RHMMHMBBBBHBHBDnMHHHHj

BB8HHHB8888ll8HHBHIMHMHBflflHi^^B

iv THE REPARATION BILL 119

to the sum justly due under the heads of claimestablished by the Treaty of Versailles .

The decision was unanimous, but only in face ofsharp differences of opinion. It is not suitable orin accordance with decency to set up a body ofinterested representatives to give a judicial decisionin their own case. This arrangement was an offspringof the assumption which runs through the Treaty that the Allies are incapable of doing wrong, or evenof partiality.

Nothing has been published in England about thediscussions which led up to this conclusion. ButM. Poincare, at one time President of the ReparationCommission and presumably well-informed about itsaffairs, has lifted a corner of the veil in an articlepublished in the Revue des Deux Monies for May 15,1921. He there divulges the fact that the final resultwas a compromise between the French and the Britishrepresentatives, the latter of whom endeavoured tofix the figure at 104 milliards, and defended thisadjudication with skilful and even passionateadvocacy. 1

When the decision of the Reparation Commis-sion was first announced, and was found to abateso largely the claims lodged with it, I hailed it, led

1 " Elle avait ete le resultat d'un compromia assez penible entre ledelegue fran9ais, Fhonorable M. Dubois, et le representant anglais, SirJohn Bradbury, depuis lors demissionnaire, qui voulaifc s'en tenir auchiffre de cent quatro milliards et qui avait defendu la these du gouverne-ment britannique avec une habilete passionnee."