BRITAIN ACCEPTS LOAN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 66, Issue 56, 15 December 1945, Page 3

BRITAIN ACCEPTS LOAN

VOTE REVEALS BIG MAJORITY Bretton Woods Also Approved (tyZ. Press Association—Copyright.) LONDON. December 16. Sixty-eight Conservatives, 20 Labour members and 10 Liberals and Independents voted against the Government s motion for acceptance of the American loan. Seven Conservatives voted with the Government. Moving the second reading of the Bretton Woods agreement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Dr. Hugh Dalton) said it was a machinery measure giving effect to a decision already reached by an emphatic vote. After Mr Speaker had refused a request by Mr R. J. G. Boothby (Conservative) for more time to discuss the agreement, the House divided and the second reading was carried bv 314 votes to 30.

The most astonishing feature of the loan debate was that 100 members came out into the open and opposed the loan, says the political correspondent of the Press Association. The hundred included Mr Boothby, Squadron-Leader Christopher Hollis (tellers), who opposed it in the debate. It is more surprising, because about 70 Conservatives disregarded Mr Churchill s appeal to abstain from voting. A number of Conservatives with famous names marched in unfamiliar company into the Government lobby. About 90 Conservatives ostentationsly refrained from voting, and remained in their seats during the division.

The Leader of the Opposition Mr Churchill), speaking earlier, declared that the Conservative Party as a body would abstain from voting on the motion.. "We refuse to accept any responsibility for the transaction,” he said.

Mr Oliver Stanley (Conservative) resuming the debate, said that au alternative to the loan would mean years of austerity far greater than any yet experienced. The standards of life, food and necessities would hardly be sufficient to maintain physical health, social discipline and industrial efficiency. Mr Stanley doubted whether, there would be sufficient reserves

to provide capital, equipment and raw materials for the effective recovery of the export trade. Several members had suggested that if Britain were to refuse the agreement, the Americans before long, would return with something much more favourable. “I feel that the present alternative of rejection, folloVed by a better offer, is a mirage,” he said. Rejection of the loan would lead to a catastrophe which which there would be no recovery. Turning to Brettofi Woods, Mr Stanley declared that he approached the agreement with profound disquiet. “I think Bretton Woods would have been an admirable agreement before 1914, and a satisfactory agreement before 1939, but what are we doing now may be building a tank to fight

the last war. There is no sufficient, accommodation under the agreement to suit the disequilibrium of the present day When we went off . the gold standard in 1981 and allowed sterling to find its own level, it fell somewhere near 22 per cent. The 10 per cent variation permitted under Bretton Woods would be quite insufficient to meet the remedy then required.” Commercial Agreement Mr Stanley said he found the commercial agreement the most difficult to understand and potentially the most dangerous. The fundamental point was how far was the Government committed by the agreement. He hoped the Government had not classified Imperial preferences as, discriminatory practices according to Article 7 of the agreement. He gave a warning that, whatever Imperial preferences might mean to the United Kingdom and the Dominions, they were a matter of me and death to the Colonies. '■ »i resent the indecent haste with which this most serious and complex matter was thrust before us to be settled,” said Mr Churchill (Leader ot the Opposition). He complained that the Government had allowed itself to be browbeaten in the matter of time and added that December 31 for ratification of the Bretton Woods plan had no sanctity. The whole matter should have been disclosed to both the

Mr Bevin Replies

British 'and American people. They should have been given two months to allow public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic to form itself. He was astonished that the United States should think it worth while to exact the equivalent of 1.62 per cent interest from a debtor in Britain’s special circumstances. The interest charge could play a very small part in the United States economy and must he a deterrent on United States exporting power. , A Mr Churchill added that some speakers described the loan terms as harsh. These considerations applied to other creditors besides the United States We owed £1,200,000,000 to India and £400,000,000 to Egypt. Neither country made proposals similar to lend-lease. Everything was charged agaipst us without the slightest recognition of the common cause. The Italian and German armies would have pillaged and ravished Egypt had we not defended her by our life blood and strong right arm. Were we not entitled to aay? “Here is our countercharge for defending you from the Axis Powers?” The same argument applied to India. He sympathised very much with the United States argument in connection with the loan.

A great roar of laughter greeted Mr Bevin’s opening sally, when he followed Mr Churchill to wind up the debate for the Government. “I never thought I should ever meet Mr Churchill in the capacity of an abstainer, he said. “I never heard a more pleading speech for every drunkard to be sober than his to-night.” The task of facing a loan had discomforted many people, Mr Bevm declared: “I did not know anyone who came away from a moneylender s office and calculated the repayments who felt comfortable. This discomfort increases when the catastrophe falls on you after you have been a moneylender yourself for so long.” Mr Bevin thumped his dispatch box as, referring to Mr Oliver Lyttelton s speech, he demanded: “Is that a claim that they would have got better terms ? M There was an uproar when Mr Churchill replied: “I am certainly of the opinion we could have got better terms.” . Mr Bevin retorted: “That is libel on the Administration of the United States. We have not been dealing with New York bankers but the elected representatives of America.”