[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR, —May I be allowed
to supplement the letters of Sir Robert Gower and Mr. Hopkin Morris, by inviting the attention of your readers to two consequences necessarily arising from the decision of the Council of the League of Nations to reject the demand of the Hungarians for a juridical settlement of the Hungarian-Rumanian controversy ?
To the great joy of all English-speaking peoples we are about to sign a Peace Pact which outlaws war ; and this Pact neces- sarily implies that international disputes are to be settled by the only known alternative to war, that is, by juridical process. But whilst the Pact was in process of negotiation the Council of the League rejected the Hungarian demand for a judicial hearing, and substituted a political decision. That is to say, a decision prompted by political and military influence.
The Council of the League is a political assembly, and, as such, is influenced by consideration of political expediency and not by the authority of law or the requirements of justice.• In a political assembly the decision is necessarily in favour of the strongest side, and the most important political fact in Europe to-day is the political and military predominance of France and her allies—Poland and the Little Entente. The history of the last few years furnishes many examples of the preponderance of that influence.
But every example of the triumph of political expediency or of military strength at the cost of law and justice tends to establish the rule of force, as distinct from the rule of law, and is a step backwards in civilization.
To England, and to English influence, this is especially disastrous. For England has always been regarded as the champion of fair play to both victor and vanquished alike, and it is a grievous disappointment to her friends to find that she has sacrificed a proud tradition on the altar of political expediency.—I am, Sir, &e.,
Previous page
