In order to understand how great an advance this settlement represented it is necessary to carry our minds back to the ideas which were prevalent not very long ago. The following table is interesting, in which, in order to reduce capital sums and annual payments to a common basis of comparison, estimates in terms of capital sums are replaced by annuities of 6 per cent of their amount: In terms of Annuities Estimates of expressed in Milliards of Gold Marks. 1. Lord Cunliffe and the figure given out in the British General Election of 1918[38] 28.8 2. M. Klotz’s forecast in the French Chamber, September 5, 1919 18 3. The Assessment of the Reparation Commission, April 1921 8.28 4. The London Settlement, May 1921 4.6[39] The estimate of The _Economic Consequences of the Peace_ (1919), namely 2 milliards, was nearly contemporaneous with M. Klotz’s figure of 18 milliards. M. Tardieu recalls that, when the Peace Conference was considering whether a definite figure could be inserted in the Treaty, the lowest figure which the British and French Prime Ministers would accept, as a compromise to meet the pressure put upon them by the American representatives, corresponded to an annuity of 10.8 milliards,[40] which is nearly two and a half times the figure which they accepted two years later under the pressure, not of Americans, but of facts. There was yet another feature in the London Settlement which recommended it to moderate opinion. The dates of payment were so arranged as to reduce the burden on Germany during the first year. The Reparation year runs from May 1 in each year to April 30 in the next; but in the period May 1, 1921–April 30, 1922 only two, instead of four, of the quarterly payments in respect of the export proportion will fall due. No wonder, therefore, that this settlement, so reasonable in itself compared with what had preceded it, was generally approved and widely accepted as a real and permanent solution. But in spite of its importance for the time being, as a preservative of peace, as affording a breathing space, and as a transition from foolish expectations, it cannot be a permanent solution. It is, like all its predecessors, a temporizing measure, which is bound to need amendment.