WHY FRANCE ADVANCED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18297, 13 January 1923, Page 9

WHY FRANCE ADVANCED.

I POINCAEE'S EXPLANATION. CHAMBER VOTES CONFIDENCE •'■'■ ■■''■■.', '■'.';'■ '■./: ' ?.': ■■' '.■'■ ' ''■■• •'•'■.'• ■'....■ ■ ' I DIFFERENCE WITH BRITAIN. ! ARBITRATION DECLINED By Telegraph— Association— Copyright. ', (Received 9.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. - PARIS, Jan. 11. M. Poincare, the French Prime Minister, in a speech to-day in the Chamber of Deputies, outlined the circumstances of the rupture with Great Britain at the Separation Conference, and received & vote of confidence by 478 to 86. On rising to speak, M. Poincare was greeted with an ovation. He said that France was standing up in defence of her rights. A series of defaults by Germany authorised the Allies or any ally to act. "We are compelling respect for, France and tho Versailles Treaty," said M. Poincare. " VVc are able to impose sanctions alone, but our Belgian friends wish to remain on our side."

M. Poincaro went on to '" argue that under Mr. Bonar Law's scheme Franc© would have risked finding that she would receive only 11,000,000,000 gold marks for reparations, whereas she had already advanced 100,000,000,000 gold marks ■on this account. Moreover, the British programme, with extraordinary imprudence, favoured the rapid re-establishment of Germany's industrial and commercial hegemony. With practically no internal foreign debt and with her reparation obligations reduced to 20,000,000,000 gold marks, Germany in 15 to 20 years would be able to extinguish her debt and leave France to carry the burden of her ruins and Britain her unemployment. The British programme proposed to establish the supremacy of Germany over the whole of Europe.

Referring to Mr. Bonar Law's proposal to submit the reparation differences to international arbitration, M. Poincare replied that no matter how powerful and honourable were international financiers, ho had no desire to have them arbitrate on differences between France and Britain.

M. Poincare made a bitter attack on Mr. Lloyd George, whom ho accused of trying to bring about war in the Near East. .

Concluding, he said : "Britain's absence will render productive guarantees less productive, but it is bettor to get a little than nothing at all. Who has been fooled, Britain or ourselves?"

When M. Poincare. concluded his speech, he demanded a vote of confidence. M. Blum (Socialist) protested against France's action as fraught with terrible consequences. This provoked angry expostulations. Members became so heated that the chairman was obliged to suspend the sitting. 4 ■

Upon the resumption, M. Erlich, an anti-Bolshevik, protested against French Communist* speaking in Essen. He suggested that they were in Germany's pay. M. Couturier threw a handful of coppers into M; Erlich's face, and called him the •'Communist : Judas." Renewed uproar resulted in a further suspension.- ''

When calm was restored; the interpellations were adjourned, and: a vote of confidence was passed in M. Poincare by 478 votes •to 86: v^' ■■"';■ :: ' ::r; ''" BELGIUM BEHIND FRANCE. STATEMENT BY PREMIER. Australian and N.Z. : Cable Association. (Reed. 10.5 p.mj NEW YORK, Jan. 11. , The Prime Minister of Belgium, M. Theunis, interviewed by the Brussels correspondent of the New York World, said that the French had decided to enter the Ruhr region in order to take guarantees and. pledges which France considered an indispensable, counterpart, of any moratorium to be granted to Germany. .The Belgian Government held the same opinion for it must have reparations and it was not possible to wait for them. This method of pressure was being employed because for years all conciliatory measures had failed. If reasonable proposals were made Belgium would be always ready to regard them favourably.