ATTACK UPON BRITAIN

Taranaki Daily News, 1 April 1930, Page 9

ATTACK UPON BRITAIN

HEARST PRESS STRICTURES MR. MACDONALD QUESTIONED RESENTMENT IN ENGLAND By Telegraph—Prosa Assn. —Copyright. Rec. 5.5 p.m. London, March 30. Newspapers give prominence to an open letter to the Prime Minister, published in the Hearst Press in the United States, attacking Britain’s part in the Naval Conference and asking Mr. MacDonald whether he is the friend he pretends to be “or the slyest, trickiest diplomat that has come out of England since Earl Balfour sank the American Navy at the 1922 conference.” The Foreign Office declines to indicate the feel-, ing in official circles, but newspapers of every shade condemn the attack. The Sunday Times says Mr. MacDonald has critics here on other- issues, but he has the nation’s backing in his unwearying effort to achieve the success of the conference. The British jniblie would agree the strictures are reckless and blackguardly. The Daily Express hopes that Mr. MacDonald will not be deflected from his firmness against the embroilment of Britain in Mediterranean conflicts by the gale 'Hearst is blowing across the Atlantic. The Daily Herald says the attack is the culmination of the Hearst Press attempt to check progress towards naval disarmament. President Hoover, not Mr. Hearst, speaks for America. The United States delegation refuses to comment. NEGOTIATIONS BY DELEGATES. ATTEMPT TO BRIDGE THE GAP. British Wireless. Rugby, March 30 Although it is not yet dear whether any development in the Naval Conference will emerge from their efforts, delegates showed no disposition to relax their attention to problems before them during the week-end. The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, who lunched with M.-Briand on Saturday, afterwards had a long conversation with him which it was arranged to continue later. At the same time Signor Grandi was meeting Sena; tor Robinson and to-day he went to The Chequers, where he lunched and talked with the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. The latter came to London, to-night and will be present at to-morrow morning's meeting of the heads of all the delegations. Meanwhile the advisers of the British and French delegations have continued their informal meetings, at which they have jointly explored methods of circumventing the apparent deadlock which confronted the conference in its recent stages. The Chequers conversations were directed to obtaining the Italian viewpoint upon the conference’s attempt to bridge the gap between the somewhat vague phrasing -of Article 16 of the League Covenant and France’s definite demand for security.

The spokesman to-night emphasised that Britain was most anxious to improve the peace-keeping machinery, but further military commitments were absolutely impossible. While it was recognised that an attempt to find a formula satisfying France was extraordinarily difficult, there was always a possibility of obtaining a definition satisfactory to all concerned. Article 16 was being closely examined-