Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone

"Our duty is to make our country so strong that no aggressor will challenge us."

"The British people must be strong. If we talk we must be ready to act. We must speak with the authority of the strong because our voice is practically the only voice in the world which will speak out with authority for right."

"I believe that the proper way to approach this problem is not to wait until Herr Hitler makes more demands, but tell him we are going to make some demands. I should tell him that if he wanted anything he must first come into the society of nations and play his part."

"I have never believed in peace at any price."

"On the debate on the occupation of the Ruhr (Hansard, 13th–15th February 1923) the whole Left attacked France as "militaristic", "obsessed by fears which are largely the result of its own reactionary policy", "immoral", and aimed "at the complete destruction of Germany". The diehards did not take the same view. Lt.-Col. Croft (Bournemouth) (now Lord Croft): "I think Germany has shown pretty clearly that she is not going to do more than she can [help]. She is going to try and convince us that she cannot do anything like as much as we ask." Sir F. Banbury (whose pride was that he had only once voted for an Act of Parliament in his life): "I believe that if the Germans were given time to recover they would use that time in order again to commence a European war." Mr. Remer: "Our past policy has encouraged Germany to make defaults." I mention these views, not because they are my own; they are not. But they are a great deal nearer truth than the stuff the Left was talking at this time."

"It is simply not true, as the authors of Guilty Men and Cassius assert, that the Labour Party, as a Party, was not pacifist, that its pacifism was limited to a few groups or individuals, that its pacifism ceased on the appearance of Hitler or did not continue long after his rise to power. From the first the Labour Party was riddled with pacifism. Its theory was pacifist. Its leaders were pacifist. Its members were pacifist, and its declared policy was pacifist. Disarmament it preached as party policy and because Conservatives were known to preach patriotism and strong armaments. As early as 1922 pacifism became the official doctrine of the Labour movement. At the Edinburgh Conference in that year a motion was carried that Socialist Parties everywhere should "oppose any war entered into by any government, whatever the ostensible object of the war". In 1923 the Party Conference at London pronounced in favour of "immediate Universal Disarmament by mutual agreement". There are even now Labour Members of Parliament who would fail to understand that such a policy must always put a premium on aggression, since it would give a would-be aggressor an automatic start. In 1926 the Margate Conference approved a policy of treason by general strike, calling on the workers to "meet any threat of war so called defensive or offensive, by organizing a general resistance, including the refusal to bear arms, to produce armaments, or to render any material assistance". At the Birmingham Conference, 1928, the Party's policy: "Labour and the Nation" was adopted. This included the renunciation of War, and Disarmament."

"The truth which the Left would not face—and will not face, even now—is that from 1932 and probably from 1929 collective security was moribund, owing to the re-emergence of a Germany determined to destroy it, and the existence of a Japan which had never really believed in it. It could only rise from the dead by the development of a system of armaments in the hands of the peace-loving nations capable of defeating and destroying the governments in the aggressor countries. The only future of the League lay through rearmament, and not through opposition to it."

"The fact is that the 1935 election was fought very largely on the subject of armaments. The Government wanted to rearm "too little and too late", but still on a considerable—if not a "huge"—scale. The Socialists and Liberals condemned this policy as wrong, as false to "collective security", and as leading to a war that could otherwise be avoided... [T]his was the issue which the Labour Party chose to fight, late in 1935—the Government arms policy versus the Socialist policy of disarmament by agreement and an international air police force. Looking back on this issue in 1945, who can possibly doubt to-day that the Conservatives were right and that the Left was pitifully wrong?"

"Some armaments for Great Britain are necessary on any view of collective security... "collective security", so far from being an excuse exonerating our country from possessing armaments, is in fact a commitment demanding a higher degree of preparation for war than the mere defence of its shores would entail. The Left never understood that their foreign policy was inconsistent with their defence policy, and so must be held responsible for our weakness. But responsibility does not end there. To carry on war (and this is what we should have had to do to vindicate "collective security") it is not enough to have arms. It is necessary to possess a higher degree of national unity than a single democratic party can afford. How on earth could we expect to defy Japan, or even miserable Italy, when for years—and even at the very time when it called for the use of "sanctions"—the Labour movement had been declaring that should sanctions lead to war, even a "so-called defensive" war, they should oppose its prosecution and call a general strike?"

"The fundamental principle of all foreign policy is that enunciated by Mr. Walter Lippmann, when he writes that you must balance commitments with power. To fail to do this is not brave, moral, "realistic", "idealistic", "progressive", or "reactionary". It is merely silly. To incur commitments without building up power to discharge them and to call this practice collective security is at the worst political chicanery and at the best self-deception, and leads inevitably to bankruptcy, military, political, and moral. This was consistently the policy of the Left in the years 1919–39."

"The second principle is that a nation should know what its interests are and should then ascertain what military power is required to defend them. A nation which fails to do this does not thereby escape the necessity of fighting for its legitimate interests; it only ensures that when it does have to fight it will not have the power to fight successfully. The Left consistently denied this principle. The argument used amounted to the pretence that the protection by fair means of a legitimate interest was not a moral or righteous purpose in foreign policy. This delusion is based on the double fallacy of supposing that interests are always immoral things which it is wrong to defend and of supposing that interests which are not defended by those who possess them will ever be preserved by anyone else. To this day this fallacy permeates nearly all left-wing propaganda in domestic and foreign policy alike."

"[W]e have always been determined to prevent a combination of forces hostile to ourselves and to separate such a combination when it has arisen; we have always resisted the domination of Europe by a single power, since such domination would cause us to live in a state of armed peace in order to prevent a sudden descent on our shores."

"The period immediately after the war came to an end with the French occupation of the Ruhr. Only Lord Rothermere ran a series of articles entitled "Hats off to France". The Left was furious. Even the moderate Right would not co-operate. Yet if one thing is certain, it is clear that the occupation of the Ruhr was justified by the event. Germany had defaulted in her payments, claimed inability to pay. The French occupied the Ruhr, took over the coal mines, and worked them as a security for the debt. The Germans retaliated with their first inflation and with an attempt at a general strike. They tried to pretend that the inflation was involuntary. We now know better than that. When it was decided to reverse the policy Dr. Schacht put an end to the inflation in a matter of forty-eight hours. The general strike failed. The French occupied the Ruhr for a period of nine months. At the end of this time Germany capitulated, and the French had won. The six years succeeding this decisive event (1923–9) were the only peaceful years the Continent really knew between the wars. Whatever might be said by the friends of Germany the occupation of the Ruhr was a success."

"To our refusal to accept the French view of German duplicity and to our failure to regard the peace treaties as binding, many of our present troubles are due."

"The Manchurian incident was the direct result of the London Conference negotiated by the Labour Government in 1930 under which the pacifist MacDonald and the almost wholly ignorant Henderson agreed to scrap five more battleships on behalf of Britain, induced American to scrap three, but failed to persuade the Japanese to scrap more than one. This agreement, which was hailed as a triumph for disarmament, was in reality the cause of the break-up of peace in the Far East, and the partial cause of our weakness against Italy in 1936. The responsibility for this lies with the Labour leaders and the party which supported them."

"The whole position is a crystal clear example of the proposition that commitments and power must be balanced. Failure to balance them leads to bankruptcy, moral, political, and diplomatic. Neither Britain nor America was capable of paying the debt of honour. Why? Not because we did not support the League. Not because we did not believe in collective security. Not because we loved the Japanese. The reason is much simpler. Years of pacifism, disarmament, and false economy had deprived us of the power to do so."

"[T]he Disarmament Conference met early in 1932. Under the Presidency of good Arthur Henderson, whose Naval Disarmament Conference in London had been such a success for the Japanese, the only fear in the heart of every good Leftist was, of course, that the wicked Tories with their insane love of armaments might sabotage the whole affair."

"Conservatives do not believe that political struggle is the most important thing in life... The simplest among them prefer fox-hunting — the wisest religion."

"The Conservative Party is based on its love of country. "The Conservative Party is national," said Disraeli, "or it is nothing." Britain is the first of our political principles, her honour — by which I mean the fulfillment of her moral purpose — her security, her prosperity."

"Conservatism derives its inspiration and seeks to base its policy on what Conservatives believe to be the underlying unity of all classes of Englishmen, their ultimate identity of interest, their profound similarity of outlook, the common dangers and difficulties they have shared in the past, and with which they are still faced, and the necessity for unity as the true means of meeting them together."

"The nation, not the so-called class struggle, is therefore the base of Conservative political thinking. Harmony, not struggle, is its ruling political objective. The health, security, and prosperity of Britain and of all its people is its first guiding political principle. Conservatives place patriotism at the top of the list of civic virtues."

"The great glory of Britain has not consisted only in her internal policies and constitution. Again and again her blood and treasure has been shed against absolutism on the continent of Europe. Her hatred of absolutism has been impartial as between right and left. Neither Louis XIV, Napoleon, Robespierre, nor Hitler could count Britain amongst their friends. We were not put off by specious and bogus crusades against Bolsheviks or aristocrats. A human being is a human being, and minorities, classes, and small nations have their rights. These are the rights which Britain’s intervention has vindicated again and again. But for Britain, Europe would have reverted to spiritual and political dictatorship long ere this."

"There are few more popular or successful institutions than the British monarchy. There are few more important practical guarantees of the happiness or security of this country or the unity of the Commonwealth than its continuance."

"We, who have seen the collapse of the authority of the French Republic precisely because it lacked the mystique and prestige of the British monarchy, can ill afford to deny the advantage which attends the possession of a traditional, as distinct from a revolutionary, constitution. The one may be more logical; the other appears to keep out the weather more successfully. Conservatives therefore believe, in the main, in the acceptance of established authority, wherever it is found, without enquiring too closely into its documents of title."

"The first stage in the progress of a society from barbarism to civilization has been the creation of a system, always more or less imperfect, in which anarchy and lawlessness have given place to law and order."

"Obviously, here there is nothing of logic; there can be no claim to legitimacy if one goes back far enough. But, historically speaking, the development of large areas of law and order depending upon the authority of some established organ of government has been the means whereby civilization has grown up. It was the same in the ancient as in the modern world, the same in legend as in history. We do not hear of Menes uniting the Kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt by any superiority in title or wisdom, and we read how Deioces, the founder of ancient Media, resorted to guile. The title of Rome to the greatest system of ordered government the Western World has known was by arms alone. Legitimacy is only one of the matters which constitute authority, prescription another. Neither is indefeasible, but both in the absence of a stronger claim are to be respected. Constitutional authority remains the first article of a Conservative creed."

"It was the Tory Party which took its stand in the nineteenth century against the principles of laissez faire Liberalism, of which it is now accused by its more ignorant opponents of being the sole inventor and patentee. More still, it did so on what would now be considered the orthodox Socialist ground that capitalism was an ungodly and rapacious scramble for ill-gotten gains, in the course of which the richer appeared to get richer and the poor poorer."

"Being Conservative is only another way of being British."

"A great party is not to be brought down because of a scandal by a woman of easy virtue and a proved liar."

"Lord Hailsham: But to try to turn it into a party issue, is really beyond belief contemptible. Robert McKenzie: Do you feel that the others that have spoken out, the Bishops, The Times and so on, have tried to turn it into a party issue? Hailsham: I think you have!"

"If the British public falls for this, I think it would be stark, staring bonkers."

"If you can tell me there are no adulterers on the front bench of the Labour Party you can talk to me about Profumo."

"Moderation is the hallmark of our country and the burden of our Conservative faith. ... [I]n an age of violence the Conservative watchwords must be law, justice, moderation and humanity."

"There is a sense in which all law is nothing more nor less than a gigantic confidence trick."

"No democracy has been defeated by a dictatorship from inside or from out because it has been itself too disciplined. It has been destroyed in the end by force or fraud. It is not strength but weakness which kills democracy. It has been overthrown or it has been taken over. It has not been eroded, or undermined: it is not decisiveness but dither which undermines the prestige and its will to resist. It is not inaction but inability to act that destroys the authority of democratic institutions. It is no use masking anarchy or indecisiveness under the bland names of liberalism and permissiveness."

"Experience shows that at this rate of inflation, democracy cannot survive... A middle-class backlash is inevitable. A populist movement. In the end people will not put up with the law being broken and factions of the workers getting away with it with impunity. People will take control into their own hands, or a strong government will use the public forces to seize control. People will get hurt. Quite likely there will be a lot of violence one way or another. But in the end there is a limit to what middle-class people will tolerate."

"It is an excellent thing that Mr Powell has joined the Ulster Unionists. They have found a new leader to desert, and he a fresh cause to betray."

"It is not a point of which I am much ashamed. Having grown up in the 1930s, I have a hatred of unemployment. The reason why we over-reacted, if over-reacted we did, was because we hoped that, if it could be shown that we were doing our best to deal with avoidable unemployment, the unions would voluntarily restrain their demands and prevent suffering in the community. The truth is that Mr Powell is so intent for personal reasons on ruining Mr Heath that no attack, however violent, however irrational, or however evilly intentioned, is beyond him in his present frame of mind."

"[The Labour Party's leadership is] dominated by rather rootless intellectuals or obviously bourgeois eccentrics like Mr Michael Foot and Mr Wedgwood Benn."

"Until 25 years ago this country, by which I mean the United Kingdom and in particular Great Britain, has I suppose by common consent been one of the most successful human communities ever seen upon the face of this planet. It is notorious but worth reminding ourselves in the present situation that we almost alone, I think absolutely alone, among the peoples of Europe have been immune from foreign invasion, have been practically secure from civil war, have defended the liberties of Europe against one tyranny after another; that we have excelled in peace no less than war; that we pioneered modern industry, and that we led the advance of modern science; that we largely founded modern commerce, and even, to compare what is perhaps ridiculous with the sublime, invented almost every known human recreation and sport, with the possible exceptions of polo and chess. I do not think that these things happened by chance. I believe that they happened because the peoples of these islands had learnt to live together in harmony and to treat the interest of each as the interest of the whole."

"There is the break-up gang, the "Break Up Britain" gang, of the "Scot-Nats." and the "Welsh-Nats.", apparently wishing to strip the assets of the United Kingdom as if it were a kind of shell company and deprive us all of our nation, which is Britain, and perhaps to go back to the days of Flodden or Owen Glendower. There is class divided notoriously against class... There is union against management and there is even union against union: interest against interest—town against country; and even individual against individual. Until we can recapture the spirit of service, perhaps the spirit of sacrifice, certainly the spirit of patriotism, this is to my mind the longer-term and perhaps the more dangerous crisis of the two."

"I believe inflation in that sense and on that scale corrupts a country in its moral as well as in its economic life, undermines law and order and threatens our free institutions."

"What is urgently needed is some limitation on this nominally elected dictatorship. It is here that I join hands with the conventional Bill of Rights enthusiasts, of whom...I am not one."

"We live under an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory if hitherto thought tolerable in practice. How far it is still tolerable is the question I want to raise."

"Nothing has shown so clearly the evils of elective dictatorship as the past few weeks, which had culminated in the Lib–Lab pact."

"I am concerned least we should be accused of being ideologues. This country is practical-minded, and it is a charge we should not find difficult to rebut. We must explain our policies, not by reference to ideological concepts but by reference to practical necessities."

"That he is one of the most brilliant people of his age in England there can be no possible doubt; in my judgment that he is more certainly ear-marked for success than any man I know."

"I had watched Quintin under pressure during the Suez crisis where he had shown admirable calm at the Admiralty in testing circumstances; and while I had some misgivings about his famous "judgement" I felt that he could take on the leadership and the job of Prime Minister, and make a success of it."

"A very able man, Lord Hailsham. I understand that he is going to be promoted as a result of what he is doing here."

"I am beginning to feel that I haven't the strength and that perhaps another leader cd do what I did after Eden left. But it cannot be done by a pedestrian politician. It needs a man with vision and moral strength – Hailsham, not Maudling. Yet the "back-benchers" (poor fools) do not seem to have any idea, except "a young man". Admirable as Maudling is, I doubt if he cd revive our fortunes as well as Hailsham. (I sent H. to Moscow on purpose, to test his powers of negotiation etc. He did very well.)"