OUTPUT OF BEER.

HC Deb 05 July 1917 vol 95 cc1398-447

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."

I consider myself fortunate in having secured leave to move the Adjournment of the House on the ground of the Government's change of policy, because changes of policy on the part of the Government have been so frequent recently that I was rather doubtful whether Mr. Speaker would consider that the mere matter of a change was definite, urgent, or important enough to justify the granting of the Motion. But, the House having supported my request for leave to move the Adjournment, I wish to bring before hon. Members the position in which we are placed with regard to the food supplies of the country through the notion of the Government in reference to the liquor trade, and particularly the brewing trade. Nowhere have the changes and vacillation of the Government been more remarkable than in dealing with the liquor trade. I am not going back to 1915, when the present Prime Minister went on the fiery crusade in Wales. I am not going to refer to the various suggestions which have been made and the Committees which have been set up to deal with State purchase and control. The Government, in dealing with this question, never from the beginning seemed to have a clear policy—

Mr. W. THORNE

In consequence of the answer given By the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the question raised by myself, my hon. Friend got leave to move the Adjournment, and I want to know whether we are going to-night to have a general Debate on the liquor question from top to bottom.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

It is early to ask what will happen later on in the Debate, but the Debate will be limited to the ground upon which leave to move the Adjournment was granted. That was to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the announcement of a change of policy on the part of the Government in allowing an increase of 33⅓ per cent, in the output of beer, thereby causing a further drain of the limited supply of sugar in the country." It will be for me, while I occupy the Chair, to see that the limits of the Debate are kept within these terms.

Mr. J. O'CONNOR

May I ask whether your ruling means that the whole policy of the Government with regard to the output of beer is now before the House. Will it not form a relevant matter of Debate? And with regard to the last part of the question, which opens up a wide subject of discussion—namely, the supply of sugar—surely that will be very comprehensive, and there will be no limit whatever to the Debate either upon the policy of the Government with regard to beer or the question of sugar?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must wait and see until I hear what is said.

Mr. JONES

I have no desire at all to go beyond the terms of the Notice, or to deal at the moment with the change of policy on the part of the Government. I think, however, that I am justified in saying, in passing, that there is nothing very surprising in the change of policy, but I pass to what the change of policy has been. I merely call to the mind of the Committee what has been the position of the Government in regard to this limitation of the output of beer from the time the country was faced with a shortage of food owing to the work of the German U-boats and the sinking of British ships, and the prevention of cargoes of foodstuffs coming to this country. Early in this year we had a Debate on this question in the House. A Report had just been published by a Committee of the Royal Society, which had been appointed to investigate the question of food supply, and report to the Board of Trade by what method the food supplies of the country could be increased. They made various recommendations. One was that by the reduction of brewing the food supplies could be increased. They gave figures, and they found that the most economical use that could be made of the foodstuffs at present consumed in the manufacture of beer would be to have a direct home consumption of these foodstuffs, which would be a very large percentage of the whole. The quantities of food which are consumed in brewing are very large indeed, and by no means a negligible fraction of the country's total supplies of food. In 1934 the total output of standard barrels of beer was 36,000,000. That had been reduced in 1916 to 26,000,000, owing to the Bill introduced by the late President of the Board of Trade my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). For that reduced output of 26,000,000 barrels a year the amount of foodstuffs used, according to the Committee's Report, was 943,000 tons of barley. 55,000 tons of rice, and 182,000 tons of sugar-large quantities which I say were really a substantial fraction of the country's whole consumption of these articles. On 14th February the matter came before the House of Commons, and the Home Secretary then announced that the output would be reduced for the year beginning lat April, 1917, from 26,000,000, which it had been in 1916, down to 18,000,000 for the coming year. What were the right hon. Gentleman's words?— Let me say that if and so far as it is necessary to restrict the output of intoxicating liquor in order to maintain the foodstuffs of the country, the Government are prepared to take every step necessary to attain it. There need never be the slightest doubt on that point. He pointed out that the Government rested their whole case for the reduction on the question of the food position in this country and he declared on 14th February that in their judgment it was necessary, in the interests of the food of the people in this country, to cut down the output of beer, thereby saving 300,000 tons of foodstuffs, and even more. But the U-boat menace was developing. Our ships were being sunk at an ever-increasing rate, and nine days after the Debate in this House the Prime Minister came down and made another statement, in which he said that it was not sufficient to cut down the output to 18,000.000 barrels, but that the Government, in view of the position, had determined to cut it down to 10.000,000 barrels for the coming year. I must trouble the House with the very words that the Prime Minister used on that occasion, because they are relevant to the subject which is under consideration of the House. He said, on the 23rd February: The food stocks in this country are lower than they have ever been. They are perilously low, due not merely to the difficulties of tonnage but bad harvest. Under these circumstances, we cannot justify the utilisation of such a large quantity of foodstuffs, except for the feeding of the people. Are we to take it that the position as to tonnage has so far improved that the Government are now prepared to justify using in this way an increased quantity of foodstuffs which might otherwise go to feed the people? I want an answer to that question from my right hon. Friend tonight. I will read more of what the Prime Minister said: We have to go beyond that last restriction, we have to cut down the balance of 18,000,000. It is absolutely impossible for us to guarantee the food of this country without making a very much deeper cut into the barrelage of the country, and we must reduce it to 10,000,000 barrels. That was on 23rd February. Are you prepared to carry that out to-day? The Prime Minister went on: That means that you will save nearly 600,000 tons of foodstuffs per annum, and that is nearly a month's supply of cereals {or this country.

Mr. W. THORNE

He does not say anything about sugar.

Mr. JONES

Perhaps the hon. Member has information from the Government that has been withheld from us. My information as to the position of sugar is that it is more difficult than it has ever been. The Prime Minister went on to say—and even the hon. Member will attach some importance to his words: That is the direct saving. The indirect saving amounts to something which is a good deal greater. One of our difficulties has been horse transport from America. This and the fodder for those horses have been a serious drain on our shipping, and it will undoubtedly release horses for use in France. That is saving transports and large quantities of food for feeding purposes. It will reduce the barrel traffic on our already congested railways, and we are sadly hi need of locomotives and wagons for the Army in France. We have been carrying locomotives and wagons over to France, and is the situation so easy now that we are able to increase carrying capacity for these materials? The Prime Minister wound up: Although it undoubtedly involves a heavy sacrifice upon a large and important branch of the community, there is no question that it is one of the most effective contributions that could be made at the present time towards a victorious ending of this War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd February, 1917, cols. 1611 and 1612, Vol. XC.] These were grave words spoken, not hurriedly I believe, by the Prime Minister, and I want to know where has been the favourable change in our traffic, shipping, and food supplies that now justifies this increased output of beer.

Mr. DEVLIN

What was the date of that speech?

Mr. JONES

The 23rd of February of this year.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

He has changed his mind since.

Mr. JONES

That may be so. I am bound to put before the Government this alternative, that either the condition of the food supply was not so serious as they stated it to the country, either they have deceived the country—

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

The food position is not affected at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are only dealing with malt made in February. It has not been increased in any degree, and the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. JONES

I venture to say that malt barley is very good food indeed, and I have eaten bread on the terrace of this House which contained a considerable admixture of malt barley, and I found the bread excellent. I say that either the food position was not so serious as the Government stated, or that the Government are now endangering the health of the country by dealing with these commodities to increase the output of small beer. Are we to take it that all this talk about shortness of bread and of sugar, that all those placards which confronted us upon the walls, that we were to eat less bread, and so forth, were a pretext, or were they telling their friends abroad, "Do not be uneasy; we shall stop it before it goes too far. The people may suffer and go short of bread, the children may go without their sweets, there may be no sugar for making jam, and the fruit may rot on the trees, but remember that there is always the possibility of an increase of sugar for the making of beer when the demand is made." The people, of this country do not mind sacrifices in order to win the War. They are prepared to put up with the hardships of the present rationing system if they believe that to be the outcome of war conditions and necessary for national purposes. But they are not prepared to go without the things they like, on short commons, without sugar or bread, or jam, and various things which have become necessary for their convenience merely in order that there may be a larger output of beer from the breweries of this country. I want to ask some questions of my right hon. Friend upon this new announcement. The first is, how much more beer is going to be brewed in the twelve months? I hoped when I first heard the announcement that all that was meant was, it having been decided to brew 10,000,000 barrels this year, the Government were going to allow increased output in the summer months, when the people presumably required more, and were going to diminish the output in the winter, so that the total for the year would not be more than the amount announced. I gather from the reply to a supplementary question that that is not the case, and that this is to be a permanent increase on the year's barrelage. "What is going to be the total increase on the year's barrelage? Is it only to be for the summer quarter and increased by one-third more standard barrels over the same quarter, which would amount to about 800,000 barrels? At what strength is this new beer to be brewed? Are the Government going to carry out their policy of reducing the gravity of the beer in order to supply more of it, I suppose, or of a more wholesome quality? Is the whole of the new barrelage to be of reduced gravity, or have the Government yielded to the protests of certain firms which brew the heavier beers, Guinness, Bass and Allsopps, and are those firms going on brewing the old beer? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not know why not, but I am told the lower gravity beer is far more wholesome and palatable. I admit I know nothing about it.

Mr. DENNISS

Why do you speak about it if you know nothing about it?

Mr. JONES

I will do my best. How much more malted barley is going to be used? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said—

Mr. DENNISS

On a point of Order. May I submit that the subject should be kept within some bounds? The Notice of Motion, so far as I heard it, only refers to sugar, and the right hon. Gentleman is going into barley, and I ask you, Sir, to restrict the Debate to sugar, and perhaps then one can get some conclusion this evening. There is a very easy solution of it, because if the teetotalers did not take sugar in their tea there would be plenty of sugar for brewing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I have not been able to notice anything in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, so far, which calls for my attention.

Mr. JONES

The hon. Gentleman says, Why do we not go without sugar? I see no reason why I should go without sugar in my tea in order that he may drink beer.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

Vice versâ. Turn it over quietly and just think about it.

Mr. JONES

How much more malted barley is going to be used? At present, about 1,000 tons a year is going to be used for the 10,000,000 barrels. Is that going to be increased by one-third? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs said that no more is going to be used I would point out that the existing stock will, under this system, be used up so much the faster, and, therefore, we shall so much the sooner be face to face with the problem of the malting of new barley for the purpose of making beer.

Sir G. YOUNGER

That is quite true, always provided that the food supply is in such a position that they can brew at all. Nobody suggests that they should brew a gallon of beer unless the food supplies of the nation are in such a position as to allow it to be done.

Mr. JONES

I am glad to hear that, and I hope it will influence the Government when the time comes. Then there is the question of sugar. Under this system you are going to use more sugar, and I wish to know how much.

Sir G. YOUNGER

The brewers cannot get it now

Mr. JONES

I understand they have a large supply in hand at present. The hon. Gentleman says no, but how long will the present supply last?

Sir G. YOUNGER

I have not the least idea.

Mr. JONES

Then I do not know why the hon. Gentleman contradicts me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I would point out that it is quite impossible to carry on debate in this way. The hon. Baronet will no doubt have an opportunity of replying, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in possession of the House to address the Chair.

Sir G. YOUNGER

It is rather tempting when the right hon. Gentleman addresses me directly.

Mr. JONES

I am sorry.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I am sorry, too.

Mr. JONES

I will address the Chair. My questions, though addressed to the Chair, are really through the Chair to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The question I want to put to the Home Secretary is this: Is it safe, having regard to the food position, to allow this extra brewing? After those words which I have quoted from the Prime Minister, what will people think of the removal of this restriction? The people will inevitably say that the Government have not been really telling us the truth about the matter, and that it is evident that the food position is not so bad or they would not allow this increase in the output of beer. My information is that the sugar position is more serious at present than it has ever been. I would ask the Home Secretary to reassure us upon that point. I want to ask why it is that the Government arc now increasing the output of beer? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not!"] Allowing it to be increased. It certainly is not in order to help the brewers. The brewers are not suffering at all as far as their profits go in the restrictions hitherto put upon them. The brewery companies are making larger profits and every day brings records of increased dividends paid by the breweries. I have two reports here which appeared in the papers no later than yesterday. One speaks of record brewing and large dealings, and the other points to the very remarkable profits made by a brewery company. I will not go into details, but will be happy to give them to my hon. Friend should he so desire. I acquit the Government that it is with any idea of benefiting the brewers that this restriction is being relaxed. It is apparently based on a question which was put by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway making a demand for munition workers and farm workers for an increased supply of beer at the present time. If that is really the desire of the Government I will put another question. If they consider that it is necessary for munition workers and harvest men to have a larger supply of beer why not secure it for them out of the present output of beer? Why do they allow a large number of people who are not doing munition work and harvest work to draw upon the food supply of the country through the beer that they use. Did they consider that solution of this difficult problem before they adopted this course? Of course, the Government know perfectly well that this beer is not in the least necessary either for munition workers or for harvesters. There are great tracts of this country where it is the practice not to give beer in the harvest field, and I can introduce my right hon. and learned Friend opposite to a large number of workers, friends of my own, teetotalers all their lives, who each day do as hard physical work as anyone in the country. It is a pure mistake to be told that beer helps men to do a hard day's physical work in the harvest field, or the munition works, or the forges. I received only this morning a letter from a New Zealander in this country who touches upon this very point, which has arisen out of the discussion in the Papers. Ho writes to me: I notice the present beer gag is the cry that the workmen cannot work without beer, agricultural labourers, etc.

Mr. THORNE

What is the date of that letter?

Mr. JONES

4th July, 1917.

Mr. THORNE

Where is it from?

Mr. JONES

From Worthing, Sussex; from a New Zealander who has come over to fight for this country.

Mr. THORNE

What is his name?

Mr. JONES

R. S. Whincup.

An HON. MEMBER

What is he? A Prohibitionist?

Mr. JONES

Yes; he is a Prohibitionist. And let me read to the hon. Member what he says on that point?

Sir G. YOUNGER

We all know what he is going to say.

Mr. JONES

He says

I used to be a moderate drinker— like the hon. Member— but was convinced against mv will in Waihi, New Zealand, as when working there Prohibition was carried. I forget the exact year. I, together with others, was annoyed, but only for a time, as when I saw" the great difference created in the average home comfort of the working man it was a lesson to me— It would be a lesson to the hon. Member if lie would go there— Homes that had been neglected, wives ill-treated, and children starved were now" quite different.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Mr. JONES

I only read that in answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

Why do you not go to New Zealand?

Mr. JONES

I am sorry that this gospel of mine annoys the hon. Member, but I think I can understand it. The truth hits very hard sometimes.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

So do lies!

Mr. JONES

But let me read on: I notice that the present beer gag is the cry that the working man cannot work without beer, agricultural labourers, etc. Let me tell you on the vast Canadian prairie harvesting you never see beer, and the men have to work there harder than in England. I have worked in the heavy bush forests of New Zealand swinging an axe from daylight to dark felling the trees. I never saw beer in a bush camp, and if a man introduced some it always resulted in less working efficiency, and the men themselves working on contract never had it for that reason. The yarn that a fireman or stoker needs beer on hot jobs is the silliest nonsense; the more beer you drink on a hot job the thirstier you get.

Mr. J. O'CONNOR

Has the right hon. Gentleman verified that letter?

Mr. JONES

Not at all. I only received it this morning.

Mr. O'CONNOR

It might be from a fanatic, like many others.

Mr. JONESM

Ah, but he was once a moderate drinker!

Mr. O'CONNOR

How does the hon. Gentleman know? Has he verified the letter?

Mr. JONES

He says he was once a moderate drinker. I really know no more about the letter than that. It was in my post-bag this morning. Hon. Members who know this subject know perfectly well that this casual opinion by a New Zealander—and I can testify from my own experience that many Canadians share that view—is confirmed by the best medical opinion. I ask the Government if they have any doubt upon the subject to take the opinion of any twelve representative medical men in this country— if they are really going to rest their cause on the argument that their action was really necessary—that it was necessary to provide beer for men at the forge. If that is to be their argument, I challenge them to take instructed medical opinion, and I have not the slightest doubt it will be heavily against them.

Mr. THORNE

The same might be said of ginger beer and "pop."

Mr. JONES

The hon. Member is not a doctor. He is guided by his own—

Mr. THORNE

Common sense!

Mr. JONES

Here is a report of the expert committee of the Royal Society: Repeated experience has shown that regiments not supplied with alcohol marched further, and were in better condition at the end of the day, than others to which it had been given. Experiments in mountain climbing have given similar indications, the total work done being smaller under alcohol and the expenditure of energy greater. In particular, the records of American industrial experience are significant in showing a better output when no alcohol is taken by the worker.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

Who says so?

Mr. JONES

That is the evidence of the expert committee of the Royal Society appointed by the Board of Trade to look into this whole question. It consisted of some of the most distinguished medical men in this country, of experts, chemists, and scientific men of the highest reputation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I believe that now the right hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the mark. The Notice of Motion by the right hon. Gentleman hardly entitles him to go into what is known as the temperance question. If that is allowed, I see no reason why I should now allow a Debate on the whole question. Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should confine himself a little more strictly to the point.

Mr. JONES

I will. But I was endeavouring to find out why the Government were making this increase, and I thought it was probably on the grounds I have suggested. However, I have really finished that part of my argument. The Government may say that all this is irrelevant, and that what they are concerned with is not the facts of the case, but whether or not there is really this demand on the part of the harvesters and munition workers for this increased supply. I do not dispute, I cannot challenge, the fact that there is a section of workmen who probably at this moment are complaining that they are not getting enough beer. It is said that these men like it, and will not work without it. That I do not for a moment believe ! I think the workers of this country have shown themselves far too patriotic during the War to adopt that attitude, or for a moment, if the Government held it to be necessary, on account of the food supply of this country, that the amount of beer to be given to them should be limited or even prohibited altogether—which is a possibility—to resent that action on the part of the Government, if it was put to them in that way.

Mr. RUTHERFORD

Why do you not take up exactly the same attitude?

Mr. JONES

If the Government are in any difficulty in this matter it is because of what I have endeavoured to put before the Committee in respect to the attitude of the Government, that the people will not believe that things are so serious. I am bound to say that in their action in changing the policy deliberately adopted in February, the Government are teaching an evil lesson to the country. They are teaching the lesson to the country that if there are any restrictions imposed at the present time people affected have only to make a sufficient clamour and the Government will instantly give in. We have seen that in the matter of racing. The Jockey Club, men of influence, clamour against the action of the Government. Letters are written to the newspapers. The Government yield. The Government, in view of the food supply of the country, fix the output of beer at 10,000,000 barrels. A clamour arises, possibly genuine, possibly stirred up. Correspondence arises in the newspapers. The Government yield— and they do this regardless apparently of their own declarations in the past, and, as it seems to me, of the present food supply of the country. Therefore, when it was announced that the Government intended to increase the output; of beer, I asked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order that this matter might be discussed, and we might have a full explanation from the Government of their change of policy. I am bound to say the Government are losing the confidence of the country, which demands a Government which is not blown hither and thither by every wind of popular clamour, but which, watching the interests of the country, sees what is right to be done, and does it, and, having decided upon its policy, has the courage to carry that policy through.

Mr. DEVLIN

I must at the very outset extend my warm congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the political ingenuity and the parliamentary skill which have enabled him to deliver one of his oft-repeated prohibitionist speeches. I understood when my right hon. Friend was moving the adjournment of the House that he proposed to deal with this question purely from the point of the sugar supply, and I gathered from the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker that he was to confine himself, according to the terms of his Motion, to that aspect of the question. But really the right hon. Gentleman's speech is typical of the policy of the party which the right hon. Gentleman represents. They are willing to take any possible advantage they can secure for the purpose of advancing those nostrums which the sound sense of the country has repeatedly rejected on the merits. [An HON, MEMBER: "When?"] Always. Everybody knows that if the judgment of this House, as typifying the will of the nation, wanted prohibition, the nation could get it. But my experience of teetotalers is that they are always talking about sacrifices, but that they themselves always like the sacrifices to be made by other people.

Mr. JONES

Are we all like that?

Mr. DEVLIN

I suppose we are, but we do not always pose as paragons of perfection like the leaders of the prohibitionist movement. I object altogether to a teetotaler determining what other people should drink. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, in less picturesque terms than he would have done but for the limitation of the Motion, that working men can work infinitely better on water than on beer. How does the right hon. Gentleman know? If I want to find out what is the feeling of a working man engaged in the most vital and laborious pursuit—in our steel works, in our munition factories, or in any other of the arduous physical labour which working men are carrying on to-day—I go to the working man himself, and if I cannot find out from the working man himself what his opinion is, I go to the representatives of the working man, and surely my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham—of whom, at all events, it can be said, that no man has been more eloquent or more powerful in the promotion of all the causes for which this country stands—is a better exponent of the views of the working classes not only on other matters, but on this matter, than the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

Mr. JONES

I represent nearly as many working men in this House as the hon. Member for West Ham.

Mr. THORNE

You take their feeling on the question !

Mr. DEVLIN

The right hon. Gentleman does not represent them on this question.

Mr. JONES

Come down to Rushcliffe.

9.0. P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, I think, in nearly ninety-nine out of a hundred questions in public life. I would vote for him on every question but prohibition, on which I know he is absolutely fanatical. But he is so admirable a representative on all the other questions that I would vote for him, just as people in his constituency do. Therefore I say, if I want to have the opinion of the working classes on what concerns the working classes—and it is the working classes with whom we are concerned in this matter—I do not go to a highly respectable Liberal, but I go to a man who not only represents the people in Parliament, but who lives among the people and understands the working man. All the Labour representatives whose opinions have been expressed upon this question practically have stated, first of all, that a great many restrictions were unnecessary altogether, and that the national interest demanded that this concession should be made by the Government on this question. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we should all be prepared to make sacrifices. I think he ought to sacrifice a violent prewar opinion upon this question to meet the demands of the situation. Undoubtedly, apart altogether from the knowledge we gather from the opinions of the representatives of the working classes, we know, and we understand, that in extremely hot weather like this men who are engaged in sweltering pursuits, in shipyards, steel works and munition factories, want beer, and if they want it they ought to get it. This is not a demand for more drink to make people drunk. Nobody wants that. We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to maintain the sobriety of the working classes. But we ought to approach this question from the point of view of common sense. It is not for me to speak as to English tastes or English appetites, but I take it that it has been a traditional desire of the working classes to be supplied with beer largely with their food, and if they want it they ought to get it. I object to a teetotaler telling me what I ought to drink, just in the same way as I object altogether to people who never go to races determining whether there ought to be races or not. There is something we have been fighting for, and no one more than the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the preservation of our personal liberty. Personal liberty is the right of every man to do what he likes, so long as he does not encroach upon the liberties of others.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

To eat as much bread as he likes in war-time?

Mr. DEVLIN

Yes, if he can get it, and does not encroach on the liberty of others. I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is suffering from want of bread. He may be suffering from want of beer, which is a disadvantage. No one argues at all that beer ought to be given as a substitute for bread, but, in my opinion, the recent restrictions were never called for by the national necessities. Lord Derby stated, I think in another place, but, at all events, somewhere, that racing was stopped in England and in Ireland, not because of the necessity for food supplies, but because of the force of public opinion. The public opinion was the anti-racing people. The public opinion on this question is the teetotal party. No public opinion seems to count in the mind of these people, unless it is the public opinion of the faddist. No declaration of the public will is to be expressed, unless it is sanctioned by the apostles of these fads. But there is a vast amount of opinion, sometimes dumb, not always articulate. It never counts in all these things, but it is represented by the spirit of common sense, and because the spirit of common sense ought to be the first consideration with the Government, I resent altogether the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. He has told us that he admits that this concession has not been made to the brewers. What is his point? The right hon. Gentleman asks if these concessions are not made to the brewers, to whom are they made? They are made in response to that popular clamour to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the clamour of the people who do the work and make the sacrifice. Everybody knows that sacrifices have to be made, but in my judgment there ought to be no sacrifices called for that are not absolutely essential to the due prosecution of the War. We have to sacrifice our convictions in order to please faddists and fanatics because sacrifice is the order of the day.

I rose not to deal with this broad question, but to raise a protest against the character of the concessions which have been made by the Government. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman cannot object to this increase in the supplies in Ireland, because no sugar is used at all in the manufacture of porter and stout, which bears the same relationship and corresponds to beer in this country, and therefore he cannot raise any objection on that ground. I altogether object to the method by which the Government is making this concession. As I have stated, beer is practically not consumed in Ireland at all, but stout is, and I may point out to the Home Secretary, who I understand in this matter is going to speak for the Government, that the distilling and brewing industry constitutes perhaps the most vital and the most important of our industries in Ireland in three provinces. I do not think there is any national necessity for these striking assaults upon this great and important industry in Ireland. Three provinces in Ireland have been seriously endangered already by the restrictions which the Government have imposed upon them. I would suggest to the Government that they should allow the porter in Ireland to be brewed at the gravity which is permitted at present, and the 333 per cent, additional supply ought to be upon the same basis as the supply at present. The stout made in Ireland has a great reputation throughout the world, and it is the great brewing industry in Dublin on which the prosperity of that city mainly depends, and if you are going to force these people to supply an inferior article you strike a blow at the character of the manufacture which these people supply. As it is, by your restrictions, you have driven hundreds out of employment in Dublin already, and you have substituted no employment for that which has been taken away from them.

Not only have those engaged in the trade, as we understand it, such as carpenters and coopers and others, Been thrown out of employment, but a large number of other classes of workers have become unemployed, and the munition work in Dublin is of such an infinitesimal character that it docs not give a corresponding advantage for the sacrifice which this industry has had to make. I understand that one of the purposes of the Government in allowing a 33 per cent, increase is due to the necessity of supplying the agricultural workers with beer in this country, and I would say correspondingly with stout in Ireland. During the last year there have been 700,000 extra acres put under cultivation in Ireland in response to the national appeal for more tillage. Are you going to deny these people, if they want it—I am so strong a supporter of personal liberty that I do not want to force it on them if they do not want it, but they are entitled to have it if they do want it—what they have been accustomed to have even with a more limited cultivation, are you going to deny them their supply of stout? You are going to allow it here in the form of beer, and why not do the same thing in Ireland in regard to stout, and you cannot give them that article unless you allow the gravity to remain what it is at present.

Ireland receives no advantage whatever from the concession of the Government, and they will be either compelled to drink English beer or do without this concession altogether. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider this aspect of the question, and I ask them to leave the gravity of Irish stout what it is, to give Ireland its corresponding share of the increased supplies, and thereby deal equally and impartially with both countries in this matter. I have also to say that we cannot afford in Ireland to allow the Government for any purpose whatever to continue to strike at the industries of our country. We have suffered greatly in the past by legislation of this Imperial Parliament. You have destroyed many of our great industries, the woollen industry and others in Ireland, and you have left our people almost entirely dependent upon agriculture. And now, during this period of flux, at a time when this country, notwithstanding the War, is living under a condition of boundless prosperity, Ireland has received none of the industrial advantages of the War, if I may express it in those terms, but every time you require something to be done in the interests of the War Ireland has to suffer by it, and the people resent it. That is one of the reasons why, in growing volume, and with greater and deeper intensity, our people are demanding day by day and year by year the ending of this system by which we are controlled in Ireland by this country, without any regard for the peculiar conditions and the economic necessities of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will find that feeling in Ireland on this question is exceedingly strong, and I trust he will make this concession, not to Ireland, but to the spirit of justice which I have ventured to put before him.

The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave)

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) travelled a good deal beyond the grounds of this Motion. I am not complaining, but I want to point out that his Motion is based on two things: First, that there has been a change of policy on the part of the Government; and, secondly, that we are going to put a strain on the supply of sugar. I think I can show before I sit down that both those statements are without foundation. The restrictions on the output of beer have grown, I admit, from month to month and from year to year as the needs of the country required. We began with an output of 36,000,000 standard barrels. We restricted that to 26,000,000. We proposed to reduce it to 18,000,000, and then when the pinch came the Government reduced it to 10,000,000 standard barrels per annum. Each change was caused by some change in the circumstances of the War which needed a further restriction upon the output, and the only increase to which my right hon. Friend can point is the increase with which we are dealing to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says, quite fairly, that he does not suggest for a moment that we are making this change for the purpose of obliging the brewers. If we took this step with any such object we should indeed be unworthy not only of the confidence of my right hon. Friend, but of every Member of this House. The Government are taking this step for serious reasons connected with the conduct of the War, and for no other reason, and they believe that those reasons compel them to take it. I want the House to consider for a few moments the grounds which induce the Government to make this change. It is a fact—there is no doubt about it—that there is a serious shortage of beer in many parts of the country. That shortage is causing serious unrest and is interfering with the output of munitions and with the position of the country in this War. In many of the great towns, in munition areas, and among harvesters we know that the shortage exists, and there is unrest, discontent, loss of time, loss of work, and in some cases even strikes are threatened and indeed caused by the very fact that there is a shortage of beer. These are serious facts.

Mr. L. JONES

Does my right hon. Friend really say that a strike has been caused by a shortage of beer?

Sir G. CAVE

I do say that. The right hon. Gentleman cannot know all these facts, but they are known to Members of the Government. They are known, many of them, especially to the Minister of Munitions, and I am glad that ray hon. Friend (Mr. Kellaway) is here and can speak to them if need be. These are important facts with which any Government desiring to carry on the War would be bound in some way or other to deal. We have to deal with that condition of things. It may be that the only real remedy is that we should take control of the liquor industry of this country. 1 am not putting that out of my mind at all. It may be the only real and effective remedy. I am not disputing that, but it is a matter which takes time and which requires a large staff and a good deal of preparation. It could not be effected without first coming to this House and giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter and ascertaining their view. A promise to that effect has been given, and that promise, of course, will be kept. The Government, therefore has to find an immediate palliative for the condition of things that I have described. I am not going to argue with my right hon. Friend whether it is wise or not for people to drink beer. I am not going to argue as between beer and coffee, between temperance and prohibition. That has nothing whatever to do with our action, and, if I may say so, it is unwise to bring that kind of argument into this discussion. The point is that these men, who after all know what they want, think that they need beer in order to carry on their work. They find it necessary, and it is not for us to judge. It is not for my right hon. Friend or for me to judge at this time whether they are right or wrong. I think if any one of us were doing the hard exhausting work that many of these men are doing in the factories and foundries day by day and hour by hour we should find that a thirst would come upon us. I do not think that ever my right hon. Friend would escape from that result. He might seek to quench his thirst by draughts of milk and soda or something of that kind, but he has been brought up on milk and soda.

Mr. SHERWELL

He was once a moderate drinker

Mr. W. THORNE

Then he is pinching the babies' milk.

Sir G. CAVE

These men have been brought up on something stronger. It is no use arguing. They know what they want, and after all we have to meet not some medical question whether it may be right or wrong, or some theoretical view of the Royal Society, but a need which these men feel, a thing which they desire and want to have in order to carry on the nation's work. When we see men leaving their work and losing work for a reason of this kind, we have to take that into account and weigh it with other considerations in deciding our policy. I am asked what we are going to do, and though the information would possibly come more appropriately from the Food Controller I hope that the statement I am about to make will be sufficient. It is proposed during the current quarter from July 1 till the end of September to allow the brewing of an amount of beer exceeding by 33£ per cent, the amount already allowed for the quarter. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the amount at 2,500,000. It is not exactly one-fourth of the total 10,000,000 standard barrels per year, because according to practice more is brewed in the summer quarter than in the other quarters. I think the exact amount allowed for this quarter is 2,900,000 standard barrels. It is proposed in addition to allow for this quarter only one-third of that amount, which would be about 970,000 standard barrels. That is the whole amount which we propose to allow. I have been asked whether we propose to make conditions so that the beer shall be less in gravity than it has previously been. We do propose to make those conditions. Of the 33¼ per, cent, it is intended that 13¼ per cent, shall be brewed at a gravity not exceeding 1,036, which is quite a low figure, and that it shall be at the disposal of the Food Controller for distribution in munitions areas and in the agricultural districts for harvesting purposes. Of course, it is no good allowing a further amount unless you take power to divert it to the places where it is most wanted. Therefore, that amount will be at the disposal of the Controller to go wherever he thinks it should go. My right hon. Friend asks me how many bulk barrels will be brewed. I suppose with the addition it will be nearly 5,000,000 for the quarter. I cannot give the exact figure.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS

Is that for the use of munition workers and agricultural labourers only?

Sir G. CAVE

Only the 13¼ per cent. a brewer will be allowed to brew the other 20 per cent., but he will be required to brew not one-half of that, but one-half of the whole of the beer he brews for the quarter, at a gravity not exceeding the average gravity of his brew in the corresponding quarter of last year. There- fore as regards that half there will be no substantial change in gravity. As regards the other half of his total brew, he will be required to brew it at a gravity not exceeding 1,036, so that we shall secure a reduction in gravity—first, in the 13⅓ per cent, to be brewed for the Food Controller, and, secondly, in one-half of the remainder, which is not to exceed a gravity of 1,036 degrees. That gravity, as hon. Members well know, is a low one compared with the existing figure. We think that a great amount of good will accrue from a reduction of the gravity. It is quite true that both in England and in Ireland there are breweries which brew at a gravity considerably exceeding the figure of 1,036 degrees, and whose names and goodwill depend to a great extent upon their keeping up the gravity of the beer they produce. I quite agree that that is so. It is for that very reason that we give the brewer the right to brew one-half of that which he produces of a gravity equal to his usual gravity—that is, the gravity of last year. The particular purpose of that is to meet the point which the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) made, and made quite fairly— namely, that it is rather unfair to take these high gravity breweries and make them brew all their beer at a low gravity, and so destroy their name and goodwill. We meet that point. We give them the right to brew half their product at the high gravity at which they have been accustomed to brew.

Mr. DEVLIN

Is that half of the new supply or of the total supply?

Sir G. CAVE

It is not quite half of the total supply, but it will be more than half of that which they are now supplying. That will be increased by the 20 per cent. I quite agree that that may involve a loss to some of the great breweries in England and Ireland, which may suffer, in reputation, but I believe they will be willing to submit for national purposes to some amount of loss. If they are not, they have a right to say, "We will not have your concession; we will go on brewing our share of the 10,000,000 standard barrels in the old way." In that way we do not hurt them, and they can go on as they are. If they take advantage of our offer, I do not think they can fairly complain if they are asked for national reasons to reduce the gravity of a part of their product. The hon. Member for West Belfast put his case rather high when he said that Ireland had not shared in any industrial advantage through the War.

Mr. DEVLIN

I said we had no corresponding advantage.

Sir G. CAVE

It is rather invidious to make comparisons, but we all know that considerable benefit has accrued to, at any rate, certain classes in Ireland from the War, and that ought to be taken into account when we are considering this matter. We think we have met the special case of some, at all events, of the Irish brewing firms. The hon. Gentleman says that does not apply to all the brewing firms in Ireland. I believe that as regards some of the firms there will be no difficulty at all, and I believe that even the great Dublin firms when they consider the offer made will be very disposed to accept it. At any rate, we think we are dealing with them as fairly as with the other great firms in this country. One thing the hon. Gentleman said was perfectly justified, namely, that there has been a certain amount of labour thrown out of employment in Ireland by reason of the restrictions upon brewing. [An HON. MEMBER: "A large number ! "] I think that is so, and that efforts ought to be made—I believe they are being made—to find employment for all labour of that kind. After all, we need labour. The more good workers we can get, the more pleased we shall be. I am quite sure that the effort will be made—indeed, I know that the matter is being considered— in order to find employment in all cases where men are bonâ fide, out of employment by reason of the restrictions imposed.

That is, quite shortly, the scheme that will be embodied in the Order. As regards sugar, I do not think there is any cause to complain. The breweries are already limited in their supply of sugar. They are now limited, as my right hon. Friend will probably know, to a certain percentage of the amount which they used in 1915. That ration will not be increased at all. They will have no more sugar than they already have. Therefore, in that respect, I do not think there is any cause for complaint or for the special allegation upon which the right hon. Gentleman partly bases his Motion. In any case, as we all know, not all breweries use sugar. I believe the Irish stout breweries use none. I believe that many of the English breweries use a large proportion of glucose, which, of course, is not sugar and is in no way capable of being used for food purposes. However that may be—I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter—it may be taken that we do not intend to increase in any respect the ration of sugar allowed to brewers. Therefore, in that respect, the change that has been made makes no difference to the food supply.

There remains, of course, what I agree is an important point in the matter. There is a limited supply of malt now existing in this country ready for use. The right hon. Gentleman seems to commend it for food purposes. I do not believe the malt stock is capable of being usefully employed in the production of food. Such as it is, it is useful for brewing and for brewing practically only. Such as it is, it is true it will be exhausted at an earlier date than it would have been if this Order were not made. The position will be that we must consider, when that time comes in due course, whether the Government can allow further barley to be malted or not. I want to say at once that in coming to a decision, when the time comes, the Government will be governed entirely by the consideration whether the malting can be allowed, having regard to the requirements of the food supply of the people. I do not recede one word from what I said in February last in the sentence which my right hon. Friend quoted to-night, and I am quite sure the Prime Minister would repeat every word he then used. It is the governing principle that the food supply must come first; and it is only if and when, due regard being had to that consideration, barley can be used for malting purposes, that malting will be allowed. I do not think I can make a clearer statement than that On that point I think I am in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But subject to that, surely it is right that we should have regard to the habits of the people, not only as to food but as to the drink which they require for the performance of their work. It is on that principle that we are making the change, and on that principle we are prepared to justify it. I think the House will infer from what I have said, first, that in the steps we intend to take we are guided entirely by practical considerations connected with the carrying on of the War and by no other considerations at all; secondly, that we have taken great precautions to ensure that the increased beer which will be brewed shall not be too high in gravity, and therefore shall be sufficient for the immediate needs of the population; and thirdly, that we reserve to ourselves the full right, when the position of the country in regard to food warrants it, to reconsider the step which is now being taken and to make such Orders as may then be required in the circumstances.

Mr. COOTE

The Home Secretary has tried to explain many things in defence of the action of the Government, but he has not answered this very important question—whether the situation in regard to the food supply to the people, especially the sugar supply, warrants the step which the Government now proposes to take? He tells us that the working people demand more beer. But we suggest to him that, if it is perfectly necessary that in some districts the working people must have more beer, there arc many districts in which there might be much less beer than at present, and if the Government would only take the trouble, by a little rearrangement, the situation could be met without destroying any more food or the sugar which is so very necessary now in order to supply the necessary food preservation for the many cottage industries that we have all over the country. In hundreds of homes there are little fruit gardens, but the fruit is allowed to die on the bushes because there is no sugar to preserve it. We have done what we can, by questions in this House and by privately impressing on the Food Controller the necessity of conserving some sugar for the preservation of these fruits which are so necessary to the health of the people during the winter, and we are met with absolute refusal. There is no sugar for this very necessary food of the people, but there evidently is sufficient sugar for the manufacture of more beer. It is also said there is so much unrest among the working classes. I contend that the unrest among the working classes is largely owing to profiteering and to the way the working classes are being exploited by the profiteering people all over the country, and it is not a. question so much of beer. The hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) has quoted the Irish situation and speaks as one who knows the working classes. I make him this challenge. I take the city of Belfast, in which there are probably as many working men as in any other city of the same population in the three Kingdoms. Take a plebiscite of these people and I stand or fall by the result. These men have been working since the War started and have kept down strikes and have worked in season and out of season that they might give munitions to the Army and the Navy, and to say they will not work if they do not get beer is a libel on them.

Mr. J. O'CONNOR

The hon. Member made no such statement.

Mr. COOTE

I challenge the Government on this point. It is very easy to find out the temper of the working classes if you take the city of Belfast as a typical case. The hon. Member also said the hay harvesters in Ireland will not work if they do not get beer, and that we have 700,000 added acres and we want a corresponding amount of beer to hurry up the workers. [HON. MEMBEES: "He never said it!"] That is the substance of what he said. If you pay the workers in Ireland you will get them to work without getting beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Look at the sweaters of Belfast! "] Look at the sweaters in Dublin and compare them with Belfast. Mention has been made of Dublin to show that the people there have no employment. T know a public-house in Dublin, and one of these slum workers, who deplores the condition of things in the neighbourhood of that house, had it watched about four months ago and he found that 225 people entered and left it in one hour, and that at closing time twenty-five women in various stages of drunkenness came out of it. Hon. Members from Ireland say that Dublin is starving. How can it be otherwise? The fact of twenty-five unfortunate women, many of them wives of soldiers, leaving a public-house drunk at closing time is a disgrace to the morals of a nation. The Home Secretary says we must get beer for other parts of the country because we must leave drink in Dublin so that these poor unfortunate women can get drunk. It is also said, "We want more drink in Ireland." I say we want more restrictions on drink in Ireland. Go on board any of the Belfast steamers and look at some of the soldiers going back to France. They have to be helped up the gangway by their wives to get safely on board. On the very last steamer on which I came over I saw four or five cases of it. You will see it every night.

An HON. MEMBER

Can you see it in London?

Mr. COOTE

No; because you have restrictions in London. You have a Board of Control working in London, and you have no Board of Control in Ireland. That is another grievance for Ireland, of course. You can drink as you please in Ireland, and so the poor soldier takes all he can, for he knows that when he gets into England he is not going to have as much as he wants and he takes a good load and it is too heavy for him and he falls under it. I want to plead to-night for the sugar supply. I want to plead in the name of thousands of housewives, and if they had the vote you would not treat them as carelessly as you are doing to-night. They want to make preserves for their families and the little children want more bread and they are crying for bread to-night and you give them a stone. The representatives of the trade come here and say that they must have their beer and use as much bread as those who do not want beer, and then they say they are not selfish and they talk of equality of sacrifice. I wonder these men are not ashamed. The Debate from the other side has been engineered in the passages of this House. The trade is out there. It is giving statistics. It is sending in these speakers. It is organised. It cannot come into the House except through its Members, but outside its agents are there organising this Debate to-night. This Debate could not take place without having the agents outside organising and giving statistics to those who come here to speak. I am not here speaking as a temperance man: I am speaking on behalf of the food of the people, and I say if something is not done soon for the working classes the question is going to be serious. Instead of easing off the situation you seem to be accentuating it by what you propose to do to-night. This will have its effect upon the country. You send circulars into every home and appeal to the patriotism ' of the people, to induce them to eat less food in order to win the War, and side by side with it, you are going to destroy thousands of tons of food that ought to go for the support of the people. Of course the people think the Government is humbugging, is play-acting, and is not serious. This will be the feeling of the country to-morrow when the proposals of the Government are read in the Press. I appeal to the Government to pause and to reconsider the whole question, and withdraw the supply from the places where there are neither munition workers or harvesters, but where there are poor people who would be much better without it. If they must give it to the people in the munition areas who want it, they can do so by an adjustment—I question very much whether in many cases they do want it; I think it is largely an engineered cry of the trade—but if there is a real demand for it in the munition areas then it is quite easy by a little adjustment to meet the situation instead of embarking on the new proposals suggested to-night.

Mr. W. THORNE

I think if all of us were to take the same line as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down there would be civil war in this country before long. We do not want to have exaggerated reports either on one side or the other. I am not going to apologise because I am responsible for this Debate to-night. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is responsible for the position in which we find ourselves, because he seized the opportunity of moving the adjournment of the House this afternoon. I hope Members will look at the question which was down on the Order Paper. The question was about the discontent in various parts of the country in consequence of the shortage of beer. I asked the Government if they were prepared to increase the barrelage. It was a simple question. The matter has been before the House on several occasions, and the result is the Government have come to a decision. I hope nobody will charge me with being in the hands of the brewers or anybody else. As a matter of fact this is not absolutely off my own bat; the question was put before me at various meetings which I have addressed in different parts of the country. I travel as much as any man in this country in the very large industrial centres, and during the last few weeks I have been at Leeds, Brighouse, Cleck-heaton, Leicester, Nottingham, Hull, Lincoln, and other places. At Leicester, where I addressed a meeting, a question was put to me by one of the audience who wanted to know what the Government was going to do to increase the barrelage of beer, as there was serious discontent in Leicester about it. The same night I went to Nottingham and spoke in the market place. It was not a meeting upon the beer question at all; it was on the War to a great extent. Here the same question was put to me. I find in travelling about that there is very serious travelling about that there is very serious. beer. I will ask the Home Secretary whether it is not a fact that the evidence now being tendered to the Commission appointed by the Government to inquire into the state of industrial unrest does not show that there is great discontent owing to the shortage of beer. Amongst others, teetotalers have been asked to give evidence, and also men belonging to the Army, and they all tell exactly the same thing. It will be very interesting to this House when the evidence is collected by these various commissioners. The House will then find that the drink problem is-a serious one so far as the munition areas are concerned. Everybody will agree that the major part of the people of this country drink beer. Nobody I think will dispute that fact. In consequence of the shortage of beer, these people have for some time past taken to drink spirits. If they cannot get one thing they get the other.

I am sure that this small concession will be the means to a great extent of allaying the discontent that is prevalent in different parts of the country. People say this is for the benefit of the brewers, but I say it is not for the benefit of the brewers. As a matter of fact, brewers are to lose by it. It is evident to me, and I think to all consumers of Leer, that when the concession is made the brewers will have to disgorge some of their profits s that is to say, they will have to reduce the price of beer. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe will not like to see that. He wants the price of beer to be made higher.

Mr. JONES

Is the price to be reduced?

Mr. THORNE

Certainly. The consumers will insist upon it. Why should the poor consumers be bled as they are to-day?

Mr. JONES

Why not have it free?

Mr. THORNE

Certainly. I am one of those who have advocated in this House free things in many directions. I have advocated free travelling. That used to be an old platform in the Socialist programme. As a matter of fact, you can have nothing free; you have to pay for it in one direction or another. Where labour is engaged it has to be paid for in some form. There is a certain amount of social labour involved in everything, and that social labour has to be paid for in some form. I am not an expert on gravity. I do not know the difference between 40 and 50, but I do know that the major portion of the people of this country drink mild beer. There is no doubt about that. If the Home Secretary will give us a guarantee that we shall have what is called four-ale in London, I think that will suit the working-class man like myself and others. Those in a higher social position than the ordinary rank and file of wage earners can get their glass of stout or bottle of beer or Bass, which the rank and file cannot afford to buy. Of four-ale is brewed, I hope they are not going to charge a bob a quart for it, as they are doing now. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to learn that some of the retailers are selling bitter at 2s. 6d. a quart. If you go over the way you have to pay 6d. a glass, and there are five glasses to the quart. That makes 2s. 6d. a quart. The consumers are being bled—I do not know whether by the brewers or by the retailers, but I know they are being bled, anyhow. I am not at all pleading simply because I find that there are a lot of people who think it is very much better for the workman to work without beer. So far as I am concerned, I have tried both. When I worked in the gasworks I was a teetotaler for seven years, and I do not say that I could not do my work just as well. I do not dispute that for a single moment, but I do say that there are a very large number of wage earners who after doing a day's work like a glass of beer, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion to-night did not read another letter he had to-day from a woman. He was reading a letter from a soldier somewhere down in the country, but as a matter of fact he told me this afternoon that he received a letter from a lady—I think he said from his own Division—and. as a matter of fact, she told him that in consequence of the shortage of beer her husband was eating more food.

Mr. JONES

The hon. Member is mistaken in saying it was a letter. It was an interview I had with a lady who came from West Ham, and she told me that owing to the difficulty of getting beer there her husband was now in the habit of coming home to supper, and that the result of my efforts to save food had led to a greater consumption of food owing to the demands of her husband for supper.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. THORNE

The moral of that is, give more beer and there will not be as much bread consumed. The right hon. Gentleman charged the Government with a change of policy. I admit there has been a change of policy, and you have had it all your own way, and it has been in your direction on three or four occasions. As a matter of fact, this change of policy was brought about without any consultation at all with the organised workers. My hon. Friends who differ from me upon this question—I know there are deep-rooted opinions on both sides on this question, and that in our party some members take one view and some another; I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is a total abstainer, and therefore there is a division of opinion—will agree with me when I say, as I do unhesitatingly, that if the Government had taken the same line with regard to trade union rules as they have with regard to the liquor traffic there would have been trouble. I am sure of that. If it was good to take the wage-earners into consultation in regard to the alteration of trade union rules, as the vast majority of the workers of this country belong to trade unions, and as the majority of people drink beer, whisky, and other intoxicants, I think the wage-earners are justified in asking, as they did ask on more than one occasion, that they should be consulted by the Government before it took the line of action that it has taken now for two years. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the fruit rotting on the trees. What happened in pre-war days? How many times did we read in the fruit districts about fruit rotting on the trees, simply on account of the high rail freightage? It is only an old argument brought forward with the object of trying to poison the minds of people. In pre-war days there were tons and tons of fruit allowed to rot simply because of the high cost of freightage. It seems to me that the same thing applies now, because if there is a glut of fruit the result will be that the people who own the fruit gardens will not be able to send it to town on account of the high price of rail freightage.

Mr. JONES

The shortage of sugar is creating a real difficulty in the making of jam.

Mr. THORNE

I quite admit that, but personally I think that the most convenient way of dealing with the jam question would be to send the fruit to what are called the jam manufacturers and to supply them with the sugar for the purpose of making the jam. I know you meet with another difficulty there, and that there are a very large number of people in this country, particularly the wives of the wage-earners, who like to make their own jam. It would be a very good thing if the Government or the Sugar Commission could see their way to supply people with sugar for the making of home-made jam. I think there is a great deal of fuss made about the sugar used in the making of beer. What about the making of ginger-pop, and lemonade, and things of that kind? If it is good to try to cut off the workmen's beer, why not cut off the ginger-pop and save the sugar in that direction? Why do you not stop the manufacture of the higher-priced chocolates and sweets of that kind? It is a well-known fact that there are very high-priced chocolates made in this country in which a great deal of sugar is consumed, and the ordinary rank and file do not purchase those high-priced chocolates because they have not the money to do it. I certainly would not like to see the ordinary cheaper sweets cut away at all, but there is the possibility of saving a great deal of sugar where these high-priced chocolates are made in the different parts of the country.

I hope the Members who are going to follow me will not follow in such an excited manner as my hon. Friend over the way, because I think the matter is too serious. I dare say my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Thomas) is going to take the opposite direction. He may say that he has travelled about and has found no discontent. I will say how I find that there is discontent. After I have held a meeting I simply mix with what are called the rank and file, and if you want to test at all the real feelings of the wage-earners, mingle with them. That is the way to find out. I do that, and you can only find out the real opinions of the wage-earners in that way. I say, without any hesitation at all, that if you mingle with the munition and wage-earners in all parts of the country they will tell you that they are dissatisfied with the shortage of beer. The man who gets drunk and "barmy" is no use to the publican, or to himself or his wife and children. It is not that class of man we are pleading for at all. I would not attempt to plead for the man who spends the major part of his money in beer instead of looking after his family, and I do not think that anybody has done more than the organised workers have done to teach people to be temperate in all things. We have done a great deal of good in that direction, and there is a rule in our union that prevents any branch meeting at a public-house. I do not say that if they meet at a coffee house it is the best place to meet at, because often they are not so comfortable in many directions as at the public-house. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government have made the reasonable concession they have made, and I am quite sure that it will allay the discontent which is prevalent in different parts of the country.

Mr. THOMAS

My hon. Friend opened his remarks by asking the House to believe that he was not in the hands of the brewers. It was not necessary for him to make that statement, because everyone who knows him knows perfectly well that, however much we may disagree or differ, he is always actuated by the very best motives. If any proof were necessary that he was not in the hands of the brewers, he gave abundant evidence of it by intimating that, so far as he was concerned, he wanted beer supplied free, which I presume is sufficient evidence to rule him out from a board of directors at any time. But I want to deal with his arguments, and his experience, became, like him, I go about the country a good deal, and I address very many meetings and very large meetings. Also, like him, I mix with my own people after, with a view to ascertaining exactly what is their opinion. He points, as evidence for has case, to the fact that at certain meetings the question has been asked, "What is the Government going to do with the beer?" That statement is put forward as showing an anxiety on the part of the people on this question, and the danger that something will result from it. Now, my answer to that question would be this: That for all the times that has been asked during the past six months, and for the number of people who have asked it, how many of these same meetings have asked my hon. Friend and myself, "What is the Government going to do with the food of the people?" If we are going to judge as to whether the feeling of the country is in favour of beer or of food, then there is abundant evidence that the answer is that they want food and not beer.

Mr. THORNE

Both.

Mr. THOMAS

Indeed, the hon. Member himself proceeded to argue it by saying that the great majority of the people of this country drink beer or spirits. It may be true, but everybody is dependent for food, and what we have to consider this evening is not whether temperance is good or bad—because I unhesitatingly say, as a temperance man, that nothing could be more mean and contemptible than to take advantage of the circumstances of the War to force this question. It is not from that standpoint at all that I approach it. I approach it absolutely from the standpoint of whether the addition, or concession, or whatever you may call it, that has now been made does seriously affect the food of the people; and in that connection I mention sugar. I have a family of five, and for five weeks we had no sugar in our house. If I, who was able to pay for sugar, could not obtain it I can conceive what is the position of my less fortunate fellow working-men so far as their families are concerned. No one is going to argue that sugar is not essential to child life. Everyone knows that women themselves are tramping from shop to shop, that children are going from shop to shop, and that every effort is being made to obtain sugar, and if discontent and trouble are really likely to arise, then I have no hesitation in saying that if the women know and believe that they are short of sugar, not because there is no sugar in the country, but because beer is absorbing sugar which they ought to have, then, indeed, there will be trouble, and that, in my judgment, will be far more dangerous than anything else.

The Home Secretary made a statement that I was very sorry to hear. I am not going to argue it because he cannot have made it without having some evidence. But I am ashamed—and I speak as a Labour leader; I speak as one who has never been ashamed of his own people and who is proud of his own people—but I am amazed and ashamed to hear that there have been strikes in this country because of the shortage of beer. I should like to examine that. I should like to know exactly the district, and I would go to that district, because I should like to examine it in very close detail. There have been a number of disputes; there is unrest in the country; but it is due to a whole chain of circumstances, and not to one. I cannot conceive, and refuse to believe, in the midst of a war, when our people have done such magnificent work, when over 6,000,000 of our men are serving, when mothers are giving their sons and wives their husbands—that this country is so degraded that they will strike and imperil the success of the War merely on a question of beer. It is because I believe that this is a reflection on the workers that I very much regret to have heard it stated this evening. But I want for a moment to develop this. When the question of drink became a serious factor in the early stages of the War, the present Prime Minister said that one of the enemies was drink, and the greatest. And in this House he, and various spokesmen from the Front Bench, gave figures to show that it was imperiling the interests of the country, and they went on to prove that why it was so dangerous was not because of intemperance, but because of the tremendous amount of time that was lost. As a matter of fact, I then resented the wholesale indictment of the workers, because, just as I believe that temperance is good, and as some workers drink to excess, and some rich people as well, and just as I believe that that is an evil to both, so it is not fair to indict any particular class on evidence of that kind. Therefore, it is remarkable that on this occasion we are told that a concession was being given in order to encourage and to help work, whereas all the evidence that we have had in the past has gone to show that it was to prevent a loss of time which occurred in the factories.

But I said before that I was not going to argue the temperance question, only to say this, that America is passing through a stage which is remarkable in the world's history. The best opinion in America, even of those in favour and in opposition, is that America is going absolutely dry. Canada is the same. Who will deny, whatever the value of the Russian Revolution may have been, and whatever the future of that country, as a result of that Revolution may be, that the absence of vodka was manifest in Russia and did more to steady the people than anything else!

Mr. THORNE

It tore the Tsar off his throne.

Mr. THOMAS

But, as I know my hon. Friend likes a glass, then that ought to be worth the sacrifice of that, in his judgment, even to have accomplished that. I say, with the greatest respect, that the Home Secretary has not proved that sugar is not used. It is not sufficient for him to say that the brewers have been given a certain percentage and that they are not given any more, and that therefore there is no additional sugar used. I understand that that is his point. If that is true, it only shows that the brewers have had too much sugar, because if there is additional sugar used by the decision it is a mere detail to say that you are not supplying them, that they are allowed that amount. The answer is that they have been having too much, and if they have been having too much children have been going short. In this matter I place the interests of the women and children of this country before those of beer, because I believe, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, that if the Government or this House boldly said to the working people of this country that it is a choice between their beer and their children's food or their children's sugar, then the working classes would go for their children. My hon. Friend says, "Why did not the Government consult the trade unions?" I am surprised at his putting that question, because trade unions do not exist for the purpose of being temperance societies, and clearly the Government ought to consult trade unions only on their own particular business, which is the protection of the working man in his economic rights.

Mr. THORNE

And liberty.

Mr. THOMAS

If that be so, I submit that the trade unions themselves had better turn themselves into public-houses, if that is the position; but I do say that we have no right to say to the Government, "We want you to consult us on something that we are not only not organised to deal with, but which is no part of our constitution." Therefore I submit that the Government are not to blame for that, but the Government are to blame if they give the brewers sugar for the manufacture of beer, which sugar ought to go to the interests of the children.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)

War makes strange bed- fellows. I never thought that the time would, come when I would find myself with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary resisting my right hon. Friend opposite in a Motion which I am quite sure is honestly intended to serve the cause of temperance, and particularly the interests of the War, and I only find myself in this position because I have been forced by evidence which has come to the Ministry of Munitions to conclude that the action which the Government has taken in consenting to this increase in the supply of beer is one which has been necessitated by the experience of a considerable number of munitions centres in the country. I did not know that this Motion was going to be moved until half-past seven to-night, because I had left the House before it was raised, but I had sent down to my room the correspondence which has reached the Ministry on this subject, and my right lion. Friend will see, if he will come down there, a large batch of letters which have reached the Ministry not from brewers, not I believe prompted by brewers or men interested in the liquor industry, but from trade unionists, officers of the Ministry, officers of the Board of Trade, Employment Exchanges, and representatives of precisely those classes of men who are in a position to know what the munition workers and the hard manual workers of the country feel upon this question. Before I refer to the purport of some of these letters, I would like to say that I thought the argument to-night rather beside the point. It has been on the supposition that this proposal of the Government means an increase in the amount of sugar that is going to be used in the production of beer. The statement was clearly made by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the mover of the Motion, that there will be no increase in the amount of sugar used as the result of this proposal of the Government. I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to argue, at a time when sugar is wanted for women "and children, that it should he used at all in the making of beer. But this is not a prohibition Motion. Are you not charging the Government in this Motion of having failed to prohibit the production of beer? If you are, you would be entitled to take the line of argument which has been followed.

We may as fairly refer to the consumption of sugar in tea, and say that to refrain from using sugar in tea would Increase the supply available for children in the country. If you stopped using sugar in tea, coffee, and cocoa, more would be achieved in increasing the supply for women and children than by stopping the use of sugar for beer. Those who want to increase the supply of sugar throughout the country should think not only of stopping its use in making beer, but of stopping its use in cocoa, tea, and coffee. The purpose for which I rose tonight was to deal with the point that the present shortage of beer has been a, cause of industrial unrest in the country. My right hon. Friend who last spoke was exceedingly indignant because there had been a strike owing to the shortness of beer in one district. It is a fact. I am not going to support the action of those workers any more than the action of any other body of strikers during the War, but the strike to which reference has been made is a fact which the Government is bound to recognise, although that was only one case in which the workers have carried their protest to that extreme length. The letters that have been received by the Ministry of Munition's go to show that the same feeling is widespread throughout the country. I can bear out what the hon. Member for West Ham said just now, that much of the evidence which has been given before the Commissioners inquiring into the industrial unrest has been to the effect that one of the causes of this industrial unrest is the shortage of beer and the increase of the price. It may not be a laudible state of affairs, it is not a good state of affairs, but there it is, and the Government during the War cannot afford to wait until the time that my right hon. Friend reaches his milennium.

Mr. L. JONES

Have you explained to the workers making these complaints the reason which induced the Government to cut down the supply of beer to 10,000,000 barrels? Has it been put before the workers that this was due to the shortage of food for the country, and that it was against the interests of the country in regard to food, to increase the making of beer?

Mr. KELLAWAY

Does my right hon. Friend really suppose that any body of workmen in this country would need to be told by the Ministry of Munitions what are the reasons why there should be a reduction in the barrelage of beer? The workers' temperance education is much more complete than my right hon. Friend supposes. I would like briefly to go through the evidence which has reached the Ministry of Munitions. We had a strong representation from the authorities of Woolwich Arsenal, who told us that the position there was causing considerable discontent, and the authorities at the Arsenal were afraid that it might ultimately lead to a strike. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) does not agree with the authorities of the Arsenal, who know their business very well, and who know the condition of things there. If he does not agree with the authorities of Woolwich Arsenal, I invite him to go to Beresford Square at the time when the crowd of munition workers are coming out, and to just for a moment leave off his role of temperance reformer and become an ordinary man. I can assure him, with the information learned from those munition works, that the statements which have been made tonight as to the effect of the shortage of beer in creating a spirit of discontent and uneasiness in the minds of the men have not been by any means exaggerated. Here is a letter we received from the Dock and Riverside Workers' Union, a body which represents men doing some of the most difficult manual work in the country, and their secretary, writing, I think, from Swansea, says: Owing to the restrictions on all alcoholic liquors they are only able to obtain other forms of stimulants in a very limited extent, and in consequence owing to the extreme heat to "which they are subjected it has become physically impossible for them to continue at work in anything like a regular manner. And here is a letter from Walsall: We have in Walsall and the adjoining South Staffordshire area a large number of iron and steel works engaged entirely in the manufacture of iron and steel for munition purposes. In hot weather such as that we are now experiencing the men always find difficulty in remaining at their work exposed as they are to the great heat of the fires. Water is unsuitable as a drink, and in some cases produce? cramp. These letters urge the Ministry to secure from the Government an increased supply of beer. I do not know why my right hon. Friend suggests that was not expressing the workmen's view. We have had letters from many other quarters. I have another letter from Staffordshire, in which the firm write to us: We have been asked by our men to permit them to have a canteen on the wotks at which light beer would be supplied. They say that to enable them to continue working in hot weather they must have beer, and at present they cannot get it in a requisite quantity at a reasonable price. Another is to the same effect from the Enfield district stating that the men engaged in certain works work at a very high temperature and have always been accustomed to a certain amount of beer. A letter from Coombs Wood, is written by the firm at the desire of the men, and I hope it is none the worse for that, and another firm at Tipton requests us to provide a supply of cheap beer, although the writer is a total abstainer. It is worded: We consider that the work is extremely hot and arduous and that the request from the men for weak beer to be provided is a reasonable one, although the writer is a total abstainer. Another firm writes: We may say that we hare at present great difficulty in keeping our men at work during this excessive heat, and if we can only be allowed to sell them the two per cent, beer it will be a great help in keeping up the output during the hot weather. It is not necessary for me to wade through the letters. They are all to the same effect. They come in such volume that even I, who drank in the milk of the gospel at the feet of my right hon. Friend, have been compelled to see here was a situation which a Government, which was concerned from keeping up the output to the greatest possible degree, was bound to recognise. I put it no higher than that. Anyone who knows, and who had the opportunity of acquiring information which is now being forwarded to the Ministry of Munitions from all parts of this country, that the shortage of beer is one of the causes of industrial unrest, and of the restriction of output, would be forced to the conclusion which the Government has come to. Little as I like the proposal, I say that it is a proposal that no Government could have resisted in the circumstances in which this Government found itself.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

I thank the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the Government Bench for one thing—they have actually resisted the temptation to call us faddists and fanatics; they have actually refrained from informing us and informing my light hon. Friend {Mr. L. Jones) and those who agree with him that if we could only cultivate those graces of spirit which are displayed by brewers and moderate drinkers we should shortly arrive at the Millennium and carry our temperance reform. I know, however, that the Home Secretary is far too sweetly reasonable to fall into anything of that kind, and really these flowers of rhetoric, with which we are always favoured, are very familiar and do not leave very much impression upon us. I can only say that I understand the resentment which was manifested in the earlier part of the Debate by those who are interested in this subject and those who seem to me to look at the matter with very pre-war views of individual liberty. Leaving that aside, however, I come rather to deal with some of the points put before the House. In the first place, I am not in the least convinced by what the Home Secretary has said about the sugar position The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, spoke with a totally different voice this afternoon. He told me quite definitely that this proposal would mean an increased use of sugar by the brewers. The Home Secretary says the reverse. I leave the Home Secretary to reconcile with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the difference in these statements. I will take it on the lower standpoint. I will assume that the Home Secretary's view is right, and that all that is happening is that the brewers' stock is being called upon and will, therefore, be depleted earlier. Is not that available for the needs of the nation? It is open to one of the numerous committees which govern us at the present time to commandeer this stock of brewers' sugar. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that, at all events, glucose is going to be used. There will be a good deal of jam not made this year. A good deal of fruit will be wasted. Undoubtedly glucose can be used for the purpose of making jam. Why cannot it be taken? The hon. Member for West Ham, I was interested to hear, has been paying a visit to my Constituency. I was down there last week. I did not hear anything about the shortage of beer. In the city which I represent there has since the War been a very large increase of population.

Mr. THORNE

All the better for the country.

Mr. ROBERTS

At the present time the population are engaged in a most patriotic way in making munitions. The position at present is that they are being rationed so far as their sugar supplies are concerned on the assumption that their population is 55,000, whereas it is 67,000. It is not unnatural that the odd 12,000 population which is now in the city, as compared with pre-war times, should find sugar supplies short. They laid these facts before me, and asked if anything could be done. Only this morning I received a letter from a Constituent who stated that the retailers had been cut down 25 per cent. He said that some of these retailers would find it very hard to get along, and it might even spell ruin to them. He appealed to me whether I could not get something done. I venture to suggest that something that might be done would be to commandeer these brewers' stocks of sugar. The only answer which I can give is that if you had not been using up the sugar which was wasted during these three years of war in beer, there would have been supplies not merely for my Constituency but for plenty of others. I gather from the return that the brewers use about 3,000,000 cwts. of sugar for beer a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about mineral waters?"] I am quite prepared to stop the supplies of sugar for the making of aerated waters. I have not the least objection to that, but I do say sugar ought to be used as a food, and not wasted. It is a very important article of food, and a source of energy, as everyone knows, and it ought not to be used in this sort of way. It is being wasted by the Government, and there is absolutely no defence for their action. Are the resources of chemistry absolutely exhausted? Why cannot you make this beer out of saccharine?

Sir G. YOUNGER

Because you are not allowed by the law.

Mr. ROBERTS

If that is the case, I presume it is the fault of the Government. Cannot that be altered?

Sir G. YOUNGER

It is an offence to use saccharine for beer. You are liable to a fine of £1,000, or something of that sort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Why cannot the Government alter it under the circumstances? I know that saccharine is being manufactured in this country in increasing supplies. There is no food value in that. It is only a product of coal tar. You might use that for beer.

Mr. THORNE

Why use sugar in tea?

Mr. ROBERTS

If used in tea it is used as a food. If used for purposes of beer it is not. I think the hon. Member is overlooking the fact that in the manufacture of beer the food value is used up and converted into something else. Consequently there is no defence of the Govern- ment on that point. I congratulate them. They are celebrating Baby Week by this interesting change. The whole country is called upon to do everything it can to restrict infant mortality, and everyone who has looked into the facts knows that the beer which the hon. Baronet and others brew is one of the great causes of infant mortality in this country. Instead of suppressing drink to reduce infant mortality—and I notice in the crusade about the Baby Week you most carefully hide from sight the fact that drink is one of the great causes of infantile mortality—you are now going to use up the sugar which the children want. I congratulate the Government, and I congratulate the hon. Member who is responsible for munitions on the placarding of the walls of our cities now with "Eat less bread and win the War." To-morrow I hope the Government will placard the walls of London with "Drink more beer and win the War."

Mr. THORNE

Rubbish.

Mr ROBERTS

There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether it is necessary as a War measure. The hon. Member for West Ham is convinced that it is necessary to make this increase for the purpose of winning the War.

Mr. THORNE

I said nothing of the kind. I said "to allay discontent."

Mr. ROBERTS

That is very essential if you are going to win the War. Of course, if that could be proved, I should think a case might be made out. But anyone who has been called a temperance reformer is by all the standards entirely ruled out of account, and his opinion is written off; he is a prejudiced witness. The evidence which may come even to the hon Member for Bedford (Mr. Kellaway) may also be interested evidence. We do not know quite what is behind all these agitations, but I know too well the subtle hand of the liquor trade not to suspect that a great deal of pressure has been put on in ways that cannot be traced. If our evidence is rejected I ask him to look with some degree of suspicion on the evidence which has come to him. He told us of employers who have declared that it is essential to have drink to satisfy these men. Will he look up some of the reports which came from employers in 1915 who formed a great deputation to the present Prime Minister advocating prohibition on the ground that we were faced with three great enemies, Germany, Austria and drink, and the greatest of these was drink? Now we are proposing to increase this evil. There does seem a singular discrepancy between these employers at different periods. The hon. Member (Mr. Coote) asked for a plebescite in certain constituencies and you say that we misinterpret the feelings of the working classes. We say that you are unreliable guides and it is no answer for the hon. Member for Bedford to say that temperance reformers have put the case sufficiently before the working men. Does he not know quite well that they would at once answer, "You temperance reformers are at your old pre-war games in order to get your old fads and nostrums." If it is essential in the interests of the country that there should be restrictions, then he is much too complimentary to us. Our testimony would not weigh half so much with them as the testimony of the Government, and my complaint is that the Government has not really taken the working men into their confidence on this question, and they have not put before them with sufficient detail and cogency the argument for these restrictions. The Government on this question have allowed themselves to be swayed first this way and then that, and they have not taken a sufficiently strong line or got into touch sufficiently with working men to point out to them all that is necessary under the circumstances. The Government say that a lot of evidence has reached them that social unrest is caused by these restrictions. A reporter on the "Manchester Guardian" went round the Clyde district, the North of England, and the Tyne districts, and also in Wales, and his opinion was that such unrest as he found was not in any way due to the shortage of beer. There is only one way of dealing with this matter. Will you give us a plebiscite on this point? Will you give us a plebiscite in Scotland, on the Clyde, in Wales, or any part of England?

Mr. THORNE

You would be beaten anywhere.

Mr. ROBERTS

I do not think so.

Mr. THORNE

I will come down to Lincoln with you or anywhere else, and take a vote at a public meeting.

Mr. ROBERTS

I agree that these restrictions must be backed up by public opinion, but I say that you have taken no means to find out really what is the public opinion.

Mr. THORNE

I will go down to Lincoln with my hon. Friend and call a public meeting, and take up his challenge.

Mr. ROBERTS

Yes, a public meeting. I want an official ballot which will have the force of law when it takes place. Do you think, after what we have seen in Canada, that any one of us fears to take a challenge? I am told that in Canada the fears were just as strong, and that they were just as unregenerate before the plebiscite was taken. The House knows what happened there. Practically from one end of Canada to the other, under the war feeling, because they are patriots there—

Mr. THORNE

Are not we patriots?

Mr. ROBERTS

I do not think that the patriotism of England has been equal to the patriotism of Canada, and I have pleasure in acknowledging that the Canadians have shown us an example which I only wish more people in this country would follow. That is the challenge I should like to make. You say that the harvesters must have their beer. It is a very bad form of truck. I should not have thought it was a form of payment trade unions like to see.

Mr. THORNE

No it is over and above payment.

Mr. ROBERTS

If you will offer harvest workmen the equivalent in money a great many of them will be only too glad to make their own arrangements. I know that many of them are ready to do it; and I know definite cases where it has been done. What about the Canadian harvest? Why is there this extraordinary difference in patriotism between Canada and this country? Why is it that in Canada, in province after province where the thing has been tested, the people have been willing, for the period of the War, to make this sacrifice? Why is it impossible for us in this country to do anything of the same kind? We have never had the chance. Canada-had the machinery for taking the opinion of the people—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where are their steel furnaces? "] They have some steel furnaces. They have some industrial works. But I thought it was a case of the harvest. There are certainly harvesters in Canada. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, but I must repeat my point that the abatements of the Licence Duty ought to be revised. The abatements of the Licence Duty were given on the definite understanding that the output of beer was to be restricted to 10,000,000 barrels. A million is being presented to the trade on that assumption. Now you are going to increase the output in this quarter. We are not told what is going to happen in the next quarter. It is absolutely unjustifiable to make this present and this gratuitous squandering of public money at a time when there ought not to be any squandering of public money. I know very well it is no use arguing on the point. All the argument in the world will not get the butter out of the dog's mouth. Nevertheless, it ought not to have been given, and the Government is blameworthy for squandering public money in a way they cannot defend. Ultimately, it comes to this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have given a cast-iron pledge to the Trade. He has not yet got a leg to stand on in argument, he has given his pledge already and cannot withdraw it.

Sir G. CAVE

An Amendment for the purpose of modifying the reduction in the Licence Duties in the event of the Restriction Order being modified was actually put on the Paper by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not moved only because the Chairman ruled that it could not be moved in that particular form.

Mr. ROBERTS

It is not too late to do it. Will it be possible to bring it forward in another form on the Report stage? The Home Secretary encourages me to think it can be done. In that case I will modify the pessimism I have expressed and merely say that he is doing the right thing so far as that is concerned. I hope I may take that as a definite pledge.

Sir G. CAVE

I cannot give that because I have not consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks the Government for doing what he says is the wrong thing he ought to remember that we actually proposed to meet this case in the Bill. I have not seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, therefore I cannot say what will be done.

Mr. ROBERTS

I do not think the Amendment went as far as that. Sup- posing the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to reduce the abatement in the Licence Duty by 75 per cent., as he cannot make this particular Amendment, owing to the objection of the Chairman of Committees—no doubt quite rightly—I ask him definitely will he reduce that abatement to 50 per cent, instead of 75 per cent., as that is the correct arithmetical proportion? The only other point I wish to make is this: The Government has chosen to take this action. Of course, we cannot prevent it. I must tell the Government that it is doing some damage to its position in the country at large. Personally, I am not attacking the Government with any desire to weaken its position. I quite recognise that it is trustee for the nation in the conduct of a great war. Weak action of this kind, concessions here and concessions there, do not strengthen the position and prestige of the Government. They have not improved their position by their action in regard to horse-racing. I see in the Press that even in Newmarket circles they are called "the squeezables" After all, they have been subject to pressure. They have not taken their own line. They have been subject to these influences and the feeling of the country, which is much stronger than the feeling in the House, will, I am quite certain, be rather shocked by them. The Government will suffer in prestige by what it is doing to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a matter of opinion ! "] It is my opinion, and I have some ground for holding it.

Secondly, here is Canada, watching this, proud of the sacrifices which it has made, feeling that the Mother Country is too alcoholised to follow its example. It will be by no means to the credit, and it will not improve the prestige of this country in the eyes of our Canadian fellow subjects, to find that while it has been clearing away from the whole of the country something which it regards as being an obstacle to the prosecution of the War, the Mother Country has been backsliding and is unable to hold to the tentative and partial restriction which it has adopted. It is not at all desirable to have this conflict between the action of the Mother Country and the action of some of our great Colonies. I would again point out to the Government that it will have a very deplorable effect upon the saving and economy which I suppose they still want. They cannot possibly say the submarine menace is over. We were told in the Secret Session a good deal about that, and we know more than the country knows. Do you suppose that even if the submarine sinkings go on j at the present rate there will not come a time of serious pressure, not perhaps next month nor the month after, but within measurable distance? I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will deny it. He may be able to assure us that it is not necessary to continue these restrictions, but he has not done so. I am sure the interpretation which the country will place upon this will be deplorable. It is very undesirable that the impression should be produced. I know it is being produced at present. The country feels that the necessity for economy is perhaps abating. The Government is no longer insisting on it. The Government is wasting sugar, wasting food. That will produce a very deplorable effect, and therefore I can only say that on every ground I deplore this action, and if we can do nothing to prevent it we can only record our doubtless ineffectual protest and express very great regret that the Government has shown the unwisdom to take this course.

Mr. A. RICHARDSON

I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question based on an experiment which is being tried at Rotherham. I saw in a paper last night that a certain brewery which has a house opposite one of the large steel works there has made an arrangement with the landlord that no beer shall be sold except to workers in those steel works, and the house is open to suit their convenience. Have the Government the power to prevent women from having any beer at all in public-houses during the War, and if the Government has not, have the licensing committees in the licensing areas power to prevent women from having beer in the public-houses?

Sir G. CAVE

Steps have been taken in some places to prevent women being served at certain hours of the day, and I believe those steps are generally effective. I do not think there is any legal power to take the steps the hon. Member suggests.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 130.

Division No. 67.]	AYES.	[10.58 p.m.
Anderson, W C.	Hinds, John	Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.
Arnold, Sydney	Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Sir Charles E. H.	Robinson, Sidney
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Barrie, H. T.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Shortt, Edward
Brunner, John F. L.	Hudson, Walter	Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)
Bryce, J. Annan	John, Edward Thomas	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James Henry
Chancellor, Henry George	Kenyon Barnet	Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Clough, William	King, Joseph	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Coote, William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Wing, Thomas Edward
Goldstone, Frank	Nuttall, Harry	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William	Pringle, William M. R.
Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)	Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)	Leif Jones and Mr. T. Richardson.
Haslam, Lewis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	[...]cher, John George	Doris, William
Armitage, Robert	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward
Baldwin, Stanley	Cator, John	Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.	Cautley, H. S.	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-	Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George	Fletcher, John Samuel
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F.	Ganzoni, Francis John C.
Barnett, Captain R. W.	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)	Gardner, Ernest
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)	Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Gibbs, Col. George Abraham
Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)	Greig, Colonel J. W.
Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Cochrane, Cecil Algernon	Guinness. Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)
Beach, William F. H.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)	Hackett, John
Beckett, Hon Gervase	Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)	Haddock, George Bahr
Bellairs, Commander C. W.	Craik, Sir Henry	Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)
Bennett-Goldney. Francis	Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Bird, Alfred	Crumley, Patrick	Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W,	Cullinan, John	Hewart, Sir Gordon
Bridgeman, William Clive	Currie, George W.	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.
Brookes, Warwick	Dairymple, Hon. H. H.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Broughton, Urban Hanton	Dixon, C. H.	Horne, Edgar
Hunt, Major Rowland	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Starkey, John Ralph
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Steel-Maitland, Sir A. D.
Ingleby, Holcombe	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Stewart, Gersham
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)	Nolan, Joseph	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)	Paget, Almeric Hugh	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Parker, James (Halifax)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Joyce, Michael	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Keating, Matthew	Philipps, Gen. Sir Ivor (Southampton)	Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)
Kellaway, Frederick George	Perkins, Walter F.	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Peto, Basil Edward	Ward, A. S. (Herts. Watford)
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford	Pratt, J. W.	Wardie, George J.
Larmor, Sir J.	Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George	Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.	Whitty, Patrick Joseph
Lindsay, William Arthur	Rees, Sir J, D. (Nottingham, E.)	Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Locker Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Roch, Walter F.	Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Macmaster, Donald	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)	Yate, Col. C. E.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)	Younger, Sir George
Marriott, J. A. R.	Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur
Mason, David M. (Coventry)	Sherwell, Arthur James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne)	F. Guest and Mr. James Hope.
Morgan, George Hay