detail have been suggested for dealing with it. The idea of a League of
Nations to secure peace is occupying the attention of many of the wisest
minds and of the statesmen who hold the most responsible positions. It
is meeting with strong popular support, at all events in Britain and in
the United States. France and Italy are examining the proposal. It is
well, however, where attractive phrases are used and schemes proposed,
to subject them carefully to the double test: how far they cover the
ground and meet the real difficulties; and, secondly, how they would
work out in practice in the circumstances which are likely to arise. We
want to look at the question as a whole, to see exactly what we have to
aim at, sometimes to reiterate what seem almost useless truisms. The
obvious is too often overlooked. First we need to recognise the actual
facts, then let the right spirit grow up and become general, and after
that attempt to plan the best machinery and test its probable effect and
efficiency by seeing how it would be expected to work in various special
cases.

There are now in the world two fundamentally different ways of looking
at international relations. On the one hand, we have the assertions
expressed definitely in words by many Germans and acted upon
consistently without qualification by the German Government, that
justice is the interest of the stronger; that power and force may be,
and indeed ought to be, exerted by a State without any check on moral
grounds; that a strong nation must realise itself, develop and use its
strength without regard to the so-called rights of the weaker; that
"those should take who have the power, and those should keep who can."
To them Reason, Common Sense, even the Divine Law seem to say: "Assert
thyself; have the will to power." Where such a spirit exists there can
be no binding force in agreements, rules of international law are a
farce, but convenient perhaps at times for embarrassing the action of