ON TAKING THE CAKE
By Dr. ,C. K. ALLEN, K.C.
BREAD-WINNING has never, since Adam, been easy or popular, but if some unkind fate should cause you to study the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order, 5947, you may wonder how any bread is ever won at all by British citizens. This—being one of the teeming progeny of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act—is a majestic decree of eighteen pages and thirty-two sections, where we may cull such flowers as this: " The only coupons which may be deposited in advance with a supplier for the purpose of Art. 4 of this Order shall be those forming a section, or the remaining part of a section, of coupons from a General Ration Book R.B.r, Junior Ration Book R.B.4, Child's Ration Book R.B.2, or Ration Book R.B.7, Form R.G.7o or Form R.G.75 not being coupons from a page marked `Personal Points.' For this purpose ' section of coupons ' means . . ." But I will forbear, since I expect that the reader's attention is wandering.
It is not, however, of bread that I sing. Like Marie Antoinette, I concentrate rather on cake. I am indebted to The Oxford Times for calling attention, with its customary vigilance and public spirit, to the constitutional significance of the substance called cake. A charitably minded person, interested in a local horticultural show, offered to make and present a cake as a prize for a weight-guessing competition. The donor was evidently a person of sensitive conscience, because he enquired of the Ministry of Food about the legality of his proposed benefaction. This, of course, was a fatal mistake. It is well known that if an official ruling is asked on the question " Can I?" or " Should I?" there are only two possible answers consistent with efficient administration, and they are (a) " No, you can't," or (b)"Perhaps you can, but you'd better not." A sensible person proceeds on the principle, " I've done it : now .arrest me ! " The Oxford Times proposes to take a bolder course, as it has announced its intention of offering a cake for competition in defiance of the Regulation, and then awaiting the rigour of the law.
The Ministry replied, as might have been expected, that it had " given very careful consideration recently to the question as to whether rationed and. controlled food should be allowed to be sold, otherwise than in the form of refreshments, at charity sales, horticul- tural and agricultural shows and similar events, and they feel that it would not be in the general interest to grant such a concession or to allow rationed and controlled foods to be disposed of as prizes in competitions." Nobody had asked whether any rationed food could be sold on the terms of any " concession "; the answer to the question which had, in fact, been asked, was that it was legal for the donor to present his cake to the cause of horticulture, but it was illegal for the prize-winner of the competition to take the cake without surren- dering coupons for it. Nevertheless, to show how broad-minded it was, the Ministry added that it did not propose to withdraw its " concession " for this particular sporting event.
The reply of the thankless weight-guessers was sharper than a serpent's tooth. They said that they did not propose to commit a crime by grace" and favour of the Minister. (They may have sus- pected, cynically but rightly, that the " concession " would not be the least protection, in law, against a prosecution.) They preferred to abandon the competition. But, for the guidance of themselves
and others in like case, they enquired what the position would be I they bought a cake in a shop, surrendering the necessary B.U.s, and then presented it as a prize in a weight-guessing competition. The answer was that even in that case, under Art. 4 (b) of the Order, the winner would be obliged to surrender coupons. Thus a charity, cake is different from an ordinary, self-regarding cake in that it needs the surrender of B.U.s twice over.
Let us square our jaws and look at Art. 4 (b). It provides that " the person obtaining the rationed food " shall produce or deposit the appropriate units. There can be no doubt that a person who takes the cake obtains it—at least, he would have some legitimate cause of complaint if he did not. We must see, therefore, whether there is any relief for cake-takers in Art. 8, which is devoted to " exemptions." There we find that " the restrictions imposed by this Part of this Order shall not apply," under sub-section (b), "to the provision of home produce by the producer thereof for consump- tion by him or by the members of his hougehold or by guests sharing meals in such household." " Home produce " (" in relation to any person ") includes any rationed food "manufactured in his household or establishment " and would, therefore, seem to include a home- made cake composed of materials for which, of course, B.U.s must have been surrendered.
May we not see here a gleam of hope for weight-guessers ? They are a class of persons for whom I have respect amounting almost to awe, and I should like to feel that I. have helped them to enjoy the fruits of their peculiar talents. I, therefore, make this suggestion: having " obtained " the cake, the winner should at once invite his unsuccessful rivals home to tea with him. They will then be guests, sharing a meal with him in his household. In this way he will not only score off the inspector who will doubtless be watching the horticultural show in the guise of a bulb-fancier, but, if that motive be considered unworthy, he will compensate it by stimulating, even if involuntarily, his own generous impulses. If, being the sort of person who indulges in secret, solitary cake-ingestion, he is reluctant to entertain less fortunate horticulturists, then we need not waste any sympathy or counsel upon him.
This advice is offered without fee, without surrender of coupons, and also without prejudice. Neither the editor, publisher nor writer can take any responsibility if the victorious weight-guesser, having shown the hospitality which is here recommended, should find him- self in the dock. In that event, all he can do is to see whether the covenanted mercies of Art. 8 offer him any other hope. For example, he might study sub-section (f), the mere reading of which makes the mouth water (and possibly the teeth grind), for it grants exemp- tion " to the supply by way of gift any" (sic—I boldly conjecture an " of " omitted) " of the following, being home-produce, by the producer thereof "—bacon, pork or offals from a home-grown pig, preserves, farm butter, points rationed food, chocolate and sugar confectionery and bread unit foods.
Now there is a persistent superstition among lawyers that a gift implies two parties, a donor and a donee, and that the essence of the transaction is that property passes from the one to the other. The donee certainly " obtains " the property, but the transaction would not be a gift unless he did so. What " restriction " is removed; then, or what " exemption " provided, by Art. 8 if the taker of a cake, supplied by way of gift by the producer thereof, must surrender coupons because he has " obtained " it under Art. 4(b)? However, the Ministry says it is legal to give the cake, but illegal to take it without coupons, and who am I to argue with the Ministry? Note the provision about chocolate and sugar confectionery. In the improbable event of your making toffee at home, be careful not to give a piece to your voracious godson without getting a coupon in exchange—unless, of course, he is " sharing a meal " with you.
There may be another way out. It is axiomatic that you cannot eat your cake and have it. The winner of the competition might eat the cake there and then, under the very eyes of the inspector. He then could not have it, and consequently could not be said to have obtained it. The argument would, perhaps, be coldly received by the magistrates, but it might be worth trying.
Previous page
