MORE BEER.
WHEN the Cabinet decided before the summer to increase the permitted barrelage of beer by 33; per cent. we ventured upon a prophecy. We said that although the Government spoke of the increase of barrelage as intended solely for the thirsty months, in which would occur the hay harvest and the corn harvest, an excuse would be found in the autumn for continuing the increased amount. We suggested that British weather would probably pursue a habit it has acquired in recent years of giving us a very warm October. Our prophecy has turned out to be perfectly correct except in one respect. The month of October so far, instead of being unusually warm, has been unusually cold. But that has made no difference to the Government. They have fulfilled our prophecy without having to make use of the excuse. Their decision is that the increased barrelage of 331 per cent. shall be continued during the present quarter.
Thus the furious farce goes on. On a previous occasion we likened the conduct of the Government to that of the old- fashioned type of play in which all the characters were under is solemn pledge not to mention a particular name or word. The humour of the situations consisted in the attempts of everybody to avoid the word in almost impossibly trying circumstances. The characters steer round the word with comparative ease in the opening scenes, but the difficulties become deeper and deeper, and of course when the comic man has bawled out the word urbi et oche you discover that the only person within earshot was mercifully stone-deaf. The Government are playing at this game with a skill which we cannot remember to have seen snatched on the stage. They urge us upon every platform, through every newspaper, and in innumerable publications to exercise economy, and to save every ounce of food we can do without, if we want to make sure of beating the Germans, but the word " beer " or " alcohol " is never mentioned. We are told to economize in meat, in milk, in cheese, in butter, in bacon, in sausages, in dog-biscuit, in petrol, and in hundreds of other things, but one word is always missing. About beer or alcohol there is a complete and most successful conspiracy of silence.
During the last few days the warnings to the nation about economy have become more urgent than ever. We are evidently being prepared for more drastic regulations all along the line. We have stated over and over again our strong conviction that it is almost hopeless for the Government to appeal to the country with an appearance of sincerity when they themselves not only tolerate but encourage a widespread waste of food. For this is what the brewing of beer means. It consumes barley, and it also consumes sugar. It does this at a time when sugar is short in every house old in the land, and housewives are being urged to cut down their consumption of bread to the last possible crumb. We do not write as tee- totalers. We have no idea of condemning beer as a drink. All we say is that the brewing of beer automatically carries its own condemnation in such times as these on the terms which the Government themselves have stated. There is no food to waste, yet food is being wasted in the form of beer. It may not be generally known, and we fancy it may not easily be believed by persons who have not ascertained the facts for themselves, that maltsters are among those who are allowed to buy barley at 5s. 3d. a quarter over the standard rate. In practice this means that when a miller goes to market to buybarley he often finds that a nialtster is able to outbid him and buy the finest grades of barley for malting. Of course, it will be said that, as maltsters and brewers are allowed to use only fixed quantities of barley, the millers have no grievance, their wants being provided for under a far- seeing Government scheme. We beg to say, however, that they have a very distinct grievance, for we hear of mills which are either running short of material or shutting down because they cannot obtain the necessary cereals for the purpose of mixing their flour according to the official prescription.
Several times we have formulated a policy of " Prohibition during the War," and " the elimination of private profit "—that is to say, State ownership of the drink traffic—after the war. We havecbeen told, of course, that the working man would not stand complete deprivation of his beer, and that there would be a revolution. In our opinion, no proper appeal has ever beenmade to working men, and we persist in the belief that the working man would never be so ugly a customer to deal with as when he found himself and his children running short of bread. He would forgive no Government which brought him into that position, and we can only hope that the Govern- ment may never reach the point of discovering this very simple fact. We confess, however, that the Government have played their farce so well, and have now become so extremely skilled owing to their long practice in their parts—there is not a bit of " business " which is beyond their scope or their imagi- nation—that. we have not much hope that the larger, more daring, and more idealistic policy of Prohibition during the War, in the greatest cause men ever fought for, is now possible. It is not of much use to harp upon a policy whirls probably cannot now be brought off. while there are many other causes upon which thought and labour are actually profitable. Moreover, we do not want our readers to visit upon us the rewards of " virtue excessively indulged," and metaphorically to write the name of the Spectator, like that of Aristides, upon an oyster-shell. Nevertheless let us make „one suggestion that seems to us to be practical. Why should the drinker of beer have a position of peculiar privilege ? Why should not an appeal be made to him to ration himself ? Such an appeal is made to every one who consumes food. Why then not to the man who consumes food in the form of drink ? For it must be remembered that in consuming food as drink he is actually consuming a double portion of food ; he eats the same amount of meat, bread, sugar, and other things as an ordinary person, and in addition he consumes barley and sugar in the form of beer. Beer-drinking is a non-nourishing form of foo&consumption, and surely the man who consumes food in this wasteful form should be the first to have an appeal made to him and be put upon his honour to ration himself as far as possible. At present we have the absurd position that if you like to consume cereals in this non-nourishing form you are allowed to have as much of them as you please. Nobody makes any appeal to you whatever. You can g" ahead so long as your money lasts and the public-houses do not ruu dry. If, on the other hand, you consume cereals in the form of food, the greatest possible pressure is put upon you to stint yourself.
We ask the Government at least to remind the beer-drinker that he is getting a double ration, and that it is " up to him " to consume less bread than other people. If he wanted to be strictly fair to the rest of the community, he would eat bread only in minute quantities. Such an appeal as this to the beer-drinker from Lord Rhondda. or Sir Arthur Tapp might not of course have very much effect at the moment—as a matter of fact, we do not suppose it would—hut it would at least peg out a claim for future consideration of the question. Some people would be given an uneasy conscience, and a foundation would be laid for subsequent action. If the war goes on very much longer, further action will undoubtedly have to be taken, and it is just as well to prepare the way while there is yet time. Will not the Government mention the mysterious word in the last act but one, instead of at the culminating moment when the curtain rings down ?
Previous page
