The member in question gayly stated that he could have got it signed by the whole House if necessary. We can well believe it. No doubt people in receipt of pensions are inconvenienced and even distressed by the general rise in prices—and so are tens of thousands of other people who have small fixed incomes. Why should one section out of a whole class be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer? Yet half the House of Commons was in favor of this unequal and partial distribution of public funds. On this occasion the chancellor of the exchequer was firm, but when he went on to tell of the nation's rapid approach to bankruptcy, he did so with a detachment, and a sort of resigned helplessness, which suggested that he had no special responsibility, and was in the position of a spectator watching events beyond his control. He admitted that the national expenditure now amounts to four and a half millions a day, and that if that goes on it means ruin. Nor will economy, however rigid, suffice to save us. While the industrial production of the country can be increased, no amount of going without will help us. Mr. Chamberlain was emphatic in pointing out and deploring the perils of the situation, but he is content to remain in office though so little is done to avert them.

For five years all the best energies of the civilized world were diverted from the peaceful production of commodities to the work of scientific destruction. There was an immense waste in every country in Europe. But there was more than that. There grew up a habit of reckless expenditure which led to an orgie of extravagance, which still continues. Who could stop to count the cost when men's lives were in the balance? Men were dying because there was a shortage of shells, so it was the duty of the government to get

them to get them anyhow, so that they were got quickly. There was no time to scrutinize contracts, or to puzzle about prices; the only question was how soon could the goods be delivered. To bargain, or investigate, or ask for rival estimates meant delay, and the price of delay was blood. All the strength of England was concentrated, and concentrated for one supreme purpose; and the shells came and the German guns were overwhelmed. And it was the same in every department of public life. If munition workers, or miners, or railway men threatened trouble the thought of the war was the supreme consideration which determined the conduct of the government. No demand was too unreasonable to be refused, if a refusal meant a dispute which might hamper the men in the field. When timber supplies from abroad were cut off by the activities of the U-boats, and the coal pits began to run short of props, the government was suddenly forced into a new industry. Great tracts of woodlands were acquired, and then labor had to be attracted at once at wages which defied all competition. All the ordinary rules of prudence came to be ignored in one public department after another. It was a sort of Rake's Progress. A demoralized countryside, seeing government officials pour out wages like water, and paying prices hitherto unheard of in the district, easily concluded that it was not necessary to be scrupulously accurate when dealing with an employer to whom the saving of money appeared to be no object. This profuse expenditure on the part of the government has naturally forced up the rate of wages, and therefore the cost of production, and therefore of prices all over the country. Is the government capable of putting on the brake?

Unfortunately, the habits of thrifty administration, abandoned during the war, are not easily recaptured. Men who have grown accustomed to give orders regardless of expense find it difficult to get back to the old narrow ways, and accustom themselves to the thought that the coat must be cut according to the cloth. Many officials seem incapable of realizing that the war is over, or at least to understand that its ending has any relation to this or that pet scheme which they are still bent on rushing to completion. The House of Commons last week roared with laughter at hearing of the zeal with which an anti-aircraft force near Nottingham was still carrying on its work, and that quite recently it had got another gun into position. Even when it was subsequently explained that what has really taken place was only the readjustment of the position of an old gun, the incident was still thought to be characteristic. Even when the great spending departments can be brought to understand that peace has returned, and to reduce their activities accordingly there will remain an atmosphere of extravagance which tempts statesmen habitually to think in millions, and to advocate only the most grandiose schemes. The housing question

will demand a heavy expenditure, and the new Education Act must make large demands on the national purse, through the medium of both rates and taxes. On every side the government is faced with claims for an even larger expenditure, and yet they seem to do nothing effective to bring things to a halt. It is all very well for the chancellor of the exchequer to call for drastic curtailment, and for the prime minister to talk of the spirit of irresponsibility which is abroad. Yet when the government is tackled about extravagant expenditure, ministers like General Seely and Mr. Churchill are content to enumerate such reductions as have been effected in the bloated establishments called into existence during the war. As long as this sort of thing continues there is bound to be a decline in the country's confidence in their governors, and that lack of patience which the prime minister deplored. If, as he warns us, the country must pull itself together, so must the government. And it must take the form of making themselves masters of the bureaucracy, and of insisting rigidly on an all-round reduction of this 'gigantic expenditure' which is ruining the country.

The Tablet

THE discussion, often acrimonious, concerning the Kaiser's trial, is still to be found in the British journals. The Tory Saturday Review, which is strongly opposed to the scheme, prints the following paragraph:

The selection of London as the place of trial for the ex-Kaiser is just the sort of mistake which Messrs. Clemenceau, Wilson and George might have been expected to make. It is a sop to vulgar democratic hatred, and would never have been made by the aristocratic diplomacy. For it is a mistake of taste, a want of tact. London is the last place in the world that ought to have been chosen for the trial, first, because the English are the chief enemies of the Germans (according to the Germans); secondly, because London is the court of William of Hohenzollern's first cousin, the home of his illustrious grandmother; thirdly, because William of Hohenzollern has often been our guest. King George and the Emperor must in their younger days have lived in some intimacy; they must have shot together at Sandringham, ridden together in Windsor forest. The choice of London shows the same kind of ill-breeding as the message of congratulation to Kerenski on the Tsar's deposition.

The creation of an extraordinary tribunal is another, but a different kind of blunder. It is a repetition of the mistake which the Unionists made in 1888 by appointing a special tribunal to try Parnell and the Irish members. These extraordinary tribunals never command the same respect for their judgments as the ordinary, established tribunals, whether legal or military: witness the trials of Charles I, Warren Hastings, and Parnell. The reason is that special courts pro hac vice are always appointed by politicians in a rage. The ex-Kaiser might have been tried by a grand court-martial, for he was the Commanderin-Chief of the German Army. If William of Hohenzollern should be 'dismissed with a reprimand,' we shall be the laughingstock of the world.

GENERAL MILLER, Governor General of Northern Russia, recently gave his impressions of the political and military situation. He writes: "There is only one way of putting an end to the Bolshevist régime in Russia. The Bolshevist rulers must be driven from the administrative centres (Petrograd and, above all, Moscow), and hunted down till they are caught. This result can only be attained by military force. Weariness, the disappearance of the elements which might have headed an insurrectionary movement, and the reign of terror make it almost impossible for the people to free itself from the Bolshevist yoke. What reception would a combined advance on Moscow meet with from the population? Unanimity is not to be expected, but the predominant desire of the population will be to have done with civil war and have a chance of returning to its peaceful, laborious existence. Peasants and townsmen alike will not commit themselves to the support of one party until they are certain that it will have the upper hand. So long as they are not sure whether Bolsheviki or anti-Bolsheviki will be finally successful they will endeavor to remain neutral. But as soon as they see fortune favoring the anti-Bolsheviki they will join their ranks in masses to get rid of the Bolshevist nightmare.

We must, therefore, gain the confidence of the population by a display of military force. Military force is the only thing in which the people still believe; political doctrines, democratic phraseology, now leave them cold. The peasant wants to keep the land, possess it, work on it, and quietly enjoy the fruits of his labor. The lesser bourgeois and the workman want to live once more like human beings, and not starve. They will give their support to a military force which seems to them strong enough to sweep away Bolshevism altogether. The rôle of the Allies is to help Russia to create this force.

An offensive on our front is especially