BRITISH FOREIGN INVESTMENTS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22319, 5 February 1938, Page 20

BRITISH FOREIGN INVESTMENTS

TO TUB EDITOR OF THE PRESS. sir,—ln your leading article dealing with British foreign investments m this morning’s paper, you conclude by saying, “The return on British money invested in certain European countries may be dividends, and then again it may be bombs.” That is certainly one aspect of foreign lending, and a rather serious one that is not to the advantage of British people. For the rest you give the system of British overseas lending your unstinted praise, as if there could be no question of disagreement. You also quote figures—figures which I do not think are anything like correct—under the carefullyworded statement that this is a “usual estimation.". It is true that the “Economist” says that foreign investment as a whole is the nation’s greatest single industry, but then who finances the “Economist”? The point I wish to make, however, is that you write as though the opinions of the “Economist” and the “usual estimates” of the value of foreign lending had never been seriously questioned by responsible people: and that is far from being the case. About 1931 or 1932, Mr Walter Elliot, then Minister for Agriculture, in an address to the Aberdeen University, referred to the huge losses suffered by the nation on account of the British bankers’ policy of foreign lending. He said that as well over half the total amount lent in recent years had been completely lost, it represented a free gift of British goods to foreign peoples. I quote this to show that this matter of foreign lending has been seriously questioned for some time. The resumption of lending by Britain did not pass the House of Commons without any protest. Mr George Lansbury. Sir M. Gratton-Doyle, 'Mr Craven Ellis, and Mr Loftus were among those who protested. It was not the fact of their being a protest so much as the serious nature of the charges made against the system that seems to me to be worthy of some mention in a leading article which sets out to review the change. Mr Loftus asked for an official announcement setting out the totals lent in recent years together with the total losses.

Mr George Lansbury said that the many millions that are definitely known to be a total loss represent a gift from British workers and British industry to foreigners. Sir M. Grat-ton-Doyle stated that three-quarters of all foreign bonds quoted in England are either worthless or seem likely to become worthless in the immediate future. These statements are of course in the nature of “usual estimates,” but as Mr Loftus pointed out, refusal to supply authentic figures does not improve the bankers’ case for the resumption of foreign lending. My information is from “The New English Weekly,” December 9, and I suggest that there are other periodicals now to hand and available to “The Press” which would assist in giving a far more accurate account of the pros and cons of foreign lending than the one presented to your readers.—Yours, etc., D. C. DAVIE. February 3, 1938.