war, a vital connexion between the two. The most magnificent
conceptions of policy are useless unless there is a means of putting
them into effect. In the last war immense devotion, skill and
energy and a wealth of economic and statistical information and
analysis were devoted to the elaboration of plans by which the
war against Germany could be quickly won by a bombing offen-
sive. Their only weakness was that it was impossible to carry them
out. Similar situations often arise in the formation of foreign policy.
For this reason even in this field a subordinate may be able at
times to make a contribution to great events and no Foreign Minis-
ter has ever touched greatness unless he was himself fully aware of
the minutiae of his business. On the other hand, of course, it is no
use possessing to the highest degree the art of finding means to
ends unless those ends are worth obtaining. But this afternoon it
is means not ends that I shall be considering.

On that part of their subject nearly all writers since Machiavelli,
in spite of the reputation of the profession, insist on the employ-
ment in diplomacy of those virtues which we value most highly in
our ordinary avocations. Trickery, subterfuge, lying, the appeal
to the passions, to cupidity, lust or the desire for honours, are
almost universally condemned. Only conduct of the highest moral
character is allowable. One of the most distinguished men of
letters of our time, Mr Harold Nicolson, has summed them up, in
his admirable study of the subject, as 'truth, accuracy, calm,
patience, good temper, modesty and loyalty', and to this list of
virtues he adds the qualities of 'intelligence, knowledge, discern-
ment, prudence, hospitality, charm, industry, courage and even
tact'. ³

Far be it for me to cast any doubt on these highly commendable
judgements. But these same writers invariably point out that many
diplomats hardly live up to such high standards. And it is well to
remember that the main object of diplomacy is to obtain what
one wants without recourse to violence. It is the interests of his
own country that a diplomat has to secure and defend. In his pri-
vate life he may be prepared to sacrifice his own interests for the
sake of others. But it is only very rarely that such a situation occurs
in the relations between states. Where it does occur, as when
Britain was prepared to make substantial sacrifices to abolish the
Slave Trade, the world refuses to believe in the reality of the moral

-2-