Leader's speech, London 1936
Sir Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
Commentary:In his speech, Sinclair outlined some of the Liberals’ key objectives, the first of which was the increase of political freedom through electoral reform, and devolution for Wales and Scotland. The second was the promotion of economic freedom, which was to be achieved by spreading the possession of property, encouraging production, and giving more rights to workers. Unemployment remained a serious issue, and Sinclair called on the government to address the causes of unemployment by carrying out its programme of national reconstruction, and changing its policy of quotas and protection to revive overseas trade. Sinclair also highlighted the recent failure of the World Economic Conference, which he blamed on the Ottawa Agreements, and Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia. Here, Sinclair criticised the British government’s failure to impose further sanctions on Italy and accused it of betraying the League of Nations.
Although this is only the first Session on the first day of the meetings of this Convention, let me make bold, at the very beginning of my speech, to offer on behalf of us all - and I feel also that I am speaking for millions of Liberals all over the country - our congratulations to the Convention Committee on the magnificent achievement which this crowded and purposeful Conference of vigorous, resolute and independent Liberals already represents.
This gathering, the biggest Convention by several hundreds that the Liberal Party has held since the war, affords by its size, its enthusiasm and its geographically representative character a clear demonstration of the national scope, the constructive purpose, and the power of the Liberal Party - power now latent, but by your decisions at this Convention to be quickened and aroused. Then we shall once more draw into our counsels and into our political activities all men and women who hate tyranny, whether of the Right or of the Left, whether of privilege and monopoly or of officialdom and Governments, and all those who love freedom, justice, and peace, and mean to create a new and better order in which men and women shall live, in peace and freedom, a fuller and richer life.
Such are the purposes of Liberalism, and we are entitled not merely to beg but to demand the help of men and women who share our aims. That is the main purpose of this Convention - effectively to organise in support of the Liberal Party the great mass of opinion in this country which shares its aims, but which stands aloof or strives vainly to achieve them through one of the other party organisations.
The time accurately and fully to assess the value of this Convention will be at the end of your deliberations and when we begin to see the results - say in a year’s time.
Meanwhile, as a demonstration of the nationwide resources and resolute will of the Liberal Party, and of the eager and spontaneous response of the rank and file to the leadership of the Organising Committee, this Convention is already an impressive and inspiring success, and we do well to put that on record at the outset of our proceedings, along with an expression of our gratitude for their hard work and constructive inspiration to Lord Meston, to Mr. Ramsay Muir, and the members and officials of the Organising Committee.
My friend, Lord Hutchison, addressing another Convention last week, said that as a good Scotsman, he was glad to know that so many delegates were attending that Convention at their own expenses As a good Scotsman, and still more as a convinced Liberal, I am glad and proud to know that every one of the eighteen hundred delegates to this Convention is attending at his or her own expense - and, more than that, is paying a registration fee for the privilege of directing the destinies and expressing here the will and purpose of the Liberal Party.
We are here in the exercise of our responsibilities as citizens of a free country because we want to get certain things done which neither of the other parties will do, and because it is our duty to get together and work together to impress upon the people of this country the ideal of a Liberal Britain leading the British Commonwealth of Nations and the world in the paths of peace, disarmament, social and international justice, and, above all - because rightly understood it embraces all - of freedom.
The Price of Liberty
We learnt at school that good old tag - that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Not that we really believed it - we probably thought that liberty was a law of political evolution which worked out more slowly and less successfully in some countries than in others, but was bound to assert itself in the long run. Now we have had to learn our lesson afresh from sterner teachers than those at school - from Lenin, from Mussolini, from Hitler. Britain is still the freest country in the world, still the best country in the world to belong to, in spite of the weakness and folly of the present Government, and largely on account of the statesmanship and foresight of Liberal Governments before the war and the leadership of great Liberals like Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and Sir Herbert Samuel. Yet even in Britain we have seen ominous encroachments in recent years upon our economic and civil liberties.
Fascism is, of course, the enemy of freedom and Liberalism, against which we must be, and are constantly, on the alert; but it is not the only enemy. Marxian Socialism is another enemy of freedom. The Labour Party, in so far as it advocates social reform and better conditions for the masses of the people, is following in the footsteps of its Liberal parent and in the same direction as we are going; but insofar as it attacks private property, denounces private enterprise and personal initiative, which we believe to be not only the mainspring of industry but the salt of life, and holds up, as its ideal, the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange, it is pointing the way to the totalitarian state, in which one party holds all power and crushes freedom, and in which the State, instead of being the servant, becomes the master of its citizens.
Against such enemies we must vigilantly and strongly defend freedom. But the best form of defence is attack. We must attack Fascism and Marxian Socialism before they get strong. We must attack them in their strongholds; we must destroy the conditions which give them strength.
The Socialists who attack property are barking up the wrong tree. Property is not the enemy but the bulwark of liberty. A Labour Member of Parliament once said to a friend of mine that, after working very hard and having had a stroke of luck, he found himself with a balance of £100 at the bank - and then for the first time he felt he knew what freedom was. ‘Money,’ said Francis Bacon, ‘is like muck – it’s only good when it is spread.’ So it has been one of the main objects of Liberal policy from Harcourt’s Death Duties to Mr. Lloyd George’s People’s Budget, coupled with old age pensions, unemployment and health insurance, and other measures of social reform, to spread the possession of property and to give the worker that freedom which comes with economic security. It is not property but poverty which is the enemy for Liberals to attack.
Class barriers, privileges and monopolies, these are the enemies which we need to attack. ‘Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopolies,’ declared Mr. Churchill, who will never be so powerful and persuasive an advocate of his new heresies as he was of Liberalism.
That was true, and no genuine Liberal can support a Government which, by repealing the Taxation of Land Values, and by tariffs and quotas, is constantly entrenching old and creating new monopolies. Freedom is and must remain our constant aim.
Political freedom was the great achievement of nineteenth-century Liberalism. We must complete that achievement in two ways.
First, we must secure such an alteration in the system of election to Parliament that the danger of a majority elected to Parliament with a revolutionary programme, but on a minority of votes in the country, may be averted, and that every vote will have one value in every part of the country. Under the present system, Parliament does not reflect, it distorts the opinion of the electors, of whom tens of thousands are virtually disfranchised. We must mend that system by electoral reform Take the great cities, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds, and many others, and you will find hundreds of thousands of Liberals with virtually no representation at all. To deny to Liberals representation in proportion to their numbers is tyranny.
Secondly, we must secure for the Scottish and Welsh people a greater measure of control over their national affairs, and let me take this opportunity of welcoming to our counsels for the first time a great Scotsman, a keen advocate of Scottish Home Rule, who is here today to show his confidence in the faith and future of Liberalism - the Duke of Montrose.
But if political democracy was the great achievement of our fathers in the nineteenth century, and if it is, as I believe, our duty to complete their work, our main task in the twentieth century must be to secure economic freedom for the masses of the people. This generation is blessed with abundance and with a hitherto undreamt of power of production of all that is required for the material happiness of the people. We Liberals condemn equally the Government’s schemes of control and restriction, the taxation of the food of the people, and the erection of monopolies, like the monstrous waste of the sugar-beet subsidy, on the one hand, and also the Socialist conception of an all-embracing monopoly under the control of the State on the other hand.
We oppose to both the Liberal ideal of using the power of the State to liberate the energies of man, to encourage production, to free the exchange of goods and wealth between nation and nation, to curb the power of trusts, combines and monopolies, to safeguard the rights and opportunities of the small trader, industrialist and farmer, to protect the workman against arbitrary dismissal, and to raise the status and improve the prospects of the farm labourer.
Then by providing better nourishment, especially milk for mothers and young children, by increasing nursery schools in industrial districts, by making better provision for milk and meals in schools, and for playing fields and physical training, and as I believe by an extension of the system now applied in unemployment grants, of family allowances, we should increase the consuming power and raise the standards of nutrition and physique of the people, and so wipe out the reproach - for it is a reproach in an age of plenty that one-third of the men who present themselves at the recruiting offices of the army have to be rejected on physical grounds.
By these means and by abolishing the slums, by raising the school age, by ensuring that lack of means shall never be a bar to a university education, and by improving and widening the range of vocational training, we should at last approach the Liberal goal of equality of opportunity for every boy and girl in these islands.
Nor would this country under a Liberal Government lag behind other countries in shortening the hours of work and giving holidays with pay. There was a discussion at the International Labour Office at Geneva a few days ago on a resolution that a committee should prepare an International Convention for a forty-hour week. The Government of the United States of America voted for it. So did the French Government. So did Belgium, Spain, and Norway. Where was the delegate of the British Government? Did he abstain? No, with one companion, the delegate of Denmark, the British Government delegate voted against the resolution.
No doubt the Government will presently tell us that the League of Nations has failed to secure a forty-hour week. The present Government uses the League of Nations as a cloak for its own impotence and futility.
Social Reform and Sound Finance
A Liberal Government would find in the League and in the International Labour Office a powerful instrument for improving the lot of the workers and increasing the sum of human happiness.
You will say that this programme would be costly; and you will rightly insist that the Liberal Party must never make the mistake which the Labour Government made in 1929-31, and which the Liberal Governments before the war avoided, of ignoring the principles of sound finance.
Certainly we cannot afford to increase the high ratio which taxation now bears to the national income. Yet in so far as they eliminated the appalling economic and social waste of unemployment, ignorance and disease, these enterprises would be sound investments.
All the prophecies of woe with which the Tories greeted the Liberal programme of social services before the war have been falsified. Far from destroying thrift, for example, they fostered and encouraged it, and made it worth while. But to make such a programme practicable we must effect economies in expenditure in other directions and open up fresh sources of revenue.
The reduction of unemployment and of armaments through an effective League of Nations policy pursued with faith and consistency are directions in which we must look for economy; while, on the other hand, by freeing the exchange of goods between ourselves and other nations, and restoring overseas trade, we should greatly increase our sources of revenue, and thus lighten the burden of taxation; and in addition, by the rating and taxation of land values, fresh sources of revenue would be opened up without laying new burdens on productive industry.
So much for the objectives towards which we are working. Now for two of the great practical problems with which we are faced.
Unemployment is Waste
First, unemployment. We must always be alert to shatter the complacency which Government propaganda fosters about unemployment. On the whole the tide of unemployment is ebbing, but ebbing terribly slowly, and we are warned by the Statutory Committee on Unemployment Insurance, on the authority of the Economic Advisory Council, that it will probably begin to flow again and the figures of unemployment to mount in eighteen months’ to two years’ time.
Even now, the fact that the figures are slowly declining ought not to blind us to the appalling dimensions of the problem and to the social and economic waste which is involved.
One million seven hundred thousand is the published figure of the insured unemployed. Add the agricultural workers and the black-coated workers, for which no precise figures are available, and you are back at the two million mark.
But to understand what that figure really means in human misery and frustration and economic waste, you must analyse it.
Take the figures for the latest available calendar year, 1935. You will find that out of the twelve and three-quarter millions registered as insured, eight and a quarter millions made no claim at all on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. But that means that four and a half millions did claim, and their average experience was twenty weeks of unemployment in the year. So on the average one man out of every three insured workers suffered from this scourge during the year, and their average experience was that they were two weeks out of work for every three weeks in work.
Now apart from radical treatment of the unemployment problem on which I shall presently have something to say, there are two things which ought to be done at once to help the victims of unemployment. The first is the production of the new Unemployment Assistance Regulations. The Act under which these Regulations are due to be framed has now been in force for nearly two years.
Liberal criticism of the original regulations was ignored in debate but justified by experience, and the regulations had to be withdrawn. That was a year and a half ago. We pressed the Government to produce new regulations, and they promised them in the spring. Still they remain wrapped in impenetrable mystery. The failure of the Government to grapple with this problem is one of the most glaring instances of their paralysis in the face of great issues. We shall continue to press the Government to introduce them and drastically to reform the Means Test, which, in its present shape, is breaking up households, destroying family life, and inflicting needless hardship on the most helpless victims of the economic depression.
The second thing which ought to be done to help the unemployed is to enlarge the facilities for training men, and for restoring their skill to men who have long been out of work. One of the saddest and most ironic aspects of such recovery as has taken place is that while we have two million men unemployed, certain branches of some industries are already experiencing a shortage of key men who need exceptional skill and experience, and that men who have long been unemployed, especially the older men, are finding that they have lost their skill. To let these older men rust on the scrap heap would be a tragic waste of human material. They ought to be the first to be helped back into industry as it revives.
Attack the Roots
But these, after all, are mere palliatives. What we Liberals demand is a constructive, vigorous, and radical attack upon the causes of unemployment. These causes are many and various, and deserve our close and constant study.
Let me only mention two of the chief causes today. The first cause is that the Government are neglecting to do the work of national reconstruction which lies to hand; work like the abolition of the slums for which the Government’s schemes are quite inadequate, the desperately needed provision of water supplies in rural areas, electrification, land drainage, and reclamation, and an increase in the number of smallholders.
We do not ask the Government to make relief works or to employ men unproductively. We do demand that they should plan ahead and not put off or slow down work which requires to be done in the public interest until money rates are high, until trade revives, and unemployment and public works would cause dislocation in ordinary industry, but to do it now when the men are idle and money is cheap.
The second and most fundamental cause of unemployment is, of course, the destruction of our overseas trade by economic nationalism and by the Government’s policy of protection and quotas. Protection has devastated our sea-port towns, rendered derelict the great areas which depend on exports, in South Wales, in North-East and North-West England, and in Scotland, brought ruin to the once prosperous fishing villages round our Scottish coasts, and strangled our shipping and maritime industries.
The Economist had a remarkable article last week in which unemployment was analysed and divided into three categories - normal, cyclical, and special. In the last category was all the unemployment in our export trades, and in those other industries such as the distributive trades in the export and depressed areas which are dependent upon the earning power of the coal export industries; and the inevitable conclusion is that the only cure for nearly two-thirds of our existing unemployment is the revival of our overseas trade.
I see that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was making a speech at Cardiff on Monday. He declared that he would regret as long as he lived that certain circumstances occurred that prevented the World Economic Conference from coming to a successful issue. We should have to return, he said, again and again and again to that idea.
The Curse of the Ottawa Agreements
The chief circumstances, of course, which prevented the success of that Conference were the Ottawa Agreements, and the fact that while we were inviting the delegates of other nations to lower their tariffs and abolish their quotas to help our overseas trade, the Government was defending the Ottawa Agreements in Parliament and on the platform on the very ground that they enabled us to divert trade to Empire countries from these foreign countries with which we were about to negotiate.
In 1933 Mr. Runciman, on behalf of the Government, in reply to the scathing criticisms of Sir Herbert Samuel - criticisms of his trading agreements and of the Government’s failure at the World Economic Conference to secure multi-lateral agreements - declared: ‘It has now become well-nigh impossible to cover the ground by any one agreement or by any group of agreements’ - and, again, ‘One thing is certain: that unless we are to proceed piecemeal (that is by bilateral agreements) it will be impossible for us to achieve anything like that agreement in trade relationships which is necessary for freeing trade.’
On Monday last, at Cardiff, Mr. MacDonald said: ‘Tariffs, subsidies, quotas, and restrictions on currencies that could be exported to creditor countries, were problems that could not be solved by merely bilateral negotiations.’ That was the Liberal case in 1932 and 1933, and still is.
I have never wavered in my belief that the course which the Liberal Ministers took, under the leadership of Sir Herbert Samuel, in resigning from the Government on the Ottawa Agreements, emphasising the appalling consequences to this country and the world of torpedoing the World Economic Conference, was the right one.
Now no less an authority than Mr. Ramsay MacDonald confirms the views we then expressed. But his speech, like so much else that this Government does, is just three years too late. In three years’ time no doubt - probably less - he or Mr. Baldwin will be telling us that we made a fatal mistake in not upholding the Covenant of the League against Mussolini.
And that brings me to another cognate problem. For there will be no revival of international trade without a reduction of tariff barriers, the stabilisation of exchanges, and the restoration of that confidence in international relationships which can result alone from lasting peace and disarmament.
Conversely there will be no assured and lasting peace in the world and no disarmament so long as our own and other Governments are following policies of economic nationalism, are treating trade as a means of national aggrandisement instead of mutual enrichment, and are hampering by preferential tariffs and quotas the access of foreign merchants and traders to the sources of food and raw materials in colonial territories.
We must return to the Liberal conception of trusteeship as the sole justification for the possession of colonial territories - trusteeship for the natives, safeguarding their right to raise their standards of living by buying in the cheapest market and training them increasingly to share in the responsibilities of government; and trusteeship for the interests of civilisation in those territories, including the sound Liberal principle of the open door for the merchants and traders of all nations.
The League of Co-operation
Now there is in the world one great international organisation through which these ideals of international co-operation can be advanced, and that is the League of Nations. It therefore follows that the League of Nations has received and will continue to receive loyal, consistent, and unswerving support from the Liberal Party.
The conception which underlies the League of Nations is twofold - on the one hand to assert the rule of law against arbitrary power and to secure the defence of the peace and freedom-loving peoples of the world against force and aggression. It aims at doing this by creating a system of collective security so strong and so certain in its action that it must deter any potential aggressor from the use of force; and to that system we must be prepared to make an effective contribution in those elements, by sea and in the air, in which we share common risks with our fellow members of the League.
On the other hand the League seeks to remove the causes of war. The nation with a grievance must not only be deterred by the risks of war; it must also realise that a peaceful and effective means exists for the discussion and redress of grievances. Most important and threatening of all are the economic causes which have largely destroyed overseas trade, have spread impoverishment and unemployment throughout the world, and have closed the doors of nearly every country to migration.
To secure peace and revive trade and employment we must get the world out of its strait-jacket of economic nationalism, and restore the free movement of men, capital, and goods over the surface of the globe.
The Liberal Party alone of the three great parties in this country is solidly united in support of these twin policies, and in this crisis in the relations between our country and the League of Nations it is our duty to do all in our power to mobilise support for the League, and to stand by the obligations to which we are pledged under its covenant.
Oh, God! Oh, Abyssinia!
We must all feel ashamed at the destruction of Abyssinian independence, which it was in our power to prevent, but, if the struggle between Italy and Abyssinia is over, the far more important struggle between Italy and the League - between arbitrary power and the law of the covenant still continues. They say sanctions were not intended to be punitive, and that those who advocate the maintenance and intensification of sanctions are merely being vindictive. Sanctions were intended to prevent the aggressor from profiting from his aggression. The maintenance and intensification of sanctions would compel Mussolini - and it is the only way of compelling Mussolini - to come to terms which would be in conformity with the Covenant of the League.
Our failure to give effective and decisive help to the Abyssinians, who fought so gallantly for their freedom, and withstood the bombs, and tanks, and gas of the Italian army and air force for nine months unaided, is sufficiently shameful. To refuse to honour our signature to the Covenant and to condone Italian aggression, which Ministers have denounced as a crime, because it has been successful, and when we have the power to frustrate it would be to touch a still lower depth of degradation.
They say that the League needs to be reformed. In my view there is something much more urgent and practical to be done, and that is to reform the Government. It is not for want of material force that the League has so far failed - its material force is overwhelming in its struggle with Italy. It is moral force which has been lacking. It is not the machinery of the League, but the faith, the nerve, and the will of the Government which has failed.
Strengthen the League
Nevertheless no one would claim that experience has not suggested useful amendments to the Covenant. I would give two examples. Article XI of the Covenant, which deals with the prevention of war, is stultified by the fact that the vote of one party to the dispute can hold up action to prevent preparations for war. The League ought to be able to decide upon action to stop preparations for war without counting the votes of the party to the dispute.
Then the machinery for revising obsolete treaties and meeting the legitimate claims of any country for the alteration of the existing order ought to be made workable. Article XIX has never yet been put into operation.
Germany, Italy, or any other country should have the right of asking for the revision of any treaty or of bringing any other grievance to the notice of the Assembly, and of asking for the appointment of a Commission to study it; and the Assembly should, in my judgment, have the right to come to a decision and to call upon the parties to the dispute to accept its decision - enforcing it if necessary by action under Article XVI.
There are other amendments which might be suggested, but those which seem to be favoured in Government circles are amendments which would enfeeble and emasculate the League.
Those which I should favour would be amendments which would strengthen the League as a bulwark of peace and justice against aggression.
The Effect of Even Partial Sanctions
Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in his now notorious speech, last week declared that the policy of collective security has been tried out, and that it has failed. He declared that he was not blaming anybody for the failure; he was merely recording it. The truth, which must be apparent to any careful student of the course of events during the past nine months, is that sanctions have not been tried out: that the machinery for applying them is still working smoothly and so effectively that the Italian reserve of gold and foreign exchange has been reduced by nearly half, and Italian trade by more than half.
Here is a letter which I have received from a personal friend, for whose integrity and intimate knowledge of Italy I can vouch. I received it a few days ago, and a quotation from it runs as follows:
I have just returned from Italy, arriving by sea from Naples - the port completely dead - not another ship besides our own - hotels mostly closed - hardly a motor about - thirty thousand in the glove trade alone are out of work; factories working three days per week and to be reduced to two; copper stocks practically exhausted, cotton the same. What more could be expected from these limited sanctions? The Italians are in a desperate plight for financial help, and think they will get it from Britain.
So much for the increasing effect of existing sanctions, but further non-military sanctions were devised as long ago as November and agreed to by all the Powers, including Britain and France, which were represented on the Committee of Eighteen.
If the oil and other sanctions then proposed had been applied, the war would have been over months ago, Abyssinia would have been free today, and the rule of law and the authority of the League would have been vindicated.
But Mussolini blustered and threatened, our Government turned and ran like rabbits, and we witnessed the infamous and fatal betrayal of the League by the Hoare-Laval negotiations.
Mr. Chamberlain may not wish to attribute blame for the failure, but the people of this country will rightly attribute no small share of the blame to our own weak, timid, disunited, procrastinating, and irresolute Government.
True it is that the Government of M. Laval failed to give the League that prompt and wholehearted support in its struggle against Italian aggression which we had a right to expect from France. But a firm lead from Britain, forcing the French Government to choose between the League and Italy, would have brought even M. Laval into line. Meanwhile, however, the French people have expressed their will at the recent general election, and have returned to power a Government which is prepared to back up the League. No longer can our Government shelter behind French unwillingness to uphold the League. They have had to make their own decision, and they are to announce it this afternoon in the House of Commons.
If that decision is, as the newspapers suggest, to recognise and condone the triumph of aggression in Abyssinia, to take the initiative at Geneva, or to support the initiative of some other power, in lifting sanctions, in short to be false to our obligations under Articles X and XVI of the Covenant and to the Government’s pledges at the last election, it will mean that the reactionaries in the Cabinet have won, and it will be a challenge to all those who believe in the new international order, based on peace and justice - a challenge which none of us here will be slow to accept.
Liberal Proposals and Demands
Refusal to recognise the annexation of Abyssinia, a ban upon lending money to Italy for the strengthening of her armaments and for the development of the territory which she is illegally occupying - indeed loans ought not to be made to any country which is at variance with the League - and the advocacy at Geneva of the collective maintenance and intensification of existing sanctions, are the demands which we shall make upon the Government. And in my view if Italy refuses to honour her signature to the Covenant it must raise the question whether she can be allowed to remain a member of the League which her Government defies.
A League of Nations, strong in the collective security which it gives its members, willing to recognise the equality of all nations, and equipped with the means of redressing national grievances, offers us the best hope of exorcising the evil spirit of economic nationalism, restoring our overseas trade, solving the world problems of migration and unemployment, healing the secular feud between Germany and France, cutting down armaments and securing peace and justice for ourselves and our children.
The goal of the Liberal State stands clearly in our vision. Our immediate tasks are plain, and we firmly believe that the problems with which our country and the world are confronted - problems which have been aggravated if not created by the neglect of Liberal principles - we believe that these problems can be solved by the Liberal measures which we advocate.
It is therefore our duty, as it is our right, to take those measures which will be most effective in spreading the message of Liberalism throughout the country. We need money - we need carefully planned and co-ordinated activity. We need an efficient democratic organization energetically working in every part of the country, its activities co-ordinated by a representative authority in the Centre. We need good brains in the centre, too, constantly studying current problems, and elaborating and adapting our policy to solve them. All this we shall get under the new plan.
But if Liberals are right - as I believe we are - in attaching supreme importance in life to the value of human personality, so in advancing the cause of Liberalism everything will depend on the work, energy, and sacrifice of each individual member of the Party.
‘The Light,’ says an Indian philosopher, ‘is catching - like fire travelling from point to point, from soul to soul.’ So must we spread the light of Liberalism - confident that we shall so hasten the dawn of a happier day for our own country and the world.