BUDGET DEBATE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 April 1929, Page 5

BUDGET DEBATE

FURTHER SPEECHES

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright).

LONDON, April 17

Mr MacDonald, Lender of the Opposition, said that he would deal with the general subject later on. In the meantime, he hoped that the Ministerialists would not descend to tub-tlmmp-ing humbug about it. Mr Churchill, he said, had deliberately encouraged bad blood, and had made things more difficult, in order to make a mere electioneering point. FOREIGN SECRETARY SPEAKS. Six Austen Chnm.'>erlain said that the Balfour Note had for seven years been before the world as an explicit statement of the British policy on the subject'of the Allied debts. Mr Snowden had described as “infamous” this 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 said: “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 tub-thumping. 1 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 in any Parliament, and no greater setback has been caused to the progress -we have already accomplished, or hope to accomplish during 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 reassufoment 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.”

Right Hon. W. P. Eunciman (formerly Liberal Financial Secretary to the Treasury) said that he did not desire to comment on the agreements. He wished only to make it clear, as far as the Liberals were concerned, that they would not depart from the doctrine of continuity of contractural international obligations.

Right Hon W. Graham (Labour) asked could any impartial member of the House of Commons believe that the Balfour Note was the beginning and the end of the debts arrangements. If he said, so large a part of the industry of Europe, and particularly that of Britain, was going to struggle vis-a-vis to the United States for the whole of the remainder of this century, then no party should close the door against, the cancellation of the inter-Allied debts, however difficult might be its attainment.

Mr Ramsay MacDonald, rising later amidst wild Labour cheering, said that both Mr Snowden and Mr J. H. Thomas wore given to the habit of taking adjectives from the mustard pot. Some of Mr Snowden’s seemed to have developed into high party politics, and as a result, Mr \V. P. Runciman had 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 st,unt —as he presumed that 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, he declared, knew better than did Sir Austen Chamberlain how little substance was in that suggestion. Sir Austen Chamberlain: “I did not make,any suggestion against you, but it is only an inference from Mr Snowden’s words.”

Mr MacDonald said that this suggestion was a gross injury and an injustice to the Labour Party. If the Government wanted to make it a party cry, it was welcome to do so. '1 here never had been any question of Labour repudiating any agreements except by a negotiated revision of them. Mr Churchill, intervening, said that lie 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 no right to go to the country on untrue statements. So long as lam the Labour Leader, there will he no repudiation! All that is in Mr Snowden’s mind is whether the conditions of the Balldur Note, when considered as a hard-headed business proposition, are not rather inimical to England. Labor’s position has lieen laid down most clearly again and again.” Mr MacDonald added that the La!>our Party, at its conference in 1923, adopted the following resolution: “This conference renews its repeated declaration that this country should adopt a generous attitude in the matter of the settlement of the Allied debts, as part of the general settlement of the Reparations problem.” “That,” declared Mr MacDonald, “is the policy of the Party up till to-day. I said till to-day—not till yesterday! It will continue bo be the policy of Laboui a.ftei the election.” Mr Churchill, in replying to the debate, said that he had hoped that Mr Snowden on the previous day was onl\ guilty of inadvertence. Yet to-day lie had reiterated his remarks deliberately. The |>oint at issue was whether Labour accepted the view that agreements concluded by one Government Itoitnd its successors. He understood that M* MacDonald completely dissociated the Labour Party from Mr Snowden’s rejection of this principle. Labourite: “No!”

Mr Churchill: “Tt is so. isn’t it? The House should insist on an answer.” Mr MacDonald did not attempt to

reply. Mr Churchill asked a second tune: “Does Labour accept the Balfour Note principle that we should not take from

Europe more than we pay the United States ?”

Mr MacDonald remained in his seat. Mr Churchill: “We have conic to this. Mr MacDonald docs not dare to rise and reply.. 1 commend to the country’s attention tbo fact that the Labour Leader does not dare to answer a plain, simple question.”

A Labourite: “Mussolini!” Mr Churchill: “He sits there. He docs not dare to open his mouth.” 'flie Budget resolutions were carried without a division.

LONDON, April 18

The “Daily Telegraph” says: “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 “Morning Post’s” political writer says: “During the dinner hour the Labour Executive came to the decision it must support Mr Snowden, though it was agreed that lie bad been . indiscreet. Accordingly, the Labour Election attitude will be that the Government lias made bad debt bargains, and especially those with Italy and France. Therefore, as soon as they come into power, they will endeavour to revise these agreements. The Ministerialists are delighted to bear oT this decision. The Conservatives and the Liberals will both fight for the honouring of pledges that were given in the name of Britain.”

ANOTHER CRITICISM

The “Times’s” political writer saj r s: “The general feeling after Mr MacDonald’s speech was that he had Taken the only possible course in throwing Mr Snowden overboard. Mr MacDonald had earlier consulted the Labour Party Executive for it w;us 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-wiki 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 favourable moment.”