(To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.."] Sia,—I am glad
to learn through your article in last week's issue of the Spectator that you have made the timely discovery that the " unseen hand" is in the ownership of the Trade Unions and not in that of the Trade. I could have enlightened you on that subject at any time since the commencement of the war. The elimination of the element of private profit you expect to produce far-reaching results, and it is doubtless a very comforting phrase. Inter alia, it is to procure complete control of a Trade already writhing in the iron grips of Lord D'Abernon and Lord Devon- port. It is, however, somewhat difficult to realize on what ground State Purchase will prove Prohibition easier to attain. The Government will occupy the agreeable position of direct responsi- bility for the production of beer to the working man, whose voting-power, however subdivided into localities, remains con- stant. He will doubtless demand a good article at a reasonable price, and will see that he gets it. He will be in a position to sea to what degree there will be an improvement on both these important issues under State management as compared with private enterprise plus State partnership. But where precisely do Mr. Holden and Sir Thomas Whittaker come in? You will see that I make no allusion to the party truce, which may or may not possess the value of a scrap of paper, and have carefully omitted any reference to the views of the Trade, or an offer which has not yet been made by the Government. I write as a man in a fog for that guidance which may enable me to discover the real merit of State Purchase as a path to Prohibition.—I am, [We are delighted to enlighten Mr. Whitbread as to how State Purchase is a path to Prohibition. If the element of private profit is eliminated from the manufacture and sale of intoxicants and the State owns the distilleries, the breweries, and the public- houses, the path of Local Option—i.e., Prohibition in the areas that desire Prohibition—will be easy. If it is not, a great and powerful Trade would use, and, from its own point of view, must use, every effort to prevent Local Option being adopted in any area. On the other hand, if the Trade is bought out, the local area will be left severely alone and allowed to decide the question of the sale of intoxicants for itself. No one can doubt that even if the Government wanted to fight the matter, the Temperance Party would be strong enough to force it to maintain an attitude of judicial calm, and not to use its influence to prevent a Pro- hibition vote. But in reality there need be no fear of such action. No Government official, paid a fixed salary, would ever be likely to want to descend into the arena and fight the battle of intoxicants out of chivalry or from a desire to support the revenue. Has any one ever heard of a Post Office official insisting upon a particular district having telephones,or telegraph offices, or Sunday deliveries, or any other facilities when it did not wish to have them? By eliminating private profit we should get the ring cleared for a fair fight in any particular district on the Liquor question. Of course, if Mr. Whitbread is right, and the majority of the country is against any form of Prohibition or restriction upon the Liquor Trade, and the Temperance Party are really impotent, then State Purchase will not be of any use. We must all bow, as we certainly are quite willing to bow, to the mandate of the sovereign Democracy. Our belief, however, is bettor. We do not hold that the Trade Union leaders represent the majority here, or even a majority amongst the working men, which we take leave to point out is a very different thing from the democratic majority. Time will show whether we or Mr. Whitbread are right. We are not in the least afraid of bringing the matter to an issue.—Eo. Spectator.]
Previous page
