THE REPARATION PROBLEM.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17807, 5 July 1923, Page 9

THE REPARATION PROBLEM.

FRENCH AND BELGIAN REPLIES TO BRITAIN. DISCUSSION AT FOREIGN OFFICE. \ZI CABLE—r3ESS A33OCIATIOK —COPISK/ET.) (AUSTEALIAN AIID >,-. Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION.) (Received July 4th, 8.10 p.m.) LONDON, July 3. The French and Belgian Ambassadors saw Lord Curzon during this afternoon. It is understood that both countries' replies to the British questionnaire will be in the Government's possession tonight. Lord Curzon was engaged in discussion of the reparation question for two hours. It is stated that there will be further consideration of the position by Cabinet on Wednesday. M. Poincaro will give the Ministerial Council to-day a complete resume of the instructions sent to the French Ambassador in London.

The 'Echo de Paris" says M. Poincare will deal with all eventualities which might occur in accordance wifli Great Britain's attitude towards France.

The general opinion in the lobbies favours a continuance of the occupation of the Ruhr until Germany pays.

It is reported that M. Poincare wishes to keep in touch with Parliament during the critical Anglo-French negotiations.

OCCUPATION OF THE RUHR. FRENCH CONDITIONS OF EVACUATION. (Received July 4th, 11.45 p.m.) LONDON, July 4. The most hopeful result of the conference between Lord Curzon and the Count of Saint Aulaire, French Ambassador to London, is that the conversations are continuing. The French Ambassador did not deliver a written reply or even leave the expected typewritten memorandum.

The "Daily Telegraph's" diplomatic correspondent says the conversation was far from being either a full or a definite reply to the British questionaire. Lord Curzon, who was evidently disappointed at the unprccise nature of the verbal elucidation, requested the French Ambassador to ask Ms Government for additional and more definite particulars. Tho correspondent gathers that the conversation was primarily concerned with progressive military evacuation of the Ruhr. The British Government desired and expected details of such a process. France was not prepared, apparently, to go further than to say that tho occupation would be intensified or relaxed according to Germany's behaviour. The statement of the principles that the occupation would cease only with the full payment of the French claims, prompted Lord Curzon to argue that it seemed as if France would, never leave, since by remaining she was in Britain's view impairing Germany's capacity to pay. The "Daily Express" says tho French Ambassador emphasised the point that the French could not consent to renew negotiations with Germany until passive resistance in the Ruhr was officially discouraged by Berlin, and eliminated.

The "Morning Post" says: "It seems obvious that some of the British Government's enquiries cannot be answered at any specific moment in black and white by the French Government whose policy must largely be controlled by the progress of events in the Ruhr and Germany." BELGIUM'S POLICY. (Received July 4th, 11.5 p.m.) BRUSSELS, July 3. The Premier, M. Theunis (speaking in the Chamber of Deputies, said Cabinet would maintain its policy in regard to the Ruhr until it obtained satisfaction, and it would persevere in its efforts to re-establish between the Allies that entente which alone would hasten a definite solution.

AUSTRALIA'S SHARE. MR HUGHES'S VIEW. vSYDNEY, July 4. Mr W. M. Hughes, in a special article in the "Daily Telegraph," dealing with German reparations, points out that Australia's share under the scheme approved by the Reparation Commission in 1921 was £04,000,000. Mr Hughes considers that the voice of Australia should be heard before any modification in the present scheme of reparations is agreed to or even discussed by Great Britain. It is high time that Australia raised her vo ce in the matter. The question is one on which the Federal Parliament should be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion.