(c) crown copyright

Catalogue Reference:CAB/23/9 Image Reference:0021 uolonei Jones', [This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 72

Printed for the Wor Cabinet. March 15)19.

SECRET.

WA R CABINET, 534.

Minutes of a Meeting of the War Cabinet held in the Leader of the Housed Room, House of Commons, on Wednesday, February 19, 1919, at 5 "30 P.M.

Present :

THE PRIME MINISTER (in the Chair).

The Right Hon. A. CHAMBERLAIN, M.P. The Right Hon. SIR E. GEDOES, G.B.E., G.C.B., M.P.

The following were also present :

The Right Hon. W . LONG, M.P., First The Right Hon. W. S. CHURCHILL, M.P., Lord of the Admiralty. Secretary of State for War (for Minutes 2 and 3). The Right Hon. E. S. MONTAGU, M.P., Secretary of State for India. Major-General J. E. B. SEELY, C.B., C.M.G., The Right Hon. E. SHORTT, K.C.. M.P., j D.S.O., M.P., Under-Secretary of State Secretary of State for Home Affairs. for the Air Force (for Minutes 1 and 2). The Right Hon. C. ADDISON, M.D., M.P., The Right Hon. R. MUNRO, K.C., M.P., President of the Local Government j Secretary ei "Stale"for Scotland. Board. The Right Hon. J . I. MACPHERSON, M.P., The Right Hon. SIR A. C. GEDDES, K.C.B., i Chief Secretary for Ireland. M.P., Minister of Reconstruction and j National Service. The Right Hon. LORD ERNLE, M.V.O., The Right Hon. SIR A. MOND, Bart., M.P., President of the Board of Agriculture First Commissioner of Works. and Fisheries. SIR H. LLEWELLYN SMITH, K.C.B., Board Mr. JOHN ANDERSON, C.B., Secretary,, of Trade (for Minute 2). Ministry of Shipping (for Minute 2).

Mr. THOMAS JONES, Acting Secretary. Lieutenant-Colonel L. STORK, C.B., Assistant Secretary. Mr. PEMBROKE WICKS, Assistant Secretary. Captain L. F. BURGIS, Assistant Secretary.

[826]-193 B Payment for Goods 1. The War Cabinet had under consideration a memorandum supplied to f rom t he Chancellor of the Exchequer (Paper G.T.-6829), in which

Germany. wag st a ted that a divergence of aims had appeared among the British delegates in Paris in regard to payment for food supplied to Germany. The approval of the War Cabinet was requested for a draft telegram to Mr. Balfour (Appendix), pointing out the divergence of views of Mr. Hughes, as expressed at the Inter-Allied Commission on Reparation and the views of Mr. Bonar Law, as expressed at the Supreme War Council (Paper I.C.-105, Minute 5), in regard to the relative priority of claims for reparation for acts of damage and claims for indemnity. The Prime Minister said that he was informed that the French Government were restricting their claims to claims for war damage, and would not press for indemnity, inasmuch as their bill for direct war damage could be made up to 4,000,000,000Z., or any figure they cared to name, and it would be very difficult to dispute the claim. The Belgians were taking the same line. The British claims for reparation, apart from indemnity, were exceedingly small. If the claims for reparation were given an absolute priority, they would probably absorb the whole of the amount it was possible to obtain from Germany. Mr. Hughes had unfortunately admitted in the Commission that claims for reparation would come first. The important thing was to secure payment before Germany again became powerful. It was the first payments which mattered. No one would go to war to recover an indemnity, and it was possible, and indeed likely, that if Germany became powerful again, the time would come when, in order to recover an indemnity, our only remedy would be to declare war or to go without. He had sent a note to Mr. Hughes, urging that reparation must include indemnity, and had added that, in his judgment, reparation should not come first ; if it did, Great Britain would recover nothing at all. Mr. Chamberlain said that he had heard that the Americans were sending surveyors into the damaged districts in France to appraise the damage for themselves. If the Government stood by Mr. Bonar Law's declaration, the British claims will be paid in full. Reparation might be 10s. or 20s. in the pound, according to the character of the claims, but in any case the British claims for repara­ tion for direct damage were very small. Lord Sumner bad written to him that the British claims had been made out on a theoretical basis of so much per ton for the hull, and so much per ton for the cargo. Lord Sumner thought that claims of that kind were untenable, and he wanted claims made out for each ship in each case. He had communicated with the Board of Trade, and they were preparing a statement in accordance with Lord Sumner's view. The Prime Minister pointed out that the British were standing alone in this matter; the Italians had no interest, as there was no Austria left and no chance of getting indemnity ; while the French had based their claims solely on reparation. Mr. Long agreed that, if the French were allowed to have priority for their claims in the way suggested, we should be left in the lurch. He thought that Mr. Hughes had only made the admission he had with a desire to moderate the case which he had put too strongly. Mr. Montagu suggested that it was necessary to provide a formula that would secure the division of the money equally, according to war effort. Mr. Churchill drew attention to the great importance of the British indebtedness to the United States, 8,000,000£. ; the sale of British securities in the United States, 1,200,000,0001. ; and export of bullion to the United States 400,0OO,00OL After the absolute destruction of property in France and Belgium he con­ sidered this claim should be the next, involving, as it did, a complete alteration of our financial position in relation to America. We had been harder hit than any other country, in that we had paid these enormous sums for other people. He desired to make the Germans responsible for the discharge of our overseas debt, and he had thought that the United States should be confronted with that point of view. The War Cabinet decided— To confirm the view stated by Mr. Bonar Law at the Supreme War Council (Paper I.C.-105), and requested — The Acting Secretary to invite Lord Sumner, Lord Cunliffe, and Mr. Hughes to return to London immediately to discuss the matter.*

Ministry of Ways 2. The War Cabinet considered the draft Bill for the Ministry and Comniuni­ of Ways and Communications (Paper G.T.-6S12), together with cations. memoranda thereon by the President of the Board of Trade, the Merchant Shipping: Air Ministry, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Papers G.T.­ Clause 2 (1) (g). 6801, 6809, and 6832). Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith stated that the Board of Trade took exception to clause 2 (l) (g), which provided for the transfer to the new Ministry of the powers and duties of the Board of Trade in relation to merchant shipping, including pilotage. Sir Eric Geddes said he assumed that the Minister of Ways and Communications should lie responsible for the conveyance of goods in the kingdom and into the kingdom. He stated that Sir Albert Stanley, on the other hand, considered it was wrong to put into one Department competing services of this description. Sir Albert Stanley agreed that, if there was to be a Ministry of Ways and Communications, the new Ministry should have control over merchant snipping, but was of opinion that the new Depart­ ment should be a Ministry of Kailwavs and not a Ministry of Wavs and Communications, in which case it would be logical to exclude shipping altogether. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith said that he thought Sir Albert Stanlev would suggest that the new Ministry should be responsible for all forms of transport over which the State for the time being assumed control. A Department which was administratively and financially responsible for one form of transport service would not be regarded as an impartial regulator of a competing private service. The inclusion of merchant shipping uuder clause 2 (1) (g) was an excrescence on the Bill : in all other respects the Bill dealt with inland transport. It might be necessary at some time or another to go to Parliament and seek-control over shipping. At present no real powers would be obtained under the Bill in respect of nationalisation of shipping, but suspicion would be aroused and the shipping interest would be alarmed. Tbe shipping interest was very powerful, and there was no doubt it would add greatly to the difficulties of getting the Bill through if this clause were retained. Sir Eric Geddes said there was no provision for taking over anything but the existing powers of the Board of Trade. The shipping interest had no reason for taking exception to that. He attached great importance to this clause. The First Lord of the Admiralty agreed that the chances of the Bill would be greatly imperilled by the inclusion of the clause. There was no vested interest in the House of Commons so powerful as the shipping interest. He was informed that the shipping industry had a stupendous task before them in restoring overseas trade, and were very suspicious of any Government action being proposed in Parliament. On the other hand, they were in close * At a later stage the Prime Minister decided that he himself would go to Paris, and that therefore Lord Sumner, Lord. Ounliffe, and Mr. Hughes need not be invited to return to London. 'fbis decision again was subsequently rescinded, and Mr. Hughes, Lord Sumner, and Lord Cunliffe attended a Meeting of the War Cabinet, held on the 25th February, 1919. touch with the Board of Trade, and would not welcome association with a new Department of whose intentions they knew nothing. Mr. John Anderson said that Sir Joseph Maclay, who was unable to be present owing to illness, was of opinion that the functions of the Government in relation to shipping should remain with Board of Trade, in which was vested the duty of safe-guarding the trade of the country. He would deprecate very strongly any attempt to take these functions from the Board of Trade and give them to a new Department mainly concerned with land transport. Any attempt to do so would arouse the very strongest protest and create appre­ hension in the minds of the shipping community. Sir Eric Geddes stated that if the Ministry of Shipping were to continue as such, he agreed that there was no case to be made out for the proposals contained in the Bill. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith pointed out that there was a proposal in the Bill to give express power to take over the coasting trade by agreement. Traders would object to that, as something between one-third and one-half of the railway rates were more or less affected by the coasting trade, and in that way the coasting trade was a great regulator of rates. The War Cabinet decided that— Clause 2 (l) (g) should be excluded.

Harbours, Docks, 3. Some discussion was raised with regard to the proposed and Piers : transfer of harbours, docks, and piers, under clause 2(1) (/), and it Clause 2 (1) (/). was pointed out that difficulty might be experienced in the House of Commons from the leading dock authorities, especially those of Liverpool, London, and Glasgow. Sir Eric Geddes said that if power to control docks were removed from the Bill it would emasculate the Bill. The control of ports influenced the whole system of transport, and lie regarded it as a vital matter to be able to regulate traffic in the ports. The War Cabinet decided that— Clause 2 (1) (/) should stand.

Supply of 4. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith drew attention to the views Electricity: expressed by the President of the Board of Trade in his memorandum Clause 2 (1) (A). (Paper G.T.-6801), and remarked that the supply of electrical power was overwhelmingly an industrial problem, that the net electrical demand for railways would probably not be more than 10 per cent, of the industrial demand. Sir Eric Geddes observed that, with the best estimate it was possible to make of the development of power for heavy traction, the amount of power required for traction would certainly be more than 20 per cent, for railways alone. Lighting was only 4 per cent., and a large portion of the remainder consisted of tramway traction. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith said the Board of Trade were of opinion that the provision of electrical power should be in the hands of electricity commissioners responsible to a Department that was con­ cernecl with the general interests of electrical users as a wdiole, rather than in the hands of a large consumer, such as the Minister-of Ways and Communications. Consumers would never believe that the powers of the Ministry were exercised impartially. The Bill took no powers in regard to electricity, it only transferred wdratever powers existed in regard to electricity, and a new Bill would be required to enable it to supply electricity. The Board of Trade had a new Bill in draft, which ought to be pressed forward in the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. There was nothing in - the new Bill to prevent the new railway authority developing its own electric power supply in the most economical way. If the Board of Trade Bill were held over till the new Ministry of Ways and Communications was established, the Session would probably be lost and the Bill would have to be postponed until next year, which would be disastrous. The Board of Trade were also afraid that the municipal institutions were strong enough to wreck any proposal to put electricity under the Department which represented the railways. The municipal authorities were already moving in the matter. If a transfer were desired in the future it could easily be done by a short Bill. The Archibald Williamson Committee, representing all the interests, had come to an agreement which, with very slight modifications, was embodied in the Board of Irade Bill. If the municipal, authorities took alarm, the agreement so arrived at. would be thereby dissolved, and the position would revert to the state, of chaos and confusion which had hitherto existed. The Secretary of State for War remarked that the Ministry of Munitions in three years bad multiplied enormously the electrical power supply of the country as compared with thirty years under the Board of Trade. No doubt they had wider and altogether different powers, but on the merits he would have thought that it would be better to place electricity under the- new authority proposed by the Bill. He suggested that the Board of Trade should proceed with the Electrical Supply Bill, which should be followed up by the Ways and Communications Bill. The "Prime Minister concurred that the Board of Trade should proceed with their Electricity Supply Bill, and suggested that Sir Eric Geddes should come to an arrangement with the Board of Trade to transfer their electrical powers to the new Ministry by Order in Council. Sir Eric Geddes said that the Board of Trade Bill stopped short at compulsory transmission, which, in his view, was quite inadequate. They could only generate, and had no compulsory power to transmit. They could take over transmission lines by agreement only. But, in order to deal successfully with electricity at high tension, you must take it up to the point where you reduce the pressure and give it to the distribution mains. Sir Albert Stanley took the view that antagonism existed between the railways and the trading community : the contrary was the case—the railway was the life-blood of industry, and it was along the railway track that the pioneer transmission cables ought to go. To get the most economical working power of electrical plant on a railway, electricity must be distributed to all industries in the surrounding district, so as to get a steady load. The idea that the railway interest in electricity would squeeze out­ industry was not tenable for a moment, lie warned to push the electrical power supply tor all it was worth, both in the interests of railways and industry. The President of the Local Government Board suggested that the provision of power was the function of the Ministry of Supply. It was for Sir Eric Geddes to provide the power stations, and he should make arrangements with the Ministry of Supply to supply electricity in the same way that it would supply other commodities. The proper organisation, so far as the State was concerned, was the Ministry of Supply, upon whom Sir Eric Geddes would indent in the same way as other Departments indent for their requirements. He was not in favour of the Board of Trade proposal. Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith said that if the two Bills were to proceed: side by side the Board of Trade might be put in a difficult position in piloting their Bill. He would, however, at once consult Sir Albert Stanley on the subject. The War Cabinet decided that— The Board of Trade should proceed with their Electricity Supply Bill, and that the Bill creating the Ministry of Ways and Communications should include power to transfer to it all or any powers of any Government Department relating to supply of electricity, but in order to avoid the delay that [826]-193 C would otherwise result the Cabinet wish the Board o, Trade to proceed at once with the Supply of Electricity Bill after meeting any criticisms that Sir Eric Geddes may wish to make on the Bill as drafted. The above decision to be subject to the concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade (who was unable to attend the Meeting).*

Conveyance by air: 5. The War Cabinet decided-Sir Eric Geddes concurring— Clause 2 (1) (*). that- The power to convey passengers and goods by air should be deleted from the Bill.

Power to take 6. The Secretary of State for India asked whether clause 3 (b) Possession of meant that the Government were going to nationalise the railways. Eailways. Sir Eric Geddes said that the power to take possession of rail­ ways under this clause was taken for two years only. Under the Defence of the Realm Act the Board of Trade had power to take possession of the railways. This merely enabled the new Minister to continue the powers for two years'- which had been exercised during the war. Otherwise so soon as the Defence of the Realm Act lapsed there would be no power at all to control railways. There were two main facts to be considered-­ (a.) The Runciman letter, which was a binding letter, gave the railways two years more, during which the Government guaranteed the same profits as the railways had earned in the pre-war period. (6.) A Select Committee of the House of Commons, which had been appointed to examine the question of the nationalisa­ tion of railways, had not yet reported. Clause 3 was agreed to.

Power to acquire 7. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that if it were Eailways. decided to retain the substance of the clause it would be necessary Bail way for him to confer with Sir Eric Geddes in regard to the method of Nationalisation. payment. He desired to raise the big question whether it was right Clause 4. to attempt to deal in this Bill with the purchase of railways by the State. The War Cabinet at the moment had no policy in the matter ; some kind of control must continue, and it was possible that nationalisation was the righl; policy ; but the Select Committee had not yet reported and the Government bad never considered it. He thought it a mistake to insert these powers before the Government had made up their mind. The proper course, if nationalisation were decided on, was to introduce a special Bill in Parliament for that express purpose. Sir Eric Geddes regarded the powers as important in order to put him in a position to negotiate with the railway companies during the next two years. They were not at present in a very conciliatorv mood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked whether it would not do.simply to have power to purchase without specifying how the purchase should be arranged. The Prime Minister said he thought it would be desirable, to have powers which would enable the Government to enter into negotiations when they had considered the matter. There were already powers to purchase under an Act passed in 1844, and when he was President of the Board of Trade the railway managers had been not unwilling to hand over the railways to a body like the Port of London Authority, but it was found to be undesirable under that Act. The railways were now working at a deficiency of 9O,000,O00L, and the railway companies would not take them over in two years' time unless the Government were prepared to make up that deficiency, or else allow them to raise their charges. The * Sir Albert Stanley later wrote to the Prime Minister signifying his concurrence. trading community might be prepared to submit to increased charges in the form of general taxation, but they would not agree to it if it were for the purpose of increasing the dividends of railway share­ holders, and there would be a combined trade and labour opposition to any proposal to increase the rates. He was also of opinion that if the Government could say that they had in mind a proposal to make the railways State property it would be much easier to deal with the. menacing industrial trouble. They would be in a position to say to the men that they were imposing a burden on the com­ munity if they persisted in their demands, which would have to be met either by increased taxation or an increase in the price of com­ modities. The powers must be exercised by Order in Council which would lie on the table of the House, and could not be made effective without the sanction of the House of Commons. On the other band, to introduce a Bill might enable a determined minority to hold up the matter for months. The First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that there was nothing so unpopular in the House of Commons as legislation by Order in Council, and in his view it would be absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister himself to make a strong" personal appeal to the House. The Secretary" of State for India asked whether it was impossible to decide the question of nationalisation immediately. The Prime Minister asked the Secretary of State for India not to press the point and said that he would like Sir Eric Geddes to be in office first, in order to be able to advise the Government in the light of his experience in office whether it were desirable or not. He believed owing to the fierce competition among railways the majority of railway managers held nationalisation to be inevitable. The Secretary of State for War remarked that the railway shareholders deserved consideration, in view of the damage to the railways during the war. Sir Eric Geddes did not agi-ee that the Government had ruined railway property. He held that wages and general costs would have risen anyhow. The President of the Boat d of Agriculture pointed out that a Commission on Nationalisation was sitting before the war and had been suspended eighteen months after the war broke out. The general idea of the Commission had been that nationalisation should not be attempted until some idea had been gained as to how it would work.

Power to acquire 8. Attention was called to the power to acquire tramways, Tramways. which it was suggested would raise very strong opposition among Clause 4 (1) (a). municipal authorities. Sir Eric Geddes remarked that inter-urban and suburban communication were so linked up that it would be very difficult to solve the traffic problem without, acquiring the right to purchase tramways. The regulation of inter-urban tramways was an integral part of the solution of tbe housing problem. The Secretary for Scotland said that Glasgow, for example, would raise the strongest possible objection. The Prime Minister pointed out that the London County Council and the municipal authorities of Birmingham, Manchester, and other great towns would also object. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that powers of control and compulsion where two authorities were not agreed would provide all that was necessary in the meantime. The Prime Minister said, in reply to Sir Eric Geddes, who asked if he must drop construction as well as the purchase of tramways, that that was a different matter and not open to the same objection. The War Cabinet decided— To delete tramways from clause 4 (l) (a). Power to acquire 9. Sir Eric Geddes said that he asked for this power in order to by Agreement be able to buy a competitive shipping line where the shipping Shipping Lines running in company complained of railway competition. competition with The Prime Minister suggested that this clause should not be the Railway. put in the Bill, but should be offered as a concession if necessary. Clause 4 (1) (a).

Determination of 10. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was uncertain Purchase Price : about the provision in clause 4 (2) and (3) for the determination of a Clause 4 (2) price to be paid for an undertaking in default of agreement by a and (3). Court of Arbitration, lie would like to leave it open for discussion with Sir Eric Geddes, with power to come to the Cabinet again if necessary. If the Government contemplated the purchase of rail­ ways they ought to be run to pay their way as a commercial concern on a proper basis, and accounts ought to be kept so that everything for which they were responsible should be charged against them— that was to say, special railway stock ought to be issued against the railway revenue with the guarantee of the Consolidation Fund behind it. This was agreed to. The War Cabinet decided— (a.) To approve the Bill, subject to the conclusions above recorded and to verbal drafting amendments. (6.) To appoint a drafting committee to consider the clauses of the Bill, consisting of— Sir Eric Geddes, The President of the Board of Trade, The Home Secretary,

together with representatives of—- The Local Government Board, The Scottish Office, The Irish Office.

Control of Building 11. The Wax Cabinet had before them a Memorandum by for Land Lord Ernie (Paper G.T.-6797) regarding the control of building for

Settlement. l anci settlement. The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries said that, in accordance with a decision of the War Cabinet (War Cabinet 496, Minute 12), the First Commissioner of Works claimed that the functions of his Department covered the whole of the building work, advisory and actual, that might be entaded in the scheme of buildings for small holdings for the County Councils. Lord Ernie said that, in his view, this work, together with that of adaptation and housing on the small-holdings colonies, should be carried out by the Board of Agriculture. He had already appointed an architectural staff, who were about to issue a series of type plans to the County Councils as a basis for the work of their architects. The First Commissioner of Works stated that the War Cabinet had laid down (War Cabinet 496, Minute 12) that the only Govern­ ment Departments which should be empowered to undertake building or constructional work should be the Admiralty, the War Office, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Air Ministry, and that the duty of carrvine' out work for other Government works should be entrusted to the Office of Works. His Department had an efficient district organisation and maintenance contractors all over the country, who could carry out the work of the Board of Agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Haldane Committee recommended that services should be grouped under one particular Minister, and if different services were allowed to grow up under the various Departments it would mean a great multipli­ cation of staff. Under the new Housing Bill the President of the Local Government Board reserved to himself the right to build houses if the local authorities proved- themselves incapable. This " might mean that the Local Government Board would ask the Treasury to sanction a staff of architects ; the Board, of Agriculture, if Lord Ernle's present proposal was adopted, would want another staff of architects, when all the time the First Commissioner of Works had a trained staff ready to carry out the work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly urged that the Board of Agriculture should specify their needs and allow the Office of Works to carry them out. The President of the Local Government Board said that it was true he had asked for powers under the new Housing Bill to build in default of action by the local authorities, but his intention was that the work should be carried out by the Office of Works. The President of the Board of Agriculture asked that he should be allowed in any case to complete the half-built cottages on which work had been stopped vdien the War Cabinet instructed that no building should be done except that directly required for war purposes. The War Cabinet decided that— The adaptation and housing requirements of the Board of Agriculture should be carried out by His Majestyr 's Office of Works, but that the Board of Agriculture should complete any building operations initiated by them which had been interrupted owing to war conditions.

Peace Celebrations. i2- The W a r Cabinet had before them correspondence between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Colonial Office, in which the High Commissioner asked that lie might be supplied with full particulars regarding any arrangements which were being made in this country in connection with the celebration of peace. (Paper G.T.-6784.) The War Cabinet decided— To appoint the following Committee to examine the question of peace celebrations in this country, and to make recom­ mendations to the War Cabinet:— Lord Curzon (Chairman), The Home Secretary, The First Commissioner of Works, A representative of the Admiralty, A representative of the War Office, A representative of the Colonial Office.

Soldiers'and 13. With reference to War Cabinet 533, Minute 4, the War Sailors' Pay Cabinet took note of the following decision arrived at by the Soldiers'

Committee. ­ a n d ga ji ors ' p a y Committee :- *" That pensioners in the non-commissioned ranks should receive the full monthly increment, but that, in so far as the corn­ missioned ranks are concerned, it is not desirable to make any change as the result of this decision.

826 -193] D American 14. With reference to War Cabinet 483, Minute 13, the War Relations: Rates Cabinet took note of a memorandum by Lord Pleading (Paper G.T.­ for Transportation 6795) regarding the agreement he had arrived at with the United of American Troops in British States Government as to the rates to be charged for the transporta- Ships. tion of American troops in British ships.

Joint Conference * 15. With reference to the Joint Conference of Government of Government Departments and Departments and Trade Unions concerned, before which the Interim Trade Unions. Report No. 1 on the Application of the Whitley Report to Govern­ ment Industrial Establishments is to be brought on the 20th February at the Central Plall, Westminster— The War Cabinet took note that the Prime Minister had ap­ pointed Sir Robert Home, Minister of Labour, to be Chair­ man of the Inter-Departmental Committee to consider the Application of the Whitley Report to Government Estab­ lishments vice Mr. Roberts (War Cabinet 438, Minute 12).

2, Whitehall Gardens, S.W. 1, February 20, 1919. APPENDIX.

Earl Curzon to " Astoria " (Paris).

(No. 189. Very Urgent.) (Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, February 19, 1919, 7TO P.M. PAYMENT for food supplied to Germany. Attention of War Cabinet has been called to divergence between view expressed by Mr. Hughes at Reparation Committee on 10th February and that urged upon Supreme War Council by Mr. Bonar Law on 13th January, and then accepted by the Council. His Majesty's Government must adhere to attitude taken by Mr. Bonar Law. They are unwilling to become responsible for any share of cost on any other terms. Please so inform all British delegates on Reparation Committee and on any other bodies conceimed.