MR CHURCHILL’S WARNING

Southland Times, Issue 22948, 22 July 1936, Page 5

MR CHURCHILL’S WARNING

GERMANY’S GIGANTIC OUTLAY SECRET PARLIAMENT SUGGESTED (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) (Rec. 6.30 p.m.) London, July 20. During the debate on the Supplementary Defence Estimates Mr Winston Churchill said that it appeared that Germany’s expenditure on the upkeep of her forces absorbed £300,000,000, and the Germans were spending £500,000,000 on expansion—£soo,ooo,ooo for something very serious, which might happen soon—compared with Britain’s expenditure of £75,000,000 on expansion. He added that they should remember that those hammers of which General Goering spoke were descending day and night in Germany. Mr Churchill concluded by referring to the secret session of Parliament during the war, and suggested that one should be held now. If that were im-

possible, Mr Baldwin should receive a deputation of the older members of the House of Commons to hear a case which could no longer be submitted publicly with safety, on the condition that nothing should be later disclosed which the Government had not already revealed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Neville Chamberlain) said that what was required was largely _ common sense, determination and industry, all of which Sir Thomas Inskip possessed. Sir Thomas _ had every reason to be satisfied with the progress made. Mr Chamberlain added that a secret session could not be held in time of peace without arousing unauthorized rumours and speculation and stirring up the country. The Government would be prepared to receive the deputation which Mr Churchill suggested, but members could not expect to receive information withheld from the country. Brigadier Sir William Alexander (Conservative) declared that it was useless to suggest that the £800,000,000 which Germany spent in building up her army, navy and air force compared with the expenditure of Britain, which had the most powerful fleet in the world, worth at least £1,200,000,000. The Government would never get Labour support except on the condition that its military expenditure exactly met the requirements of collective security and that British armaments were used not as an instrument of national policy, but in support of the Covenant of the League against aggression. Sir Thomas Inskip, winding up the debate, insisted that the very heart of the responsibility connected with collective security imposed an obligation on the British people to recognize that if it imperilled Britain and the Empire they must defend it.