WAR DEBTS SETTLEMENT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 174, 19 April 1929, Page 9

WAR DEBTS SETTLEMENT

LABOUR PARTY’S ATTITUDE TO BALFOUR NOTE ■ MR. SNOWDEN'S SUGGESTION OF REPUDIATION ’ ■' f STIRRING DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS Mr. Snowden’s declaration concerning the war debts settlements and the . Balfour Note has excited great interest in the debate in the House of Commons. During the discussion Mr. Snowden’s statement was strongly condemned by Conservative speakers, and Mr. Runciman made it clear that .the Liberals would not depart from the doctrine of the continuity of contractual international obligations. It i ? reported that the Labour Executive has come to the decision that it must support Mr. Snowden, although it agrees he has been indiscreet.

(British Official Wireless.)

Rugby, April 17. Tmring the debate on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget statement in the House of Commons last night, Mr. Philip Snowden, who was Mr. Churchill’s predecessor in office in the Labour Administration, made a vigorous attack on the Allied debt settlements completed during the. life of the present Parliament. The speech has created much surprise, for it had not been foreshadowed by any previous Labour pronouncements on. the debts, and the war debts agreements are not mentioned in the official programme of the Labour Party. Britain’s Terms Compared With zimerica’s. Mr. Snowden declared that the terms made by Mr. Churchill for the settlement of France’s war debt were far too generous. A better bargain could have been made with France, which was one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. America, to whom France owed more, made much better terms. The case of Italy was worse still, Britain accepting £270,000,000 for a .debt of £610,000,000, While the United States settlement of a debt of £420,000,000 was ■that Italy had to pay over 62 years a total in annuities of £400,000,000. The Allies’ total debts to' Britain, which had been ratified, agreed to; or funded, totalled £1,500,000,000. They had been commuted for an annual payment of £20,000,000. Britain was paying £37,000,000 annually to the United States, and, if ever Britain got more from those annuities and German reparations than the amount of her total payments to the United States, she in accordance with the Balfour Note, to reduce the amount of the annuities, to ■ be received from) her Continental debtors. r • _ , He had never subscribed to the Balfour Note, nor had the Labour Party, and they would hold themselves open, if circumstances arose, to repudiate the conditions of the Note. Mr. Churchill intervened to Emphasise the seriousness of this statement regarding the principles of the Note embodied in the agreements. Mr. Snowden' reminded Mr. Churchill that France had not yet ratified the agreement,' which was simply a temporary agreement, • bound sooner or later to come up for further consideration. If Mr.. Churchill had made the same terms wiih Britain’s debtors as America made with hers, Britain would be getting £50,000,000 annually Instead of £20,000,000. MINISTERIAL REPLY INJURY TO WORLD PEACE MR. SNOWDEN REFUSES TO WFrHDRAW (British Official Wireless,) Rugby, April 17. In the course of the debate on the Budget, Sir Laming WorthingtonEvans, • Secretary for War, replied to the attack made yesterday by Mr. Snowden upon the Allied debt settlements. Regarding the figures quoted by Mr. Snowden, purporting to show that the United: States had extracted from France and Italy better terms than Britain had, Sir Laming Worth-ington-Evans pointed out that these were merely ■ lump sums—the total of all annual payments to be made year by year, over a jjeriod of 62 years without any regard for the time of payment. The Minister continued: “Now I come to the most serious aspect of Mr. Snowden’s speech and I want to be very careful to pick my words. We were all greatly surprised and startled yesterday by the statement which Mr. Snowden made that he and his party would, if returned to power, hold themselves free to repudiate the fundamental principles of the Balfour Note, namely, that Great Britain should take no more from Europe by way of debt and reparations than she requires to pay her own obligations to the United States. That principle has been for seven years the foundation of the treatment of European debt problems by every Government that has held office here. It would surely be a wanton and reckless act, in no way called for by anything that has occurred, for Mr. Snowden and bls party now to threaten to repudiate the principle upon which every forward step towards European

reconstruction and peace has been taken. If such a declaration were persisted in. and Europe were led to believe that the policy aimed at was to obtain larger payments of debts and reparations than were required for our payments to the United States the utmost . injury would be done not only to British interests but to the wider interests of world peace.” He believed Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would be speaking, later in the debate, and he asked him formally whether he accepted and endorsed the declaration of Mr. Snowden, and if it constituted the official policy of the Labour Party. No Apology to Mr. Snowden. Mr. Snowden, rising, said that he was surprised that any observations of his should be the subject of Cabinet discussion and the Cabinet memorandum presented to that House. He added: “I decline tq make any apology for what I said yesterday. I don’t intend to withdraw a single word of it. I must express my surprise at the prominence and attention that has been given to my remarks, for it was by no means the first time I have made that statement in the House of Commons.” He proceeded to say that the policy of the Labour Party regarding debt settlement had often been stated. It was that they would favour an all-round cancellation of debts and reparations, and that policy was, enunciated In the concluding sentences of Lord Balfour’s memorandum, which he proceeded to quote. It was not that part of the Balfour Note that he attacked yesterday. It was to the other part of the Note, that if an all-round cancellation could not be secured we should put the burden on ourselves for the benefit of our Continental neighbour, that the Labour Party were opposed and always had been opposed. The Labour Party had been taunted with being the friends of every country but their own. “I am sufficient of an Englishman,” declared Mr. Snowden, “not to be content to see my country and my people bled white for the benefit of other countries who are far more prosperous than ourselves.”

Mr; Snowden recalled the words he used yesterday and asserted that there was not a word there about repudiation of debt As to the circumstances which were likely to arise when they would hold themselves open to repudiate the conditions of the Balfour Note, did the Government think the present conditions in regard to international debt and reparations were likely to be permanent? Was there any man who thought the debt agreements which had been made were going to remain in force without change and without modification-for the next 60 years? An expert committee was sitting in Paris, and he contended that its members were just as much concerned with the question of inter-Allied debts as with the question of reparations. Statement Made on Spur of Moment. Mr. Snowden . said he had made his statement the previous night on the spur of.. the moment It was not a considered statement at all, but if he had had time to prepare a statement he did not think he could have, improved on that which he had made. Was it not the common practice, almost the daily practice, of the Foreign Ofiice to enter into communication with foreign Governments regarding the revision and amendment of treaties which had been found to inflict hardship, and was the practice of denouncing treaties altogether unknown? • It was perfectly absurd to say that an agreement entered into by one Government should be binding on future Governments to accept and to say that by negotiation it would not be changed. That was what he meant when he said that if circumstances arose when the Labour Party were in office and the question of the amendment or revision of the Allied debts arose, then they would consider themselves free to enter into negotiations to revise and alter the Balfour Note. REMARKABLE INTEREST , IN DEBATE NEW ELECTION ISSUE ORIGINAL' DECLARATION WATERED DOWN (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Australian Press Assn.—United Service. London, April 17. There is remarkable interest in the 'House of Commons debate as the outcome of Mr. Snowden’s declaration and much speculation in the lobbies as to the possible effect. Members on both sides assume that a new and definite election issue has suddenly arisen. Labour members retort that the Government is deliberately casting about for an “election stunt.” Mr. Snowden’s reply to the Government front bench .condemnation, while adhering to the original declaration, was watered down somewhat in the’ peroration when he said: “What I meant to say was that if circumstances arose when Labour was in office and the question of debts arose, they would consider themselyes free to negotiate to revise and alter the conditions.” In the course of the debate, Mr. Churchill, following Mr. Snowden, said that the country and the world bad a right to know Labour’s official view of the State’s plighted obligations. Mr. Snowden had said that Labour favoured the cancellation of all debts. How I

could he reconcile that . with the strident assertion that if it had Uie power it would insist on reclaiming more from ruined Europe than we had agreed to pay the United States? That was the point with which the Government asked Mr. MacDonald to deal. Ever since the Balfour Note was written Britain had been able to go to any international gathering with clean hands and conscience. Liberals’ Attitude. Mr. W. Runciman (L.) said that he did not desire to comment on the agreements. He wished only to make it clear as far as the Liberals were concerned that they would not depart from the doctrine of the continuity of contractual international obligations. Mr. W. Graham (Lab.) asked if any impartial member of the House of Commons could believe that the Balfour Note was the beginning and end ■>* the debt arrangements. If so, a large part of the industry of Europe, and particularly of Britain, was going to struggle face to face with the United States for the whole remainder of the century. No party should close the door against the cancellation of inter-Allied debts, however difficult its attainment. Mr. MacDonald Speaks. Mr. MacDonald, rising later, in the midst of wild Labour cheering, said that both Mr. Snowden and Mr. Thomas were given to taking adjectives from the mustard pot, and some of Mr. Snowden’s seemed to have developed into high party politics. As a result, Mr. Runciman felt called on to stand up, white as a sheet, and say: “Please, we do not belong to these publicans.” He hoped that this matter was not going to be made another stunt, as he presumed Mr. Churchill was trying to make it. There was an accusation that Labour, if elected to office, would not honour Britain’s signature. 1 None knew better than Sir Austen Chamberlain how little substance there was in the suggestion. Sir Austen: “I did not make any suggestion against you, but it is the only inference from Mr. Snowden s words.” Mr. MacDonald said that the suggestion was a gross injury and injustice to the Labour Party. If the Government wanted to make it a party cry, they were welcome. There was never any question of Labour repudiating agreements, except by a negotiated revision. Mr. Churchill, intervening, said that he was pleased Mr. MacDonald repudiated Mr. Snowden’s statement. Mr. MacDonald: “What Mr. Snowden said was that agreements were not sacred against revision. The Governm'ent has no right to go to the country on untrue statements. As long as lam Labour leader there will be no repudiation.” All that was in Mr. Snowden s mind was whether the conditions of the Balfour Note, when considered as a hardheaded business proposition, were not rather inimical to England. Labour’s position had been laid down most clearly again and again. Mr. MacDonald said that the party conference in 1923 passed a resolution “That this conference renews its repeated declaration that this country should adopt a generous attitude in the matter of the settlement of Allied debts as part of a general settlement of the reparations problem.” “That,” declared Mr. MacDonald, “is the policy of the party up to to-day. I said to-day and not to yesterday, and it will continue the policy of Labour after the election. Mr. Churchill Appeals to Labour Leader. Mr. Churchill, replying to the debate, said that he had hoped Mr. Snowden on the previous day had been guilty only of an inadvertence, yet to-day he reiterated the remarks deliberately. The point at issue was whether Labour accepted the view that agreements by a Government bound its successors. He understood that Mr. MacDonald completely dissociated the party from Mr. Snowden’s rejection of this principle. Mr. Churchill said that Mr. MacDonald had played a distinguished part in the appeasement of Europe and hoped to be re-entrusted with power. For the sake of European peace he would appeal to him to give a more loyal and faithful answer to the question put to him than Mr. Snowden had given. Mr. MacDonald said that he would deal with the general subject later. In the meantime he hoped that the Ministerialists would not descend into tubthumping and humbug about it. Mr. Churchill had deliberately encouraged bad blood and made things more difficult in order to make a mere electioneering point. Foreign Secretary Emphasises Gravity of Words. Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the Balfour Note for seven years had been before the world as an explicit statement of British policy on the subject of the Allied debts. Mr. Snowden had described it as an infamous declaration for Britain to ask no more from her Allies and ex-enemies together than was required to pay the United States. Sir Austen proceeded: “This is the basis of the financial reconstruction of Europe, the basis of the political structure of peace. This is not a question of tub-thumping. I am not going to use the language of the street corner. I say deliberately, as Foreign Secretary, that no worse day’s work has been done In any Parliament and no ■eater set-back caused to the progress already accomplished, or to what we hope to accomplish in the next few months, than Mr. Snowden’s rash words. I beg Mr. MacDonald, who has held the office and knows the difficulties and delicacies of the situation, to speak before the end of the debate some words of . reassurement to the world, to tell them that, whatever party is in office, England will keep her word, that the world may continue to have faith in our good name.” Foundation of European Settlement. Mr. Churchill said that the Note had been the foundation of decent relations of Britain with the’Governments of Europe, and was the underlying principle of every step taken to place the affairs of Europe on a more peaceful and solid basis. The principle was recognised by the reparations experts at present sitting in Paris. Mr. Snowden claimed that Labour represented peace and the true spirit of the League of Nations, yet he now deliberately said that Labour held itself free to repudiate agreements with France and Italy in order to extract larger sums from them. He used the term “bilking,” a slang expression of the gutter, to convey hatred am} contempt for the nation with whom we had the closest and most intimate personal relations. A Labour member: “No.” Mr. Churchill: Is it so, or is it not so? The House will insist on an answer.” Hr. McDonald made no attempt to reply. Mr. Churchill: “Secondly, did Labour accept the Balfour Note principle that we do not take from Europe more than enough to pay the United States ? I await an answer.” Mr. MacDonald remained in his seat. Mr. Churchill: “Have we come to this, that Mr. MacDonald does not dare to rise to reply? I commend to the country’s attention the fact that the

Labour Leader does not dare to answer a plain, simple question." A Labour member: “Mufesolini.” Mr. Churchill: “He sits there and does not dare to open his mouth.” The Budget resolutions were carried without division. LABOUR EXECUTIVE’S DECISION MUST SUPPORT MR. SNOWDEN ELECTION ATTITUDE (Rec. April 18, 8.55 p.m.) London, April 18. The “Daily Telegraph” says that opinion in the lobby at a late hour last night was the matter cannot, in view of Mr. Snowden’s insistence, be allowed to rest where it is. The “Morning Post’s” political writer says that during the dinner hour the Labour executive came to thp decision that it must support Mr. Snowden, though it agreed he had been indiscreet Accordingly the Labour election attitude will be that the Government made bad debt bargains, especially with Italy and France. Therefore, as soon as they come into power they will endeavour to revise these agreements. Ministerialists are delighted to hear of this decision. Conservatives and Liberals will both nght for honouring pledges given In the name of Britain. RUIN OF REPUTATION OF BRITAIN SIR ROBERT HORNE’S VIEW Australian Press Assn.—United Service. London, April 17. Speaking at Glasgow, Sir Robert Horne (C.), in vigorously/replying to Mr. Snowden’s speech regarding Britain’s debt policy, said that Mr.. Snowden’s proposals embodied not only the ruin of the reputation of Britain for keeping her bargains, but at the present moment would have the effect of upsetting the whole financial arrangements of Europe, and might cause a serious crisis in Britain’s relations with other countries. If Mr. Snowden was to be believed, the Labour Party was ready to overthrow the principles on which Britain’s financial relations, with the Allies were established, to rip up her agreement, and start on a new career as Europe's Shylock. MR. MACDONALD’S ASSURANCE CLEARS THE AIR SOMEWHAT (‘(Times” Cables.) (Rec. April 18, 11.15 p.m.) London, April 18. “The Times” political writer says the general feeling after Mr. MacDonald’s speech was that he had taken the only possible course in throwing Mr. Snowden overboard. Mr. MacDonald had earlier consulted the Labour Party executive,- for it was obvious that matters would have to be smoothed out if Mr. Snowden’s indiscretion was not to lead to an'electoral disaster in May. Mr. MacDonald’s subsequent assurance that in spite of -Mr. Snowden’s wild words there would be no repudiation somewhat cleared the air, but the general feeling was that Mr. t Snowden could not have been more indiscreet at a more unfortunate moment. OFFICIAL FRENCH VIEW RESTRAINED Australian Press Association. London, April 17. The "Daily Herald” editorially says: “The question must one day be reopened. If Mr. Snowden made that plain, he performed an international service.” Though the original statement was given prominence In the French Press, there is little comment. , “L’lnformation” says that it is persuaded that even if Mr. Snowden be again head of the Treasury, his viewpoint as Oppositionist will Immediately be transformed to that of a member of His Majesty’s Government. The official French view is likewise restrained.