“WOULD BE DISASTER”

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 202, 23 May 1936, Page 9

“WOULD BE DISASTER”

Abolition of Private Arms Manufacture SIR M. HANKEY’S VIEW t London, May 21. “The private manufacture of arms is not so sinister, powerful and inefficient as some witnesses have affirmed,’’ said Sir Maurice Hankey, resuming his evidence before the Arms Commission. He added that allegations against private firms of solicitation or touting fo r orders involved a wrong use of words, especially in the case of firms selling purely defence devices. In reply to objections to rings and trusts, lie said that rationalisation applied to armaments as well as to other industries. Personally, he had a terror of abolition of private industry, because it would be a disaster to Imperial defence. Sir Philip Gibbs: Have you any idea why France is continually pressing for abolition of private manufacture?

Sir Maurice Hankey: I think it is a matter of politics. Sir Philip Gibbs: Will you agree that there is no such thing as private manufacture in war-time?

Sir Maurice Hankey: Probably there would be Government control in all countries,

Speaking in ilia earlier evidence on behalf of the defence services, the Foreign Office, and the Treasury, Sir Maurice Hankey said that the official view was first that prohibition of private manufacture would be disastrous to Imperial defence; secondly, that it was unthinkable when Britain was in the throes of a great reconditioning programme: and, thirdly, that a ease for prohibition had not been established. He added that nationalisation at present would cause such a dislocation as might easilj’ involve the nation in disaster.