REPARATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1922, Page 5

REPARATIONS.

WHAT HAS BEEN PAID. POLICY FOR FUTURE. PROBLEM FOB ALLIES. ATTITUDE OF BRITAIN. By T^ecraph-—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received August 4, 10.45 p.m. London, August 3. In the House of Commons, moving the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, Sir Robert Horne (Chancellor of the Exchequer) reviewed the German reparations payment. Thus far Germany had paid .£107,000,000, apart from the value of ships, coal and payments in kind valued at £160,000,000, Government property in ceded territories valued at £1*25,000.000 and the Saar mines valued at £23,000. or a total of £415,000,000, practically the whole of which was spent upon the armies of occupation. Personally, he had come to the conclusion that Germany could pay very considerable sums in the shape of reparations, but she required some respite in order to put herself in a position to pay. Britain recognised her obligations to pay her debt to the United States to the full amount. German capital invested abroad was nothing like what some people supposed: it did not amount to more than £100.000,000. It was essential to adjust reparations to really payable dimensions, 'both as regards time and the method of payment, for the European problem could only be •settled in conjunction with the Allies. Sir Robert Horne pointed out that Britain's war debt totalled £7,766.000,000, France’s £6,340.000,000 and America's £5,147,000.000, the equivalent per capita amounts being £lBl, £162 and £47. while taxations per capita worked out at Britain seventeen guineas, France nine pounds and America eight pounds. In those circumstances it was impos Bible to ask the British taxpayer alone to carry the war debt burden. While recognising our full obligations to America he regretted the United States’ attitude made it impossible for those who fought side by side to regard their financial contributions as subscriptions to a common cause.

REMISSION SUPPORTED/ Mr. H. H. Asquith said that unless something was done promptly Germany was heading straight for bankruptcy. He agreed with Sir Robert Horne that it was necessary to reduce reparations to really payable dimensions and he -was glad M. Poincare was coming to discuss the question. Personally, Mr. Asquith thought they could write reparations off as not good debts. To remit them was not an act of magnanimity, but an act of good business. Mr. Asquith said he was glad to see the question of the American debt kept apart from the urgent European problem, as too high a price might be paid for the strict logic abstract of justice. Mr. Tom Shaw, in a speech based on visits to Germany, said France would never get reparations by pursuing her present policy. France was two hundred thousand men short in the building trade and it would be a great moral lesson to the whole world to see German workmen, scientists and goods utilised in the devastated French areas in repairing what German arms had destroyed. Mr. Lloyd George, replying to the debate, pointed out that many members in the House and the country had suggested that Britain must firstly stand j by France and see that France did not press Germany too hard and that nevertheless whatever Britain did she must agree with France. These conflicting i policies would not run together. They ■ must realise it was not negotiation beI tween Britain and Germany, but between the Allies and Germany. Britain had to make the best arrangements possible and support the Allies as far as she could.

It would have been impossible to fix Germany’s total payment at the time the Versailles Treaty was concluded, because prices were then inflated and Germany would have had to pay two and a half times what the same reparation® cost now. The sum of £6,000.000,000 then fixed was made subject to periodical readjustment by the Reparations Commission.

“I am glad to say.” he added, “that M. Poincare has definite proposals from the French Government to submit to Monday’s conference. and I trust the House of Commons will allow us to go there with a free hand to examine them and do our l»est to come to some arrangement. If the Allies press Germany too far they may get nothing. There is also the danger of driving Germany to Throw herself into the hands of reactionaries or communists.” DANGER OF PRESSING CLAIMS. Mr Lloyd George said a revolution in Germany would be vastly different from the Russian revolution. From every point of view it would he a mistake to press Germany beyond the limit of endurance and capacity, but it would be equally mistaken to run away from fair and just claims. The Allies were not < iaiming the whole costs, of the war; no country in the world;could pay such a claim, but Germany had inflicted damage by her own decisions and actions. As she was suffering from the effects of the world trade depression the present was not an opportune time for estimating Germany’s full capacity to pay. He proposed on Monday to resist any proposals which were simply likely to increase the disintegration of Europe without securing anything for ourselves. He objected to Britain going to the conference and everyone saying the trouble was to be settled at Britain« expense. All the Allies would assemble on equal terms and whatever abatement was made in Germany's dues must be an abatement all round, and reached in the interests of all the Allies. He did not think it likelv they would settle the matter at Monday’s conference, for there were too many difficulties and complications, but he hoped the Allies would march together. . Thee must give reasonable sympathy and consideration to every claim from devastated France, hot Britain could not afford to see that everybody got fair nlav except the people of Britain. They mu.it be fair to Germany and extend juatice to France, and toe latter must entail justice to Britain.