BRITAIN’S REPLY.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 August 1923, Page 2

BRITAIN’S REPLY.

DRAFT OF NOTE. (Received this day at 9.0 a.in.) LONDON, Aug. 12. The British Reply commences by expressing the disappointment caused to the Government, by the replies received lrom the French and Belgian Governments. With those notes was submitted a draft of the joint Allied answer, which Government proposed should be sent to the German memorandum of June 7th. The proposal represented an earnest- effort to indicate a practical way of answering as promptly as possible, a. final settlement: of the question of German reparations. Government understood, in the opinion of the French and Belgian Governments, two main obstacles in the way of any fresh move in seeking settlement were, firstly, the necessity for scrupulously report ing the rights of the Reparations Commission; secondly, the attitude of the German Government in encouraging passive resistance in Ruhr. With both these questions, therefore, the Government proposed in the suggested reply to deal in a manner which they confidently expected would coniine ml itself to their Allies. How completely they had been disappointed in these expectations was made manifest by the contents of the notes wherein the French and Belgian Governments replied. The reply seemed all the more necessary since in its desire to avoid a controversy at a critical phase, Government refrained from sending any rejoinder to the ohervntions which the French and Belgian Governments communicated over a month ago in reply to the questionnire. Sooner than embark on a controversy, the Government preferred action under which the proposed suggested enquiry into Germany’s capacity to pay should he conducted, within the framework of treaty, and that the German Government he called to withdraw orders and measures enjoining passive resistance. Furthermore. in order to comply with the declared objections of French and Belgian Allies to any specific bargain on this point, the British proposals were restricted to intimations that if the German Government abandoned passive resistance without- delay, not only would this ho regarded as evidence of good faith, hut would involve reconsideration by the occupying powers of the conditions of their occupation and gradual return to the normal features of industrial life in Ruhr. It was difficult to think in what way greater consideration could be shown to the Franco-Belgian viewpoint. The reception, however, which had been accorded to these proposals by the French and Belgian Governments in their replies, leaves His Muiesty s Government. notwithstanding the terms ol cotirtesv employed, to lielicve that neither are their suggestions welcomed by the Allies, nor is their offered coot ■'* rat ion hold to merit consideration, except on rood;--- *>•••* "o departure be made from any one particular form whatever France and Belgium declare to la* their over-riding views and decisions. It is true the Belgian reply appears at first sight to be less uncompromising than the French note, but a closer examination had shown the attitude of two Governments in all practical purposes was identical, ami though the Belgian Government appears to he specially anxious for a continuance of friendly conversations it t> onlv on condition that the substance „f the Belgian claims ho conceded m iUI Yccordinglv the Government asks leave to deal with the two replies m a single answer. The first point that struck the Government was that neither was there any allusion to terms of the British draft repK to the Gcr man memorandum. Ihe Belgian > French pass the proposal ovenn tom vleto silence. Yet fins was the mam object to which in a desire f°r continued maintenance of allied unit?■, British Government devoted >-■ off .