WAR DEBTS SETTLEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20708, 4 May 1929, Page 13

WAR DEBTS SETTLEMENT

THE BALFOUR MEMORANDUM. HOUSE OF LORDS’ APPROVAL. LABOUR AMENDMENT DEFEATED. (British Official Wireless.) (United Press association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, May 2. In the House of Lords the Earl of Birkenhead (Conservative) called attention to the subject of war debts, and moved—“ That this House approves of the principle of the Balfour memorandum.” He said he had reached the conclusion that the measures which were related to his motion required very earnest consideration from the British Parliament and from the parliamentary assemblies of other countries. In the Balfour memorandum—which was acclaimed as a masterly State document by every Liberal and Conservative mem ber of the Coalition Cabinet—the gesture made for the cancellation of war debts. / It was said that as a result of the war £2,000,000,000 was owing to us from our late Allies, while bur debt to the United States roughly was some £900,000,000. Those figures required very considerable revision. When one talked of £2,000,000,000 it must be remembered .that ■ one-third of that sum was owing to us from Russia. That nation had repudiated completely that debt. Defending Mr Churchill’s conduct of the. financial negotiations with France and Italy, the Earl of Birkenhead" declared that Mr Churchill had made the best terms conceivably obtainable. It was the object of all of us to make a gener oils debt settlement, and at the safne time the measure of the concessions which we" could make was limited by the economic and financial resources of the nations with whom we were dealing. France had not emerged from the many difficulties which pressed upon her when our negotiations with her reached a decisive stage, and it might be that were such negotiations to be resumed to-day something slightly better might be obtained. Take the case of Italy. She was a country which, though politically of the, greatest possible consequence in Europe, was one which economically was not rich, and there were well-understood limits recognised by all the authorities on international finance to the contributions which Italy could make. No one who dispassionately considered the position of Italy could have thought it proper tp have asked more of Italy than we did ask. The Earl of Birkenhead agreed that we had paid and were paying the United States on a scale which tho late Mr Bonar Law had hardly exaggerated in describing as a scale which would affect our standards of living for generations, but we had some compensations. There was hardly anyone who believed in the year 1918 that British finance could retain for London the control of the finance of the world. Never could that result have been . attained unless the golden and indispensable "asset of British credit had been retained. If the settlement, with the United States had not taken place our national supremacy would have passed elsewhere. Broken as we had been by war, we were still to-day the financial centre of the world. We should take a great aud high hope from that circumstance. Let them consider how far the Balfour memorandum had contributed to it. It made a .twofold contribution. One was material, r blit the more important one was moral. We said to the whole world, just as- business proposition, that if our creditors -would forgive us our debts —though those who owed us money were far more numerous than those to whom we owed money—we would wipe out the whole account. A more generous offer had never been made by any country. in the history of the world. The Earl of Birkenhead referred to the. attack recently made upon the Balfour memorandum by Mr Philip .Snowden (who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government). He also referred to the terms of the amendment to his motion, which was to be proposed by Lord Parmoor on behalf ot the Labour Party. He noted that Lord Parmoor’s amendment approved of the principle of the Balfour memorandum. While regretting that the settlement made by the Conservative Government imposed unfair burdens upon the British taxpayers, he asked Lord Parmoor to say it was not the purpose of the Labour Party to attempt to impair the l authority of the Balfour memorandum, upon which depended every financial arrangement which had since been made in Europe. To repudiate that memorandum would inflict a grievous and irreparable wound upon the reputation of this country. He himself had a deep responsibility for the memorandum. He was a member of the Cabinet which adopted it, and nt would regard the time when this momen toua financial decision was taken as one of the supreme momenta of his public life. Lord Parmoor, in moving his amend raent, said the Labour Party had con sistently adopted and followed what it regarded as the leading principle of the Balfour Note. The Earl of Birkenhead asked '.ord Parmoor if he associated, him?elf with the epithet “ infamous ” applied by Mr Snowden to the Balfour Note. Lord Parmoor replied quite frankly that he did not like it. Lord Parmoor proceeded to criticise certain aspects of the debt settlements. The Marquess of Salisbury congratulated Lord Parmoor upon having dissociated himself from the word “ repudiation” and the word “infamous,” which figured in Mr Snowden’s observa lions on the Balfour Note. Lord Parmoor’s amendment was rejected by 89 votes to six, and the Eari of Birkenhead’s motion was agreed to.