Essays in Liberalism | Page 3

from
the Government of this country. And yet, though I have thought it right
to emphasise the non-party aspect of this question, I am conscious, and
I am sure all of you are, there are two ways in which the League is
regarded. It is not only that, as your chairman would say, some people
have more faith than others, but there is really a distinct attitude of
mind adopted by some supporters of the League from that adopted by
others.
THE TWO VIEWS OF THE LEAGUE
There is what I may call the empirical view of the League. There are
those of us in this country, and indeed all over the world, who,
profoundly impressed with the horrors of war, hating war from the

bottom of their hearts as an evil thing--a company which must include,
as far as I can see, all Christian men and women--these people,
impressed with the horrors of war, look about for some means of
keeping it away, some safeguard against its renewal. And they say:
"We have tried everything else, we have tried the doctrine of the
preparation for war as a great safeguard of peace; we have tried the
doctrine of the Balance of Power; we have tried the doctrine of making
one State or group of States so powerful that it can enforce its will on
the rest of the world. We have tried all these expedients, and we are
driven to the conclusion that they lead not to peace, but to war. Is there
anything else?" And then they come quite legitimately to the League as
their last hope of preserving the peace of the world. I was talking to a
distinguished Frenchman the other day, and that was his attitude. It is
the attitude of a great many people. In my judgment it is quite sound as
far as it goes. But it is not inspiring. It depends in the last resort merely
on a frank appeal to the terrors of mankind.
Against that view you may set the more fundamental way of
approaching this question. You may say if you are to have peace in the
world it is not enough merely to provide safeguards against war. You
must aim at creating a new international spirit, a new spirit in
international affairs; you must build from the very foundations. That is
the positive as opposed to the negative way of approaching this
question. It is not enough to cast out the war spirit and leave its
habitation swept and garnished. You have to replace the war spirit by a
spirit of international co-operation. And that is the way of regarding
this great movement which some people think can be disposed of by
describing it as idealism--a favourite term of abuse, I learn, now, but
which seems to me not only good politics and good morality, but
common sense as well.
THE NEGATIVE AND THE POSITIVE
These two points of view do represent undoubtedly fundamental
differences of political attitude, and you will find that the two sets of
advocates or supporters of the League whom I have tried to describe,
will inevitably regard with different emphasis the provisions of the

Covenant, and even the achievements of the League. For if you read the
Covenant you will find two sets of provisions in that document. It does
recognise the two schools, as it were, that I have been describing. It has
a set of provisions which deal with the enforcement, the safeguarding
of peace, and a set of provisions which deal with the building up of
international co-operation. You will notice the two sets of provisions.
There are those aiming directly at the settlement of disputes without
war. This is the central part of the League. It is the first thing before
you can hope to do anything else. Before you can begin to build up
your international spirit you must get rid as far as you can of the actual
menace of war; and in that sense this is the central part of the Covenant.
But, in my view, the most enduring and perhaps the most important
part is that set of provisions which cluster round the group of articles
beginning with Article 10 perhaps, certainly Article 12, and going on to
Article 17--the group which says in effect that before nations submit
their disputes to the arbitrament of war they are bound to try every
other means of settling their differences. It lays down first the principle
that every dispute should come to some kind of arbitration, either by
the new Court of International Justice--one of the great achievements of
the League--or discussion before a specially constituted Arbitration
Court, or failing both, then discussion before the Council of the League;
and Articles 15 and 16 provide that until that discussion