GREAT BRITAIN: Ipswich Gadfly

• Share

Buzzing again at His Majesty's Government in the House of Commons last week was that busy Ipswich gadfly Richard Stokes. A wealthy industrialist turned

Laborite last year, Mr. Stokes maintains that the whole British armament program is shot through with profiteering.

Three years ago Mr. Stokes, who is Managing Director of the excavating equipment makers, Ransomes & Rapier Ltd., declared: "The manufacture of shells for profit is revolting!" He offered to start making shells on a basis of "no profit and no loss" and shareholders of Ransomes & Rapier voted unanimous approval, but His Majesty's Government preferred to do business with armorers who figure on making profits, take their own risks of losses.

Undaunted, Gadfly Stokes offered himself as a Labor candidate for the House of Commons in his traditionally Conservative district, talked persuasively about how Britain could rearm not only on a "no profit and no loss" basis, but even without incurring any further interest-bearing public debt, for the Government, explained Candidate Stokes, could simply issue "interest-free money." Ipswich thought so well of all this that she sent her Gadfly to the House of Commons with a landslide majority in February 1938.

The greatest living British philanthropist and one of the Empire's greatest armorers is William Richard Morris, Viscount Nuffield. Not quite bold enough to attack Lord Nuffield directly as a profiteer, Laborite Stokes made allegations in the House of Commons about two firms, which he called "A" and "B," bidders as subcontractors to Nuffield Mechanisations & Aero Ltd.

"Firm A" offered to supply mountings for Bofors anti-aircraft guns (a Nuffield specialty made under leased Swedish patents) for £220 each ($880), according to Mr. Stokes, while the bid of "Firm B" on the same mountings was £72 ($288).

Instead of getting the order, "Firm B" was told by a Government official, "you are 50% too cheap!", the specifications were slightly altered, and "Firm B" then bid £148 ($592), but the order finally went to "Firm A" at £180 ($720). To newshawks Gadfly Stokes swore that he was in the room when "Firm B" received the alleged telephone call, hinted that he believed "Firm A" is a Nuffield subsidiary. In the House of Commons he shouted: "I'd like to wring the necks of the armaments firms in the ring!"

Obviously Laborite Stokes was hinting as directly as he dared at a major chain of collusion to up prices and profits, but he was faced down last week by Minister of Supply Dr. Leslie Burgin who appeared to be familiar with the transaction mentioned. It was simply not true, said Dr. Burgin, that "Firm B" was intimidated into raising its bid. In the course of his mild remarks, the Minister of Supply revealed that Britain had spent on armaments over £110,000,000 ($440,000,000) since the war broke, or $7,274 per minute.

Up to this week there was no body of information available to British press or public on which any such charges as those of Richard Stokes could be made to stick in a court of law. But everyone was hearing stories of disgruntled contractors who complained of price rigging on Government contracts by successful rival contractors.