EVENING POST. TUESDAY, OCTOBEK 13, 1931. A BISHOP'S JEREMIAD

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 90, 13 October 1931, Page 8

EVENING POST. TUESDAY, OCTOBEK 13, 1931. A BISHOP'S JEREMIAD

The extracts from the Bishop of Ripon's sermon at Leicester which were reported yesterday make very unpleasant reading, and the more so because insofar as they purport to be a statement of facts they are true. He described the present crisis as due in part to Britain's loss of an authority among the nations which once was regarded as indisputable. That authority, he said, had passed as far as Europe was concerned to a Power which in recent years had shown the narrowest vision, and seemed tho least likely to use her new supremacy in a selfless pacific manner. Perhaps if in 1923 we had stood up more boldly to our former Ally's iniquitous policy in the Ruhr, we should not now be in a position of virtual vassalage to her. That the effect of M. Poincare's action in sending a French army into the Ruhr Valley on the 10th January, 1923, on account of Germany's default in coal and wood deliveries under the reparations scheme was disastrous, does not admit of doubt. The inflammation of Germany's hatred of France to a pitch that it had never before reached since the War, the rebellion organised by Hitle:: in November, 1923, for the ,>woose of taking over the government »n Munich and marching on Berlin, and the fall of the mark in the same month to the value of 12,500,000,000 to the £ were among the fruits.of the French occupation. The distress of Germany and her hatred of France as the principal" cause which brought Hitler into prominence eight years ago are giving him another chance to-day. If With the aid of the Nazis who were singing "Deutschland Ueber Alles" in his honour on Sunday he succeeds in plunging fust Germany and then Europe into chaos, he should not forget to assign to M. Poincare's invasion of the Ruhr a reasonable share of the credit. But though British opinion to-day agrees with the Bishop of Ripori when he speaks of "our former Ally's iniquitous, policy in the Ruhr," that, as he implies, was not Britain's official attitude at the time. When the proposal was first mooted Mr. Bonar Law made no semblance of a protest. The British Government would decline, he said, to participate in the military occupation, nor did it think that this procedure- was likely to be effective. It was, however, in thorough agreement with the general principle of compelling Germany to pay her dobts, and had no desire to impede the Fronch efforts, oven though it felt doubtful as to their expediency. This was "non-co-operation," but not of the Gandhi type. It was really a benevolent neutrality, which did not question the "general principle" involved, but considered that the reparation payments enforced in this way would not cover the costs of collection. There was no moral weight in the statement of the British Government because it felt no moral disapproval, but, whatever it had done, it is highly improbable that France could have been deflected from her purpose. The Bishop was therefore wise in saying that "perhaps," not "probably," a bolder attitude on the part of the British Government might have kept the French out of the Ruhr. But, apart from this interesting but not very important point, the Bishop of Ripon's jeremiad is not open to serious cavil. Britain has lost the high authority which she once held among the nations. In Europe the lead has passed to France, which the Bishop correctly describes as si Power which in recent years had shown the narrowest vision, and seemed the least likely to use her new supremacy in a selfless pacific manner. France has become, the wealthiest Power in Europe, and the greatest military Power in Europe; and, if she does not aspire to become the greatest naval Power in Europe also, her naval programme, chiefly no doubt, as the result of her. rivalry with Italy, has already been carried so far as to suggest that Britain may have to exercise her option to exceed the limit fixed by the Three-Power Treaty which was the outcome of the Naval Conference in London last year. Yet with all her wealth, all her military power, all her military alliances, and her greatly-enlarged naval Power, and with her archenemy Germany almost completely down and out," France is still possessed by a feeling of insecurity, and is firmly convinced that it is not ambition but fear of the potential resources, of Germany that is dictating the continuous enlargement of her strength. Whether it is the insecurity or the ambition of France; that wrecks llic Disarmament Conference will be

of small concern lo a world which would be thereby plunged into another Armageddon. It is to the immense financial power of France and to the danger that it constitutes to the peace of Europe lhat recent events in Germany, in Britain, and in Central Europe have directed attention. From the London Conference, at which M. Laval had succeeded in emasculating the Hoover Plan, he returned to Paris as "the man who did not give way" with much of. the same eclat that Mr. Snowden brought back from the Hague Conference in 1929. In the "Observer" of the 26th July Mr. Garvin commented on the French attitude as follows:— Last week France was ready to join in giving full financial relief to tho Reich on the terms of a "second Versailles "involving political degradation. Though the conditions were not and could not be accepted by Chancellor Bruenirig—not to speak of President Hindenburg—France expects to receive Germ-ny's surrender in three months. The Paris Press asserts and believes that Britain and America can do nothing without France. The immense withdrawals of French money from the City of London last week were undoubtedly connected with the idea of making Britain feel that unless she conforms to French policy it will be tho worse for her. Britain never will conform to that policy. It is a question that may go far to alter the whole existing political situation in this country before next autumn is over. Referring to the negotiations which were to follow the London Conference, the Diplomatic Correspondent of the "Observer" wrote in the same issue as follows: — The matter of the gold drain from London to Paris is not regarded as a practical subject for discussion. Theoretically it is a matter of central banking co-oporation, but in practice the close liaison between tho Bank of France and tho Quai d'Orsay to some extent stultifies such co-operation. In every major diplomatic issue since 1929 (the first Hague Conference of 1929 ~ the London Naval Conference of 1930, the Seven-Power Conference of 1931) gold has been drained by Paria from London. The simple fact is that as a result of French, liquid wealth, itself due to the twin circumstaneo of the bulk of German reparation having been assigned to France and the bulk of the French debt to Great Britain having been remitted, France is rich enough to drain gold from London at will. It was, as we have said, on the I 27th July that these words appeared. A fortnight later Mr. Mac Donald's holiday at Lossiemouth was interrupted by a summons to London, and on the 25th August the National Government was formed to avert financial disaster. Before another month had passed there had been another big drain of gold from London to Paris and Britain came oft* the gold standard. A few days later the Paris correspondent of "The Times" reported : The re-entry of the pound sterling into the category of unstabilised currencies places France in a position of undisputed mastery in European a.fairs. And it is to be feared, as the Bishop of Ripon says, that France is not likely "to use her new supremacy in a selfless pacific manner." Not even in the War did Britain receive a more j urgent summons to national unity.