You will observe that I am still, from the angle of political organization, thinking of liberty as a safeguard of the individual against those who rule him. I do so for the best of reasons. Whoever exerts power in a community is tempted to the abuse of power. Even in a democracy, we must have ways and means of protecting the minority against a majority which seeks to invade its freedom. Mankind has suffered much from the assumption that, once the people had become master in its own house, there was no limit to its power. You have only to remember the history of racial minorities like the negroes, of religious or national minorities like Jews and Czechs, to realize that democracy, of itself, is no guarantee of freedom. This raises the larger question of whether freedom in the modern state can ever be satisfactorily secured by internal sanctions, and whether, in fact, it is ever durably possible save in the terms of a strong and stable international organization. For, clearly, we must not think of freedom as involving only an individual set over against the community; it involves also the freedom of groups, racial, ecclesiastical, vocational, set over against the community and the state; it involves also the relation of states to one another, as, for instance, in the problem of annexation. No Englishman would think himself free if his domestic life were defined for him by another state; and no German but has had a bitter sense of unfreedom during the foreign occupation of the Rhineland. Our generation, at least, is unlikely to under-estimate the problem of what limits may be set to the demand for freedom by a national group. III