THE FOOD SUPPLY. T HE public lately have felt their heads
swim when they tried to square the various accounts given by Ministers of the present condition of the national larder. From some speeches it was gathered that the larder was nearly empty, that there was no hope of regular replenishment, and that the only thing to do was for every one to tighten his belt, eat very much less, and hope against hope. Hardly had such a grim impression fixed itself on the mind when another speech (like that of Lord Curzon to the Primrose League, or that of , Lord Devonport in the House of Lords on Tuesday) seemed to draw a different picture—the German submarines would be overcome, and there was every hope of winning through with a satisfactory margin of food in hand. We take it that these apparent contradictions are not so very contradictory after all. The explanation of them lies in the fact that every Minister who makes a speech (and we might add with painful consciousness, every journalist who writes a leading article) has to address himself to two publics. He has to convince people at home that the situation is very grave—for very grave it undoubtedly is—and that it can be saved only by extreme care and regular abstinence ; but he has at the same time to advertise to the enemy, and to hesitating neutrals, the fact that, in spite of all difficulties, we mean to win, and that in solemn truth we have no doubt whatever that we shall win. The enemy has to be informed in effect that it is quite useless for him to count on our throwing up the sponge through having had too much fighting and too little food. It is as necessary to present an unmoved face to the enemy as it is to wear a wholly justifiably anxious expression at home. The issue depends upon the one little word " if "—we shall win the war beyond all question if we prantise the greatest moderation in our consumption of food. All this is a very difficult balance to hold. Ministers—. with whom again we reluctantly. couple the writers of leading articles—aro very much in the position of those early fathers of the Church who, through dread that an orthodox dogma might be forgotten, emphasized it so far out of proportion that they themselves, with the best intentions in the world, became heretics. It is highly desirable to show the Germans that we defy them, and are utterly untouched by panic for all their devilries. If any German should enjoy the advantage of reading these lines, he may take it for granted that that is the simple truth. On the other hand, we could not venture to call it the truth if we did not assume, as Lord Devonport did in his speech, that the British nation will really make the very serious sacrifices which are required of them. For the British people, in fine, every word of the King's Proclamation holds good. Unless we mana,ge our lives exectly on the lines and in the spirit enjoined by the King, we shall have no certainty of success. We may be beaten on the post after all. All that Lord Devonport did was to pull the balance back in one direction lest it should seem to have gone too far in the other. But it is necessary to remember that all that Lord Devonport said in the way of reassurance was conditioned from first to last by an " if." If that is forgotten the speech will do much more harm than good. It would be a fatal misreading of it for people to conclude that, after all, too much fuss has been made about the food shortage, and that there is no particular need for drastically cutting down consumption. That need is greater than ever it was.
The governing statement of Lord Devonport's survey of the situation was that if the demand for a reduction of con- sumption was responded to, and if the operations of German submarines were not successful " beyond reasonable likeli- hood," we should get through to the next harvest " with a fairly satisfactory margin in hand." Lord Salisbury asked if this expectation was based on the present system of voluntary rationing. Lord Devonport then repeated his statement, from which we understand that he does base his hopes on voluntary rations. Indeed, he added that under the present system consumption had been reduced, and that he hoped for a further reduction. It may be remarked here that in the House of Commons Captain Bathurst said that the returns from a large number of bakers showed an average decrease of four per cent. in the sales of bread in April as compared with March. He added, however, that not too much must be built upon this, as the consumption of bread was always less in the summer than in winter. In any case it seems to us that the reduction is not nearly enough whether allow- ances are made or not. Lord Devonport was next asked by Lord Buckmaster whether he had allowed for the probable increase of German submarine successes in the calmer waters and longer days of summer, but he refused to commit himself to any exact figures. He went on to announce the withdrawal of meatless days. We are glad to learn this. The conditions have changed, and there is no doubt that abstinence from meat has caused a greater run on cereals. There was a time when meatless days seemed most desirable, but the situation now is that the stocks of meat are higher than they ever were, and they certainly ought to be used to relieve the pressure in other directions. As regards butter, margarine, and lard, Lord Devonport said that the supplies were better than last year. The recent shortage of margarine was due to the intermittent character of the supply.
When Lord Devonport's speech, and all other statements on the subject, have been read through and through, the primary fact which emerges is that the consumption of food must be cut down more and more, and that if this be not done compulsory rationing waits in the background. Lord Milner, speaking for the War Cabinet, said that the Govern- ment hoped to avoid compulsion, but that the machinery of compulsion was being most carefully prepared in case of need. We agree that compulsion would be an evil not only in principle but, if we may judge from the experiences of Germany, probably also in its operation. Nevertheless, there may be no way of avoiding it. With all its disadvantages, it may be better than trusting to a national honour that has failed. If the necessity comes, it may come suddenly after a rush of losses at sea among the food-carriers or through the failure of the harvest. The Government cannot be too careful in preparing the whole machinery of compulsion so that it can be applied at a moment's notice. The warning that it may be required has been serious and prolonged, and there would be no forgiveness for the Govern- ment if they left the nation in the lurch and had to admit that they were " not quite ready " or pleaded that " these things require time." We hope, however, that the nation will win eternal credit for itself by doing of its own accord all that compulsion could exact. It is an obligation of honour to cat less, and it is one of the few ways in which people at home can help the troops at the front and the sailors at sea and share in some faint similitude the sufferings which those brave men bear without repining. It must not be supposed that health is going to suffer through moderation. The experience of the Americans who managed the rationing of the Belgian population was most curious and striking. They found that the rations could be safely reduced—and, of course, under necessity they had to be reduced—far below the standard that was theoretically supposed to be necessary for the support of life in health. Nobody died of famine. The vital statistics did not fall below the average of the days before the war. It is true that the health of the children suffered—various childish ailments increased in numbers and intensity—but among the wealthier classes the health of adults actually improved through the enforced necessity of eating less. Man is subject to the laws which govern other animals. The overfed dog is never well, and the dog that eats less than it could cat is hardly ever ill. Doctors have said that the Mohammedan Fast Day is a health-giving practice among those who observe it regularly ; and if the fast days of the Church were generally recognized, the effect upon the bodily health of mature persons who habitually live in comfort might well be as beneficial as the Church assumed the effect would be upon their souls. Neither human adults nor animals will suffer from even a far greater economy of food than any one has yet contemplated. In the past few weeks drivers of horses have discovered that their animals can do more work on hay and grass than was ever suspected, provided, of course, that the horses were allowed to go a bit slower and were generally watched and managed as good horsemasters know how to do it.
In conclusion we must mention one other point. Lord Dcvonport's speech contained a good deal about the regulation of the food supply by the Government. We sincerely hope that Lord Devonport will not proceed under the delusion that he can successfully compete with economic laws. Where a flagrant instance of hardship leaps to sight the Government, we readily admit, may be compelled to intervene in such times as these. But the regulation of prices possesses no intrinsic merits. For its own sake it should not be cultivated, but avoided as far as possible. High prices are an advertisement to the self-interested persons who want to make money that here is their opportunity. But their opportunity is obviously also the opportunity of the consumer to get more of what he wants. When the security of the nation requires more food of certain kinds to be produced, such as cereals, we would say to the farmers : " You are perfectly safe. We fix a minimum price. You shall not in any case get less. But if the markets are favourable to you, you may get a good deal more. You may get very much more. You may become rich beyond the dreams of avarice." Thus encouraged, the farmers would produce every ounce of food they can from every inch of land they farm. If they do that, prices, as a matter of fact, will fall through the abundance. But constant play with maximum as well as with minimum prices discourages our food-producers. It was remarkable how shortly after the fixing of prices for potatoes that desirable vegetable quickly and silently dis- appeared from the ken of ordinary people. We fear that much the same thing has been happening in connexion with grain, since the farmers became frightened by regulations, quite apart from the guarantee of a minimum price. Much nonsense he's been talked during the war, but of all the nonsense the most nonsensical is the abuse of " profiteering." At least the " profiteer " in food is a speculator who does look far ahead in providing for the needs of the nation. He is a self-appointed victualler of the nation. If he serves himself, he also serves others. If he is suppressed, who takes his place ? Are the Government acting as victuallers to the nation, making their plans all over the world for long periods ahead to supply us with food ? We fear not. There is no one person whose duty it is to see to the food supply at all costs, though there are plenty of officials controlling the food supply immediately before them. It is a very simple truth, but it is continually lost sight of, that supply is much more important than control.
Previous page
