WORLD CONFERENCE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 410, 20 December 1932, Page 2

WORLD CONFERENCE

MEMBER RESIGNS SIR WALTER LAYTQN EXPLAINS REASON BEH.IND DECISION. GOVERNMENT DIFFERENCE Sir Walter Layton, who resigned his membership of the Preparatory Committee of the World Economic Con- • fererice owing to a difference of opinion""with the Government, announced j his decision in a letter addressed'to the Prime Minister. Sir Walter Layton s,aid that on many important points he has found that there was common ground between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself. After indicating some of these points of agreement he proceeded: — But my interview with Mr. Chamberlain convinced me that there id a serious difference of opinion between the Government and myself as to what further .action is required in order to restore reasonahle freedom to the movement of international trade. The Government view, I find, is that the desired result can be obtained through individual negotiations with foreign countries, within the limits set by the Ottawa agreements, ' and subject to strict ihsistence on our most-f avourednation rights. Judging from past experience, however, I fear that the method of hilateral negotiation will make very little impression on the protectionist system of the world as a whole as it has grown up since the War. In my opinion the financial situation in which Great Britain finds herself at this moment, taken in conjunction with' the immense importance of the British market to the whole world, gives us a unique opportunity — in collaboration with countries already on a low tariff basis and those to whom the restoration of foreign trade is a vital necessity — to propound and press forward plans conceived on much bolder and broader lines." "Action Handicapped." "Unfortunately, progress in the direction of effective action hy a low tariff group is handicapped hy certain features of Government policy. Among these handicaps — apart altogeth'er from growing tendency to introduce an element of permanence and rigidity into our tariff by various commitments — I would mention spe.cially the introduction of the quota system in regard to meat, the implied endorsement in the Ottawa agreements with Australia .and Canada of the principle of "compensatory" tariffs, and the unhelpful attitude adopted by Great Britain toward regional agreements in Europe, such as the Dutch-Belg:,an Convention initialled at Lausanne in July of this year .... '"Any attempt to deal wfch the monetary situation without a satisfactory solution of the eommercial problem must sooner or later fail, and I personally have no confidence that such a solution can be rqached along the lines which the Government ava following. In the absence of a radical change in the world's eommercial policy — in which this country's attitude could be an almost decisive factor — I do not see the possibility of a rqally satisfactory outcome of the world conference on the monetary side. In the circumstances, it seems desirable that my place on the Preparatory Commit- j tee should be taken by someone who is in closer sympathy with the Government policy." Official Reply. The Prime Minister replied: — "The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have already told you how sorry we are that you feel that you cannot continue to represent us on the Preparatory Committee of the World Economic Conference. I was hoping that it would have been p'ossibl'e to have got your assistance, so that your known divergence of views, so far from hindering us, would re)ally have helped us. "Time is so short now that no immediate good could come out of a dis- j cussion as to whether the interpre- 1 tation you put on various thing3 in your letter is right or wrong. I think . you are wrong on one or two rather important points, but I shall only mention one lest, should I say nothing about it, the public may take tbfat to mean that I agree with it. "You say that all we propose to do is to make eommercial agreements with individual countries, using nothing but a strict insistence on our most-favoured-nation right to secure for us a maximum of good treatment. ' I cannot for a moment accept that as j being accurate. I think the main ; difference between us is our varying 1 estimates of securing progress on the j lines you favour, which depends on the policy of other countries as well as , of our own. I hope, however, as the ' Conference develops th'at you will al- j low me to have your assistance on any puints that may raise upon which I know you have well considered views.'