is to disarm it to that extent; and it may be assumed that no one would propose even a partial disarmament of the British Navy except as part of a general disarmament on land as well as on sea. Those who see in 'Navalism' a danger on the same plane as militarism mistake the mischief which is covered by the latter term. It does not refer to the mischief of being military but of being militaristic; it does not refer to the deliberate maintenance of large and efficient forces whether on land or sea; it denotes rather an attitude of national mind and aspiration, which is reflected in the provocative policy of the international thruster.' A charge of Navalism Great Britain may admit, but she has never used her sea-power in such a way as to be open to the charge of naval militarism. We have not hitherto mentioned any of the specifically German interpretations of the term 'Freedom of the Seas.' To one of these Mr Cababé refers (p. 99), in an amusing passage, when printing an account of an interview with the German Chancellor, BethmannHollweg, in July 1916. In that interview the then Chancellor described as the Freedom of the Seas the condition of things which would have been set up by the Declaration of London. He is reported to have said that the Contracting Powers thereby guaranteed that hereafter wars should be conducted solely between the parties to them on land, or before the actual ports of the enemy, leaving the nations not involved in the struggle to carry on unembarrassed and unannoyed "those processes of peace," the activities of legitimate trade, communication, and travel, just as hough all the world were friends.' A freedom of the eas of that type would indeed have been ideal for a powerful and aggressive land-power! It is with a refernce to another variation of the German freedom of he seas that Triepel concludes his pamphlet. There is, however, another "Freedom of the Seas" which onsists of something different from paper stipulations. It is the Freedom of the Seas from the tyranny of England. Let it be our business to acquire sea-power; then we shall have a free sea also. Let it be our business that this war makes England smaller and ourselves bigger. Let it be our business to gain naval bases overseas, and above all an from the "wet triangle," and to get into our hands the co of Flanders and a sure land-approach thereto. Then sl we have conquered the Freedom of the Seas for oursel and also for all those neutrals who groan under the a trariness of England, and the world will breathe again.' That dream has vanished, and the world does inde breathe again; but what a different world would it ha been if the British fleet had been fettered by a Freed of the Seas' under cover of which German troopsh could have sailed without molestation from their o territorial waters to within cannon-shot of our shores the Allied navies had not been entitled, by occupying 1 sea against Germany, to destroy her maritime lines communication; if German merchantmen could have p their wireless installations at the service of their na in all quarters of the ocean, and have acted as ubiquit bases of supply to German submarines; if Germany co have carried on her overseas trade as in time of pe and have obtained unlimited quantities of cotton, rubb oil, ores and food through neutral ports and by the of neutral ships! British sea-power in conjunction w that of her co-belligerents checked all this without flicting on neutral States greater hardships than th could with reason be expected to have to submit to members of a community in which war is still a rece nised institution. For this service we pay our homɛ to the men of those great leviathans (to adapt the phra of Hobbes), to which we owe, under the immortal G our peace and defence.' JOHN PAWLEY BATE Art. 12.-A LEAGUE OF NATIONS. I. British League of Nations Society. London, 1916-1918. Publications. American League to Enforce Peace. Proceedings, and Proposals for the Prevention of Future Wars. By Inaugural Address delivered by Lord Robert Cecil, as International Government. By L. S. Woolf. Published Neutrality versus Justice. By A. J. Jacobs. Unwin, 1917. The Next War. By Sir C. Walston. Cambridge, 1918. 1. The League of Nations and its Problems. Lectures. By Prof. L. Oppenheim. Three Longmans, 1919. LEAGUE of Nations. Is this the same thing as a ague of Peace? In other words, is it the sole object a League of Nations to procure and maintain peace, are there other reasons for considering a League of tions a good thing in itself? Is it an end and not rely a means? Further, is it a League of Nations, or Union of all Nations, that should be desired and is obtainable? Among the writers on this subject there are those o look to peace and security only, who would leave ry nation to work out its individual development Controlled except by the police constable. There are ers who look to a great Super-Nation or Super-State, authorities of which will direct the energies and ulate the proceedings, and provide for the education I development, of all the nations in the combination, just as they desire to make every state or natio universal provider and tutor of all its citizens. The writers of this second school would have, merely a super-national Tribunal with a super-nati police force to prevent war, but a super-nati Legislature which would regulate all relations of St inter se, and of citizens of one State with another S or the citizens thereof, in peace as well as in warcourse of trade, the rules of occupation and developm of unsettled countries, grants and concessions, tru cartels, changes of nationality and domicil, and so f ---with a super-national Executive to enforce the en ments of this super-national Legislature. They w desire that this Legislature should meet periodic and find itself work to do-a strong temptation interference. The most extreme and logical exponent of this v is Auguste Schvan, a writer who would abolish nat and nationality, and make every one a citizen of world, temporarily subject to the control of the L Government within whose area he happened to be a Londoner may be said to be subject to the contro the London County Council. Between these L Governments Schvan does not conceive of any disp arising. All disputes would be between indivi citizens and some Local Government; and, to with these, he would establish tribunals deriving t authority from collective humanity and sitting fantastically chosen centres. Clever as Schvan is in his destructive criticisn other plans, his constructive scheme is such an exagg tion of socialist ideas as to amount to a caricat Nevertheless, though orthodox Socialists may refus accept him as an exponent of their teaching, they open to the charge which Dr N. Murray Butler, in interview reported in 'The Observer' of Dec. 8, 1 makes against them, that they have in mind destruction of all the essential elements characteristi nationality, in order to bring about what I have so times called "colloidal" or jelly-like international without real nations.' Several English writers, who are supporters of League of Nations Society, are open to the rebuke Dr Butler. Thus Mr Lowes Dickinson wants states 'to earn 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 ndividual nations.' He does contemplate, what is rather topian, a super-national Court whose members will be urged of all national feeling, who will become citizens of the world and extra-national, and will live in some xtra-national area; he would back up his Court with a uper-national Army and Navy, which is to be the only army and navy; and, having thus procured disarmament, e would dispense with a League of Nations, except in o 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 impractiable, it is likely that a Universal Republic will dissolve nto 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 |