Sir, in commending this motion to the House I would begin by recognising at once that, as far as the surface goes, there seems to be not much difference in the ideal sought to be attained by my amendment and those in the wording of article 40 as it stands. The difference may appear to be the difference of wording only. I submit, however, that though the difference seems to be a difference, superficially judging, of wording only, to me at any rate the difference in wording seems to conceal a difference of approach, a difference of out-look, perhaps also a difference in intention. I would urge, Sir, that we should leave no room for doubt about this matter. I will point out for instance that the original clause as it stand requires -“That the State shall promote international peace and security by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments and by the maintenance of justice and respect for treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another”.
