[102] I record this episode as an historical curiosity. In my opinion it makes no material difference to the argument whether the text runs “revendications et réclamations” or “renonciation et réclamation”; for I regard either form of words as merely a protective phrase. But the plausibility of M. Klotz’s position is decidedly weakened (if so weak a case is capable of further weakening) if it is the latter phrase which is authentic. The Editor of the Institute of International Affairs’ _History of the Peace Conference of Paris_, who was the first to discover and publish the discrepancy in question (vol. v., pp. 370–372), takes the view that the question of which text is used makes a material difference to the value of M. Klotz’s argument. [103] Baruch, _op. cit._, p. 19. [104] As Mr. Baruch puts it (_op. cit._, p. 4): “At an election held _after the Armistice and agreement as to the basic terms of peace_, the English people, by an overwhelming majority, returned to power their Prime Minister _on the basis of an increase in the severity of these terms of the peace_, especially those of reparation.” (The italics are mine.) [105] Baruch, _op. cit._, p. 25. [106] This Memorandum, which has been published _in extenso_ by Mr. Baruch (_op. cit._, p. 29 _seq._), belonged to the category of most secret documents. It has been given to the world by itself without the accompanying circumstances which, without justifying its arguments (on which indeed no further light could be thrown beyond what we already have in the narrative of Mr. Baruch), might yet throw light on individual motives. I agree with the comment made by _The Economist_ (Oct. 22, 1921) in reviewing Vol. IV. of the _History of the Peace Conference of Paris_ (published under the auspices of the Institute of International Affairs), which has reprinted this Memorandum, that “a very serious injustice will be done to the reputation of General Smuts if this document continues to be reproduced and circulated without any explanation of the circumstances in which it was prepared.” Nevertheless it is well that the world should have this document, and it must take its place in a story which is more important to the world than the motives and reputations of individual actors in it.