The New York herald., 1922-08-04
says Asauith Changed sIind.

IN not tOlHpidlAlIlE III lllC ACdSe
that he has changed his mind. don't
think that the least discreditable. The
circumstances OF Europe are such that
you can only judge from year TO year.
very often from day to day, what is the
right course TO adopt But for any one
TO say he has been consistent for two
and half years in this respect needs
examination.
The same thing applies to Lord Rob-
ert Cecil. He said exactly the same
at the last election. He said he would
draw no distinction between confscation
and damage indemnity and would make
the Germans pay for all /; and the only
limit he would impose would be with
regard for the capacity of Germany to
pay.
When these gentlemen ascend a very
high pulpit TO lecture us and say, You
were wicked last election and misled
the electors they must remember they
said exactly the same thing in exactly
the same words. / don't want to make
this a controversial topic. 1t is not my
fault that it is. 1t is because of state
nents made in the course of debate.
Asks About Bold Line.
Il am quite willing to discuss the
question OF the present policy of the
NtpkC with the Allt6S III ItItTCHGt
TO reparations. The noble lord says let
the Government take bold line. He
says, quite frankly. he doesn't know
what the bold line is. But he says the
Government must find 1t out them
selves; hut whatever 1t is. so long as
1t is bold, he viii support IT, This is
promise which l have no doubt will
be honored in the vote which the
noble lord win give In the lobby when
we divide on the subject.
But / have noticed tendency to
criticise US from both points Of view,
and l have called attention 10 1t fire.
quently. We first of all are to stand
up for France If she does not press
Germany too hard and another point
of view is. Whatever you do you must
agree with France and must carry
France along with you. We sympathize
with the point of view of France and
don't think France unreasonable
You cannot put the two policies to-
gether Let us face the facts One
Of the realities of the situation is that
Il is not negotiation between the British
Government and Germany. but nego-
tiation in which we have got four
Allies, France, Belgium, Italy and
Japan, as well as ourselves.
I'VE put forward policy and press
II, but there is a point when you have
either TO compromise or break. The all
tentative is that we should make the
best arrangements with our Allies to
carry them along with us as far as
we can. or say: Unless you take our
policy, such as it Is, we shall leave the
conference and there's an end to the
alliance
Are the gentlemen who recommend a
bold policy prepared to give that advice
to the British Government? II not
they've no right 20 say You're not bold
enough
The noble lord has repeatedly said
that we ought to have fixed and deter
mined the amount. that we ought to
have told Germany exactly what her
liability was. She offered us the equiva-
lent of thousand millions sterling
He admits II was an impossible offer
and says, You ought to have had some
other figure. Consider what that means +!
There were two factors: First, the
amount Of damage; and second. the
capacity Of Germany to pay. 1t was
almost impossible to fix either at that
moment. If'you were to fix the damage
you would have 20 fix II upon the cost
OF repairing the damage. and you would
have fixed II at a moment when prices
were inflated. There were hundreds of
thousands or houses OF Frances de-
stroyed-houses costing f400 now,
which would have cost 1000 then. That
ElNIS All iutd vital IHG IlNHtlOn OF 1ne
damage would have meant at that mo-
ment
Let me take another illustration
The damage which we claim is In the
main for shipping is something like
100000 tons III you had fixed the
damage to shipping then II would have
cost fsb los and II Is now about
ffb. II we had taken the advice Of Lord
Cecil, we should have fixed the dam
In NAE IA \
cost of repara@on was two and one-half
times what Il Is at the present moment
And that's what the noble lord sug-
gested would relieve Germany and save
her from bankruptcy!
Then, ms to her capacity TO pay.
How could you have estimated at that
moment Germany's capacity to pay?
We shouldn't only have fixed the dam
age to her, but should probably have
fixed the capacity to pay to her also.
Change in Trade Conditions.
'At that time trade on the whole
was doing well. There was big boom
ia the market and hardly any unem-
ployment except among the men re-
turning from the war. There were big
prices. big profits and high wages. and
many shrewd observers who thought
the state OF affairs was going TO en-
and there were arrears In every de-
rartment to be made UP. Therefore N
we had fixed the amount and the ca
pacity to pay In June Of 1919 we should
probably have overestimated both the
damage and the capacity
we said at this moment: We can
not possibly fix the amount, and there
fore we shall set up an impartial COM
mission ! think that on the whole
even Germany will admit that part OF
the treaty has been fairly and i'm
partially administered by that commits
sion Meanwhile we invited Germany
tnmake an offer, and we gave her six
moA3n TO do II. But she did not make
AMY yPffer.
,'TNe Reparatlons Commission there
fore tsat down and adjudcated on
claims and capacity to pay. Then there
was another reason for delay, for there
was no Minister for France at that
moment who could have accepted any
thing approaching any figure suggested
III is no use. IL you are dealing with
realities. TO fall to take political reali-
ties into account.
.Ciemenceau was one OF the most
courageous statesmen who ever pre-
sided over the destinies Of France. He