[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] have always been in

favour of the League of Nations ; that is to say, as an idea. Nobody wants another war ; or, rather, no one feels that it would pay to go to war, because war is so horribly expensive nowadays, and it is quite im- possible to get your money back in the form of reparations.

Besides, quite a lot of people remember the last War. What I do not like is the way they set about putting this magnificent idea into practice, or, rather, into words. The League people Say that if a member goes to war with another member—at any rate without leave—everybody has got to go to war with the offender. That does not sound to me very logical, when all the members have forsworn war. Also, I am prepared to

bet that, when it comes to the point, the members will not do anything of the kind. They would be very foolish if they did.

Well, what I mean is that I cannot think it a very good thing that nations should actually be encouraged to regard treaties as scraps of paper, especially when they have gone so far as to call this particular treaty a solemn league and covenant.

As I always say, the idea is magnificent. So is disarmament, although that would put a lot of people out of work. The trouble there is that disarmament would be quite all right if we were perfectly sure that we should never want arms. What they want to do is to say that no one should keep an automatic, but they would be wiser to start at the other endand make

perfectly certain that there shall be no burglars. A lot of people would be very glad if they had no rates to pay for the

police, but if you start by abolishing the police, the wrong sort of people would be the most pleased. That is just the trouble. The proper way to stop war would be to shoot all the troublesome people who are likely to start fighting ; but I am afraid that would be a little difficult.

Of course, if you really think it out, there is no sense in war as at present conducted. If a nation goes to war and beats the enemy; it gets what it can in the way of reparations, and the

beaten nation has just to wait till it sees a chance of getting a bit of its own back. That does no good. The victor cannot get territory nowadays because the territory it wants is full

of enemy peoples, and the League of Nations does not hold with that sort of thing. If you are logical, the only sort of war that can be justified is the kind that Saul waged with the Arnalekites. It was not very pleasant perhaps, but it settled the Amalekite problem definitely. If the Allies had settled Germany in the same manner, it would have been intelligible at all events, and I am quite sure that other nations would think twice about going to war if total abolition was a cer- tainty for the beaten side.

The fact is that we have ceased to be natural about war. It is not fair, either. Natural man starts with his fists, or a stone or a stick that conies handy. The man with the biggest club wins, and that is quite according to Darwin. The whole thing went wrong when some miserable pygmy took to a sling or a

bow and arrows. Of course the giants went under, as they were the largest targets. -Nowadays a savage with a rifle can kill the most civilized white man, if only he shoots first. Well, if that is the survival of the fittest, something is radically wrong with our ideas of civilization.

As far as I can see, the-whole thing was started in the wrong way. If two children are fighting over an apple and hurt each other, you have to intervene. If you let the winner keep the apple you show your approval of war ; whereas, the only sensible thing to do is to smack them both and take away the apple ; that is, if you want them to realize that fighting does. -

not pay. It was sheer lunacy to make the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations on the top of it. That was not teaching nations that war does not pay. It would have been different if everybody had been compelled to furnish heavy security for keeping the peace and to put it into an inter- national bank, to be forfeited if anyone broke the rules after.'

wards. The bank, too, could have done the reparations business as well, and that would have saved no end of trouble.:

If, for example, every nation had to put the cover for its paper: money into the pool, there would be no further fear of war, for nobody would risk that by playing the fool. Besides, it

is absurd to make rules about punishing the aggressor, for anyone knows that in every quarrel it is always the other fellow who began it. The quarrelling is the offence that matters, not the cause ; otherwise, what is the use of a court of international justice ? A League that could say you will be fined heavily if you dare to talk about fighting would be of some use. As it is, the thing seems pretty hopeless. I dare say the various members all meant it when they signed, but the arrangement gave them all the chance of saying that cir- cumstances alter cases. After all, the whole show can be upset by anyone. For example, the poor old League depends for its existence on the good will and good faith of all sorts of queer nations, including 'a lot which are non-Christian and oriental. Well, no one with any sense or experience would bet their oldest hat on that—barring, of course, statesmen.— I am; Sir, &e.,

YOUR CORRESPONDENT IN COCKAIGNE.