bled in the city of Washington. Mr. Taft, the late President of the United States was elected president of the League, and we find in the first chapter that "right thinking men in every land resolved within a week of the beginning of that tragedy (the present war) that it should never be repeated if they could help it. Given this attitude of mind it was inevitable that some sort of creative action should follow, not to stop nor even to limit nor control the war then raging, for all recognised the futility of any such attempt; but to set in motion the machinery that would provide something to take the place of slaughter in settling some, if not all, future international disputes." The principles formulated contained a proposed sanction which was subsequently elaborated in the following form: "The signatory Power shall jointly use, forthwith, their economic forces against any of their number that refuses to submit any question which arises to an international judicial tribunal or council of conciliation before issuing an ultimatum or threatening war. They shall follow this by the joint use of their military forces against that nation if it actually proceeds to make war or invades another's territory." I have been doubtful as to the use of an economic boycott; but the proposal that it should be used as a penalty against any member of the League, which refuses to submit the dispute to an international judicial tribunal, or council of conciliation, before issuing an ultimation, or threatening war, appears to be a valuable form of sancton which may be adequate without actual resort to military force. Certainly the time has come when an effort should be made to formulate the organisation of a League of Nations on an effective basis. To the formidable array of authority which Lord Lansdowne quoted in favour of the principle of a League of Nations two further illustrations may be added. In Switzerland a congress of the "Societe Suisse de la Paix" was held which declared that a durable peace ought to "establish respect for treaties, the liberty of nations to dispose freely of themselves, the necessity of compulsory arbitration, the limitation of armaments, the abolition of secret diplomacy, and an agreement between nations to constitute a Society of Nations." Resolutions were further passed calling upon the Swiss Government to summon a conference to examine the conditions under which Switzerland might become a member of the League and to take a suitable

opportunity to summon an International Congress to determine the fundamental conditions of the League. In France there has been a difference of opinion, but M. Thomas, formerly French Minister of Munitions, has said, "that after the establishment of the right of France to Alsace-Lorraine, the most important war aim is the establishment of a Society of Nations." I think enough has been said to show the importance of Lord Lansdowne's insistence on a League of Nations as a security against the recurrence of aggressive warfare, and to negative the exaggerated criticism which appears to have been really aimed against any expression of independent opinion. When the Representation of the People Bill has been passed into law, and the House of Common is renovated by contact with the electorate, there is hope of a freer atmosphere and a less intolerant spirit.

A PEACE LEAGUE BASED ON POPULATION1

The first essential of a successful league is that it should be constituted in such a manner as would not only lead to the doing of real justice in all disputes, but would also convince each separate nation that that nation was having a fair chance in the activities of the league. Unless real justice is done and unless the nations are satisfied as to the general fairness, of the league, the league cannot last very long. It is bound to fall to pieces.

Now let us consider a little what the league at work will actually consist of. It will consist, not of heavenly beings, seraphim, cherubim, saints, and high philosophers removed from the weakness of common beings; it will consist of persons very like you and me, subject to our failings, our weaknesses, and our prejudices. Half of the members of the league, when they assemble in the morning, will be wondering whether or not they can digest their breakfast properly. More than half of them will be open to flattery or to threats, and a great deal more than half of them will have axes to grind.

The existence of the league will not change human nature, and there will be precisely as much human nature within the

1 By Arnold Bennett, New York Times Current History. p. 355. August, 1918.

meetings of the league as there will be outside those meetings. The meetings will be remarkably like other meetings of committees and councils.

It follows, therefore, that important and influential negotiations will go on informally between sundry groups of the league and quite apart from the formal meetings, and that a large proportion of the members will attend the meetings with their minds already made up on points on which their minds are theoretically supposed to be quite open. In other words, the real, effective proceedings of the league will not, after all, be quite so public as we in our innocence may have imagined. There will be an appreciable amount of what we call lobbying; that is, members and groups of members will foregather in private and A will say to B, "Will you vote for my project?" and B will reply to A, "Yes, I will vote for your project, if you will vote for mine,” and so on in increasing degrees of complication.

Well, how will the nations of the world agree to constitute the personnel of the league? The principle adopted at the old Hague Conferences was beautifully simple. Forty-four states were represented, and the principle was one nation, one vote. The smaller nations insisted upon this principle as the price of their adhesion. Their argument was that, as each nation was sovereign and independent, all nations were equal and must be equally represented. It was a charming principle and might conceivably work well on the planet Mars, but it could never work well on earth, because it was so absurdly contrary to all earthly notions of common sense.

Eight great powers of the world-Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy, Japan, Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary-comprise about three-quarters of the total population of the world, and under the one-nation-one-vote scheme they had less than one-fifth of the voting power. Luxemburg and Denmark, with a combined population less than half the population of London, could swamp the vote of the Entire British Empire with its area of 13,000,000 square miles and its population of over 400,000,000 souls. The thing would obviously be ridiculous in any plan for a truly practical and workable league.

The only simple alternative seems to be representation on the basis of population. Democracy is the politics of the

future, and this would be a democratic alternative. It would, however, mean that, if Luxemburg had one representative, Britain would have some 1,700 representatives, which is almost as ridiculous as the one-nation-one-vote scheme. The personnel of the league must be kept down to a reasonable size, hence either the smallest states could not be represented at all, or several of them would have to combine together to send a single representative.

But the smaller nations are not of urgent importance. The league is to be chiefly concerned with the prevention of war. The smaller nations would never make war, only the great powers could make war, and it is the representation of the great powers that matters in the constitution of the league. Hence let us glance at a list of the great powers, adding Spain to them, if you like, as Spain did make war not such a long time ago, and see if there is anything curious about it.

There is just this that is curious about it, namely, that two groups dominate it, an Anglo-Saxon group and a Teutonic group. In mentioning a Teutonic group at all I am, of course, assuming that the war is over and the German militarists smashed. Outside these two groups we observe Russia, with a population so gigantic that it could look after itself in the league, and Spain, which would itself be the head of an important group comprising Spanish South America, and Japan, which is Oriental and incalculable. France and Italy are left out in the cold. They would probably never combine together, and, even if they did, their combined forces would not equal that of Germany alone.

The idea of a league of nations has had some success in France, but only very modified success. Do you wonder why? France, like Italy, may or may not have consciously realized the reason for her coldness toward the idea of a league, but the reason is this: On a population basis of representation France would be simply nowhere in the league; she would be a trifle amid tremendous groups.

There is no suggestion for anything so silly as the old balance of power in what I am saying, but there emphatically is the suggestion of the inevitable drawing together of nations allied alike by race or language, or by both. Undoubtedly lobbying would occur within the great groups, and bargaining would go

on, as to which no hint would ever appear in the official proceedings of the league. France, like Italy, naturally fears this, and on a population basis of representation could do almost nothing to counter any movements which she might imagine to be against her interests.

France counts far more than her population in the progress of the world. She is the centre of civilization, the historic nursery of ideas, the admired heroine of the earth, and a league of nations without her whole-souled co-operation is unthinkable; hence her fears must be dissipated, they must have no ground to stand on and no air to breathe.

How can her fears be dissipated? They can only be dissipated by giving her appreciably larger representation in the league than she is strictly entitled to on a basis of population; the same in less degree with Italy.

I am fully aware that my proposal is a very delicate one, and will arouse many objections; nevertheless I regard the proposal as the sine qua non of a successful league of nations. Let this proposal be made, and the idea of the league of nations will instantly jump forward. The proposal involves difficulties, but these difficulties must be met. It involves sacrifices, but greater sacrifices than these will have to be made if a league of nations is to be and is to work.

WILL DEMOCRACY MAKE THE WORLD SAFE?1

During the past century the great democracies have been making war, threatening war, and preparing for war, much of the time against each other. Their history shows clearly enough that if their neighbors had also been democratic this change alone would not have prevented wars. Nor is the outlook for the future encouraging. Democratic nations are still willing to fight to defend their national interests and policies; they demand their due share of over-sea trade, concessions and colonies-if they are a commercial or expansionist people—no less insistently because they are democratic. But the interests and policies of one nation conflict with those of another; what one

1 By George H. Blakeslee. In the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, at the annual meeting held in Worcester, Mass., October

7, 1917.