FLARE-UP IN BRITISH POLITICS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 641, 18 April 1929, Page 9

FLARE-UP IN BRITISH POLITICS

LABOUR’S POLICY CHALLENGED NEW ISSUE FOR GENERAL ELECTION (United P.A. —By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) • (United Service} Received 11.11 a.m. LONDON, Wednesday. SPEAKING at Glasgow, Sir Robert Horne, vigorously replying to Mr. Philip Snowden’s speech regarding Britain’s debt policy, said Mr. Snowden’s proposals embodied not only the ruin of the reputation of Britain for keeping bargain, but would at the present moment have the effectof upsetting the whole of the financial arrangements of Europe.

A LSO,' they might cause a serious j crisis in Britain’s relations with other countries. If Mr. Snowclen was to be believed, the Labour men w T ere 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 Europe’s Shylock. The Parliamentary correspondent of the “Morning Post” says he thinks that in an effort to be effective Mr. Snowden became reckless. He would never otherwise have slipped out the defiant remark, which astonished everybody. The statement made by Mr. Snowden in the House of Commons regarding Labour’s attitude toward - the Balfour Note took the House by surprise. Mr. Churchill hurriedly left the Chamber. When he returned it was evident that the Government order of speaking had been rearranged. A meeting of the Cabinet is to be held to consider measures to allay the inevitable alarm in foreign quarters, also to frame a proper reply to Mr. Snowden. MR. SNOWDEN’S SPEECH In his speech, Mr. Snowden said the country had been disillusioned about the earlier pronouncements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, in favour of economy. The new remissions of taxation merely represented another raiding of the sinking fund. No more scandalous transaction had ever been made by a British Minister than the settlement of the Continental debts to Britain, declared Mr Snowden. France had been allowed to repudiate four-fifths of her debt to Britain, notwithstanding the fact that since the war France had been the most prosperous country in Europe. The case of Italy was even worse. Britain had done for France and Italy what the United States had not done. The total debt ratified, agreed to or funded, amouned to £1,500,000,000, on which the taxpayer was paying 5 per cent, interest. Mr. Churchill had commuted those debts for £20,000,000 a year, while Britain was paying the United States £37,000,000 a year. The Labour Party had never subscribed to the policy of the Balfour Note (in which Britain undertook not to exact more from her debtors than she was required to pay America). “I think it was infamous,” said Mr. Snowden, “and we hold ourselves open, if circumstances arise, to repudiate the conditions of that Note.” The Chancellor interrupted Mr. Snowden to point out that the Balfour Note had embodied the agreements with France and Italy. It was a dangerous thing for a possible future Minister to use the word “repudiate” in that connection. Mr. Snowden said 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 who had regard for sound, just taxation and honest finance. COMMENTS ON BUDGET Sir Walter Runcimau, Liberal member for Swansea W&st, said the continuance of the high rate of interest which was hampering business was almost entirely due to Mr. Churchill’s dealings with the sinking fund, which had created new debt as fast as it wiped out the old one. The Chancellor’s dealings with the national finance would leave a mountain of embarrassment to his successor. Sir E. Hilton Young, Conservative member for Norwich, said that with the single exception of the United States the credit of Britain was the highest in the world. The Balfour Note was the foundation of the reconstruction of Europe. If they tore up these settlements the rates of exchange would again be thro-wn into the melting pot and further injure Britf'n’s foreign trade. Mr. F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, Labour member for -Leicester West, said the citizens of London were in no way 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 about the finances of the country.

NO WITHDRAWAL

MR. SNOWDEN AGAIN ON WARPATH “ENGLAND NOT TO BE BLED” British Official Wireless Reed. 11.55 a.m. RUGBY, Wednesday. In the course of the debate on the Bupdget, Sir Laming Worth-ington-Evans, Secretary for War, replied to the attack made yesterday by Mr. Philip Snowden upon the Allied debt settlement. TJEGARDING 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 pointed out that these were merely lump sums, the total of all the annual payments to be made year by year over a period of 62 years without any regard for the time of payment. He 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 a statement which Mr. Snowden made, that he and his party would, i| re-

turned 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 toward European reconstruction and peace has been taken. “If such a declaration were persisted in, and Europe were lead 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, hut to the wider interests of world peace.” He believed Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour leader, 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, rising, said he was surprised that any observations of his should be the subject of a Cabinet discussion aneft a Cabinet memorandum presented to that 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 that the policy of the Labour Party regarding debt settlement 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 the other part of the Note: That if an all-round cancellation could not be secured, we should put the burden on ourselves for the benefit of our Continental neighbour—that the Labour Party was 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 conditions of the Balfour Note, did the Government think the present conditions in regard to international debt and repa:\, ions were likely to be permanent? Was there any man who thought debt agreements which had been made were going to remain in force "without change, without modification, for the next 60 years? An expert committee was sitting in Paris, and lie contended that it was just as much concerned with the question of inter-Allied debts as with the question of reparations. He made his statement the previous night on the spur of the moment. It was not considered a statement at all, and if he had had time to prepare a statement, he did not think he could have improved on that which he had made. Was it not the common practice, almost the daily practice, of the Foreign Office, to enter into 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? It was perfectly absurd to say an agreement entered into by one Government should be binding on future Governments to accept, and never to say that by negotiation 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.

AN ELECTION ISSUE

REMARKABLE INTEREST IN DEBATE KEEN SPECULATION (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) Reed. 1 p.m. LONDON, Wednesday. There is remarkable interest in the Budget, Sir Laming Worthof Snowden’s declaration, and much speculation in the lobbies as to its possible effect. The members of both, sides assume that a new and definite election issue has suddenly arisen. Labour men retort that the Government is deliberately casting about for an election stunt. Mr. Snowden’s reply to Government front-bench condemnation, while adhering to his original declaration, was watered down somewhat. “What I meant to say was that if circumstances arose when Labour was in office and the question of debts arose, it would consider itself free to

negotiate, to revise, or to alter.” Mr. Ramsay MacDonald supported Mr. Snowden, declaring that he had merely enunciated the policy laid down by Labour in 1923, to the effect that England should adopt a generous attitude for the settlement of Allied debts. “That,” said Mr. MacDonald, *'i:> Labour’s policy up to to-day.” The “Daily Herald” editorially says the question must one day be reopened. If Mr. Snowden has made that plain, he has performed an international service. Though the original statement was given prominence in the French* Press, there is little comment. “L’lnformation” says it is persuaded that even if Mr. Snowden were again head cf the Treasury his viewpoint as an oppositionist would immediately be transformed to that of a member of his Majesty’s Government. The official French view is likewise restrained.

CHAMBERLAIN’S APPEAL

REQUEST TO LABOUR LEADER BRITAIN AND HER PLEDGES Reed. 1.30 p.m. LONDON, Wednesday The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill, following Mr. Snowden, said the country and the world had a 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 his strident assertion that, if he had the power, he would insist on reclaiming more from ruined Europe than we had agreed to pay to the United States? That was a point with which the Government had asked Mr. MacDonald to deal ever since the Balfour Note was written. Britain had been able to go to any international gathering with clean hands and a clean conscience. The Note had been the foundation of the decent relations of Britain with the Governments of Europe and the underlying principle of every step that had take place in the affairs of Europe, which were on a more peaceful and more solid basis. The principle also was recognised by the reparations experts at present sitting in Paris. Mr. Snowden claimed that Labour represented peace and the true spiyit of the League of Nations. Yet now he deliberately said that Labour held itself free to repudiate agreements with France and Italy, in order to extract larger sums from them. He used the term “bilking,” a slang expression from the gutter, to convey his hatred and contempt for a nation with which we were in the closest and most intimate personal relations. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain, said the Balfour Note was the basis of the financial reconstruction of Europe and the basis of the political structure of peace. “This is not a question of tubthumpthing. I am not going to use the language of the street corner. I say deliberately, as Foreign Secretary, that no worse day’s work has been done by any Parliament and no greater setback caused to the progress already accomplished or that we hope to accomplish in the next few months, than Mr. Snowden’s rash words.

“I beg Mr. MacDonald, who held office and who 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 it that whatever party is in office, England will keep her word, so that the world will continue to have faith in our good name.” Sir Walter Runciman (Liberal) said he did not desire to comment on the agreements. He wished only to make it clear, so far as the Liberals were concerned, that they would not depart fro mthe doctrine of continuity of contractual international obligations. Mr. William Graham (Labour): Could any impartial Commoner believe that the Balfour Note was the beginning and end of all the debt arrangements. Jf so, a large part of the industry of Europe, and particularly of Britain, is going to struggle with the United States for the -whole of the remainder of the century. No party should close the door against the cancellation of inter-AUied debts, however difficult its attainment.

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, rising later amidst wild Labour cheering, said that both Mr. Snowden and Mr. Thomas had given, and were taking, adjectives from the mustard pot. Some of Mr. Snowden’s seemed to have developed into high party politics. As a result. Sir Walter Runciman felt called on to stand up, -white as a sheet, and say: “Please, we do not belong to these publicans.” He hoped this matter was not going to be made another stunt, as he presumed Mr. Churchill was trying to make it.

“There is an accusation that Labour, if elected to office, will not honour Britain's signature. None knew better than Sir Austen Chamberlain how little substance there was in this suggestion.” Sir Austen Chamberlain: I have not made any suggestion you, but it is the only inference from Mr. Snowden’s words. Mr. MacDonald said 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 to do so. There never had been any question of Labour repudiating agreements, except by negotiated revision. Mr. Churchill, intervening, said he was pleased that 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 ho right to go to the country on untrue statements. As long as I am the Labour leader there will be no repudiation. All that is in Mr. Snowdens’ mind is whether the conditions of the Balfour Note, when they are considered as a hard-headed business proposition, were not rather inimical to England. Labour’s position had been laid down most clearly again and again. The party conference in 1923 passed a resolution: “The conference renews its repeated declaration that this country should adopt a generous attitude in the matter of the settlement of Allied debts, as part of the general settlement of the reparations problem.” That. Mr. MacDonald declared, is the policy of the party up to to-day. and said to-day. not yesterday, it will continue to be the policy of Labour after the election. Mr. Churchill, replying, said he had

hoped that Mr. Snowden on the previous day was only guilty of inadvertence. Yet to-day he had reiterated his remarks deliberately. The point of issue was whether Labour accepted the view that agreements by a Government bound jts successors. He understood that Mr. MacDonald had completely disassociated his party from Mr. Snowden’s rejection of this principle.

REPARATION DEMANDS

EXCESSIVE, GERMANS SAY (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) PARIS, Wednesday. In the course of a lengthy sitting of the Committee of Experts on Reparation to-day, it became apparent that Dr. Schacht, the chief German delegate, was of the opinion that the Allies’ demands were excessive. Finally Dr. Schacht made suggestions which he undertook to embody in a memorandum to be submitted to the committee. — r