The negotiations with M. Krassin caused many inquiries. Mr. William Shaw, for example, sought a guarantee that the Bolshevists should not be allowed to pay for the goods they might now order with the stores that they had seized from His Majesty's Government. One is reminded of Phil May's publican, who took the theft of his pewters philosophically, but was moved to strong protest when the thief brought them back in the form of bad half-crowns.
Coalitionist anxiety in regard to the Prime Minister's flirtation with the Soviet emissary took shape in a motion for the adjournment moved by Colonel Gretton, who was shocked at the idea of negotiating with a Government that depended on violence, and seconded by Admiral Sir R. Hall, who doubted whether there was anything to be got out of Russia. Mr. Lloyd George replied that, according to the evidence of anti-Bolshevist refugees, there were quantities of grain and raw materials awaiting export, while in regard to the general question he poured much rhetorical contempt on the argument that we were never to trade with a country that was misgoverned. What about Turkey? What about Mexico? "You cannot always examine the records of your customers."
Earlier in the day Sir A. Griffith Boscawen had moved the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill with so much vigour and enthusiasm that one wondered why a Bill so vital to the national well-being had not been introduced a little earlier. Later speakers were less friendly. Mr. Acland declared that the measure was only necessary because the Government could not keep the country out of international difficulties. Captain Fitzroy complained that the Bill did too much for the tenant-farmer; whereas Mr. Cautley described it as the tenant-farmer's death-knell.
Tuesday, June 8th.— The prevalent belief that Mr. Churchill is always spoiling for a fight, and is mainly responsible for all the wars now going on in various parts of the world, is, I am ready to believe, entirely erroneous. But there is no doubt of his desire to "see red" so far as His Majesty's Army is concerned. The report that the Government intended to spend three millions in putting our soldiers back into the traditional scarlet inspired a multitude of questions to the War Secretary this afternoon. Mr. Churchill declared it to be grossly exaggerated. Nevertheless, in political circles it is believed that at the next election the Government can rely with confidence upon the nurserymaids' vote.
MR. CHURCHILL SEES RED.
Army Uniform (1) as it is; (2) As it was before the war and will be again; and (3) as to suit Mr. Churchill's Marlborough traditions, it should have been.
In resisting the proposal to make a levy on capital Mr. Chamberlain covered the ground so exhaustively that, as Sir F. Banbury subsequently observed, the chief complaint to be made of his speech was that it was not delivered three months before, when it would have saved the money-market great anxiety and prevented much depreciation of capital. For, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a levy on war-wealth was never really practicable, and even if it had been would have had no effect upon the amount of the floating debt, his most pressing problem. But, if so, why not have said it at the start, instead of setting up a Committee to try to find a solution for the insoluble?
Mr. Chamberlain's contention that by the income-tax and super-tax wealth was already heavily conscripted would have perhaps been better left without illustration. His case of the gentleman with £131,000 a year, who after paying his taxes had only £42,500 to spend, left Mr. Stephen Walsh quite cold. Sir Donald Maclean, by some odd process of reasoning, came to the conclusion that the Government's decision would be welcomed by all the enemies of capital, and announced his intention of joining the Labour Party in the Lobby.
Wednesday, June 9th.— The Air Navigation Bill passed through the usually serene atmosphere of the Upper House, but not without encountering a certain number of "bumps." Lord Montagu, calling to mind the nursery saying, "if pigs could fly," was alarmed by the possibility that "air-hogs" might interfere with the amenities, and might even endanger the lives, of earth-bound citizens by flying over them at unduly low altitudes. He suggested two thousand feet as a minimum. Lord Londonderry resisted the Amendment on the ground that it was difficult to gauge the height at which aircraft flew, and thought few airmen would care to risk the penalties provided in the Bill—a fine of two hundred pounds and six months' imprisonment—by indulging a taste for forbidden stunts.