Let me turn to the other parts of the Covenant—­those which aim directly at building up international co-operation.  I am not sure that it is always sufficiently realised that that is not only an implicit but also an explicit object of the Covenant—­that it is the main purpose for which the League exists.  International co-operation are the very first words of the preamble to the Covenant.  This is the fundamental idea I cannot insist on too strongly, because it does really go down to the very foundations of my whole creed in political matters.  International co-operation, class co-operation, individual co-operation—­that is the essential spirit if we are to solve the difficulties before us.  Let me remind you of the two instances of the action of the League in dealing with the threat of epidemics to Europe.  A conference was called at Washington to consider what could be done to save Europe from the danger of epidemics coming from the East.  What is interesting is that in that conference you had present not only members of the League considering and devising means for the safety of Europe, but you had representatives of Germany and Russia—­a splendid example of the promotion of international co-operation extending even beyond the limits of the membership of the League.  Admirable work was done.  All countries co-operated quite frankly and willingly under the presidency of a distinguished Polish scientist.

That is one example of what we mean by international co-operation.  Perhaps an even more striking example was the great work of Dr. Nansen in liberating the prisoners of war who were in Russia.  He was entrusted with the work on behalf of the League.  The prisoners of war belonged to all nationalities, including our enemies in the late war.  He accomplished his work because he went about it in the true spirit of the League, merely anxious to promote the welfare of all, leaving aside all prejudices whether arising from the war or from any other cause.  Dr. Nansen is in my judgment the incarnation of the spirit of the League, and his work, immensely successful, restored to their homes some 350,000 persons, and he did it for less money than he originally estimated it would cost.

Do not put me down as a facile optimist in this matter.  In the matter of international co-operation we have a long way to go before we reach our goal, and we can already see one or two serious failures.  I deeply deplore that last year the League found itself unable, through the instructions given by the Governments which composed it, to do anything effective on behalf of the famine in Russia.  It was a most deplorable failure for the League, and still more deplorable for this country.  It was a great opportunity for us to show that we really did mean to be actuated by a new spirit in international affairs, and that we did recognise that the welfare of all human beings was part—­if you like to put it so—­of our national interests.  We failed to make that recognition.  We have been trying feebly and unsuccessfully to repair that great mistake ever since, and for my part I do not believe there is any hope of a solution of the Russian difficulty until we absolutely acknowledge the failure we then made, and begin even at this late hour to retrace the false step we then took.