BRITAIN’S WORD

Southland Times, Issue 20663, 19 April 1929, Page 7

BRITAIN’S WORD

THE BALFOUR NOTE

PERTINENT QUESTION TO LABOUR PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED? MR MACDONALD SILENT “Does Labour accept the Balfour Note principle that we should not take from Europe more than we pay the United States?" was a question put to the leader of the British Labour Party, Mr Ramsay Macdonald, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Mr Macdonald remained silent. The debate precipitated by Mr Snowden created considerable interest, both in Britain and on the Continent, involving as it did the important question whether agreements made by one Government should be binding on future Governments.

(United Tress Assn. —By Telegraph—Copyright.)

London, April 17.

In the course of the debate on the Budget, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans replied to the attack made yesterday by Mr Philip Snowden upon the Allied Debt settlement.

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 Laming Worthington-Evans stated, 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 Laming 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. Wc 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 from 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 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. Mr Snowden’s Reply. Mr Snowden, on rising, said he was surprised that any observations of his would be subject to Cabinet discussion and that a Cabinet memorandum should be presented to the House. He added: “I decline to make any apology for what I said yesterday. 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 to say that the policy of the Labour Party regarding debt settlement, and it had often been stated, was that they would favour all-round cancellation of debts and reparations, and that policy was enunciated in the concluding sentences of Lord Balfours memorandum, which he proceeded to quote. It was not that part of Ixtrd Balfour’s Note that he attacked yesterday. It was to the other part of the Note, that if allround cancellation could not be secured we should put a burden on ourselves for the benefit of our Continental neighbours, that the Labour Party were opposed, and always had been opposed. The Labour Party had been taunted with being the friends of every 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 that 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 condition 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, without modification, for the next 60 years? Not A Considered Statement. The expert committee was sitting in Paris and he contended that they were just as much concerned with the question of interAllied debts as with the question of reparations. He made bis statement 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 a statement, he did not think he could have improved on that which be had made. Was it not the common practice, almost the daily practice, of the Foreign Office to enter into communication with foreign governments regarding the revision and amendment of treaties which had been found to inflict hardship ? Was the practice of denouncing treaties altogether unknown ? It was perfectly absurd to say that any agreement entered into by one Government should be binding on future Governments to accept, and never to say that by negotiations it could not 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 and alter the Balfour Note. Britain’s Clear Conscience. Mr Churchill, following Mr Snowden, said that the country and the world had the right to know Labour’s official view of States plighted to obligations. Mr Snowden said that Labour favoured the cancellation of all the debts. How could he reconciliate 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.

Proceeding, Mr Churchill said: The note has been the foundation oLrecent relations between Britain and the governments of Europe, and the underlying principle of every step taken to place the affairs of Europe on a more peaceful and more solid basis. The principle is recognized by the reparations experts at present sitting in Paris. Mr Snowden claimed that Labour

represented peace and the true spirit of the League of Nations; yet now he has deliberately said that Labour holds itself free to repudiate agreements with France and Italy in order to extract larger sums from them. He used terms the “Bilking—a slang expression from the gutter —to convey hatred and contempt, for the nation with which we have the closest and most intimate personal relations. Mr Churchill added that Mr Macdonald had played a distinguished part in the appeasement of Europe and he hoped to be again entrusted with power. “For the sake of European peace,” said Mr Churchill, “I appeal to him to give a more loyal, more faithful, answer to the question put to him than Mr Snowden has given.” Mr Macdonald said he would deal with the general subject, later. In the meantime he hoped Ministerialists would not descend to tub-thumping humbug about it. Mr Churchill had deliberately encouraged bad blood and made things more difficult in order to make a mere electioneering point. Foreign Secretary’s Appeal. Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the Balfour Note for seven years had been before the world as an explicit statement of the British policy on the subject of Allied debts. Mr Snowden had described as infamous the declaration that Britain should ask no more from her Allies and from her enemies together than she was required to pay' to the United States. Sir Austen Chamberlain continued: “This is the basis of the financial reconstruction of Europe and the basis of the political reconstruction of peace. This is not. a question for tubthumping. I am not going to use language of the street corner. I say deliberately as Foreign Secretary that no worse day’s work has been done in any Parliament and no greater setback caused to the progress we have already accomplished, or hope to accomplish in the next few months, than Mr Snowden’s rash words. I beg Mr Macdonald, who has held office and knows the difficulties and delicacies of the situation, to speak before the end of the debate some words of reassurement to the world to tell them that whatever party is in office England will keep her word so that the world may continue to have faith in our good name.”

The Hon. Walter Runciman (Liberal) said he did not desire to comment on the agreements. He wished only to make clear that as far as the Liberals were concerned they would not. depart from the doctrine of continuity of contractual international obligations. Mr Graham asked whether any impartial member of the House of Commons believed that the Balfour Note was the beginning and end of tho debt arrangements. If so a large part of the industry of Europe, particularly Britain, was going to struggle with its vis-a-vis, the United States, for the whole remainder of the century'. No party should close the door against the cancellation of inter-Allied debts, however difficult its attainment. "Mustard Pot” Adjectives. Mr Macdonald, rising later, midst wild Labour cheering, said that both Mr Snowden and Mr J. H. Thomas were given to taking adjectives from the mustard pot. Some of Mr Snowden’s seemed to have developed into high party politics, and as a result Mr Runciman felt, called on to stand up as white as a sheet and say, “Please, we do not belong to these publicans.” He hoped that this matter was not going to be made another stunt as he presumed Mr Churchill was trying to make it. There was the accusation that if Labour were elected to office it would not honour Britain’s signature. None knew better than Sir Austen Chamberlain how little substance was in the suggestion. Sir Austen Chamberlain: I did not make any suggestion against you, but it is the only inference from Mr Snowden’s words. Mr Macdonald said that the suggestion was a gross injury and injustice to the Labour Party. If the Government wanted to make it a party cry it was welcome. There was never any question of Labour repudiating agreements except by negotiated revision.

Mr Churchill, intervening, said he was pleased Mr Macdonald had repudiated Mr Snowden’s statement. Mr Macdonald: What Mr Snowden said was that agreements were not sacred against revision. The Government has no right to go to the country on untrue statements. So long as I am Labour leader there will be no repudiation. All that is in Mr Snowden's mind is whether the conditions of the Balfour Note, when considered as a hardheaded business proposition, are not. rather inimical to England. Labour’s position has been laid down most clearly again and again.

Mr Macdonald added that the party conference in 1923 adopted the following resolution: "This conference renews its re|>eated declaration that this country should adopt a generous attitude in the matter of the settlement of Allied debts as part of a general settlement of the reparations problem.” "That,” declared Mr Macdonald, "is the policy of the party up to to-day. I said to to-day, not to yesterday. It will continue to be the |«>licy of Labour after the election.” The Point at Issue. Mr Churchill, replying to the debate, said he had hoped Mr Snowden on the previous day was only guilty of inadvertence, yet to-day he reiterated his remarks deliberately. The point, at issue was whether Labour accepted the view that agreements by a Government bound its successors. He understood Mr Macdonald completely dissociated party from Mr Snowden’s rejection of this principle. A Labourite: No! Mr Churchill: If it is not so the House should insist on an answer. Mr Macdonald did not attempt to reply and Mr Churchill asked a second time: “Docs Labour accept the Balfour Note principle that we should not take from Europe more than we pay the United States. I await an answer.” Mr Macdonald remained in his seat. Mr Churchill: We have come to this: Mr Macdonald does not dare to rise in reply. I commend to the country’s attention the fact that the Labour leader does not dare to answer a plain, simple question. A Labourite: Mussolini! Mr Churchill: He sits there and does not dare to open his mouth. The Budget resolutions were carried without division. —Australian Press Association —United Service. GREAT INTEREST AROUSED. POSSIBLE EFFECT DISCUSSED. RESTRAINED FRENCH VIEW. London, April 17. There is remarkable interest in the House of Commons debate which was the outcome of Mr. Philip Snowden’s declaration and there is much speculation in the lobbies as to its possible effect. Members of 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 in his reply to the Government, while adhering to his original declaration, is' regarded to have watered down somewhat his peroration. He said: “What I meant to say was that if circumstances arose when Labour were in office and the question of debts arose they would consider themselves free to negotiate to revise or alter." Mr. Ramsay Macdonald supported Mr. Snowden, declaring that the 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,' was Labour’s policy up to today.

The Daily Herald editorially states that 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 was little comment.’ Information says that it is

persuaded that even if Mr. Snowden was against the head of the Treasury his viewpoint ao an oppositionist would immediately be transformed into that of a member of his Majesty’s Government. The official French view is likewise restrained.

GOVERNMENTS POLICY DEFENDED.

SIR ROBERT HORNE’S REPLY. London, April 17. Speaking at Glasgow Sir Robert Horne 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 they would have the effect of upsetting the whole financial arrangement of Europe and might cause a serious crisis in Britain’s relations with other countries. If Mr. Snowden could be believed the Labourites were ready to overthrow principles on which Britain’s financial relations with the Allies were established and to rip up her agreement and start a new career as Europe’s Shy lock.—Australian Press Association.—United. SUPPORT FOR MR SNOWDEN. LABOUR EXECUTIVE’S DECISION. (Rec. 5.55 p.m.) London, April 18. The Daily Telegraph says that opinion in the lobby at a late hour last night was that the matter cannot, in view of Mr Snowden’s insistence, be allowed to rest where it is. The political writer of the Morning Post says that during the dinner hour the Labour Executive came to the decision that it must support Mr Snowden, though it is agreed that he has been indiscreet. Accordingly the Labour election attitude will be that the Government made bad debt bargains, especially with Italy and France. Therefore, as soon as they come into power they will endeavour to revise these agreements. Ministerialists are delighted to hear of this decision. Conservatives and Liberals will both fight for honouring the pledges given in the name of Britain. —Australian Press Association. MR SNOWDEN’S INDISCRETION. UNFORTUNATE MOMENT CHOSEN. (Rec. 11.15 p.m.) London, April IS. The political writer of The Times says that the general feeling after Mr Macdonald’s speech was that he has taken the only possible course in throwing Mr Snowden overboard. Mr Macdonald earlier consulted the Labour Party executive, for it was obvious that matters would have to be smoothed out if Mr Snowden’s indiscretion was not to lead to an electoral disaster in May. Mr Macdonald’s subsequent assurance that in spite of Mr Snowden’s wild words there would be no repudiation, somewhat cleared the air, but the general feeling was that Mr Snowden could not have been more indiscreet at a more unfortunate moment.—Tinies Cable.