Art. 12.-A LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

I.

1. British League of Nations Society. Publications. London, 1916-1918.

2. American League to Enforce Peace. Proceedings, and subsequent Publications. Washington, 1916-1918.

3. Organisation Centrale pour une Paix Durable; Recueil de Rapports. The Hague, 1916-1917.

4. Proposals for the Prevention of Future Wars. By Viscount Bryce and Others. Allen & Unwin, 1917. 5. Inaugural Address delivered by Lord Robert, Cecil, as Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. The Times,' Nov. 13, 1918.

6. International Government. By L. S. Woolf. Published by the Fabian Society. London, 1916.

7. Neutrality versus Justice. By A. J. Jacobs. Unwin, 1917. 8. Les Bases d'une Paix Durable. By Auguste Schvan. Paris: Alcan, 1917.

9. The Next War. By Sir C. Walston. Cambridge, 1918. 10. The League of Nations. An Historical Argument. By Prof. A. F. Pollard. Oxford, 1918. 11. The League of Nations and its Problems. Three Lectures. By Prof. L. Oppenheim. Longmans, 1919.

A LEAGUE of Nations. Is this the same thing as a League of Peace? In other words, is it the sole object of a League of Nations to procure and maintain peace, or are there other reasons for considering a League of Nations a good thing in itself? Is it an end and not merely a means? Further, is it a League of Nations, or a Union of all Nations, that should be desired and is unobtainable?

Among the writers on this subject there are those who look to peace and security only, who would leave every nation to work out its individual development uncontrolled except by the police constable. There are others who look to a great Super-Nation or Super-State, the authorities of which will direct the energies and regulate the proceedings, and provide for the education and development, of all the nations in the combination,

just as they desire to make every state or nation a universal provider and tutor of all its citizens.

The writers of this second school would have, not merely a super-national Tribunal with a super-national police force to prevent war, but a super-national Legislature which would regulate all relations of States inter se, and of citizens of one State with another State or the citizens thereof, in peace as well as in war—the course of trade, the rules of occupation and development of unsettled countries, grants and concessions, trusts, cartels, changes of nationality and domicil, and so forth -with a super-national Executive to enforce the enactments of this super-national Legislature. They would desire that this Legislature should meet periodically and find itself work to do-a strong temptation to interference.

The most extreme and logical exponent of this view is Auguste Schvan, a writer who would abolish nations and nationality, and make every one a citizen of the world, temporarily subject to the control of the Local Government within whose area he happened to be, as a Londoner may be said to be subject to the control of the London County Council. Between these Local Governments Schvan does not conceive of any dispute arising. All disputes would be between individual citizens and some Local Government; and, to deal with these, he would establish tribunals deriving their authority from collective humanity and sitting in fantastically chosen centres.

Clever as Schvan is in his destructive criticism of other plans, his constructive scheme is such an exaggeration of socialist ideas as to amount to a caricature. Nevertheless, though orthodox Socialists may refuse to accept him as an exponent of their teaching, they are open to the charge which Dr N. Murray Butler, in the interview reported in 'The Observer' of Dec. 8, 1918, makes against them, that they have in mind the destruction of all the essential elements characteristic of nationality, in order to bring about what I have sometimes called "colloidal" or jelly-like internationalism without real nations.'

Several English writers, who are supporters of the League of Nations Society, are open to the rebuke of

Dr Butler. Thus Mr Lowes Dickinson wants states 'to learn to legislate and administer in common'; and Mr Hobson wants an International Executive and Legislature. Sir Charles Walston, on the contrary, does not believe in a Supreme Parliament or Sovereign State dominating and limiting the Sovereignty of the individual nations.' He does contemplate, what is rather utopian, a super-national Court whose members will be purged of all national feeling, who will become citizens of the world and extra-national, and will live in some extra-national area; he would back up his Court with a super-national Army and Navy, which is to be the only army and navy; and, having thus procured disarmament, he would dispense with a League of Nations, except in so far as all would bind themselves to obey this Court. He would make a Federation, but one without power to make laws. His conception is a peculiar one and is open to its own special and rather obvious objections. In his way, though in a different way from the Socialists, he wants to over-organise.

The two schools might agree that, whether such international co-operation is desirable or not, it must be a later development; that peace and security must precede it; and that all can travel together for the present on a pretty long common road. When, however, the parting of the ways is reached, it is possible that those of the more moderate school will point out to the over-regulators that their future course may lead to destruction, that compulsory unity will bring about its own disruption, and that, if the schemes of Universal Monarchy which captivated the publicists of Roman and later times down to the 18th century proved impracticable, it is likely that a Universal Republic will dissolve into its component atoms.

To pass to the next question. Is the object to be aimed at a League of Nations or a Union of all Nations? A League, in its usual sense, is a combination of persons or States formed to enable them to unite in their dealings with regard to some external person or State with whom they are brought into relations of some degree of opposition, if not of actual hostility. In order to produce this common action there must be harmony Vol. 231.—No. 458,

P

between the different members of the League, with provisions for settling disputes between them; and to that extent a League promotes peace.

But a League is not the less a League because, while it promotes peace between its members, it does so in order the more effectually to act in opposition to, or even to wage war with, other States. It may be said that the Delphic Amphictyony had for its sole object the provision of mutual peace and goodwill; but, if so, it is the only League of that kind known to history. The Delian League, the early Swiss Confederation, the towns forming the early Dutch Republic, the original Confederation of the revolted Colonies of British North America, had for their main object a defensive alliance against an external foe. The so-called Grand Design, mythically attributed to Henry IV of France, was a combination against Spanish-Austrian power.

Is the future League to be such a combination, made in reference to, and possibly against, other states or nations of the globe-Germany, for instance, or the Yellow Peril; or is it to seek to become an all-embracing Union of all the peoples of the globe, feeling itself imperfect till this development has been obtained, and so framing its statutes as to facilitate instead of preventing such a Union? It is impossible to say what effect may have been produced by the sudden and total collapse of the Central Powers; but, at any rate, six months ago, there were many people who dreaded the inclusion of the Central Powers, and particularly that of Germany, in any League of Peace; who felt that these Powers were not to be trusted; who dreaded their might and subtlety, and preferred to keep them out, even at the risk of their forming themselves into a rival League.

It is to be hoped that such counsels will not now prevail. They were counsels of despair, despair of the peace of the world. If followed, they would have divided the world into two great factions, each armed to the teeth, with a burden of armaments ever increasing, and each bidding against each other for the nations which have been neutral in the present strife, including some of those States of South America which seem destined to take place among the Great Powers of the future. Lord Robert Cecil, in his recent inaugural

address as Chancellor of the University of Birmingham, took the opposite and the wiser and more Christian view. His scheme for a League of Nations would include all. Indeed he went so far as to suggest, that, if any State refused to join the League, it might be forced into it by means of a boycott. Other writers, again, including some who are most keen that the League should include Germany, have drawn the line at what they are pleased to call, somewhat insolently, 'the backward nations.'

Still, while the object of the League should be that it should embrace all, a start may be made on less ambitious lines; but it would be madness to throw away the opportunities of the coming Peace, and one of its terms ought to be that the belligerent Powers, at all events the chief of them, should enter into a treaty establishing as between themselves a League of Nations, and making provision for the accession of the neutral Powers, subject of course to certain conditions.

Given that there should be a League of Nations for the purpose of preserving peace, that it should be as nearly world-wide as possible, and that it should confine itself, at any rate at first, to the simple object of preserving peace-given the three postulates of this article, what should be the machinery?

It cannot be too plainly laid down that this is a matter for experts. Christian teachers and philanthropic writers have done their part when they have brought the nations to the point of desiring peace, to forgetfulness or pardon of past quarrels and injuries, and to the desire of mutual goodwill and fellowship. These are preliminaries with regard to which it is easy to write and speak in eloquent, even gushing terms; but it is too common for zealots and reformers to think that all is done when they have obtained the acceptance of highsounding general principles. It is to the drudgery of spade-work that recourse must be had if these principles are to be made sure; and the task is by no means easy.

The Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, when he promoted the calling together of the last Hague Conference, sincerely desired peace. So did many of the plenipotentiaries and at least some of the States which deputed