THE RUHR OCCUPATION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 286, 19 November 1923, Page 4

THE RUHR OCCUPATION.

Continuing his address to th© Conference delegates. Mr Baldwin went on to state that the French and Belgian Governments decided to seize and exploit the Ruhr Valley, and they claimed that, Germany having been reported in voluntary default by the Reparation Commission, they were entitled to do this under th© Treaty of Versailles. Although we out here, at least, heard nothing at the time of the British Government questioning the “legality” of this movement the present Prime Minister says that on this point Great Britain “could not share” the FrancoBelgian view, and were, moreover, convinced that such action could not but prejudice the prospects of the Allies ultimately securing the bulk of reparation. The French and Belgian Governments, however, with the acquiescence, though not very active support,, of the Italian Government—the Italian Government. under Mussolini..is reported to-day as assuming a more decided and quite different attitude—proceeded to put their plan into execution. His Majesty’s Government decided that,, being convinced of th© inexpediency of' such action, they could take no part in th© execution of the Franco-Belgian measures. The German Government, refusing to recognise the legality of the occupation, ordered and organised passive resistance, which, in its turn, called forth ever stronger measures on the part of the occupying authorities. Then, in spit© of our recent wartime alliance with France, which alone averted a final and disastrous German victory. Mr, Baldwin seems to have deemed it necessary to establish a “strict neutrality” on Britain’s part as between th© two. The Government, he said, had no easy task, while remaining under the Treaty in occupation of part of the Rhineland, in cardying out ‘‘-their policy of neitner helping nor hindering the action of their Allies,” but they dared to hope that they had succeeded in the main in maintaining an attitude of strict neutrality. Of the Notes which had been exchanged between the British and French Governments since the January conference he said that they had more and more revealed “an honest divergence of opinion as to the best method of obtaining reparation and of advancing the cause of permanent peace in Europe. That divergence reflects differences of temperament and cutlook between the two nations which it would bo foolish to .ignore. but the last twenty years have shown that they are not incompatible with whole-hearted cooperation in the face of grave danger.” It is about seven weeks since these words were spoken, but to-day’s cable news does not indicate that the differences ar c any the less acute or in the way of being