THE BRITISH REPLY.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15313, 14 August 1923, Page 4

THE BRITISH REPLY.

The text of the British reply to Prance and Belgium, defining Britain’s attitude upon the question of German reparations and French occupation of the Ruhr, sets out in courteous but unmistakable terms the wide divergence between British and French opinion upon these subjects. It further explains that Britain hitherto has refrained from contesting the legality of the Ruhr occupation solely from a desire not to embarrass the other Allies, and that even at this stage Britain would not have taken up the question had she not been challenged to do so. It is pointed out that in all the negotiations which 'have taken place Britain’s main object has been the preparation of a joint Allied reply to Germany, so that nothing might be done to prejudice the continuation of unity among the Allies. This principle France, in her replies, has ignored altogether, whilst the Belgian Government’s acceptance of it was made conditional upon terms giving an altogether inequitable priority to Belgian and French claims upon reparation payments, going far beyond the shares fixed at the Spa Conference, when the payment Germany was expected to make was infinitely greater than anyone to-day supposes she Is capable of. The unfairness of the French and Belgian attitude in practically seeking full compensation for land damage to their countries, to the exclusion of other forms of damage sustained by the remainder of the Allies, is pointed out; and attention is drawn to the fact that strangulation by France and Belgium of Germany’s capacity to pay must be grievously detrimental to the interests of the other Allies, inasmuch as it practically nullifies their chances of obtaining anything -at all from Germany. A separate memorandum regarding inter-Allied debts sets out that any former discussion regarding mitigation of France’s debt to Britain must not bo interpreted as a waiver of Britain’s right to expect France to honour her Treasury bills, and that the practice of adding Interest to capital cannot continue indefinitely. In face of the refusal by France and Belgium hitherto to consider any other points of view than their own, it is rather amazing that the heavilyburdened British taxpayer has not insisted long ago that this aspect should be impressed upon French consciousness. What the outcome of thg British reply as a whole will be no one upon this side of the world can predict with much certainty. It seems likely, however, that the Entente, which for some time past has continued in name I’ather than in fact, may in the not distant future reach the stage of official dissolution. No threat to this effect is expressed or imp Lied in the wording of the British reply, but the divergence of views revealed therein is so hopelessly wide that any other conclusion appears impossible.