i have had recently special opportunities for appreciating the extent to which the treaty of versailles has not been read by those who have formed very definite opinions concerning its qualities. there is no justification for a failure to peruse this great international instrument. it is the most important document of modern times. it has reshaped for better or for worse much of the geography of europe. it has resurrected dead and buried nationalities. it constitutes the deed of manumission of tens of millions of europeans who, up to the year of victory, 1918, were the bondsmen of other races. it affects profoundly the economics, the finance, the industrial and trade conditions of the world; it contains clauses upon the efficacy of which may depend the very existence of our civilisation. nevertheless there are few who can tell you what is in the treaty of versailles. you might have thought that although men differed[pg 82] widely as to its merits, there would have been no difficulty in securing some measure of agreement as to its actual contents. every endeavour was made to give full publicity to the draft when it was first presented to the germans, and to the final document when signed. even before the form of the draft was ever settled, the actual decisions were reported from day to day. never was a treaty so reported and so discussed in every article and every particle of its constitution, and to-day you can procure an official copy of it from any bookseller for the moderate price of 2s. 6d. in spite of that no two men who happen to profess diverse opinions as to its justice or injustice can agree as to its contents.
a visitor to england in the year 1713 probably experienced the same perplexity in seeking information from a whig and a tory respectively as to the treaty of utrecht. so this treaty has become one of those fiercely debated subjects, as to which the contestants deliberately refuse to regard any testimony, or recognise the existence of any fact, which is in the least inconsistent with their particular point of view. it has come to pass that the real treaty of versailles has already disappeared, and[pg 83] several imaginary versions have emerged. it is around these that the conflict rages.
in france there exist at least two or three schools of thought concerning the versailles treaty. there is one powerful section which has always regarded it as a treasonable pact, in which m. clemenceau gave away solid french rights and interests in a moment of weakness under pressure from president wilson and myself. that is the poincaré-barthou-pertinax school. that is why they are now, whilst in form engaged in enforcing the treaty, in fact carrying out a gigantic operation for amending it without consulting the other signatories. this has come out very clearly in the remarkable report from a french official in the rhineland which was disclosed in the london observer. it is obvious from this paper that whilst the french government have worked their public into a frenzied state of indignation over the failure of germany to carry out the treaty of versailles, they were the whole time deliberately organising a plot to overthrow that treaty themselves. their representative on the rhine was spending french money with the consent of the french government to promote a conspiracy for setting up an independent republic[pg 84] on the rhine under the protection of france. it was a deliberate attempt by those who disapproved of the moderation of the treaty of versailles to rewrite its clauses in the terms of the militarist demands put forward by marshal foch at the peace conference. marshal foch, the soul of honour, wanted to see this done openly and straightforwardly. what he would have done like the gentleman he is, these conspirators would have accomplished by deceit—by deceiving their allies and by being faithless to the treaty to which their country had appended its signature. that is one french school of thought on the treaty of versailles. it is the one which has brought europe to its present state of confusion and despair.
there is the second school which reads into the treaty powers and provisions which it does not contain, and never contemplated containing. these critics maintain stoutly that m. briand, and all other french prime ministers, with the exception of m. poincaré, betrayed their trust by failing to enforce these imaginary stipulations. they still honestly believe that m. poincaré is the first french minister to have made a genuine attempt to enforce french rights under the treaty.
[pg 85]
in the background there is a third school which knows exactly what the treaty means, but dares not say so in the present state of french opinion. perhaps they think it is better to bide their time. that time will come, and when it does arrive, let us hope it will not be too late to save europe from the welter.
in america there are also two or three divergent trends of opinion about this treaty. one regards it as an insidious attempt to trap america into the european cockpit, so as to pluck its feathers to line french and english bolsters. if anything could justify so insular an estimate it would be the entirely selfish interpretation which is put upon the treaty by one or two of the allied governments. the other american party, i understand, defends it with vigour as a great human instrument second only in importance to the declaration of independence. there may be a third which thinks that on the whole it is not a bad settlement, and that the pity is a little more tact was not displayed in passing it through the various stages of approval and ratification. this party is not as vocal as the others.
in england we find at least three schools.[pg 86] there are the critics who denounce it as a brutal outrage upon international justice. it is to them a device for extorting incalculable sums out of an impoverished germany as reparation for damages artificially worked up. then there is the other extreme—the "die-hard" section—more influential since it became less numerous, who think the treaty let germany off much too lightly. in fact they are in complete agreement with the french chauvinists as to the reprehensible moderation of its terms. in britain also there is a third party which regards its provisions as constituting the best settlement, when you take into account the conflicting aims, interests, and traditions of the parties who had to negotiate and come to an agreement.
but take all these variegated schools together, or separately, and you will find not one in a thousand of their pupils could give you an intelligent and comprehensive summary of the main principles of the treaty. i doubt whether i should be far wrong in saying there would not be one in ten thousand. controversialists generally are satisfied to concentrate on the articles in the treaty which are obnoxious or pleasing to them as the case may be, and ignore the rest completely, however essential[pg 87] they may be to a true judgment of the whole. most of the disputants are content to take their views from press comments and denunciatory speeches. unhappily the explanatory speeches have been few. some there are who have in their possession the full text—nominally for reference; but you will find parts of the reparations clauses in their copies black with the thumb-marks which note the perspiring dialectician searching for projectiles to hurl at the object of his fury. the clauses which ease and modify the full demand are treated with stern neglect, and the remainder of the pages are pure as the untrodden snow. you can trace no footprints of politicians, publicists, or journalists, in whole provinces of this unexplored treaty. the covenant of the league of nations is lifted bodily out of the text, and is delivered to the public as a separate testament for the faithful so that the saints may not defile their hands with the polluted print which exacts justice. they have now come to believe that it never was incorporated in the treaty of versailles, and that it has nothing to do with that vile and sanguinary instrument.
and yet the first words of this treaty are the following:
[pg 88]
"the high contracting parties,
"in order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security,
"by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war,
"by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations,
"by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments, and
"by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another,
"agree to this covenant of the league of nations."
then follow the articles of the debated covenant.
a speaker who took part recently in a university debate on the subject told me that the [pg 89]undergraduates exhibited the greatest surprise when he informed them that the league of nations was founded by the versailles treaty. a few days ago i had a similar experience at the oxford union. i was speaking against a motion framed to condemn the principles of the treaty as unwise and unjust. in its defence i recalled some of its outstanding features. but as most of my narrative had no bearing on reparations it was greeted with impatience and cries of "question" from a group of anti-versaillists. they honestly thought i was travelling outside the motion in giving a short summary of the other sections of the treaty. to them it is all condensed in mr. keynes's book, and other hostile commentaries. anything which is inconsistent with these, or supplements the scanty or misleading statements they make, is deemed to be tainted and biassed. to refer to the text itself they regard as unfair, and as playing into the hands of the defenders of a wicked and oppressive pact. the actual treaty has been already put by them out of bounds, and you wander into its forbidden clauses on pain of being put into the guardroom by one or other of the intolerant factions who patrol the highways and byways of international politics.
[pg 90]
in all the debates on the subject in the house of commons i have only once heard the treaty itself quoted by a critic, and strangely enough that was by way of approval.
i have indicated one important section of the treaty to which is accorded something of the reverence due to holy writ by an influential section of the public. this group would be shocked were they reminded that their devotion is given to a chapter in the hateful treaty. there is yet another large and important section which is completely ignored by the critics—that which reconstructs central europe on the basis of nationality and the free choice of the people instead of on the basis of strategy and military convenience. this is the section that liberated poland from the claws of the three carnivorous empires that were preying on its vitals, and restored it to life, liberty and independence. it is the section that frees the danes of schleswig and the frenchmen of alsace-lorraine. for these oppressed provinces the treaty of versailles is the title-deed of freedom. why are these clauses all suppressed in controversial literature? here is another of the ignored provisions—that which sets up permanent machinery for dealing with labour [pg 91]problems throughout the world, and for raising the standard of life amongst the industrial workers by means of a great international effort. no more beneficent or more fruitful provision was ever made in any treaty. it is so momentous and so completely overlooked in general discussion, that i think it worth while to quote at length the general principles laid down by a provision which will one day be claimed as the first great international charter of the worker.
"the high contracting parties recognise that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. but, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply so far as their special circumstances will permit.
"among these methods and principles, the following seem to the high contracting parties to be of special and urgent importance:—
[pg 92]
"first.—the guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
"second.—the right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
"third.—the payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
"fourth.—the adoption of an eight-hour day or forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
"fifth.—the adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours, which should include sunday wherever practicable.
"sixth.—the abolition of child labour and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
"seventh.—the principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
"eighth.—the standard set by law in each [pg 93]country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
"ninth.—each state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed."
it will take long before the principles propounded in the covenant of the league under the labour articles are fully and faithfully carried out, but in both a good deal of quiet and steady progress have already been attained. m. albert thomas is an admirable chief for the labour bureau. he has zeal, sympathy, tact, energy and great organising talent. he is pressing along with patience, as well as persistence. but that is another question. it raises grave issues as to the execution of the treaty. what i have to deal with to-day is the misunderstandings which exist as to the character of the treaty itself. the british public are certainly being deliberately misled on this point. why are those sections which emancipate oppressed races, which seek to lift the worker to a condition above [pg 94]destitution and degradation, and which build up a breakwater against the raging passions which make for war, never placed to the credit of the treaty of versailles? the type of controversialist who is always advertising his idealism has made a point of withholding these salient facts from the public which he professes to enlighten and instruct. there is no more unscrupulous debater in the ring than the one who affects to be particularly high-minded. i do not mean the man who is possessed of a really high mind, but the man who is always posing as having been exalted by grace above his fellows. he is the pharisee of controversy. beware of him, for he garbles and misquotes and suppresses to suit his arguments or prejudices in a way that would make a child of this world blush.
that is why i venture to put in a humble, although i fear belated, plea for the reading of the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text, of the treaty of versailles. herein lies the only fair way of arriving at a just conclusion on the merits of a treaty which holds in its hands the destiny of europe for many a generation.
