THE CREATION OF UNREST.
LAST week we expressed great pleasure at that passage in Mr. Lloyd George's Glasgow speech in which he spoke of the need for steadiness in the nation. He told us that all would go well if we held ourselves together and did not get " rattled." The warning was so plainly applicable to the Government themselves that we supposed that Mr. Lloyd George had been submitting himself to some self- examination, and we rejoiced in the prospect that in future the Government would think their measures out more carefully instead of springing on the country a succession of highly attractive but immature ideas, many of which would not work. As well-wishers of the Government we intended the words sincerely, and we little thought as we wrote them that a fresh instance of unsteadiness would be added to the Government's record within a few hours, if not within a few minutes. It seems to us, however, that unsteadiness was the characteristic quality of the statements made on behalf of the Government in the debate on Thursday week about the increase of beer. We have carefully read the speeches of Mr. Boner Law and Sir George Cave in that debate and we are unable to reconcile them. Let us say once again that we do not want to take a fanatical view about beer. We arc not normally- teetotalers. We do not desire that men in ordinary times should be compelled to give up drink by Act of Parliament. After all, the very word " temperance " means, or ought to mean, moderation. We have based our demand for Prohibition during the War solely on war reasons —on the declarations which the Government themselves have made as to the shortage of food. In statements which are too numerous to quote, but which must be in the recollection of all our readers, the Government have told us that there was a dangerous shortage cf food, and that unless we exercised every imaginable economy in the consumption of grains we might be starved out and should not be able to win the war. Those warnings have never been unsaid. Mr. Lloyd George, it is true, has said subsequently that, on the best advice, he was able to hold out to the nation every hope that we should live through the submarine danger without actual want, but again the reassuring words were made conditional upon a strict economy. The admonitions to eat less bread still stare at us from every hoarding. The restrictions of the Food Controller are still in full force. The•losses of our merchant- men have varied week by week, and on the average have had a more promising look, but we suppose that the total volume of our shipping is less now than when the very grave warnings as to our food supply were originally uttered. It is in these circumstances that the Government have decided to sanction the destruction of more food for the purposes of making beer.
As to the details of the increased output of beer we cannot, as we have said, reconcile the speeches of Mr. Bonar Law and Sir George Cave. Mr. Boner Law said that the existing supply of malt would be sufficient—that no more barley would he malted—but that more sugar would be required. Sir George Cave said that no more sugar would be required as brewers could- use glucose. In any case, it is clear to us that if the existing stock of malt is used up sooner than was con- templated, more barley will also have to be destroyed sooner than was contemplated, and the food supplies of the country will be correspondingly reduced. For no rational person can suppose that now that the Government have changed • their minds in favour of more beer, they will be able to keep down the consumption of beer in the autumn. An English autumn is often just as warm as an English summer and sometimes warmer. The explanation that the increase is " for this quarter only " will not hold. Now we are not unaware that the Government profess to be extremely con- cerned about the intensity of industrial unrest, and that they justify their change of policy on the ground that men will cease working in essential industries if they do not have their beer. Here again we want to avoid anything like a fanatical view. If it be a verifiable fact that the issue is truly and unavoidably between munitions, or agriculture, and beer, then we say that we must get the munitions or harvest the crops at the cost of increasing the production of beer. There can be no question about that. But what
-fills us with- misgiving is that the Government have never offered us any proof of this. They have not even attempted any, or shown any sign that they thought any necessary. They have never in a clear, steady, and persistent manner put the case to the working men of the nation, and asked them to choose between beer and the danger of losing the war or of letting their children wither away through an insufficiency of staple foods.
They have been awed by rumour—very ugly rumour no doubt—and have changed their declared policy with a readiness that has astonished those who remember that ea the Government's own showing economy in food is still the one condition of winning the war.
If the Fend Controller can assure us on his honour that there is enough barley and enough sugar in the country to justify an increased destruction of food, we shall of course be prepared to modify our objections. But it is not enough to offer us a mere hand-to-mouth justification. All this time we ought to be
building up as large a reserve of food as possible. Nobody knows
that we may not have a run of bad luck at sea and lose so many vessels that for some weeks little food will come into the
country. If the Food Controller feels himself unable to give us the assurance we ask for, we surely shall not exaggerate in saying that the Government are failing in their duty 88 they themselves have defined it. Unrest there is, we know, and we can well believe that it is quite as bad as the Government say. But is it not true that the Government themselves create unrest by appearing to vacillate in their intentions and to have no fixed and steady purpose ? They announce the abolition of racing, and revoke the edict. They increase the tax on amusements, and again reduce it. They raise the duty on tobacco, and reduce that also. Any stranger who observed their actions might think that they were trying to buy off the successive hostility of different groups. That the Government are thoroughly patriotic and heartily determined to win the war in the speediest and most thorough manner we are con- vinced, but it would be an enormous advantage if they would remember that there is a yielding posture on the part of men in authority that provokes grumbling and discontent. In the Army discontent is always most common under a commanding officer whose actions are incalculable even though he may often be considerate to the point of gentleness. The martinet whose severity never varies creates few grievances by comparison.
As the Government have now told the nation in effect that more food can be destroyed for beer, we fear that those who do not drink beer will be unable to see why they should not also allow themselves more food without reproach. Yet the
• Government would, of course, condemn this logic. They do not say that the mothers who stand weary, hours in queues in the attempt to buy a few ounces of sugar for their children shall be allowed more. They do not say that families who have pinched themselves in trying to live within the voluntary weekly ration of bread shall have more. Instead of that, Mr. Lloyd George, having once denounced drink as second only to the Germans in threatening this country with disaster, now says that there shall be more opportunities to drink. What is the true opinion of the working man in this matter ? We have often pointed out that the official leaders of Labour have never preached renunciation, and have never put it to the working man that on the facts as set forth by the Govern- ment he must choose between beer and food if we are to make quite sure of winning the war. Stray though strong voices have been raised by some working men who say that they wish to make any sacrifice that may be necessary. But neither their leaders nor the Government have asked them such questions as this : Would you rather have more beer than make your children absolutely secure against want e " Personally, we believe that if through the failure of the Government to build up a reserve of food small children began to die from want of suitable diets, working men would show no mercy at all to the Ministers responsible. They would say : " You never warned us properly. Wo did not under- stand. We never would have used up food as beer if you had told us the children would go without." In the debate in the House of Commons Mr. Thomas said that he was certain that what the people cared about was not beer but food. " For five weeks," he added, " we could get no sugar in our house." He has a family of five. We are sure that the working man is as sound and brave and determined at heart as any Government could desire. If he were asked to sacrifice something—even beer—to an ideal for a few months, would he refuse ? We have far too high an opinion of his idealism to think that he would. But, as we have said, neither his leaders nor the Government have ever seriously asked him. On the contrary, by unsteadiness in this matter the Govern- ment have unwittingly encouraged him to magnify Ids inconveniences ; they have almost invited him to forget that we are at war, and that war means great hardship for every one. They have made his admitted discom- forts seem almost unbearable by the very act of letting bins know that he can rid himself of them by threats and protests.
Previous page
