BRITAIN ARMING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 110, 19 February 1937, Page 5

BRITAIN ARMING

“ESSENTIAL FOR SAFETY.”

THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE.

REVIEW BY THE CHANCELLOR

(United Press Association—Copyright! LONDON, February 17.

In the debate on defence in the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Neville Chamberlain) recalled that when ho announced last week the Government’s intention to take powers to raise by loan or from Budget surpluses £400,000,000 during the next five years for expenditure on the defence programme, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. 11. Attlee) had described the proposed as unprecedented in times of peace. The real justification of tho proposal was in the unprecedented conditions of tho present time.

Defending the loan proposal, Mr Chamberlain said that on the assumptions in the White Paper, £32,000,000 a year extra would have to come out of revenue, even if the loan powers were fully used, but if the loan proposal were abandoned £112,000,000 extra would havo to he found each year out of taxes.

In his opinion such an additional tax burden would cripple British resources, and throw back the recovery, which was already so marked. The amount of borrowing proposed, he claimed, was not excessive because the taxpayer would still be bearing three-quarters of the total expenditure on defence.

“Bulwark of Peace.” Reviewing the details of the financial resolution before the House of Commons, the Chancellor said that the Treasury was authorised to raise money in any manner suited to the requirements of the particular time and which seemed most economical and he emphasised that the 3 per cent, to be charged to the defence votes and the provisions for repayment within 30 years out of the defence votes, were book-keeping transactions which had no necessary relation to the terms on which the Treasury would borrow. This, Mr Chamberlain declared vigorously, amid Ministerial cheers, was a measure for tho preservation of peace. Everybody knew that the British Empire stood for peace. It would never use its forces for aggressive purposes. It would always exert its influence to preserve peace, not only for itself, but for all others as well. The Government knew, front its own experience, that British influencerwaxed and waned with British strength. The strength of Britain was rapidly gaming from day to day and from week to week. It was in itself a steadying factor in international affairs, and it was the greatest bulwark of peace in the world to-day.

Convinced as the Government was that this great programme was essential for the safety of Britain and the major factor in the safety of other nations it was impossible for it to shrink from’meeting it. No one, least of all a Chancellor of the Exchequer, could see the growing accumulation of loudens which armaments imposed without a feeling of disgust and shame that civilisation was preferring to break its own back instead of trying to settle its differences by give and take, and turning its energies to pursuits which, might' bring prosperity and contentment to it. “A Disguised Tax.” But for the time being, at least, the Government could only set its teeth and go forward with the essential measures. Peace, political appeasement, and disarmament were not obtainable by any one Power alone, but wherever and whenever the British could find others who shared their views, they would rejoice in their company to seek a more fruitful, saner and worthier solution. , . Mr F IV. Pethick-Lawrence (Labour) criticised the White Taper and the Chancellor’s statement, asserting that they revealed neither a considered connection between the Governmen’s defence programme and its international policy (particularly in relation to the theory of collective security), nor any sign of real co-ordination oi defence" or a firm conception of an essential strategic plan, such as would ensure efficiency in planning the defence of the Country. The ’Labour party would oppose the resolution because it proposed, instead of placing the burden on the broadest backs by appropriation, • to impose, by the inflationary influence of further Government borrowing, « disguised tax on prices, which Mould fall on those lease able to hear it. Sir Archibald Sinclair (Liberal) said: “We are faced with the possibility of a triple attack against the Empire—in the Far East, in the Mediterranean and a knock-out blow at the heart of the Empire. We are entitled to know whether the Government’s policy is collective security, a military alliance or isolation. The vast expenditure on armaments must force up prices. The Government should satisfy us that it is taking effective measures to make these armaincuts unnecessary.

Enunciating his policy of removing the causes of armament, Sir Archibald Sinclair urged the Government to strive for the abolition of quotas, Imperial preference, and the restoration of the open-door in the colonial Empire. He also urged the appointment of commissions to investigate the grievances of dissatisfied nations.

Sir Archibald declared that while scrutinising the estimates carefully, they would vote for whatever armaments were necessary for the defence of the country and for peace. The rearming of certain powers in Europe, though, he thought the moral responsibility lor it might well he found by history to belong to the post-war policy of the victors in the Great Mar, left no alternative, hut to raise British defences to the necessary level.

He, too, criticised the loan pro-

posals as economically unwise in the present phase, of business recovery, and he expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the measures which were being taken to prevent profiteering.