In. the-House of- Lords on Thursday, March 8th, Lord Balfour
made a . statement in answer to the recent criticisms by the' American Ambassador of the famous Balfour Note. It will be remembered that in the Note Lord Balfour said " the United. States insisted, in sub- stance if not in form that, though our Allies were to spend the- money, it was only on our security that they were prepared to lend it." This statement, which Colonel Harvey objected to as misleading, may be as- a matter of fact true if the emphasis is laid on " in sub- stance but not in form." But we doubt whether to the ordinary man it gives a fair idea of America's conduct. After all, America did lend about £1,600,000,000 direct to the European Allies. We borrowed £876,000,000 from America, and during the same period: lent. £897,000,000 to the Allies. But we spent the money we borrowed from- America in • paying the American, producer of war goods, and lent to the Allies out of our own resources. Of course, the deduction is that if 'we had not had to lend to the Allies (because America was financing them directly or for any other reason), we should have been able to buy war stores in America with our own meney and so need not have contracted the loan. Hence Lord -Balfour's clause " in substance if not in form." Lord Balfour -maintained' this position In the House of Lords. The merits of the case are so 'dominated by the -barrenness of the discussion at thiS date that we can only hopethat now 'that Lord-Balfour has used -his undoubted right of reply to Colonel' Harvey the point at issue may have reached as -happily con- clusive a - settlement as has the debt itself. On both sides of the 'Atlantic we should " let funded debts lie."
Previous page
