[71] M. Brenier, who has spent much time criticizing me, quotes with approval (_The Times_, January 24, 1921) a French architect as estimating the cost of reconstruction at an average of $2,500 per house, and quotes also, without dissent, a German estimate that the pre–war average was $1,200. He also states, in the same article, that the number of houses destroyed was 304,191 and the number damaged 290,425, or 594,616 in all. Having pointed out the importance of not overlooking sentiment in these questions, he then multiplies $2,500, not by the number of houses but by the number of the _population_, and arrives at an answer of $3,750,000,000. What is one to reply to sentimental multiplication? What is the courteous retort to controversy on these lines? (His other figures are clearly such a mass of misprints, muddled arithmetic, confusion between hectares and acres and the like, that, whilst an attack could easily make a devastated area of them, it would be unfair to base any serious criticism on this well–intentioned farrago. As a writer on these topics, M. Brenier is about of the caliber of M. Raphaël–Georges Lévy.) [72] M. Tardieu states that, on account of the subsequent rise in prices, M. Loucheur’s estimate has proved, in terms of paper francs, to be inadequate. But this is allowed for by my having converted paper francs into dollars at the par of exchange. [73] The Lens coal mines, which were the object of most complete destruction, comprised 29 pits, and had, in 1913, 16,000 workmen with an output of 4 million tons. [74] I take these figures from M. Tardieu, who argues, most illuminatingly, in alternate chapters, according to his thesis for the time being, that reconstruction has hardly begun, and that it is nearly finished. [75] Francs are here converted at 2.20 to the gold mark and the £ sterling at the ratio of 1:20. [76] This is exactly the figure of the estimate which I gave in _The Economic Consequences of the Peace_ (p. 160). But I there added: “I feel much more confidence in the approximate accuracy of the total figure than its division between the different claimants.” This proviso was necessary, as I had over–estimated the claims of France and under–estimated those of the British Empire and of Italy. [77] “Elle avait été le résultat d’un compromis assez pénible entre la délégué français, l’honorable M. Dubois, et le représentant anglais, Sir John Bradbury, depuis lors démissionnaire, qui voulait s’en tenir au chiffre de cent quatre milliards et qui avait défendu la thèse du gouvernement britannique avec une habileté passionnée.” [78] The chief question of legitimate controversy in this connection was that of the rate of exchange for converting paper francs into gold marks. [79] Made up of about £5,500,000 advanced by Great Britain, 772,000,000 francs by France, 96,000,000 francs by Belgium, 147,000,000 lire by Italy, and 56,000,000 francs by Luxembourg.