LADY HOUSTON’S OFFER

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 26 May 1932, Page 6

LADY HOUSTON’S OFFER

REFUSAL BY CHANCELLOR. FORMER GIFTS RECALLED. LONDON, April 21. Last week Lady Houston made an offer of £200,000" toward the cost of national do fence. In & letter which .she wrote to the Chancellor of tlie Exchequer she compared England to a “toothless lion.” Mr. Neville Chamberlain has now declined the offer, as was to be expected. In the course of his reply he says: “I much appreciate the spirit which has prompted you to offer a sum of £200.000 to supplement the resources of the Exchequer upon the understanding that other patriotic donors raise the amount of £5.000,000. If Ido not feel able, as suggested in your telegram ,to take active steps to support 3 an appeal of this character, it is because I share the view taken by my predecessors in other similar connections that gifts to the Exchequer should be left to be prompted by the spontaneous wish of the donors. “A more difficult question is raised bv vour proposal that your contribution should be applied to a particular object. There are. of course, cases where private benefactions may very properly and most usefully supplement or replace public expenditure. Your part in the last Schneider Trophy contest reminds me forcibly of that fact. But in the sphere of the essential State services Parliament alone is in a position to appraise the priority of compet7ig claims, and from time to time to allocate the limited resources of the Exchequer in the manner most conducive to the general interests. The resnonsibilitv of advising Parliament on these matters is' one of which no Government can divest itself, and it is a. duty in which all Governments must retain freedom of actions and decisions. “For this reason it appears to me impossible to acept gifts offered to the Exchequer for expenditure upbn particular essential services over and above the expenditure recommended by the Government of the day and subsequently approved by Parliament. Acoordinglv T voiitnrG "to hop© ■t/n&x, shoukfyou decided to proceed with your appeal, it will he made on the basis that the Government shall decide to what purpose the resulting funds shall be applied,” „ Lady Houston has replied m her characteristic style: “I evidently have made mistake,” she says. “I thought you were a Conservative, hut I cannot imagine a Conservative refusing my offer of £200,000 for the Army, Navy and Air Force so ungraciously, i wonder whether you have consulted them ? , . , “You have read my letter mcorectly—as in the first line of your answer you sav that I “offer the sum of £200,000 to supplement the resources of the Exchequer/ but if you read my letter again you will find that I do not offer this money to supplement the resources of the Exchequer.’ I offered it specifically for the Army, Navy and Air Force. “But both your immediate predecessors accepted large monetary gifts from me for instance, the Schneider Trophy was a gift from me of £IOO,OOO, m order to make it possible for our airmen to compete in the race. This was very Uadlv accepted by your immediate predecessor, and the Treasury, perhaps, if you inquire, will still remember my very insignificant gift of £1,500,000, given to a former predecessor of yours. Mr. Winston Churchill. . “I did not stipulate that ‘other patriotic donors’ -should raise the sum of £5,000,000. What I did say was: I now offer you £200,000 toward the £5 000,000 required for our protection,: so ’onlv 10 times as much as my gif t - 1 is needed to make up the £5,000,000 necessary—a. paltry sum to eusuie the - safetv of the nation—and I appeal to all both rich and poor, to find it.’ No ■ question of the Government deciding ; comes into this matter. But you rorce me amiin to reiterate the fact that the > £200,000 I offered was offered specincallv for keeping our flag flying, and to * help the Army, Navy and Air Force m - their dire need and necessity.