To us Liberals and Labour folk here in England--relieved at getting a League in any form and ready as we English always are to make the best of what we've got, however bad--this international Council movement may seem to be a waste of strength. For it would seem likely to require the full force of all progressive continental movements to get the League of Nations put on a democratic basis. But the attitude of America makes it doubtful whether the League can be so developed as to do more good than harm. And in any case the movement for an International Council will proceed concurrently and will help rather than harm the movement for an International Parliament. Nor will it encounter the same difficulties. The international organisation of labour provides a better medium in which to establish an international institution than does the present international organisation of governments--the Foreign Offices and Foreign Missions. Moreover, it should prove as easy to extend a Soviet System or Council Commonwealth into the international relationship as it is difficult and dangerous to extend the principle of State Sovereignty and Parliamentary supremacy there. The Council Commonwealth, with its essentially international basis, with its democracy of superimposed councils in constant contact with each other and with the international strike for sanction, is as sound and safe a foundation for such a superstructure as the Parliamentary State, with its long-term parliaments, its large constituencies, its all-dominating national sentiment and its national blockade or boycott, is unsound. Anyway, the International Industrial Congress and Executive Council are bound to come, either in substitution for or supplementary to the League of Nations, just as the National Council Congress and Central Council are bound to come either in substitution for or supplementary to the parliamentary systems. The only question is whether they will come as supplementary to or in substitution for the League.