TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHY DO THE GOVERNMENT HESITATE ? WE offer our warm congratulations to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the spirit in which he met the deputation from the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation. When they waited upon him on Monday they told him that the leading shipbuilding firms in the country were unanimous that in order to meet the national require- ments at the present time there should be total prohibition during the war of the sale of excisable liquors, and not merely restrictions in the matter of hours or areas. When we consider the strength of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and his frank acknowledgment that at the present moment drink is the greatest obstacle which we have to encounter; when wo think of the power of the Temperance Party even in peace time, and consider how they have now added to them a vast number of men who are not prohibitionists—not one of the deputa- tion of shipbuilders was a teetotaler—men who under normal conditions object to the interference with personal liberty involved in prohibition ; finally, when we note that the naval and military authorities are as strong as the Churches in adopting the view that drink prevents men from making the best of themselves, it is difficult not to be surprised that the Government still hesitate to strike down the chief impediment to victory. When they know that to break through a certain door will let them get to close quarters with the enemy, how comes it that they delay to raise the cry : "Down with it, men "?
Mr. Lloyd George in his speech spoke of the need for the Government being sure that the country was behind them before they took the drastic step which the Emperor of Russia took eight months ago. We are not sure what exactly Mr. Lloyd George meant, but if the Government's hesitation is due Lonny belief that they might not have public opinion with them, and might find it difficult to enforce a temporary prohibition law even if they passed it, we hold them to be utterly mistaken. This is one of the cases where a bold, clear lead from our rulers will carry all before it. In the first place, the men who are now wavering on the question, or who do not believe that the need is as great as has been represented in the Press, and who are generally sceptical about big steps and swift developments, would be converted by an act of State. They would argue "No Cabinet would ever have touched the question in this way and faced unpopularity unless they were certain that it was an absolutely necessary course to take. If they say it is necessary, there is only one thing possible. We must all follow them or run the risk of being overpowered by the Germans. We do not want our habits interfered with, but compulsory tea and ginger-beer will be a long sight better than the kind of compulsion we shall get if the Germans win." There might be grumbling and growling, or even a petty riot here and there amongst a section of the people, and talk about paying out the Government at the polls next time, but so far as any serious resistance is concerned we may be sure that there would be none. What makes the matter more certain is that in their hearts the great bulk of all classes—and, remember, the habits of the middle class and of the tipper class will be just as much interfered with as those of the working man—would have a sneaking, if unacknow- ledged, sense that after all they would probably be just as well or better in body, and certainly better in purse, for the enforced curtailment of expenditure on a luxury. No doubt some women would miss their liquor, and miss it as keenly as the men ; but we must never forget that the majority of working women and of lower middle class women seldom touch intoxicants. To them the cutting oft of expenditure on something which may always turn from an extravagance to a menace or involve the absolute ruin of their homes would seem pure good. The influence of wives, mothers, and daughters, a most potent one, would all be cast in the direction of maintaining the great experiment and giving it every chance.
What, then, is the cause of hesitation? We believe that the only real obstacle to prohibition during the war is the liquor trade itself. When we say this we do not mean for a moment to suggest that the many excellent and patriotic men who are engaged, and quite honestly engaged, in the
manufacture and sale of intoxicants, or who live upon brewery and distillery debentures, preference shares, and stocks, are trying to exert any occult or sinister in- fluence upon the Government in their own favour, or that the Government would be in the least inclined to yield to such influence. That is not the way in which the matter stands just now. Though no doubt those who control the liquor trade and interest are hurt by many of the harsh things said about them, though they think that there has been a great deal of exaggeration about drink, and naturally enough are to some extent influenced by the thought of the dire straits in which ninny of them personally must be placed by prohibition, we are certain that the great majority would acquiesce in the sacrifice if they believed that only through prohibition• during the war could we accomplish our end. The way the Government feel about the matter is probably this. They see before them a huge industry employing hundreds of thousands of men in the manufacture, distribution, and retail sale of intoxicants, an industry also mixed up with the necessary work of victualling and catering for the public, and further an industry which on the financial side and by means of vast blocks of debentures touches our commercial fiscal fabric in count- less directions. Under prohibition what are they going to do with this great but temporary derelict industry ? How is fresh work to be found for those engaged in it, and how are the families who are now living in comfort on the dividends it provides—many of them utterly dissociated from the bad side of drink—to be dealt with ? Even those who have decided that the building must he removed during the war and re-erected later may well hesitate before so stupendous a task. And yet such hesitation, though it is understandable, is not in any true sense excusable. What should we say of a general who, with the enemy pressing his flank, hesitated to blow up a magnificent bridge across a river merely because it had cost millions of money to build? He would think only of the needs of the moment and how to save his own force from destruction, and down would go the bridge without a qualm. The true way for the Government to act, if they agree with Mr. Lloyd George that drink is a worse enemy than the Germans, is to make a clean cut and prohibit the sale of all intoxicants during the war. That done, they must address themselves to the consideration of the questions of compensation and how to find work for the employees. In our opinion, the compensation to the poorer people who have been living upon brewery and dis- tillery shares, though they have nothing whatever to do with brewing and distilling, will be the most difficult point. The labour question will soon solve itself. Take the public-houses first. There is no reason to suppose that they will all have to close merely because they do not sell intoxicants. Already most of them have a considerable refreshment business and sell mineral waters, tea, coffee, cocoa, beef-tea, and solid food. This eating-house side of their business, though of course they will not admit it now, will be found capable of very large developments, especially since, if the sale of intoxicants is abolished, there will be no reason why the stringent restrictions on the playing of games, or what we may call café life, should be maintained. No doubt a certain number of public-houses would have to close altogether, while in others the staff would have to be reduced. Speaking generally, these employees would soon be absorbed, so great is the demand for labour. A good many of the younger men might join the colours till the war was over. As for the breweries and distilleries, some might be used for the manufacture of the spirits required in the arts and industries, while the buildings of others might be temporarily used for the provision of munition* of war.
Once more, we do not say that the undertaking is an easy one. It is a big fence. But if it is once decided that it must be got over,it is no good s tandin g and looking at it. Let us never forget that very soon the vast savings due to the stoppage of unnecessary expenditure upon alcohol will create funds which in one way or another will provide for all reasonable compensation. Remember, also, that this will be no mere transference. All experience shows that the saving, from the national point of view, will be much larger than the Bums now spent upon intoxicants. If our drink bill is a hundred and sixty millions a year, our savings will be £160,000,000 + y millions, y being the value of the extra amount of product due to the greater efficiency and larger output of those who are no longer slowing down their work through the toxic influences of ardent spirits and strong beer. This is a question. however, which we have dealt with in the following article. We will only say here that there can be no doubt as to the greater industrial efficiency of those who do not use intoxicants. As to the revenue there need be no uneasiness. A certain proportion of the money now spent in liquor will be spent upon extra sugar, extra tea, extra tobacco. Even if a large difference has to be made up by larger borrowings, there will be no national loss in the true sense. One word to those who dread prohibition on the economic side, and because of the pecuniary injury that will be done to a great many innocent people. Let us accept for a moment the full contention as to the rights of the trade, and then look at it fairly and squarely and ask what the acceptance of those rights would mean. If it is argued that we have no moral right to interfere with this trade, because it will temporarily, or possibly permanently, injure a great many people, quite apart from the question of what drink is doing for the nation as a whole, does not this really mean that we are admitting that certain persons have a vested right in the drunkenness and demoralization of their fellow-countrymen, and, further, a vested right in preventing the nation from doing its best in the agony of a national struggle—a vested right to reduce our chance of ending the war and making it certain that we shall not be blotted out as a nation or placed beneath the heel of a ruthless enemy ? Surely no one can have vested rights of this kind, however innocent their origin. What we have got to fix our minds upon is the question whether at this moment, as Mr. Lloyd George said, drink is the worst of our enemies—has the power, that is, of unnerving our Army and preventing us from winning. If that be established, and we believe with the shipbuilding employers that it has been, then all other considerations must go by the board. We must meet the enemy and destroy him, just as we must shell a town held by the enemy oven though it may mean misery and destruction for many innocent people. We cannot let the enemy defeat us because they are sheltering in houses that hold women and children. We must think only of the greater issue and how to win. That admitted, however, we must do all we can to prevent our victory over drink, as well as over the Germane, from having cruel consequences for those whose only fault it is to be in the firing line.
First let us stop injury being done to the fighting powers of the nation. That accomplished, let the nation be just, nay, generous, in the matter of compensation. We must not, however, invert the order. Prohibition must come first, and then a generous deal with the trade,
Previous page
