n 4 A REVISION OF THE TREATY chap.

These arguments are not exact, but they are suffi-ciently so to demonstrate that the claim sent in tothe Reparation Commission is untenable. I believethat it is at least four times the truth. But it ispossible that I have overlooked some items of claim,and it is better in discussions of this kind to leave awide margin for possible error. I assert, therefore,that on the average the claim is not less than two orthree times the truth.

I have spent much time over the French claim,because it is the largest, and because more particularsare available about it than about the claims of theother Allies. On the face of it, the Belgian claim isopen to the same criticism as the French. But inthis claim a larger part is played by levies onthe civilian population and personal injuries tocivilians. The material damage, however, was ona very much smaller scale than in France . Belgianindustry is already working at its pre-war efficiency,and the amount of reconstruction still to be madegood is not on a great scale. The Belgian Ministerfor Home Affairs stated in Parliament in February1920 that at the date of the Armistice 80,000 housesand 1100 public buildings had been destroyed. Thissuggests that the Belgian claim on this head ought tobe about a quarter of the French claim ; but in viewof the greater wealth of the invaded districts ofFrance , the Belgian loss is probably decidedly less thana quarter of the French loss. The claim, actually sub-