He then asked the Chancellor of the "Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, if he was aware that the: expenditure by Germany on purposes Gireetly and indirectly concerned with military preparations, including strategic roads, might have amounted! to." £600,000,000" during 1995 and whether this rate of expenditure Seemed to be continuing this year.
"He had been. informed, Mr. chill proceeded, that Germany's Sirategle roads sireiched hundreds of miles to strategic points, enabling mechanical transport 0 travel five breast. "These roads were likely to play a larger part in another war than fortified tines. "The Govern-efforts, Mr. Churchill proceed-were only a small. proportion of What "was going on elsewhere, and probably this year Britain should not be overtaking others, but falling behind them.
Mr. Neville Chamberlain replied that the Government had no official figures concerning Germany's expenditure on armaments, but it saw reason to think the figure mentioned by. Mr. Churchill was neces sarily excessive, although there were tlements of conjecture. Dealing with Labourite criticism, Mr. Chamberlain denied that any expenditure now being undertaken would be wasted. He was of the opinion that Sic Thomas Inskip had every reason to satisfied" with "the progress achieved, and, provided it was not interrupted by" unforeseen " oceurronees, in a short time Britain would well on the way to producing munitions at a. rate which would please 'Me. Churchill, 'Winding up the debate, Sir Thomas Inskip claimed that the' Government firmly supported the League and collective security. The draft report on the bomb versus battleship Inquiry, added, had been practically completed, but it would not necessarily!
published for the present—Reuter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.