up with these words:  “Finally, the committee recognises that a policy of disarmament, to be successful, requires the support of the population of the world.  Limitation of armaments will never be imposed by Governments on peoples, but it may be imposed by peoples on Governments.”  That is absolutely true.  How are we going to apply it?  Frankly, myself, I do not see that there is a great deal of value to be got by demonstrations which demand no more war.  I have every sympathy with their object, but we have got to the stage when we want to get beyond words to practical resolutions.  We want definite concrete proposals, and you won’t get these merely by demonstrations.  They are quite good in their way, but they are not enough.  What you want in this matter is an informed public opinion which sees what is practical and insists on having it.

I am speaking to you as one who for a great many years believed absolutely that preparation for war was the means of securing peace.  In 1919—­when I had a little time to look round, to study the causes of the war and the events of the war—­I changed my opinion.  I then came quite definitely to the conclusion that preparation for war, carried to the point to which it had been carried in 1914, was a direct cause of war.  I had to find another path, and I found it in 1919.  Lord Robert may possibly remember that in the early days of the Peace Conference I came to him and made my confession of faith, and I promised to give him what little help I could.  I have tried to keep my promise, and I believe this vital problem, upon which not only the economic reconstruction of Europe and the future peace of the world, but also social development at home depend, can be solved provided you will recognise that the problem is very complex; that there is fear to be overcome; that you are content with what is practical from day to day, and accept each practical step provided it leads forward to the desired goal.  I therefore most earnestly trust that the Liberal party will take this question up, and translate it into practical politics.  For that is what is required.

REPARATIONS AND INTER-ALLIED DEBT

BY JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES

M.A., C.B.; Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge; Editor of Economic Journal since 1912; principal representative of the Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and Deputy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Supreme Economic Council, Jan.-June, 1919.

Mr. Keynes said:—­I do not complain of Lord Balfour’s Note, provided we assume, as I think we can, that it is our first move, and not our last.  Many people seem to regard it as being really addressed to the United States.  I do not agree.  Essentially it is addressed to France.  It is a reply, and a very necessary reply, to the kites which M. Poincare has been flying in The Times and elsewhere, suggesting that this country should sacrifice all its claims of every description in return for—­practically nothing at all, certainly not a permanent solution of the general problem.  The Note brings us back to the facts and to the proper starting-point for negotiations.