The amiable Japanese critic who ingeniously and flatteringly weaves fantasies out of this journal's prosaic exposition of the purely commercial character of Lord Barnby's mission must not be taken too seriously. Courtesy, however, demands that some of his more airy fights should be corrected. The divergence of British and Japanese policies dates from 1931 and not from the earlier year noted by him. It was toward the end of 1991 that Japan "broke the ranks." Her reasons may have been sound but so have been Great Britain's for honouring obligations under the Covenant of the League and the Washington Conference. No luntriendliness to Japan or absorption jin European affairs governed Great Britain's decision to stand by the League. Perfervid protestations regarding the stability of Manchoukuo irrelevant. The League itself has recognized that the status quo cat not be restored. Japan's difficulties fare of her own making. By with-Jdrawing from the League she has leomplicated the problem of unravelling the tangle for the creation fof which she was mainly responsible. Sooner or later that problem will have to be solved. In the meantime "Japanese commentators _disleredit their own country's statesmanship by attempting to impale Great Britain or any other member of the [League on the horns of an artificially lereated dilemma. To persist in treating a private party of British commercial investigators as representative politicians or accredited diplomats, is to be naively blind to the facts, Tt irritates rather than assists in developing the spirit of friendship which, in spite of "Japonicus's" pessimism, still informs Great Britain's attitude toward Japan.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.