Evening Post. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1926. PLANS TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 36, 11 February 1926, Page 8

Evening Post. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1926. PLANS TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC

, . • The best friend of Si* William Joynaon Tfip.in^ the resolute and energetic Home Secretary, cannot deny that he has the defects of his qualities. A first-class fighting man, ho iB entirely lacking in tie genius for conciliation which adds 86 much to the power of his chief. The strategy which geta its blow in first is much more to the Home Secretary's liking than the soft answer which turneth away wrath. Though the gravest of his blunders antedated'his accession to office by about ten years, it vu inevitable that he should be reminded of it during his recent warfare with the Beds. At a time when his party had put itBelf hopelessly in the wrong by encouraging Ulster's preparations for armed resistance in the event of Home Rule being carried, Sir W. Joynson Hicks distinguished himself by a melodramatic invocation of the "Lord God of Battles" on behalf of the prospective rebels. The subsequent concession by the Unionists themselves of a far more drastic form of Home Rule than was then in contemplation has deprived this deplorable appeal of any posBible relevance to Irish controversies, but when the speaker, as an omcial custodian of law and order^ began to press the battle against Red anarchy to the gates he was bound to hear of it. In expressing his regret that he made such a speech Sir W. Joynson Hicks haw made the manliest and most effective answer possible to those who hare used it against him. But the indiscretions of the Home Secretary have not been entirely unofficial. The fighting qualities for which industrial troubles and Communist activities have provided ample scope have betrayed him more than once into unoonsidered utterances which have materially added to the difficulties of his task. The general support which "The Times" has given to his policy has not prevented it from pointing this out in the frankest possible way. The opening sentences of a leading article on "Maintenance of Ser- • vices," which warmly commended his treatment of that problem, published on 30th November, were as follows: — The, Home Secretary, has committed so many, indiscretions that he is entitled to support when, he goes about his legitimate business.. -After some hesitation over the correct attitude of the Government towards the '' O.M.S.,'' a casual recommendation of a "touch of Mussolini," and a most improper whoop over the arrest of his still unconvieted Communists, lie settled down the other day to a frank announcement, through the appropriate channels, of the determination of the Cabinet to maintain essential services during an industrial dispute. The candid admissions of "The Times" have, of course, their counterpart in the severe attacks of the Radical Press. Under the heading, "A Touch of Mussolini," the "New Statesman" declares that "the proper place for Jix is not Westminster, but Rome." And the "Manchester Guardian" expresses its conviction that not only Liberals and Labour men, but most Labour men, "want a real Home Secretary at the Home Office, not a Secretary for Class Wat" A Home Secretary who offers so many handles to the critics must have sterling qualities to justify bis retention in office, and conspicuous among them are energy, industry, courage, and candora. The censures which w« have quoted from "The Times" formed a prelude to a eulogy of the Minister for a display of the last-mentioned qualify which had amply deserved it. On the difficult question of the maintenance of essential public services in the event of a big strike, the Home Secretary had laid all his cards on the table in a fashion which must have had a disarming effect on any generous opponent. Tne proposals of the Government W6re made public property. There was nothing novel about :the scheme, said "The Times," • except its publication, which was altogether praiseworthy. All that Was done was to issue for general information the departmental instructions which have continued in being under successive Governments—Coalition, Labour, and Conservative—for feeding and transporting the population in case of emergency. In other words, Ministers have adopted definitely the precise position recommended in these columns last month by so vigilant a critic as the Leader of the Opposition himself. It is certainly a feather in the cap of a Home Secretary whom his enemies love to denounce as a Conservative Die-hard that in this difficult and delicate matter he should have taken the public into bis confidence in a way for which his more democratic predecessors had supplied no precedent. In the official circular issued by the Health Department to the local authorities explaining the scheme, the Government's intention is declared to be "not to set up new machinery, but to supplement the normal methods of communication, supply, and distribution, and to afford those who t»n help the opportunity of doing so." England and Wales have been divided for the purpose into ten divisions, each of which will be under the control of a' Minister of the .Crown, who, assisted by a special staff,, will act as a Civil Commissioner in the event of a "national emergency" being declared. The staff will consist mainly

of representatives o* the Departments, and will deal with, the transport, food, coal, and postal services. Each division will bo subdivided into suitable areas for convenient administration, and, if necessary, for recruiting volunteer*; and n each there will be a Food Officer, a Road Officer, a Cojal Officer, a Haulage Committee, and a Volunteer Service Committee. The maintenance of law and order and the protection of persons and property from violence may, says the circular, be one of the most important ser- • vicos. The necessary arrangements will rest with the police, but local authorities might, it is suggested, cooperate in enlisting men to serve as special constables. The fact that the scheme has been approved by preceding Governments has naturally commended it to the public confidence, but, as "The Times" says, the vital point for which the Home Secretary is entitled to credit is the publication of the scheme. We have spoken of the disarming effect of this procedure on the opponents of the Government, but we fear that the Labour Party cannot be included in the number. Th« party began attacking the scheme as soon as it was published, and the Home Secretary's speech at Norwich reported yesterday shows that tha opposition still continues. ■