Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1924. LABOURS "FRANK TALKS"

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1924, Page 4

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1924. LABOURS "FRANK TALKS"

Six members of the British Ministry, including Mr. Ramsay Macdonald himself, have resigned their membership of the Labour International. As a conflict might easily have arisen between their obligations in that capacity and those of their new position as trustees for the nation, they have done the right thing in recognising that they cannot serve two masters, and that, so long as 'their official trust continues, their country is entitled to preference. But Mr. Macdonald and one of his colleagues have at the same time internationalised themselves, in another fashion which, though very much less objectionable, has nevertheless serious disadvantages. In one foreign newspaper the Prime Minister, and in another the Chancellor of the Exchequer,- have been dealing with . foreign policy, and, before Cabinet has had a chance of considering the issues except in the most perfunctory fashion, proclaiming what are now something much more than their mere personal opinions. In a French paper Mr. Ramsay Macdonald has expounded the "reasons for the widely prevalent irritation felt by the English people against France." In an Austrian paper Mr. Snowden has covered the whole field of foreign policy, speaking not for, himself but for the whole Labour Party; and while the present Government lasts the views of the Labour Party must, of course, be identified with those of the whole nation. Though it cannot be said that either of the Ministers who have distinguished the opening of the Labour regime by this unconventional diplomacy have done any serious mischief, it is obvious that the method is a very risky one. The reaction from the days of secret treaties will lead us too far if it encourages the substitution of what may be called the drnlomacy of the housetops for the old-fash-ioned, methods which recognised the necessity .at certain stages of quiet and non-committal,. and therefore secret, negotiation. Lord Curzon is really a better model in this respect than Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Snowden's article in . the,"Neve Freie Presse" was the more far-reaching of the two Ministerial utterances on foreign policy, but except on one j)oint it ! was too general to be a likely source of trouble. The article is said to express' "the Labour Party's aversion to alliances and policies of equilibrium, and demands a world disarmament based on universal agreement." We should all be delighted to see this all-round disarmament brought about, and it will be interesting to see what practical step towardribhe ideal the party will be' able to take without endangering the slight advance already made. .. Mr. Snowden also says that the Labour Party "advocates a ough revision of the Peace Treaties as indispensable to the appeasement and economic reconstruction of Europe, which demands an immediate and generous settlement of reparations and the mutual cancellation of inter-Allied debts." The bulk of this programme is excellent in theory, but how a single inch of it is to be realised in face of the inflexible opposition of Fr-ance remains to be seen. The pact of the programme which is not excellent is the only part which France is. likely to accept. She would, of course, jump at the proposal for "the mutual cancellation of inter-Allied debts."- It is a case in which the reciprocity is all on one side. The Allies' indebtedness to Britain amounts to £1,725,000,----000, and against that she ' owes about half that amount to America. But America is not an Ally, and after she had rejected with indignation the British suggestion of the mutual cancellation of all these debts, Britain alone of the Powers set about paying what she owed W America, her contribution last year being over £30,000,000. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer pro- , pose to reopen that arrangement ? or will he make the Alließ a present without compensation of the £1,725,000,000 which they owe to Britain ? France might even be induced to say- " Thank you" if her own share of the total, which amounts to £515,000,000, was forgiven on these terms. It would at , least save her the trouble of the repudiation at which M. Poincare has more than once hinted. Mr. Macdonald.'s statement, which took the more dangerous form of an interview, was confined ,to "a frank talk with France" on 'reparations and the Ruhr. He claimed, as we have said, to speak for the nation, and'to the substance of what he said there is little, if any, exception to be taken. The only question is whether, in view of the perilous position of the Entente, the ' combination of selfassertion and reconciliation at which he aims would not have had a better chance if he had, set to work in a more conventional way. Mr. Macdonald can certainly rely upon the support of Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Asquith, and indeed of everybody but the Conservative Diehards, when he says'' that the occupation of the Ruhr is resented by the nation as v "principal cause* oi Britain's qcofiQmis d.iatres3 4 ". jiud of the unset-

tlement of Europe, and that people are "beginning to ask whether alliances should be sought elsewhere." The force of the last remark is unfortunately weakened by the necessary admission that "Labourites do not believe that armaments and alliances make for■ security." Mr. G. P. Gooch's prediction of an Anglo-American-German Entente may, however, suggest to France that, even without an alliance, a very powerful organisation may be formed against her if she insists upon following in the footsteps of Prussia.