is in that respect perfectly clear and consistent, unless we are to construe such words as "advise," "propose," and "recommend" in a sense quite contrary to their ordinary meaning. How completely this is true will be clearly seen when we examine in detail the articles of the Covenant.

(Letter No. 3)

ORGANS OF THE LEAGUE

Even the simplest form of league requires three classes of organs, judicial, deliberative and secretarial. The first and last of these will be more conveniently discussed in connection with the articles of the Covenant. In this letter we are concerned with the deliberative organs.

The functions of a League of Nations include not only the settlement of disputes after they have arisen, but also removing causes of dissension and discontent. For this purpose representative bodies are required. It is not essential that they should have any binding authority, and in fact in the automatic form of league they certainly would not; but consultative functions they must have and these are of the utmost importance. International congresses have often settled questions that might otherwise

have led to war; but hitherto they have been held only by universal consent, and in 1914 Germany was unwilling that such a congress should meet. To prevent war there must be both compulsory arbitration of disputes and regular meetings of representative bodies for consultation.

But

Of such bodies in a league comprising many nations there ought to be two, one large and the other small. The reason is the same as for having in a free nation a large legislature and a small executive. The large legislature gives an opportunity for the representation of many points of view, of many different interests; and in a league the larger body makes possible the representation of every member nation however small. a large body cannot act quickly, and it is moreover not well fitted for reaching by compromise and concession the unanimous opinion on concrete questions often essential to harmony and success. In a small body, however, all the members of a numerous league cannot have seats. Some states must be left out, and it is clear that the presence of the large nations is the most important,

because on them the responsibility must mainly fall in peace and war, and because their mutual confidence is the strongest guarantee of enduring co-operation. There is also good sense in their presence from the fact that the large nations touch the world at many points, the smaller ones at less. Thus England, France and the United States have a broader outlook than Rumania or Bolivia which see a comparatively narrow part of the interests of mankind, and have a more local vision. At the same time the lesser states ought not to be wholly left out of the smaller body. Their point of view, and the fact of their presence, are indispensable. The Covenant of Paris has sought to meet this difficulty by an ingenious compromise.

The Covenant wisely leaves the method of appointing the representatives to the states themselves; but as there has been some difference of opinion on that point among the advocates of a league in this country it may not be out of place to discuss it briefly: The Council of the League is entrusted with the function of recommending to the members

sundry things in addition to those which by the Covenant they specifically undertake to do. Sometimes it may recommend positive action, and therefore it is important that the representatives should, so far as possible, be in a position to speak for their respective governments. If one of the Balkan states, for example, should pursue, or allow its citizens to pursue, a course of conduct which, while not amounting to a hostile act, is highly and properly offensive to a neighbour and likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, the question would arise what representations, if any, should be made to that state by the members of the League acting in concert. Since the Council has no power of its own, and any action must be that of the several members of the League, it is clear that a discussion by people who could not speak with authority for their nations would not attain the end desired. In such a case the Council must be in fact a meeting of the ambassadors of members of the League, not a debating society for the expression of every variety of divergent opinion. This is, indeed, one of the chief reasons for including in the Council the