lines, to be occupied by Allied troops with a view to preventing the spreading of Bolshevism, which was prevalent in Hungary.

During the last two days, the Committee had received reports from General Alby, the French Chief of Staff, and from the military advisers of the Italian Peace Delegation in Paris. M. Bratiano had also forwarded a note on the subject, and in addition, General Charpy, Chief of Staff to General Franchet d'Esperey, had just returned from those regions and submitted a report on the situation. Taking these facts into consideration, it was thought by the Committee that the military advisers of the Conference should be asked to fix the lines of extreme occupation above referred to and decide whether or not the intervening neutral zone should be occupied by Allied troops, in view of maintaining order against possible Bolshevist attempts.

MR. BALFOUR enquired whether M. Tardieu's Committee had heard any military experts on the question under reference.

M. TARDIEU replied in the negative, and explained that the Committee had merely read General Alby's report. They had purposely refrained from obtaining military advice, as the Committee might thereby have been led into a discussion of purely military questions, which were outside the terms of reference.

MR. BALFOUR enquired how order would be maintained in the neutral zone if a neutral zone were constituted. Was that purely a military question?

M. TARDIEU replied that in principle the maintenance of order in a neutral zone was not purely a military question, and for that reason the Committee had enquired into the matter. It had, however, been found that all sorts of military questions were involved-for instance: were Allied troops available for the occupation of the neutral zone? For that reason it had been decided to refer the question back to the Conference.

LORD MILNER enquired whether it was intended that the question should be referred for report to the Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council at Versailles.

M. TARDIEU replied that that was the intention of the Committee. (It was decided to refer to the Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council at Versailles the questions raised in the following recommendation made by the Committee on Rumanian Affairs on February 17th, 1919:

"The Commission on Rumanian Affairs beg to draw the attention of the Supreme Allied Council to the following situation:-

(1) General Franchet d'Esperey sent a wire dated February 14th, 1919, saying that the Rumanian troops were continuing

their advance into Transylvania and had already reached the line Maramaros-Sziget, Zilak, Czucza, Nagy-Szebecs, Zam.

(2) The Rumanian Government (letter from M. Bratiano to the President of the Peace Conference dated February 9th) justifies such advance by the acts of cruelty committed by the Hungarians in that region.

(3) The Commission on Rumanian Affairs is at the present time studying the line to be drawn as a frontier between Rumania and Hungary, and wishes that no armed conflicts should take place in that region.

For the above reasons the Commission on Rumanian Affairs asks the Supreme Council if the present situation does not seem to warrant the fixation of two lines beyond which the Hungarian and Rumanian troops should not go, a zone free of military occupation being thus established between the two proposed lines:

(A) 10 kilometres, west of general line running from Vasaros Nameny, point of confluence of the two Keres, Algyo north of Szegadin; as regards Hungarian troops.

(B) 10 kilometres east of line Szatmar-Nemeti, Nagy-Varad, Arad, as regards Rumanian troops.

It is for the Supreme Allied Council to decide whether or not the zone forbidden to Hungarian and Rumanian troops should be, in view of maintaining order against possible Bolshevist attempts, occupied by Allied troops.")

(3) M. PICHON said that the question of the recognition of Poland had been before the Allies for a considerable time. At the request of M. Paderewski, M. Dmowski had recently submitted Polish Government the following Note, dated Paris, February 7, 1919:—

Recognition_of

"I beg to bring to the notice of your Excellency that M. I. J. Paderewski, Prime Minister and Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, has requested the Polish National Committee to inform the Allied and Associated Powers' Governments of the Constitution of his Ministry and to ask that the Sovereign State of Poland should be officially recognised by the respective Governments of those Powers. The Polish National Committee, as official representative of the Polish government, beg to support that application to the Government of the French Republic.

At the same time the National Committee take the liberty to call the attention of Your Excellency on the following facts: the Allied Powers, by their declaration of Versailles, June 3, 1918,2 have recognised Poland as an independent and unified State; on the other hand, M. Paderewski's Government have the support of the great majority of the nation of the whole of Poland."

M. Pichon, continuing, said that he thought the moment now appeared to be opportune to give satisfaction to the Polish wishes. He pointed out that a short time ago General Pilsudski had resigned and handed over his powers to the Polish Diet. He had now been

'Foreign Relations, 1918, supp. 1, vol. 1, p. 809.

reinstated by acclamation. His Government could, consequently, be considered as firmly established, and could be recognised by the Allied Governments.

MR. BALFOUR concurred as far as Great Britain was concerned.

M. PICHON remarked that the Allied and Associated Governments had already recognised the Polish National Committee and the independence of Poland. Official confirmation was, therefore, now merely asked for.

MR. LANSING pointed out that the United States of America had recognised M. Paderewski's Government about ten days previously.3 He saw no reason for renewing the recognition.

M. MATSUI said that his Government had not yet recognised either the Polish Government or the Polish National Committee. He was therefore not authorised to do so without reference to his Government.

M. SONNINO was prepared, on behalf of the Italian Government, to accept the proposal before the Conference.

(It was agreed that the Great Powers would recognise M. Paderewski's Government, taking note of the reservations made by the Japanese Representative.)

Report of the

4. MR. BALFOUR drew attention to the fact that the English and French texts of the draft terms of reference to the proposed Economic Commission of the Peace ConEconomic Drafting ference, as agreed by the Economic Drafting Committee, (see Annexure "A"), were not identic. The original text had been drawn up in English, and consequently, if any discussion were to take place, it should

Committee:

(a) Acceptance of Terms of Reference

be made on the English text.

M. CLEMENTEL explained that the text had been prepared in the two languages, (French and English), in parallel columns, and it was in that form that it had been signed by all the Delegates.

MR. BALFOUR proposed that the report of the Economic Drafting Committee should be accepted, on the understanding that the French text should be made to agree with the English text.

MR. LANSING said that he could not agree to accept the report, as suggested by Mr. Balfour, because he had not seen it before; he had had no time to study it or to obtain the advice of his experts. He proposed, therefore, that the further consideration of the report in question should be adjourned to next Session.

M. KLOTZ asked permission to invite the attention of the Conference to the fact that the draft in question was not an agreement or convention which might commit the representatives of the Great Powers to some definite line of policy. The Conference was merely asked to accept a questionnaire, addressed to a Committee whose conSee Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. 1, p. 741.

stitution had still to be decided; and the various countries represented reserved to themselves full right of making their suggestions and observations when the proposed Committee came to be appointed. Today, no question of principle was involved, but merely a question of procedure.

M. CLEMENTEL pointed out in support of the statement made by M. Klotz that the Economic Committee to be appointed would have a very big programme to carry through, and any delay at the present moment might have serious consequences. M. Baruch had, before leaving Paris for Brussels, particularly asked that the terms of reference to the proposed Economic Committee should be settled. with as little delay as possible.

MR. LANSING said that he would not, under the circumstances, insist on an adjournment.

M. CRESPI remarked that an Italian text of the terms of reference was being prepared and would be circulated shortly.

(The Terms of Reference to the proposed Economic Committee of the Peace Conference as agreed by the Economic Drafting Committee were approved, subject to the French and English texts being brought into accord.)

LORD MILNER enquired how the Economic Committee was to be formed.

(b) Transitory Measures Referred to Supreme Economic Council

M. CLEMENTEL replied that the composition of the proposed Economic Committee would have to be decided by the Conference.

LORD MILNER said that the British Dominions felt that this was a question in which they were particularly interested. The Dominions possessed very distinctive interests, which were not always identical with those of Great Britain. It would therefore be only right and reasonable to give direct representation to the Dominions; and if it were decided to give two delegates for each of the Great Powers, as is usually done, and five representatives for the Smaller Powers, he would suggest that two representatives should be allotted to the British Dominions and one to India.

MR. LANSING said that he understood Lord Milner's suggestion to be that a Commission of 18 members should be appointed, of which the British Empire would have five.

M. KLOTZ drew attention to the fact that on the proposal of President Wilson a Supreme Economic Council had been created, consisting of five representatives of each of the Great Powers. Why should not the various questions dealt with in the terms of reference be referred to that Committee, who would be instructed to carry out the work entailed by the creation of sub-Committees, the procedure to be followed being left to the Committee itself to settle?

MR. LANSING enquired whether the Supreme Economic Council gave representation to any but the five Great powers.

M. KLOTZ replied in the negative, and said that provision would have to be made for the smaller Powers to be represented when questions affecting them came up for discussion. On the other hand, the representatives of the British Dominions could form part of the five representatives allotted to each of the Great Powers.

LORD MILNER agreed that if the question were to be referred to the Supreme Economic Council, the special views of the British Dominions could be represented among the five British Delegates. He wished to lay stress, however, on the fact that the British Dominions occupied a very distinct position, especially as the interests of the Dominions frequently conflicted with those of Great Britain. He thought that was a solid reason. It was desirable to have all points of view represented. It was not merely a question of giving the British Dominions a stronger position.

M. PICHON reported that he had received a request from Mr. Hughes to the effect that Australia should have separate representation, and that he (Mr. Hughes) should be the selected representative for Australia. He (M. Pichon) thought that the representation of the British Dominions was legitimate, but he thought the smaller powers should also receive due consideration.

M. CLEMENTEL thought that the draft submitted by the Economic Drafting Committee contained two very distinct parts. A first part, dealing with all transitory measures, such as: the supply of materials for the restoration of the devastated areas, the economic restoration of the countries which had suffered most from the war, and the supply of commodities to neutral and ex-enemy countries. All such questions, in his opinion, could be referred to the existing Supreme Economic Council. Secondly, all permanent questions relating to the future, which really constituted economic questions connected with the Treaty of Peace, such as: future permanent commercial relations, contracts and claims, and the abrogation or revival of economic treaties. These questions should, in his opinion, be referred to a special Economic Committee of the Preliminary Peace Conference, which would have to be created.

M. KLOTZ agreed, and asked that the five signatories of the report of the Drafting Committee should be instructed to draft a plan of procedure for the new Committee, sub-Committees being formed therein, and to make suggestions regarding its composition.

(c) Permanent Measures Referred to an Economic Committee to be Created

LORD MILNER accepted this proposal and expressed the hope that the Committee would consider the point he had tried to make for proper representation of the British Dominions.