V

REPARATION

143

be pointed out, first of all, that from the point ofview of general fairness it is monstrous that a womanwhose house is destroyed should be entitled to claimfrom the enemy whilst a woman whose husband iskilled on the field of battle should not be so entitled ;or that a farmer deprived of his farm should claimbut that a woman deprived of the earning powerof her husband should not claim. In fact the casefor including Pensions and Separation Allowanceslargely depends on exploiting the rather arbitrarycharacter of the criterion laid down in the pre-Armistice conditions. Of all the losses caused bywar some bear more heavily on individuals and someare more evenly distributed over the community asa whole; but by means of compensations grantedby the Government many of the former are in factconverted into the latter. The most logical criterionfor a limited claim, falling short of the entire costsof the war, would have been in respect of enemyacts contrary to International engagements or therecognised practices of warfare. But this also wouldhave been very difficult to apply and unduly un-favourable to French interests as compared withBelgium (whose neutrality Germany had guaranteed)and Great Britain (the chief sufferer from illicit actsof submarines).

In any case the appeals to sentiment and fairnessoutlined above are hollow ; for it makes no differenceto the recipient of a separation allowance or a