of the Pre-Armistice Agreement, which bound the Germans to pay only for damage to
civilian property. Strangely enough, it was a member of the Group, Jan Smuts, who was
responsible for the inclusion of the objectionable items, although he put them in not as a
member of the Group, but as a South African politician. This fact alone should have
prevented him from making his speech of October 1923. However, love of consistency
has never prevented Smuts from making a speech.
From 1921 onward, the Milner Group and the British government (if the two policies
are distinguishable) did all they could to lighten the reparations burden on Germany and
to prevent France from using force to collect reparations. The influence of the Milner
Group on the government in this field may perhaps be indicated by the identity of the two
policies. It might also be pointed out that a member of the Group, Arthur (now Sir
Arthur) Salter, was general secretary of the Reparations Commission from 1920 to 1922.
Brand was financial adviser to the chairman of the Supreme Economic Council (Lord
Robert Cecil) in 1919; he was vice-president of the Brussels Conference of 1920; and he
was the financial representative of South Africa at the Genoa Conference of 1922 (named
by Smuts). He was also a member of the International Committee of Experts on the
Stabilization of the German Mark in 1922. Hankey was British secretary at the Genoa
Conference of 1922 and at the London Reparations Conference of 1924. He was general
secretary of the Hague Conference of 1929-1930 (which worked out the detailed
application of the Young Plan) and of the Lausanne Conference (which ended
reparations).
On the two great plans to settle the reparations problem, the Dawes Plan of 1924 and
the Young Plan of 1929, the chief influence was that of J. P. Morgan and Company, but
the Milner Group had half of the British delegation on the former committee. The British
members of the Dawes Committee were two in number: Sir Robert Molesworth (now
Lord) Kindersley, and Sir Josiah (later Lord) Stamp. The former was chairman of the
board of directors of Lazard Brothers and Company. Of this firm, Brand was a partner
and managing director for many years. The instigation for the formation of this
committee came chiefly from the parliamentary agitations of H. A. L. Fisher and John
Simon in the early months of 1923.
The Milner Group was outraged at the efforts of France to compel Germany to pay
reparations. Indeed, they were outraged at the whole policy of France: reparations, the
French alliances in Eastern Europe, the disarmament of Germany, French "militarism,"
the French desire for an alliance with Britain, and the French desire for a long-term
occupation of the Rhineland. These six things were listed in The Round Table of March
1922 as "the Poincaré system." The journal then continued: "The Poincaré system,
indeed, is hopeless. It leads inevitably to fresh war, for it is incredible that a powerful and
spirited people like the Germans will be content to remain forever meekly obeying every
flourish of Marshal Foch’s sword." Earlier, the reader was informed: "The system is
impracticable. lt assumes that the interests of Poland and the Little Entente are the same
as those of France.... It forgets that the peoples of Europe cannot balance their budgets
and recover prosperity unless they cut down their expenditures on armaments to a
minimum.... It ignores the certainty that British opinion can no more tolerate a French
military hegemony over Europe than it could a German or Napoleonic, with its menace to
freedom and democracy everywhere."
When the French, in January 1923, occupied the Ruhr in an effort to force Germany to
pay reparations, the rage of the Milner Group almost broke its bounds. In private, and in
the anonymity of The Round Table, they threatened economic and diplomatic retaliation,
although in public speeches, such as in Parliament, they were more cautious. However,
even in public Fisher, Simon, and Smuts permitted their real feelings to become visible.
In the March 1923 issue The Round Table suggested that the reparations crisis and the
Ruhr stalemate could be met by the appointment of a committee of experts (including
Americans) to report on Germany's capacity to pay reparations. It announced that H. A.
L. Fisher would move an amendment to the address to this effect in Parliament. This
amendment was moved by Fisher on 19 February 1923, before The Round Table in
question appeared, in the following terms:
“That this House do humbly represent to your Majesty that, inasmuch as the future
peace of Europe cannot be safeguarded nor the recovery of reparations be promoted by
the operations of the French and Belgian Governments in the Ruhr, it is urgently
necessary to seek effective securities against aggression by international guarantees under
the League of Nations, and to invite the Council of the League without delay to appoint a
Commission of Experts to report upon the capacity of Germany to pay reparations and
upon the best method of effecting such payments, and that, in view of the recent
indication of willingness on the part of the Government of the United States of America
to participate in a Conference to this end, the British representatives on the Council of the
League should be instructed to urge that an invitation be extended to the American
government to appoint experts to serve upon the Commission.”
This motion had, of course, no chance whatever of passing, and Fisher had no
expectation that it would. It was merely a propaganda device. Two statements in it are
noteworthy. One was the emphasis on American participation, which was to be expected
from the Milner Group. But more important than this was the thinly veiled threat to
France contained in the words "it is urgently necessary to seek effective securities against
aggression by international guarantees." This clause referred to French aggression and
was the seed from which emerged, three years later, the Locarno Pacts. There were also
some significant phrases, or slips of the tongue, in the speech which Fisher made in
support of his motion. For example, he used the word "we" in a way that apparently
referred to the Milner Group; and he spoke of "liquidation of the penal clauses of the
Treaty of Versailles" as if that were the purpose of the committee he was seeking. He
said: "We are anxious to get the amount of the reparation payment settled by an impartial
tribunal. We propose that it should be remitted to the League of Nations.... But I admit
that I have always had a considerable hesitation in asking the League of Nations to
undertake the liquidation of the penal clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.... It is an
integral part of this Amendment that the Americans should be brought in." Lord Robert
Cecil objected to the amendment on the ground that its passage would constitute a
censure of the government and force it to resign. John Simon then spoke in support of the
motion. He said that France would never agree to any reparations figure, because she did
not want the reparations clauses fulfilled, since that would make necessary the evacuation
of the Rhineland. France went into the Rul1r, he said, not to collect reparations, but to
cripple Germany; France was spending immense sums of money on military occupation
and armaments but still was failing to pay either the principal or interest on her debt to
Britain.
When put to a vote, the motion was defeated, 305 to 196. In the majority were