v LEGALITY OF CLAIM FOR PENSIONS 139

November 1, 2) which drew up the relevant clausesof the Armistice Terms ; and that the Allies didnot finally approve the reply to President Wilson until after that they had approved that verydraft of the Armistice Terms which, according tothe French contention, superseded and negativedthe terms outlined in the reply to PresidentWilson . 1

The record of the proceedings of the SupremeCouncil (as now disclosed) lends no support to theexistence in their minds of the duplicity which theFrench contention attributes to them. On theother hand, it makes it clear that the Council didnot intend the references to Separation in theArmistice Terms to modify in any way their replyto the President .

The record, in so far as it is relevant to this point,may be summarised as follows: 2 M. Clemenceaucalled attention to the absence of any reference inthe first draft of the Armistice Terms to the restitutionof stolen property or to reparation. Mr. LloydGeorge replied that there ought to be some referenceto restitution, but that reparation was a Peacecondition rather than an Armistice condition. M.Hymans agreed with Mr. Lloyd George. MM. Sonninoand Orlando went further and thought that neitherhad any place in the Armistice Terms, but were ready

1 This is corroborated by M. Tardieu, op. cit. p. 71.2 See Mermeix , op. cit. pp. 226-250.