggression on the one side, they should be recompensed by an aggression of their own on the other side. In the vicissitudes of Polish history, ever since the partitions of the eighteenth century down to the recent Nazi invasion, the sympathies of the world have been with the Poles, and it is that which has assured their ultimate triumph. I hope that they will now take care not to alienate world opinion which, in the future, might swing world influence against them.

The success of the United Nations Charter must depend very largely, I submit, upon the wisdom of the decisions reached at the coming Peace Conference. I would again make this plea, that the British delegation to that Conference should be constituted on an All-Party basis. The United States Government sent an All-Party delegation to San Francisco, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said, some of those representatives not belonging to the Government Party were exceedingly useful. It is known that the United States Government are going to do the same thing in connexion with the Peace Conference. They will not repeat the error which was made by the late President Woodrow Wilson. Our own Coalition Government, because it was a Coalition, also sent an All-Party delegation to San Francisco, and to the value of that arrangement Viscount Cranborne has just paid tribute. Although the Government were then no longer a Coalition, the late Prime Minister invited Mr. Attlee to accompany him to Potsdam, and that arrangement also proved most successful and valuable.

In the discussion in another place, a few days ago, similar views, or views on much the same lines with regard to foreign policy, were expressed by Mr. Bevin and Mr. Eden. There was between them a happy agreement which I am sure has been welcomed throughout the whole country. I therefore submit that, although the present Government are not a coalition Government, they should consider whether it is not practicable to constitute the British delegation to the Peace Assembly on a national rather than a Party basis. If they do so they will be giving visible expression to the substantial unity of the nation on matters of foreign policy. That unity will be shown once more in this House to-day, I am sure, in the universal approval which will be extended to the Motion to endorse The Charter of the United Nations.

4.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, one of the main difficulties that faces anyone who proposes to speak on this subject is the very great extent of the intellectual territory that is covered by the Charter of San Francisco. Personally, I feel that it would be quite hopeless to go through that Charter and express such opinion as one has upon every part of it. And indeed, after the speech of the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that it would be of any assistance to any of your Lordships to follow such a course. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, said a day or two ago that this House was not now a mere Party assembly but was rather a Council of State. That, I consider, is a very valuable statement from the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that it is particularly true in relation to a. matter of this kind. This is the kind of subject with which many of your Lordships are well qualified to deal, and it ought to be dealt with from a strictly impartial point of view. It is, if I may venture to say so, as a humble member of the Council that I have risen to support this Motion. I have no doubt that it wilt be passed unanimously.

We are all very grateful for the immense amount of labour and the ability with which the British delegation very largely and, of course, other delegations also, were concerned, and for their success; in obtaining the practically unanimous consent of the representatives of fifty nations to a document of such an elaborate and complicated character as the Charter. But apart from our gratitude for their labours and their ability, I believe that the House is perfectly convinced that every attempt ought to be made, and must be made, to secure peace by international collaboration. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that it is gratifying to some of us who have been struggling hard for this cause for the last quarter of a century, through good report and evil report—mainly evil report—to find a scheme which I think I may say reproduces most of the features of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and to find that that scheme has been so cordially received and adopted by all sections of opinion in this country—or almost all. There are, I think, some of the extreme Right who think that it is all newfangled nonsense talking to foreigners about matters of this kind. No doubt, there are many changes from the League Covenant, and I hasten to add that I think most of the changes are improvements. I do not propose to examine them, for the reasons which I have already given. I wish to keep to what I regard as the main point—namely, the actual provisions for the maintenance of peace. The other things that are proposed to be done by this Charter are all, as I understand and believe, ancillary to that main proposition. You must preserve peace; the other provisions would become perfectly valueless if you did not succeed in that main point.

There is, however, one point of a rather minor character which I should venture to submit to the Government, and it is this. By Article 2, paragraph 7, it is said that: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. … I should like to ask the Government how far they think that goes? Does it exclude from any recommendation or discussion by the Assembly, or by any of the bodies which are in relation to that body, such a matter as, for instance, import duties or restrictions? Such things may be said to be within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, and subject to my doubts as to what the word "essentially" exactly means, they are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State. And the same is true, of course, of a number of other subjects—slavery and labour conditions—all those things which it would be disastrous I think not to have considered by the Organization, and no doubt they will he so considered. But if I may I would like to ask the Government to give some kind of authoritative gloss as to what is the meaning of this word "essentially." I think that the word in the Covenant was "solely," which was a little better, although not very good. This, on the face of it seems to me to go a great deal too far and I should like to have made quite clear what the Government believes it to mean. These are just the kind of subjects which, when they come to be applied, raise very serious difficulties and might hamper the general work of the new Organization. This is only one point I venture to make.

I now come to the principles of this document. They are, I think, plain enough. I believe them to be, and I think every one will agree that they are, broadly, the same not only as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals but as the Covenant of the League itself. They are all really elaborations of the general scheme and they must be because there is no other possibility of drafting an international document of this kind except broadly on the same lines. To elaborate that point very slightly I should say that the main proposition, the main great change proposed by the Government and reiterated here, is that war is not to be regarded, as it was under the old conception, as the normal and legitimate way of settling international differences. That is the fundamental change we hope to make. It is to be replaced by discussions and negotiation and arbitration. That also is evident. If you take away war you must put something in its place. That is the fundamental suggestion. As a corollary of that, peace is recognized, as it was long recognized in this country, as the greatest of all national interests and it must, therefore, be the foundation of all progress and of all prosperity. In that connexion the various proposals which have been referred to, the social, economic, humanitarian and trusteeship proposals, all back up that general proposition and assist to make it effective.

Finally, and this is the point to which I wish to come, there is this idea that you may stop war at the outset by stopping aggression. That is, to my mind, the very centre of the Charter when you come to examine what it really tries to do and it is on that point that the Charter makes a vital change. As has been pointed out, I think by the Lord Chancellor himself, it is a vital change from the Covenant. The general subjects of arbitration, discussion, negotiation and so on are the same, but when one comes to the final stage, what are they to do if they fail? What form of force or coercion are you then to adopt? It is then that there comes the great change in the document. I think the Lord Chancellor has said that the conception of the Covenant was that we should lay upon every Member of the new League—it was a League then—the duty to resort to the prevention of war. Each State was bound to do its utmost to prevent that, but it was left to them to say that they were going to take action and within what limits they were going to do so. The Charter makes a great change and says that the initiation of this is no longer to be left to individuals; it is to be put into the hands of the Security Council.

It is a vital change and raises all the difficulties to which my noble friend Lord Cranborne was referring just now and which are inevitable when you come to have a body which is to set in motion the action for the preservation of peace. The Charter provides that the Council is never to take action in a ratio less than seven to four and that all other Members of the new Organization are to do everything they are told to do in that respect by the Council. It comes to this, and it is well to recognize the really great change it does make and very rightly makes, in our conception, that the decision to fight or not to fight in preventing aggression is no longer in the hands of the individual nation but is in the hands of the majority of the Security Council. That is a great change and, as I think, a very salutary change. And I may add as a matter of interest that I think it would have been quite impossible to have done such a thing in 1918. Nations would not have looked at it. I could develop that theme elaborately but I will not do so.

What other changes, what elaborations, really flow from this fundamental change? You will have a Council constructed with a special responsibility for peace. There will be something in the nature of a General Staff to advise the Council in the matter and there will be an obligation on each Member of the Organization to provide an armed contingent to support them. All this necessarily follows, as I see it, from that central change and it is therefore the matter upon which I venture to think we should concentrate our attention. I think it is another consequence, and a very important one, that special responsibility is laid upon the Great Powers if this coercive jurisdiction is set in motion. I do not see how one can avoid placing upon the Great Powers a special responsibility. That responsibility, it is true, was always there, and I think the Lord Chancellor has referred to that. But the Great Powers did not really recognize their responsibility on that point and that is what really brought the whole matter to grief. Nothing could be done without the Great Powers and unless they were prepared to act up to their responsibilities you could not keep the peace.

It was fully right and justifiable to give to the Great Powers five seats out of the eleven on the Security Council, and think I that as long as they are left to act as impartial judges there can be no objection to the provision being added that they must be unanimous in their action to preserve peace. They are the executive body, in effect, entrusted by the whole of the United Nations with this primary duty of maintaining peace. That is not because of any high-flown theory; it is simply because they are the people who have the power to carry out that duty. Now comes the difficulty. What is to happen if one of the Great Powers is itself an aggressor? You cannot get over it by saying that you trust that they will not be. That is a very dangerous doctrine in a matter of such immensely vital importance.

I confess I do not see how you can defend the proposition in any way. If they are the aggressors they are no longer in the position of impartial judges, and to say that they must consent before any coercive action means in fact that each of them is a licensed aggressor. I think that is difficult to defend on principle, and it seems to me to be quite inconsistent with the doctrine of sovereign equality which is made the foundation of the whole of this Charter by one of the earliest parts of it. I want to make this clear, because I do not: think the doctrine of sovereign equality is in any way infringed by saying to the five Powers: "You are under a special duty to maintain peace."

We have in this country an excellent illustration of what I mean. I speak under correction, but I believe it to be true that by our constitutional and legal theory every citizen is bound to do his utmost to repress crime. We add to that, and have certain citizens—the police—who have a special duty to repress crime, and we give them power, though very little indeed, to do so. What would be thought of a policeman guilty of crime who should not be proceeded against except with his own consent? That would be fantastic. Yet that is, strictly speaking, what this provision does do, in effect, in the international sphere. It is made all the clearer fortunately, because when the question is one of settling a dispute by pacific means the provision of unity does not prevail. If one of the Great Powers is concerned that Power loses its vote. I am interested to observe that the provision is regarded in the official commentary as obviously necessary and quite clear. In the Mosul case, I think, the Permanent Court of International Justice proceeded on the ancient doctrine that no man shall be a judge of his own cause. That is a well-founded, venerable and venerated maxim of justice. Suppose there is a dispute and one of the Great Powers is involved. So long as it has been dealt with as a specific case the Great Power cannot vote. Incidentally, the Security Council is deprived of all jurisdiction and can do nothing at all. I will not proceed further with that. The reason why I venture to direct your Lordships' attention to this proposition is that it has been very widely noticed all over the world and it has produced a considerable chilling of the support for this proposal.

As I am passionately anxious that this experiment should go through and am profoundly convinced it will never go through unless it does receive the support of the world, I think we ought to do something to try and relieve the scheme of this great weight which at present oppresses it. I am not going to argue about the defences which are suggested. There is the suggestion to this effect: "It is all right. They are such excellent friends that it is unkind to suggest that they will commit aggression." You merely have to look at their history, and putting aside, perhaps, China, there is not one of the five, including ourselves, which has not been guilty of aggression in its historical past. I think it is rash to say that they will change entirely their nature and never be tempted to aggression. Nor am I impressed by the suggestion that if a Great Power moves away that will be the end of the whole thing and therefore the question of veto does not matter. I think this scheme will be of immense value even apart from the veto, and I am sure that if you could get rid of one blot on it, it would be of immense value in discouraging the incipient wickedness of any Power before it has actually broken with the provisions of the Charter.

I had formed the opinion that it was quite clear that the Government were not whole-heartedly in support of that provision if they could have avoided it. They had to choose, according to them, between not having any Charter at all or having a Charter with this defect. If that is the ground of the decision of the Government I certainly make no criticism. They were in a far better position than any of us could be to know what was practicable in the circumstances.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

In what I said about the veto when I spoke last time I was speaking for myself. When I spoke of the impossibility about getting a Charter without it, I think it can be said that that is a fact which would be agreed by anyone who was at San Francisco.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I quite agree. The point is that if you are to get rid of the difficulty that this provision will impede your public support, then I think the only way to do it is for the Government to make it abundantly clear that they do not approve of the decision and hope the time will come when they can get rid of it, but that it is far better to have it than to have no Charter at all. They should tell the public that this thing should be supported and they should say: "We will see what can he done to improve it as time goes on." As my noble friend Viscount Samuel has said, we cannot do anything about it—we have merely to say whether we approve or disapprove.

The atomic bomb makes no essential difference in any of these schemes, but it immensely increases the stake involved. We have got a perfectly clear case that unless we can stop war not only will it destroy us but the whole of civilization. There is no doubt that we have reached a position of the utmost possible danger to civilization, not only to ourselves. I was glad to hear from the Lord Chancellor that the Government are considering what international means they can adopt in order to limit the danger of the atomic bomb. Something has been said about preserving secrecy. I do not think any hope lies in that direction. There may be something to be done internationally—I will not say there is not—but in my view the only real, effective remedy is to get rid of war. Whatever we were forced to say at San Francisco in order to get agreement on the limitation of machinery for preventing war ought to be swept away, and instead of weakening the provisions of the Charter we ought to strengthen them to the utmost of our powers.

I want to say a word in connexion with getting a strong public opinion behind this move. I do attach enormous importance to publicity. It seems to be a mere truism to say that if you want public opinion to support you, you must have publicity, not only as to what the Charter is but as to what the Powers are actually doing under the Charter. My noble friend Viscount Cranborne will perhaps forgive me for saying that I regret it was impossible at San Francisco—as I dare say it was—to have more publicity. I do not think the plan of having secret meetings and saying, "We have thought over what you said and this is our decision" is really the best way to get public opinion behind it. It may be essential in forming such a document as the Charter, but I am sure that if you are going to work the new Organization of the United Nations without publicity, it will simply become unsupported by the public opinion of the world. I hope the Government will make it clear, as early as they can, that, for their part, they hope that the Assembly and the Council and all the bodies under them will work in full publicity. I need not go into that point again because I have frequently put it before the House. Publicity is not only the necessary food of public opinion; it is a very great guarantee that the powers, whatever they are, are used fairly and justly before the world.

There is one other observation I wish to make before I sit down, and I am sorry to detain the House so long. It is often said that national sovereignty is the enemy of international authority. No one really wants to see patriotism, which is national loyalty, weakened; what we do want to see is international feeling strengthened. We want to create not only a rational support of this international Organization but a real emotional support, something whereby people will feel that they are acting as part of the new Organization. The best and most frequently used example of what I mean is the British Commonwealth. You have very strong national feelings in the components of the British Commonwealth but that does not in any way diminish, as we have seen in this war and on other occasions, the international, the Commonwealth, feeling as a whole, Therefore I am sure that if you are going to try and get an organization which will be powerful enough to maintain peace, you have got to increase by every means you can the loyalty of the component members to the whole community. I will not go into detail about that for many reasons but I hope the Government will consider what can be done. Of course, the, obvious thing is publicity and propaganda, and I hope they will be used: but, quite apart from that, there are certain things the Government ought to consider in regard to what they can do to, make this new organization a real entity, a real corporate body.

I hope they will consider the often-discussed question of an international flag. I hope they will consider the question of establishing international agents or guards, so that they can send some properly constituted guard or agency to deal with any difficulty that may arise in different parts of the world. That kind of thing is very important. It has a psychological value, and psychological influences are of great importance if you want to get real enthusiasm behind this Organization. I can only say, from my own experience and knowledge, that it was the lack of that kind of loyalty to the League which male it so easy for its enemies to under-mire it. There was nothing one could set against it except bare reason, and bare reason has very little effect on human opinion. I am sure these things should be considered, and in the meantime I will venture to repeat a hope I have already expressed once or twice in this House, that the Government will do all they can to rouse public opinion in this country on behalf of this new effort to destroy war. I believe myself that if that can be done with candour and courage, we may well hope that the Charter will prove one of the treat turning points in the history of man kind.

4.47 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, it is with rather special satisfaction that your Lordships have listened to the noble Viscount on this theme. As the Lord Chancellor has said, Lord Cecil has a particular right to take comfort for the way in which the Charter justifies his steady championship of the Covenant of the League of Nations through fair and foul weather, and I am sure that we shall all agree with him in his appeal for enthusiasm and publicity. Lord Samuel has spoken to the House about American reactions. I have recently paid a long visit to the United States at the invitation of leaders of the Churches in connexion with the World Council of the Churches. I covered a wide field of territory and interests, and I spent some days as a visitor at San Francisco. I saw, but of course in no important way, some of the delegates and some of the consultants there. I especially saw, right through the United States from East to West, representatives of the Churches, the universities, the State, commerce and professions, and I found three things: first, a widespread interest in the San Francisco Conference and a very strong desire for its success; second, a widespread interest in affairs in Europe—General Eisenhower, speaking at Washington, said that his Headquarters at Frankfurt were only fourteen hours from Washington, and that was just the distance of trouble from America—and third, and most important of all, a profound feeling of friendship for the United Kingdom, and a deep conviction that on the collaboration and permanent standing side by side of the United Kingdom and the United States the peace of mankind depended more than on any other factor.

I mention this on the security side because the rightful thing for security, as all the speakers have recognized, is the good will of the Great Powers. It is our duty as a Great Power to seek and maintain the good will of all the other Great Powers, but there is a special responsibility for the foundation of complete mutual understanding and trust between the United States and the United Kingdom with the Dominions. There was much discussion throughout the States on the question of voting on the Security Council, the regulation of Parliament, the control of strategic bases and the ultimate universality of the Organization, but the part of the Charter which steadily increased in its importance to the public was the chapter dealing with the Economic and Social Council and the reference to human rights. Americans would warmly endorse Mr. Bevin's statement—" His Majesty's Government regard the economic reconstruction of the world as the primary object of their foreign policy."

In the United States it was widely recognized among those who had worked for a commitment to broad human purposes that the preamble and the enlargement of Chapter I constituted a great achievement with its affirmation of faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and value of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small. Certainly great importance was attached to the whale of Chapter IX and the establishment of the Economic and Social Council and a Commission on human rights. The Americans noted with satisfaction the emphasis on the non-political factors, and the inclusion of problems of a cultural character amongst the international problems a solution of which was sought through international collaboration. All these matters were of special interest to the Protestant Church leaders in the States, of whom 500 assembled at Cleveland not long before the Conference and representatives of whom were during the Conference in constant touch with Mr. Stettinius and the State Department at San Francisco as well as at Washington. I am sure I am right in saying that these features of the Charter commend themselves to the British Church leaders, to the World Council and to the Churches throughout the world. I am sure also that there is no difference in this respect between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

But my friends in the United States were conscious, as Lord Samuel more than hinted, that at the very time the United Nations are setting up a new Organization for securing peace, the Great Powers have been called upon to make decisions on crucial and highly controversial situations in Europe; and, as Lord Samuel also said, it is impossible to separate completely the Organization of the United Nations from the international situation with which when set up it will have to deal. The sounder and less open to resentment that international situation is the better are the prospects of the Organization preventing war. Since I returned, the Potsdam Conference has issued its statement and I do not want to say very much about it. But it is by actions rather than by words or intentions that the world judges documents. When men speak so much of freedom of speech as they do nowadays we are rightly judged by what we do, and the reflections, for example, in The Times on Monday on "Potsdam in Perspective" do not diminish our anxiety.

The new frontier for Poland with the immense push to the west is not of good augury for the future map of Europe or for its future economic welfare, and the deportation of eight or nine million human beings from an area of German territory now administered by the Poles is hardly consistent with fundamental human rights. The Americans and the British and the United Nations condemned deportations while the war was on, whether they were French or Norwegian or Czech or Pole. In fact, they took a very strong view of the iniquity of deportations and it was put in the list of crimes which were published on August 8. Deportation and any other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population before or during the war are signalled as crimes against humanity. It is very difficult to reconcile the uprooting of millions on racial grounds with the ideals for which the United Nations have been fighting. The Foreign Secretary made a fine speech on Monday in another place and in speaking of the conflict between security and right economic development he said: Looking at Europe as a whole with all the differences of races, I believe that if we could only succeed in eliminating the war minds in Germany I see a chance of unity in Europe where no such conflict need exist. I am afraid that mass deportations are the worst thing for the elimination of the war mind, and I am sure that the cramming of eight or nine million Germans, the recent legitimate inhabitants of a territory, into a Germany which has already got a fairly large population is bound to cause conflict between security and right economic development. And there are grave economic problems as well as moral problems. Will the three million Poles—for there are only to be three million, and there is no certainty that number will arrive—be able to work the territory for the full advantage of the territory itself let alone of Europe? And what of the eight or nine million Germans? They will constitute a very heavy responsibility on the Western Powers who are now the Government of Germany. Where is the food, where is the employment to be found for them? Yet if the arrangement breaks down the Americans and the British will be considered responsible, however unfairly.

When setting up an Economic and Social Council to create conditions of stability and well-being for the future, it is something of a mockery to take steps now by compulsory measures, before the peace settlement, which make such conditions for a long time impossible; and when calling for universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is a little ironical to countenance action so antagonistic to them to-day. It is by their respect for economic stability and fundamental human rights that the Great Powers, and therefore the United Nations Organization, stand or fall. I should like in conclusion to endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said about a higher standard of living. What is at stake is the survival of human life. This survival of human life is impossible without a very great advance in moral ideals

5.1 p.m.

THE EARL OF DARNLEY

My Lords I apologize for detaining you at this late hour, but I must disclaim responsibility, because it is none of my seeking. I should like first of all to say a word of congratulation and welcome to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and to his Party—I am sorry that the noble Viscount is not here at the moment. I wish them every success in their new task, but it looks to me as though it was rather like the old fashioned and well-known one of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If I may offer a very humble suggestion, it would be that their success—and I believe that their success is possible, which was not the case with those who undertook the original task—will come only if they can finally burn, disinfect and bury that filthy, suppurating old pig from which the ear came. That old pig, is not, as I have seen it suggested in election propaganda, the Conservative Party. It has existed for thousands of years and is war, which is entirely reponsible for the present debacle of world-wide misery, famine, destruction, discontent, black markets and blackmail, a process which no Party in the world in any nation has so far succeeded in stopping or finding an alternative for. In spit of the difficulties I wish the noble Viscount success in his large and difficult task.

The Resolution before your Lordships' House to-day concerns the ratification of the San Francisco Charter. It would certainly be a polite and fitting acknowledgment of the great work which has been put into the making of this Charter, especially by the British contingent, headed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I know that he realizes and has heard to-day what is thought of the great task which he has accomplished. In spite of the able exposition given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I personally believe (though I do not suppose that anyone will agree with me) that its executive part is of little more use in settling the future peace of the world than would be the proceedings of a society to keep alive the last few specimens of the Dodo. I believe that force and power politics in any form for peace-making are as dead as that august and venerable bird. I have mentioned this theme before your Lordships, almost alone, for the last six years, and I believe that I can say without any assumption of superiority that if the atomic bomb cannot ratify the San Francisco Charter it can at any rate ratify me.

The San Francisco Charter—perhaps I had better say the United Nations, as I believe the body is to be called—is controlled by a self-selected group of extremely powerful and rich nations in order to deal out justice and maintain peace according to their own ideas. It has divided up the world into three categories: The good (themselves); the doubtful (those that are not yet proved to be in complete accord with them); and the bad (the recent aggressors). It hopes by an overwhelming display of force to keep the doubtful from becoming bad and the bad in such subjection that they cannot become bad again. It is taken for granted that the good will always remain so. I am not trying to hint that this general assessment of humanity at the moment is not reasonably correct. We have all been made sick by the recent horrible deeds of the aggressor nations, and we all believe that the United Nations have at heart an honest desire to make world peace. At the same time, however, we have all been made absolutely sick of the way the necessity for existence apparently compels the breaking of all the so-called rules of war, not to mention the Ten Commandments, especially as regards the fate of civilians, who have been blasted to pieces first by the hundred, then by the thousand and now by the hundred thousand. On this account we have vast fears for the future.

This Charter is not going to change all that. I have always maintained, and shall always maintain, that the theory of compulsion in peace is a delusion. I apologize for repeating this so often, but peace will come only from an absence of cause of strife, coupled with an understanding of the complete uselessness of a force system which can only foster destruction, hatred and revenge. The human being, either as an individual or as a nation, will never be forced by compulsion to take a course opposite to that which he feels, rightly or wrongly, to be dictated by grievance or by necessity. History is one long succession of attempts by nations to impose their will on their adversaries and their neighbours, and the resultant feuds and ill feeling which have accumulated from this have culminated in a stupendous cataclysm of misery and destruction on which the coming of the atomic bomb has pronounced this unassailable dictum. Right always will be right and wrong always will be wrong, but if force is used again to prove it, the results will destroy humanity and its will to live, and possibly even the globe that it inhabits.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who I am sorry is not in his place, said just now that the atomic bomb will make no difference to the processes of the Security Council. Let me paint an imaginary picture of how the next war may happen. Some nation will get a grievance from the Peace Treaty or from the past or will hatch a new one in the future, and instead of bleating it out to the world, as Hitler used to do, the nation will keep it quiet for fear of possible interference by the Security Council, and confide it to one group of people only—its investigating scientists and chemists. One day—it may be in ten years, fifty years or a hundred years—when it has got all it wants, all the key towns and arsenals and the politicians of the country which it regards as responsible for this grievance will be destroyed. The politicians, bereft of even one moment of time for reflection, will find themselves part of a huge black mushroom of dirt and smoke going up to the stratosphere, from their late supposed stronghold—perhaps I should say a white mushroom. Possibly, a few minutes later, another country, friendly to the one attacked, will wreak similar treatment on the aggressor, so that by the time the Security Council get out of their comfortable beds and reach their office to consider action under Article 39, which states: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security "— the war will be over. Two or three countries will have been entirely destroyed and the ears that might have listened to the Council's warnings will be sailing in the sky in particle form, together with fragments of attaché cases, gaiters, and the other bits and pieces that used to make up a normal existence.

It is quite useless to argue that the United Nations have the secret of the atomic bomb, and that they can keep it closely guarded. I believe that most of the world's chemists and inventors are already a good way towards the understanding of this secret, and that they will soon get it, if not something worse. I have already seen in some newspapers fairly accurate diagrams of the bomb, and I am almost ready to believe that, if I had the aid of a few scientifically qualified noble Lords, such as Lord Cherwell and Lord Brabazon of Tara, I could almost make a bomb myself. However, I believe that a few years hence every country will have this bomb or something worse. General Arnold, Chief of the United States Air Force, recently revealed a. whole host of bigger and better weapons possessed by his country. He said: I am trying to make these weapons so terrible that there will not be any more war. No doubt every nation will shortly be echoing his opinion and his aims—on their own behalf—and their wishes will probably come true, for there cannot be another war if there is not a world in which to make war.

The vista of another war, even a short preventive one, is of such infinite horror that its possibility has now got to be stopped definitely once and for all, and in some new and novel way which has a possibility of success. There is, I suggest, only one way of preventing war in the future, and that is by convoking a complete and representative assembly of all nations, including the recent aggressors—possibly more importantly the recent aggressors—to make primary agreement on these plain facts on the basis of the necessity and of the equality demanded by the situation. I propose to put a notice on your Lordships' Order Paper shortly, advocating this. I believe that although this is a vast and novel windmill at which to tilt, the proposal if acted upon would be successful, and that it would be the only, and therefore the absolutely necessary, way. For if you can get into the mind of even the most unregenerate aggressor, such as the Nazi youth for instance, that in the future every country is going to co-operate for world prosperity, which will include his own, and therefore for his trade, his peace and hit; security of living, you will be able to unwind, as in no other way, the chain of circumstances which has brought him into his present state however long it may have existed. You will bring to the doubtful class a swing in the right direction, and even to the good, let it be spoken gently, you will ensure that old memories of their wicked past do not creep into the horizon again.

My Lords, I venture to put forward this assertion—and these are my last few words. In war-time especially there are produced in every country countless books proving the bad characters of opponents over distant ages of the past. But I believe that if nations could be brought to a common denominator of comparative security and content these variations in past behaviour, both up and down, would be found to be due to circumstances rather than to diversity of composition. In other words, basically we are all much alike—and I believe the expression of this point of view is the most likely one to produce general agreement, for it alone a voids the pitfalls of racial superiority and inferiority complexes.

But, what is perhaps most important of all, it will bring into the mind of the world's labourer—and we all belong to that category—that most necessary thing of all at this moment, hope—hope that there is in process of formation a better, an understandably better, future. It will thereby gain his co-operation and energy towards rebuilding this torn and battered world, and at the same time abolish the aftermath of bitterness and disillusionment now so prevalent and so constraining. I hope that His Majesty's Government will nationalize this hope first of all in their schemes, and afterwards internationalize it. I believe that it will serve them much better than any unknown quantity of banks and coal mines. Ratify the San Francisco Charter if you will, my Lords, but bring its successor into primary conception before the ink is dry, for we do not want to join the Dodo just yet.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.