Our_ only criticism is that Mr. Chamberlain was, as it
• seems-to us, unnecessarily severe in his treatment of the Protocol.. We share most of his' fears of the dangers of . war 'wrath- the Protocol, if it had ever come into force, • would probably have created ; and yet we cannot help '..regarding: with more respect than he Ht able to profess the very sincere aims of the authors of the Protocol. No doubt they were so dazzled by the glories of their vision of universal arbitration and of the extinction of all the pests of society that they were blind to the inci- dental but terribly important causes of unrest that crept in. The fact that the Protocol would have made the .revision of grievances more difficult than it now is under the Covenant—in effect, would have tended to fix all existing frontiers—was in our judgment of itself a sufficient reason for rejecting the Protocol.
