WAR DEBTS PACT

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1929, Page 5

WAR DEBTS PACT

LABOUR LEADER’S WARNING

REPUDIATION PROPOSED (Australian Press Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) LONDON, April 16. In the House of Commons, in the Budget, Mr Philip Snowden (Labour) said: —“We have never subscribed to the policy of the Balfour “Note.” I think that it was infamous, and we hold. ourselves open, if circumstances arise, to repudiate the conditions of that Note.”

Mr Churchill, interrupting Mr Snowden, pointed out that the Balfour Note embodied agreements with France and Italy. It was a dangerous thing for a possible future Minister to use the words “repudiation” in this connection.

Mr Snowden said that he did not subscribe to the doctrine that an agreement made by one Government bound every succeeding Government. The Budget was barefaced bribery. Mr Churchill had lowered the .national credit, and his dismissal would be welcomed by men of all parties, having regard to sound and just taxation and honest finance.

Sir R. Home congratulated Mr Churchill, on giving such relief to the taxpayers from such a narrow margin of surplus. '.The relations of direct to indirect taxation was now 60/40. Out of twenty-seven million voters, two and a-quarter millions bore upwards of half the total taxation. Sir W. Runciman said the continuance of high interest, which was hampering business, was almost entirely due to Mr Churchill’s dealings with the sinking fund, which had created a new debt as fast as it wiped out the old. His dealings with national finance would leave a mountain of embarrassment to his successor.

Sir Hilton Young said that with the single exception of the United States, British credit was the highest in the world. The Balfour Note was the foundation of the reconstruction of Europe. If they tore up these settlements, exchanges would again be thrown into the melting pot, and further injure our foreign trade. Mr Pethick Lawrence said the City of London was in no wise deceived by Mr Churchill’s wanglings and devices. The people would be thankful to get rid of the man who had consistently thrown dust in their eyes, regarding the finances of the country.

CABINET CONSIDERATION.

LONDON, April 16.

Mr Philip Snowden’s statement in the House of Commons regarding Labour’s attitude towards the “Balfour Note” (in which Britain undertook not to exact more from her debtors thfßn was required to pay America) took the House bv surprise. Mr Churchill hurriedly left the chamber. When he returned, it was evident that the Government members’ order of speaking had been rearranged. A Cabinet meeting will be held to consider measures to allay inevitable alarm in foreign quarters, and also the proper reply to be made to-night. The “Morning Post’s” Parliamentary writer thinks that in an effort to be effective, Mr Snowden became reckless or he would never otherwise have slipped out a defiant remark which, the correspondent asserts astonished everybody.

EUROPEAN CRISIS.

MINISTER’S GRAVE STATEMENT.

(Recd. Apfril 18, 1 u.m.)' RUGBY, April 1,7. In the course of the debate on the Budget, Sir L. Worthington Evans (War Minister) replied to tne 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 L. Worthington Evans pointed out that these were merely lump sums, the total of all annual payments to be made year by year, over a period of 62 years, without any regard for the time of payment. Sir L. Worthington-Evans 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 his 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 the wider interests of world peace.” He believed that Mr Ramsay MacDonald was 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 WITHDRAWAL. Mr Snowden, rising, said he was surprised that any observations of his should be 'the subject of Cabinet discussion and a Cabinet memorandum presented to that House. He added . _ decline to make any apology for what I said yestbrday. 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 continued that the policy of the Labour Party regarding debt settle-

ment 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 the all-round cancellation could not be secured, we should put a burden on ourselves for the benefit of our Con-, tinental neighbours, that Labour were opposed and always had been opposed. The Labour Party had been taunted with being friends ofevery 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.” He recalled the words he used yesterday, and asserted 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? The Expert Committee were sitting in ‘Paris, and he contended that they were just as much concerned with the question of inter-Allied debts as with the question of reparations. He made his statement on the previous night on the spur of the moment. It was not a considered statement at all, and if he had had time to prepare the statement, he did not think he could have improved on that which he had made. Was it not a common practice, an almost daily practice of Foreign Office, to enter communication with foreign governments regarding revision and amendment of treaties which had been found to inflict hardship, and was the practice of denouncing treaties altogether unknown. was perfectly absurd to say that an agreement entered into by one government should be binding on future governments to accept, and never to say that by negotiations, it could

be changed. That was what he meant when he said that if circumstances arose when the Labour Party was in office, and the question of amendment or revision of Allied debts arose, then they would consider themselves free to enter into negotiations to revise the Balfour Note. MR CHURCHILL’S QUERY. Mr Churchill, following Mr Snowden, said the country and the world had the 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 could he reconcile that with the strident assertion that if he had the power, he 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 had been written, Britain had been able to go to any international gathering with clean hands and conscience. ■ EFFECT ON ELECTIONS (Recd. April 18, 2 p.m.) LONDON, April 17. There was remarkable interest in the Commons debate as the outcome of Mr Snowden’s declaration. There was much speculation in the lobbies as to the possible effect. Members on both sides assume that a new definite election issue has suddenly arisen. The Labourites 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, is regarded to have watered down somewhat his peroration.

Mr Macdonald supported Mr Snowden, declaring that he merely enunciated the policy laid down by Labour in 1923, to the effect that England should adopt a generous attitude regarding the settlement of Allied debts. “That,” said Mr Macdonald, “is Labour’s policy up to to-day.”

The “Daily Herald” (Labour) editorially states: “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. “Li Information” says it is persuaded that even if Mr Snowden again heads the Treasury, his viewpoint as oppositionist will immediately be transformed into that of a member of His Majesty’s Government. The official French view is likewise restrained. STRONG DENUNCIATION. LONDON, April 17. Speaking at Glasgow, Sir Robert Horne (ex-Chancellor), vigorously replying to Mr Snowden’s speech of last night regarding Britain’s debt policy, said that Mr Snowden’s proposals embodied not only the ruin of the reputation of Britain for keeping bargains, but at the present moment would have the effect, of upsetting the whole financial arrangement in Europe and might cause a serious crisis with Britain’s relations with other countries. If Mr Snowden was to be believed, the Labourites were ready to overthrow the principles on which Britain’s financial relations, with the Allies were established, to rip up her agreement, and start a new career as Shylock. i