WORLD GOVERNMENT

HL Deb 14 May 1958 vol 209 cc353-70

5.45 p.m.

Debate resumed.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I wish to apologise to the House for not being in my place when my turn came to speak and for not having been here during the course of this important and interesting debate. I hope that my apology will be accepted. I venture to speak to the House only because a situation has arisen in the Near East which affects so intimately the whole concept of world government, of world law and order that, unless it is handled with resolution and enlightenment, the deeper and more important general truths of this debate will have very little consequence.

It was fifteen years ago that news came through on the ticker-tape that the French Government of the time was making a coup against the infant. Government of the Lebanon, and the present Lord President of the Council, Lord Hailsham, and myself were fortunate enough to be able to speak in another place on the Adjournment and to get a wide assent of the House that the independence of that young country, from which we had both recently returned, and which was dear to everybody who knew the Middle East, was of vital concern to the free world. On the French side, enlightened counsels prevailed, and this small country was started on a road to freedom where she has been an example to other countries in the Middle East. It is a country where there has been the highest degree of democracy and of tolerance; where have lived together Christians, Moslems, Jews and Armenians, all represented in every Cabinet with the utmost degree of religious and political freedom. It has been the centre of free education: the American University and the French Jesuit University have flourished side by side with native institutions. It has been an example to the world of what the free play of economic forces can do. With very little of those Government restrictive attempts which have been used in other parts, and with few natural resources, and nothing but the genius and ingenuity of the country, they have built up one of the great centres of free enterprise, free trade and free exchanges which have raised the standard of living of that people.

Lebanon is a country of which both Great Britain and France, both of whom had something to do with its initiation, can well be proud. It is a country which stood by us when we were in difficulties; a country which refused to break off relations with us at the time of Suez; a country whose airfields became the staging place for the British and French aircraft after we had been denied use of the airports of Egypt; a country which had the courage to accept the implications of the Eisenhower doctrine; a country in every way worthy of our support, which has never menaced its neighbours and has been an example to the whole region.

Now they are being attacked by the full force of their neighbours. Whatever may be the exact rights or wrongs of the frontier incidents, it is an undoubted fact that the radios of Cairo and Damascus are putting out their whole force to try to subvert the Lebanon Government and create a revolutionary situation in that Government. Press reports seem to indicate that there have been attempts to bring in arms and agitators to try to wipe the independence of that small country off the face of the Middle East. We have a responsibility for the formation of that country, and this is surely one of those moments when what matters is not the general thesis which we have discussed to-day but whether we are prepared to put our full force behind a case in which right is entirely and clearly on one side.

I hope that this House, and the Government spokesman who is to respond, will make it clear that on this occasion British opinion is with President Chamoun and his Government and people. I hope that we may concert immediately with the United States on what measures to take, either diplomatically or militarily; and that, if we are appealed to by the Government of that country, we shall take the risk and, with the United States, put in such forces as are necessary to maintain its frontiers. If we do not do that, we shall not deserve to have a friend left in the Middle East. No one would believe a word we say if, in a case of such palpable open aggression, we failed to stand by our friends. I hope that it will be known in the Lebanon that the people of that country still have friends in this country who wish them well and who in this present situation are prepared to take risks on their behalf.

5.52 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken will not be surprised if I do not follow along the line that he has trodden. His speech is a red herring across the trail, and has no more to do with the subject under discussion than if we had been discussing the Children Bill or some equally remote affair.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I first suggested that I should raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House, but I was told that it would be more convenient to raise it in this debate, even though I was bringing it in slightly by the ears.

LORD SILKIN

It may have been convenient, but it is certainly not relevant. However, the noble Viscount has got it off his chest, and that is that.

I think that this is the third occasion in recent years on which we have discussed the subject of world government. On the first occasion it was raised from the Benches opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr; on the second occasion it was raised from the Liberal Benches; and now again it has been raised from those Benches. On each occasion there has been support from some of my noble friends, but I want to make it clear from the outset that we are not regarding this as a political matter. There is at the present time a considerable body of opinion in both Houses favourable to world government. I believe that the majority of those Members are members of the Party opposite, while a substantial number are members of my Party, but neither Party has officially accepted the position of world government. Therefore, I want to make it quite plain that in speaking from these Benches and from this Box I am speaking for myself, although not necessarily in opposition to the views of my noble friends.

I want also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, for having raised this matter in this form. We have had a number of statements from Her Majesty's Government favourable to the principle of world government—I believe I am fair in saying that they are favourable to the principle—and I think it is right to try to carry the matter one stage further. I would ask, first, what do the Government understand by world government; and, secondly, what do they propose to do in view of their repeated statements that they are favourable to the principle? Listening to the debate this afternoon, I did not hear anybody criticise the principle of world government. Such criticism as was offered was on the question of its practicability and the difficulties that would be involved in bringing it about. There is no dispute in this House at all, even from the most sceptical, that if we could achieve world government in the sense in which it was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, then it would be a desirable thing to do. Therefore I do not feel it is necessary to advocate the principle of world government; it is one which has been, as I say, generally accepted in the debate to-day and, I think, would be generally accepted in the country.

It is perhaps desirable to clarify what those of us who support it understand by world government, and how we seek to bring it about. I believe that world government follows logically and inevitably from the United Nations Organisation. If U.N.O.—as I propose to call it—is to survive at all, it must be given teeth. We have seen example after example of the flouting of U.N.O. decisions. I am glad that we are not among those who have flouted U.N.O. Even in the case where we made a terrible mistake, we accepted the decision of U.N.O., as did France. But over and over again all sorts of nations have flouted decisions of U.N.O. because it did not happen to suit their book. It is useless to have a World Authority giving decisions and purporting to have the right to give them, when those decisions can be ignored by many nations if it does not happen to suit their book. What those of us who believe in world government want to do is to put teeth into the United Nations Organisation to make quite sure that a decision given by them will be operative and can be enforced. Before you do that, you must have a code of world law which has been accepted by the members of U.N.O. So we should endeavour in the first instance to create a world law, a world authority to interpret the law and to make decisions, and a world police force to enforce them. That is the machinery we think necessary for the purpose of world government.

How do we hope to achieve it? I agree with every speaker who has said that it is not immediately attainable. Of course it is not, so long as the world is divided into two conflicting parts, each of which lives in fear of the other and in suspicion of the other; when any suggestion that one makes is immediately regarded as propaganda or a trap, or something of that sort. It is hopeless to try to get any sort of agreement in that atmosphere. That is why, while I think we ought not to abandon the policy of the Summit talks, nevertheless, I cannot pretend that I have very high hopes of them unless they have the effect of easing the atmosphere. They may do that. If Khrushchev would learn to play golf and get on the golf course with President Eisenhower, it might be that on the golf course they would arrive at some better understanding than exists at the present time. But I cannot pretend that world government can come about speedily, and certainly not in the existing atmosphere.

But, my Lords, we must not make the mistake of believing that the existing atmosphere will continue for all time. Things change; everything changes. Who would have imagined ten years ago that we should actually be helping to rearm Germany, that we should be contemplating helping Germany to provide herself with nuclear weapons, that we should even be providing her with the men to train her bombing force? Who would have believed such a change possible, ten years ago? And yet it has come about. Who would have believed at the outbreak of war, when the Russians and Germans had signed an agreement, that within a couple of years we should be fighting side by side with the Russians? All sorts of things happen in the course of time. There have been changes even among the Eastern countries. There has been a dramatic change in the position of Yugoslavia and a change in the position of Poland. Even in the Soviet Union there is evidence of some change in atmosphere; there is a relaxation within the country itself. So we must not make the mistake of believing that because at this moment the tension is very great and the difficulties are overwhelming, those difficulties will continue for all time or even for a long time.

Furthermore, I take the view that something of this sort is inevitable. There really is no choice for humanity between giving some authority, preferably U.N.O., the power to make decisions and to enforce those decisions in accordance with a code of law which it has laid down, and, if not complete death, then living under the constant fear of death, which to my mind is an even graver thing than death itself. Speaking for myself, I would sooner be dead than live the rest of my life under the daily fear of dying. I believe that in the long run, once tension is even a little removed, the nations will be willing to act in accordance with the dictates of sense and sanity; and this conception of world government is so sane that it seems to me that an agreement along these lines is really inevitable.

In that context, I think it is unrealistic to talk about the Soviet Union's having exercised the Veto 83 times, or China coming in and creating more difficulties. Obviously, in the atmosphere of the Soviet Union's always being opposed by other nations on the Security Council who are always fearful and suspicious of every move that the Soviet make, it is very natural. But I am speaking of a totally different atmosphere and totally different conditions, and of the willingness on the part of the parties to throw into the common pool their best endeavours to reach some kind of agreement. I believe that the time is not so far distant as, say, the noble Marquess thinks. Nor do I believe it is as difficult as he thinks. But whether the time is distant or not, whether it is difficult or not, I believe that we ought to be attuning ourselves and preparing ourselves for the realisation of this conception. There is a great deal of work to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Brand, referred to such difficulties as who would pay for the police force and who would be in the Government of the World Authority, and so on, and these are matters that must be faced. To a certain extent they have been faced by some people who have given years of thought to the subject, in the book to which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, referred, but a good deal more thought must be given to it, if only by reading the book to which he refers and digesting it.

Therefore, my Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government, accepting the idea as they have done, will go a little further and really study the implications of their acceptance of the idea, and work out what their view is of a World Authority—how it would be appointed, what its functions would be, and so on. One of the difficulties that has been expressed from time to time is that it would involve the sacrifice of sovereignty, and no nation is willing to give up its rights to manage its own affairs. But world government does not involve the sacrifice of sovereignty by a nation, except to the extent of operating its own armed forces; that is, to the extent of reserving the right to go to war if it so feels disposed. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury raised the question of internal affairs. Obviously, a World Authority such as we have in mind would not wish to interfere with the internal affairs of any country, but he quite rightly pointed out the difficulty at times of defining what constitutes internal affairs and how a difficulty which originates as an internal affair might become a matter of world importance. Of course the noble Marquess is right. There are these difficulties that will arise, difficulties of definition, borderline cases; and nobody knows better than he does that you can almost defeat any idea by quoting borderline and difficult cases. They are the cases, of course, that create the greatest difficulty, and it is something that has got to be solved.

I would submit that if we had a World Authority in which the nations really had confidence, it would be for them to decide whether a particular dispute was an internal dispute or whether it was something in which they had the right to interfere. After all, courts have to decide the same kind of problem every day and they are able to do it. I visualise a World Authority as very much on the same lines as the courts that are functioning in the different countries. They have to decide these borderline cases, and I think they can do it. I feel that we ought not to exaggerate the difficulties in carrying out the thing we all, I think, would like to see—that is, the establishment of a World Authority. We should proceed stage by stage, step by step. Nobody has suggested that a Constitution can be framed and put into operation immediately. It will be a matter of working by degree, carrying on in stages and gaining experience as we go along. Unless something of this sort is done it will be no good our protesting that we accept the principle but do not think there is anything we can do about it. I hope not only that Her Majesty's Government will find themselves able to say that they accept the principle of world government, not only, as they have already said, that they think it is the only solution of our difficulties and that it is bound to come, but also that they will take the next step themselves in helping to make it come.

The organisation which is responsible for furthering the idea throughout the world is acting through Parliamentarians who are endeavouring to persuade the different Governments throughout the world, not without some success, to accept their ideas. Approaches have been made to a large number of Governments and these have met with great favour. There are high hopes that not only will this country put forward proposals in the United Nations, but that other countries will support them. If one can get a sufficient body of opinion at the United Nations, at any rate one can get the matter discussed and ventilated, with a hope that in due course the common sense of the whole world will support it. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will be able to give us a fairly hopeful view of the action that Her Majesty's Government will be able to take.

6.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, in the course of a long and distinguished career the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has done many services to his country and to this House, and although there are many problems, urgent and pressing, which we have immediately to face to-day, in both our domestic and our international affairs, I think it is right that the goal of world government should be kept before Parliament and before the people.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I think, looking at the list of speakers, said that the average age of those who spoke on this subject was something like seventy or over. I suppose that one might call them the "old hopefuls"—though in no sense of disrespect, because the darker the world seems as we look at it, the more essential it is to keep alive the hopes of the ordinary people. At least the seventy year-olds and over knew the" naughty 'nineties," but I would remind your Lordships that my generation, and noble Lords who are younger that me, have never known peace; we have lived in an atmosphere of almost continuous war. So we are not likely to be behindhand in our anxiety to achieve peace; and, indeed, I think that no prejudice or hidebound ideas will be found in the minds of anyone under fifty to-day. Therefore, I hope that we are all united in trying to find ways to ease tension and to bring the peace and justice, and an end to war, for which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, asks in his Motion. Therefore, the goal of world government is a goal or a principle to which not only Her Majesty's Government but anyone who is interested or believes in the evolution of democracy can properly subscribe.

But if one admits the principle, equally, I think, we should not delude ourselves, or, perhaps worse still, delude others, that the goal is at present in sight. The reality of our time is not such, I think, that it is a profitable exercise to try to lay out a blueprint for world government. At present, the world lacks that common political outlook which is fundamental to the working of any governmental system, and at present it is useless to deny that there is no agreement on matters which are really basic to national or international society. There is wide disagreement upon the relationship between the State and the individual, the rights of the individual under the law, the principles of justice, either within a nation or internationally. These are not mere questions of political theory or philosophy; they are the questions which, in their practical application, constitute the dividing line between tyranny and freedom. Until there is much wider agreement between nations, and in particular between the two great blocs into which the world is at present divided, it is difficult to see how any system of world government, however ingenious the machinery, can stand on firm foundations. It is only when there is a much nearer common approach on ideals and aspirations and when those are held with conviction by more nations, that that sound and solid foundation will be provided.

It is true that among the groups of nations inter-dependence is growing, and that the elimination of time and space should work to a greater intimacy between peoples and neighbours. But let us face the fact that there are still formidable difficulties in sharing sovereignty and an unwillingness to surrender the ultimate power of decision. I think we must face the fact, too, that although there is encouraging evidence of co-operation among nations in the world, nevertheless nationalism has never been more blatant or extreme. So this exercise which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, asks us to undertake is not easy, and your Lordships have recognised the difficulties. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, would, I think, have confirmed me in my recollection if he had been here—he has had to leave. I remember him, I think, saying of men, "The stupid are the cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt." This House, in its attitude to this debate, has once again demonstrated its high intelligence, because, though the goal is clear, all sorts of doubts have been in your Lordships' minds to-day.

The most hopeful experiment in international collaboration—indeed, the bridge by which we may, in time, pass from co-operation between the nations to shared sovereignty—is the United Nations. In response to several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I want to make it clear that that is the instrument which the United Kingdom Government are pledged to use. I think that Lord Birdwood also asked particularly for that assurance. But even so, none of us who have studied the record and the achievements of the United Nations would suggest that world government can emerge in the foreseeable future. Our hopes after the war rested in the United Nations Charter. Lord Beveridge, I think, would like to see a review of the Charter, and feels that if a review of the Charter was undertaken we might make at least some progress on the road towards world government.

My Lords, that is possible. We in the United Kingdom would like to see a review of the United Nations Charter, and would hope that that would lead one nearer to international justice and to the abolition of war. But, as Lord Birdwood reminded us, in 1955 a Committee was set up in the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the Charter. What happened? At every stage the proceedings of the Committee were frustrated by the Soviet Union. Not only did they stymie the proceedings, but even when there was a modest resolution to keep the Committee in existence they abstained from voting.

So, whatever may be the future—and I am not going to fall into the trap of which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, warned me, and say that there will never be change, for there will, and I hope that it will come quickly—it is clear, and Russia has made it clear, that she will apply the Veto to any suggestion at present in any way to review the Charter. So we are there led to a deadlock. The reason for the breakdown is clear: the code of international law, which is essential if we are at any time to see anything like world government, is not accepted by the Communist group of nations. International Communism and international law are incompatible; and world government, as seen through Soviet eyes, is an instrument to assert Communist domination over all. If the noble Lord is looking for peace, it will not come until peace and world government cease to be used merely as technical manœuvres by the Communist nations; and free men could not accept world government on Communist terms. The truth is that until international Communism is dead, world government cannot be born. But again we must hope and work in the United Nations, and by every means in our power, to change the Russian point of view. There is evidence that the pure Communist doctrine is not sustained in some of the satellite countries to the extent that it was even a few years ago.

But if the political and constitutional approaches to world government are blocked for the present, we ought not to be unduly discouraged. The world has advanced a very long way since the first days of the United Nations. There are fields of co-operation in which results that would have been quite unthinkable fifty years ago are being achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, has reminded us of the work of such bodies as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation; and lastly I would mention the "Atoms for Peace" Committee of the United Nations which is holding a conference this autumn. I would agree with him, as I believe my noble friend Lord Salisbury agreed, that helping under-developed countries with credit, raising their standard of living and exploring every means for providing capital investment in underdeveloped countries are all ways in which we can achieve greater co-operation and prosperity and, thereby, a more neighbourly feeling in the world.

These institutions that I have mentioned are organic in growth. They stem from needs that are common to all peoples, and therefore they are the true fabric of world government which, if it is to endure, must grow up from below. So, at least on the economic side, we have recorded progress in the United Nations Organisation, and it is the intention of the United Kingdom to give as much help as we can to all these development schemes to help under-developed countries towards greater economic and social stability. I should like at this point to reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who asked what we are going to do. I will avoid a definition of "world government", but when the noble Lord asks what we propose to do to move towards it I will say this: We are willing at any time to review the Charter, and we will play our fullest part in the economic activities of the United Nations and its organisation.

Finally, in the closing part of what I have to say, I should like to turn to the military aspect of world government and the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that we should do something to try to get nearer the point where war can be abolished. Quite clearly, as the noble Lord has pointed out, we cannot abolish war or have an effective international army without Russian co-operation. So the practical question we have to ask ourselves is: what opportunities have we to make progress by means which do not involve a surrender of sovereignty for any nation? Here there might be two avenues of approach; first, a bold extension of the conception of an international force, operating under independent United Nations direction and command; and secondly, controlled disarmament.

Let me say a word about the international conception of an international force. It was, of course, the intention right at the start that the United Nations should have some such force permanently and continuously at its disposal. Articles 43 to 50 of the Charter were intended to put "teeth" into the United Nations, and as such were the key to the Charter. The United Nations did put an international force into Korea and into the field following the Suez trouble, and we should not underestimate those achievements. They are novel, but they achieved results and they are a beginning. But one has only to visualise the future of a proposal that the United Nations should put a force into Hungary, for instance, to realise that the extension of operations of this kind are at present strictly limited. So there should be far greater progress in the field of controlled disarmament, including complete international inspection.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and other noble Lords must be aware of the position in this respect, but the most astonishing feature of this debate has been that not one of the noble Lords who have spoken has mentioned the disarmament scheme accepted by fifty-seven of the nations of the world in the United Nations Assembly—by all, in fact, except the Soviet bloc. That is a scheme upon which the United Kingdom has worked hard, and it contains many of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, wishes to see. It covers balanced disarmament, dealing with both nuclear and conventional weapons. It deals with the halting and international supervision of new fissile material for weapons, and lays down the most elaborate scheme for inspection, involving inspection from the air, control posts, road stations and factories. That scheme could be adopted to-morrow. Only the Russians and the countries of the Soviet bloc have voted against it and are preventing it.

If, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, says, Russia is frightened, the way is wide open for her to lose that fear by agreeing to this scheme. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, knows about this scheme. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he does not know about the details of this scheme then there is something very wrong, because this is a scheme which, as I have said, the fifty-seven nations have accepted as the basis for a disarmament convention. It is a scheme which should be known all over the free world and one which the noble Lord, with his well known oratorical and persuasive powers, could join in persuading Russia to adopt; and I hope he will. I hope, too, that Lord Russell will, because it would be a more profitable exercise than criticizing Her Majesty's Government, who have already adopted this scheme and are willing to see it put into force to-morrow.

We are prepared to go to great lengths in this matter, and such a plan offers great gains to mankind in the immediate easing of tension, in bringing confidence and in enabling the United Nations to put into effect and to proceed on more ambitious schemes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that if he does not know the details I will supply him with them and ensure that he has no excuse another time not to make the most of them, and to tell the world about them. Her Majesty's Government, at any rate, are going to press them on the Soviet Union, either through the United Nations or at Summit talks, because they believe that disarmament and the lessening of tension are possible.

My noble friend, Lord Salisbury, did not, I think, expect me to answer that portion of his speech which dealt with and asked questions concerning America's foreign policy, but I would agree with him in this: that if Russia's forward march is to be halted then it must be matched by a united policy from the West, not only in the area covered by the N.A.T.O. Powers but in the Middle East and in the S.E.A.T.O. area as well; and not until we achieve that complete harmony in purpose, and not until our policies are clearly known to the world, shall we be able to hold the Russian advance.

Finally, perhaps because we have as a basis common social and political philosophies, I would say that the most promising exercise in international co-operation is that within the British Commonwealth of Nations. I was glad that Lord Brand reminded us of how much he did in his early days to sow the seeds of co-operation, which have bloomed so extensively and flourished in so many lands. We have not yet diluted our Sovereign; we have achieved partnership and positive co-operation over a very wide field. As this debate has shown, there are many differences still to be healed. I think I said in this House the other day that we have a chance within the Commonwealth to show that colour, which is a distinction of nature, need not be a political distinction of mankind. We have shown that while we can retain our own patriotism, nationalism can be mellowed and harnessed in the partnership.

Perhaps the best contribution and the most convincing example to the world of the possibility of world government in the future is the Commonwealth example; and I hope that in responding to this Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I have made it clear that we accept the principle, that we see ways and means of making progress, although with great difficulty in face of the combined opposition of Russia and the Soviet bloc, if we, as a leading partner in the Commonwealth, do all we can by precept and example to show the world a better way of life.

6.36 p.m.

LORD BEVERIDGE

My Lords, may I just say a few words in reply to the most interesting speech which has come to us from the noble Earl, Lord Home. I want to begin by thanking him for calling my attention to the United Nations disarmament scheme. May I add that if he could do anything to make it easy for me to discover and get a copy of the scheme, I would be still more grateful; and I can undertake that I will study it with great care.

As I am talking of documents, and as the noble Lord who spoke last from this side of the House, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, both referred to the book to which I made some reference in my own speech, may I say to the House that I happened to have two copies of the book. One was sent to me as a gift from the authors, with a charming inscription, which I shall keep; and one was sent for review, although no one has asked me to review it; so I have just presented this copy to the Library of the House. I have done that because I think that the Members of the House of Lords are the most intelligent and most important audience that could possibly be asked to read it. May I add that if any of your Lordships finds it too long to read as a whole, you will get the whole gist of it in the introduction of a very few short pages.

Having referred to the latest speakers, may I go back for a moment to the first speaker who followed me, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. He, I think, rather took the view that, as there were many more important things that had to be done, it was a waste of time to worry about world government. That reminds me of exactly what I did myself after World War I. It seemed so absurd then that anybody should want to go on to another war that I went about other things, and left it to the League of Nations and Gilbert Murray to stop the next war; and we all know that they did not succeed in stopping it. It reminds me of my own foolish past and of the past of many of us. I want to say only that it would have been important to stop World War II if one could; it is ten times as important, a hundred times as important, to stop World War III. Again, there is a simple example in this book from which I quoted. It states that it is estimated that one megaton nuclear bomb is now equivalent to all the bombs that were dropped in Germany in the whole of World War II. That is what war means now. It is utterly different from what it was in the past.

May I add, as another instance of the utterly destructive nature of war to-day, the horrible example which has spread all over the world of using violence to get what you want. We hear of it every time we listen to the news; we hear of some beastly violence going on in one part of the world or another, chiefly in regard to something quite unimportant. It is not only the horrible danger of war but the demoralisation that two world wars have caused us that made me so anxious that something should be done to stop the next war.

I want only to say, without mentioning names, that I can answer a certain number of points that were made by begging your Lordships to believe that war can be stopped in a properly organised world, as murder is stopped in any single society, without affecting liberty, self-government, or the variety of views and ideologies. I hope you are not going to wait until all the nations are agreed either on being anti-Communist or on being Communist before you stop a war. On that line you will not stop war ever. Say, instead: "We will leave you free to have your own ideology". That is a point on which I differed from what the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said.

It is rather late, and therefore I will say only a few words more in regard to one question which the noble Earl answered on behalf of the Government. I have read the documents which they have issued and from which I quoted, and I agree and accept that they do take the danger of nuclear war—and there will always be the danger of nuclear war—with desperate seriousness. That stands out particularly in paragraph 8 of the Report on Defence. But I still make a plea to them to take with more urgency this question of world government and the prevention of war. While we delay and do nothing else we are at risk, and the risk is an intolerable one to take. In the past Britain has led the world in many things, and though she does not have the power to lead the world physically, or dominate it physically, as she did in the past, Britain could lead the world by the kind of statement which I urge the Government to consider making—a statement of the terms upon which she would surrender the power to make war. I want a propaganda of reasoned argument from this great country, which has led the world in so many ways in the past. If the Government would consider the appeal that I make, then Britain might lead the world again and get us more rapidly out of this ghastly danger of a nuclear World War III. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before seven o'clock.