HC Deb 14 February 1918 vol 103 cc396-425
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words, But humbly regret that, in view of the increasing need for economy in transport, food, and man-power, no mention is made in the Gracious Speech of any action to be taken to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicants during the continuance of the War. I am sure that in every quarter of the House there will be the most sincere desire to respond to the appeal made in the Gracious Speech to display unselfish devotion in prosecuting the War to a successful termination, and to mute all our energies and resources for that purpose. I should like to see hon. Members even carry the matter further by following the personal example set by the Throne in the subject we are now debating. I approach this Amendment from the point of view of the duty which is laid upon each and all of us in this House to contribute to the best of our ability some criticisms of a constructive nature to the Government in prosecuting the War. It is because, regarding this question purely as a war problem, I believe that there is an enormous body of opinion in the country, and to a certain extent in this House, which is prepared to support further action on the part of the Government on the lines indicated in the Amendment that I have ventured to move it. There is, perhaps, another reason why the matter should be brought before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) raised certain matters affecting the question of the output of beer in his very able speech yesterday, and received no answer whatever from the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government on that occasion. I hope tonight that those who represent the Government will note that the question is one which demands an answer and is one which at the present moment is exercising very widely the minds and feelings of people outside this House and throughout the country.

It has been recognised by the Government from the opening of the War that the activities of the liquor traffic undoubtedly constitute a public danger, and they found it necessary to take action. They took action in the direction of appointing the Central Control Hoard (Liquor Traffic). We believe that if at that time they had consulted the feelings of the country they would have received overwhelming support in taking much more drastic action in the way of prohibition if they had the courage to do so. Besides the appointment of that Board the Government recognised at a further stage the necessity of cutting down the materials which were being employed in the manufacture of intoxicants, though unfortunately at a rather late stage, as compared with the needs of the country. The Prime Minister, in his speech of the 23rd February, 1917, suggested to the House that it was necessary to cut down the output of beer. It was then suggested to reduce a barrelage of 18,000,000 to a barrelage of 10,000,000. The reasons which the Prime Minister gave then apply, I submit, with much greater force to-day and support even more strongly the plea now made for taking further action in the direction indicated in the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland quoted a sentence or two from the Prime Minister's speech giving the principal reasons for reducing the output of beer. I desire to quote the full passage to the House. 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 means that you will save nearly 600,000 tons of foodstuffs per annum, and that is nearly a month's supply of cereals for this country. 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 transport, and large quantities of food for feeding purposes. It will reduce the barrel traffic on our already congested railways, and we are sadly in need of locomotives and wagons for the Army in France."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, col. 1612, Vol. 90.] "There was no question," the Prime Minister added, "that that was one of the most effective contributions which could be made at the time towards the victorious ending of the War." I submit that what was then regarded as an effective contribution towards the successful prosecution of the War, would be to-day a much more effective contribution, considering the conditions under which we now stand. A year has elapsed and we are faced with a continuation of the submarine danger, and there is no doubt whatever that there is much greater congestion and difficulty in regard to transport than there was at that time. One would have expected that the Government, in consequence, would have at least given effect to the very limited proposals which they then proceeded to make. The House, however, is aware that, notwithstanding the hopes which that speech aroused, what happened immediately afterwards indicated that the Government were not even prepared to carry out their own proposals. Although a reduction in the output had been suggested to 10,000,000 barrels, we were faced in the following summer quarter with the suggestion that instead of a reduction there should be an increase. After the matter had been considered further by the Government they proposed during the summer season to provide harvesters and others with an additional supply of beer to quench their thirst. Some of us who represent Scotland at that time thought that what was good enough for the Scottish harvester, namely, oatmeal and water, was good enough also for the English harvester. After that increase we were surprised to find in the following quarter a similar proposal was made, not on account of the hot weather, but because we were entering on the winter period and because industrial workers, we were told, required to get a further quantity of beer through the cold winter months. Accordingly, the increase of a third was again permitted during that quarter. Following that precedent, in each successive quarter we have had the same increase of one-third in the proposed reduced barrelage without any substantial reason being brought forward for it.

The result has been that during the year 1917, instead of being able to record a reduced barrelage of a little over 10,000,000, we had, with the first quarter on the old scale, a total output of 16,400,000 barrels, and the increased output still continues. That output on its present basis involves the country in the loss of 600,000 tons of barley and 60,000 tons of sugar. I think it is desirable that the House should recognise that that involves a very large food supply which might otherwise be made available for the country. Another suggestion has been made by those who support this policy that the output of beer should be limited to the use of industrial workers. In point of fact, each Order issued has made it clear that 20 per cent. of the increase of 33½ per cent. is to be made available for the general public. What is the result? Under our present system of voluntary bread rations— we have had the figures given to us by the Ministry of Food— the quantity of cereals required for the production of one gallon of beer (specific gravity, 10.46) is 2.48 lbs.; of one gallon of stout (specific gravity, 10.60), 3.12 lbs.; of one gallon of whisky (30 under proof), 17.41 lbs. I do not want to go into details, but I want to point out particularly what that means. The man who takes his two pints of beer a day is drinking his wife's bread ration, taking the figures with the hon. Member gave in the House, and which have been worked out by experts. In the case of stout the same consumption amounts to 4½ lbs. of bread per week. Is it right, even on the question of securing the fair distribution of our food supplies, that any one class at this time should be allowed to consume double rations'! That is a very relevant question, which many people are asking; also what action does the Ministry of Food propose to take to prevent this wastage of cereals? Because I do submit it is a clear wastage where you allow more to be consumed than is necessary for the sustenance of each individual member of the community.

One reason has been given for the increased output of beer which, I believe, has weighed with the Government, and that is that it was necessary to meet the claims of our industrial workers. Reference has been made to an agitation which has been felt in certain parts of the country on this subject. I think the Government should very carefully read again the Reports of the Industrial Commissioners who investigated this question when they went round the country some time ago, because I am bound to say, having studied those Reports carefully, I have come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient foundation in those Reports for the suggestion made that our industrial workers insist upon a larger supply of beer and other liquor to enable them to carry on their work. Let me remind the House for a moment that there were very much more serious questions involved in the investigation carried on by those Commissioners. Let me take the case with which I am most familiar, my own Constituency, which is one of the largest industrial constituencies in Scotland, and I make bold to say that the question of housing and the deplorable conditions existing there at the present time have done infinitely more to cause unrest than any possible suggestion in regard to liquor. We have been told by the Scottish Industrial Commissioners in their Report that the remarkable fact worth noting was that in the whole course of the proceedings no complaint has been made from any quarter of the liquor restrictions being a cause of industrial unrest. No reference at all has been made to that subject. If we take the Report of the Southwestern area it also negatived the suggestion. The Welsh Commissioners stated in their Report: We have received singularly little evidence of any resentment on the part of the men against the imposition of restrictions on the sale of liquor. Only one witness referred to the subject. I should like specially to call attention to the Report of the North-Eastern Industrial Commissioners, who said: If it were demonstrated that a reduction of brewing was necessary in the interests of food preservation, there is no reason to doubt that all classes would loyally acquiesce in whatever diminution was deemed essential. I think that fairly represents the view of the workers. If the matter is explained to them on a food basis, there can be little doubt whatever they would all unite in stating their preference for bread instead of beer. We have had a good deal of exploiting of our industrial workers in this connection by the liquor trade. I should like to inform the House of one incident which has affected me very much in this matter, and that is that the only representation I have received from my Constituency, which embraces a very large number of steelworkers and miners, in favour of increased output of beer, was from the licensed trade association of the district. I thereupon informed the writer that I felt it was desirable that I should ascertain the views of the worker's themselves on this question before acting upon representations received from that quarter. I instituted the most careful inquiries, and I am bound to say I have had no suggestion whatever made to me in my own district that there should be further liquor provided at the present time looking to the serious shortage of food supplies. If the licensed trade have approached the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Munitions, I sincerely hope that they will first inquire whether they represent the workers themselves. We have heard in this House from the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) the strongest repudiation of the suggestion that our workers would "down tools" in order to obtain liquor, and I am glad that he has been supported in this by some other Members who represent Labour, particularly the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. T. Richardson), who represents the Durham miners, the hon. Member for West Monmouthshire (Mr. Richards), who is secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation, both of whom have urged prohibition at the present time, and have also been supported by Mr. Straker, Secretary of the Northumberland Miners' Association. I feel that I can raise this question with something almost amounting to a mandate from the different Labour organisations in my district, because I attended a meeting in my district in which every Labour organisation was represented, and all of them strongly supported a resolution for war-time prohibition, having regard to the shortage of food. I, therefore, can speak with some authority so far as the workers in my own district are concerned.

I pass to another point. We have been told by the Prime Minister that there are certain industries that must be stopped during the War. He has referred particularly to the building industry. He told us at Dundee they had practically stopped house-building, which was a beneficent industry. He said: We have had to stop it. Why? It takes too much labour, it takes material which is essential for war purposes, it takes transports which you cannot possibly spare, and, therefore, if you permit house-building it interferes with the prosecution of the War. Therefore, to stop that is an essential war measure. Every consideration which the Prime Minister has applied to the building industry might be applied with much greater force to the liquor industry to-day. To stop the liquor trade is to-day essentially a war measure. He went on to say in the same speech: If you apply those principles to the question of drink, you will find that those principles will work out all right…No man in his senses could sacrifice the food of the people to any drink, however alluring it may be. Yet this is just what the Government are doing to-day. We are greatly concerned as to the question of the food of the people, because we have reason to believe that although we were informed the other day that the stocks of wheat in December were greater than what they were in December of the year before, we cannot rely upon the supplies coming into this country from month to month, and that our tonnage may continue to be seriously affected in the near future. I do not desire to exaggerate this danger in any way. This is a very serious question. I hope the Government will keep very carefully in view the statement which was made the other day by one of their own Ministers from that Front Bench with regard to the amount of tonnage which was being lost to the nation owing to the continuation of the manufacture of intoxicants. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping informed the House just before it rose that, taking the saving on the present reduced barrelage of 15,000,000, a reduction to 10 per cent. of the pre-war output would save about 440,000 tons; a reduction to 6 per cent., about 495,000 tons; complete prohibition, about 575,000 tons. He illustrated his last figure by indicating that economy in tonnage might be roundly expressed as saving the employment of twenty-nine ships, each of 5,000 tons cargo capacity, making four voyages a year. I submit to the House that this is really a very important matter. We are told that it has been repeatedly referred to the War Cabinet. We are entitled, I think, to ask to-night: What is the reply of the War Cabinet? What have they got to tell the House and the country as to their attitude in this matter? We have been told day in and day out that the question of tonnage is the one essential problem with which the country is at the present time faced, and yet we are led to believe that this avoidable waste of tonnage is still going on continually. But let me take another point which raises another question beyond the actual saving of food which might be secured by prohibition. There is at the present time a large quantity of spirits being imported into this country from Holland and from France for export to Africa. That involves transhipment. I do not want to mention ports, but when it comes across it is transhipped, put on to the railway, and carried to other ports, and thereafter exported to West Africa, where, I believe, it is sold to the native races. That trade is continuing during the War. I want to suggest to the House not only have you the waste of transport in connection with this trade, but an immense waste of man-power.

I have here a communication from a gentleman who visited one of the ports where this particular stuff was being handled. What did he see? He saw large quantities of spirits. In one instance 75,000 cases of gin had come from Holland. These had to be transhipped, sent by rail to a certain port, and then shipped again to Africa. The following day he went down to the docks and watched some of the ships which were being unloaded. In particular, he watched one of them which contained 14,000 cases of gin, which required thirty men to unload it. He writes that the men themselves, he thinks, were ashamed of the use of the tonnage for this stuff when it was needed for other things. And no wonder! Here you have first the unloading, then the transhipment by rail to another port, then the reloading for carriage abroad. Surely at a time like this the Government ought to take account of these matters, especially in view of what we are told of the shortage of man-power. May I put a question to the representatives of the Government on the Treasury Bench, seeing I am on this question of man-power? Have they considered what the saving to the country would be in man-power alone if the Government were to put an end during the War to this traffic. We were told that before the War 500,000 men were engaged in this trade. I have no doubt that that number has since been considerably reduced. But what is the position of the liquor trade as compared with many other trades? These have suffered, and suffered severely, while "the trade" has been piling up its profits.

Is this trade to be regarded as a food trade or as a luxury trade? The Prime Minister told us in. his speech of 23rd February, when he made his appeal to the House, that drink was a luxury which the people at this time ought at once to consider giving up. If it claims to be a food trade, are the Government prepared to examine this claim upon scientific lines? Are they prepared to accept the views of the committee of the Royal Society that, so far as industrial efficiency is concerned, alcoholic liquor cannot be said to be of any advantage to the workers, as ail experience was against that, seeing that the drug element discounted altogether any food value attaching to it. I should like to ask, particularly the hon. Members who represent the Government; Will they be prepared to accept even the verdict of the Special Committee on Alcohol of the Liquor traffic Control Board, when it is made public, whatever that verdict may be as to the effect of alcohol upon the human organism? If they find that there is no advantage whatever in the use of alcohol, as a food or as regards industrial efficiency, will the Government be prepared to take action upon it? I venture to say that the experience of scientists and medical men has already been so clearly stated that we cannot have any further doubt on the matter. I am more anxious to bring the facts before the House than to argue the case. There is one fact of importance which, I think, the Government ought to take into account, and that is that we have been informed, on what I believe to be good authority, that our enemies, the Central Powers, have now altogether stopped the brewing industry. All I can say is that if in a matter of this kind we are not prepared to make the same sacrifice that they have made, then I do not think we deserve the victory at which we are aiming. I believe that that fact can be amply corroborated from later information which has appeared. Again, if we are not prepared to follow the advice given to the whole country from the Throne, and read out in the churches in May, 1917, in the form of a Royal Proclamation, then again we are lacking in that patriotism which we ought to display. We were informed on that occasion in every church throughout the land of the need of preventing the unnecessary consumption of grain, and in order to help to bring about the successful termination of the War, we were most earnestly exhorted to practise the greatest economy in the use of every species of grain, and so on. I do not desire to carry the argument further. Our brothers and our fellow subjects in Canada are watching us very carefully on this subject. They have made great sacrifices, and they are being asked to make them, that we may secure the advantage. The same applies to the United States of America. If we are counting upon the continuation of food supplies from those countries, and their economising for us, while they themselves are living under prohibition, there will be some danger that we may not continue to have their sympathy in that measure which we otherwise might be able to claim. I sincerely hope that the result of the discussion will be to bring home to the Government that this is a matter about which the country is sincerely concerned. I believe that if the Government acted with courage even now, if they were to appeal to the great masses of the people of this country, they would find them willing to adopt a policy which would release large quantities of food, and hasten the successful termination of the War.

Mr. R. HARCOURT

I beg to second the Amendment.

He has given a number of facts and figures upon this subject. Both he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland on a former occasion quoted in parallel passages the very bold and sweeping declaration of the Government, and the singularly moderate results which have followed. I myself shall only attempt to emphasise those conclusions. I hope my hon. Friend will not think that I am guilty of discourtesy to the very interesting speech which he has delivered when I say that I myself shall contend that the ease is not in reality based upon argumentative figures in regard to tonnage and the like, important, interesting, and convincing as are those figures, because I understand that in effect the Government agree to these arguments. Let me commence by quoting, I hope correctly, though I am not a lawyer, the phrase habemus confitentum reum. They do not dispute the results which necessarily ensue. What they question, and what is exercising their minds, is the state of public opinion in the country. I prefer very briefly to deal mainly with the subject as regards the opinion actually expressed in the country. I myself returned from foreign service after a year's absence in October last, and naturally I was somewhat out of touch with popular feeling at home even in its broader aspects. I had a general impression that the War had diminished the number of public meetings, but I found that I was wrong. I discovered that in my Constituency and many other places large numbers of public gatherings had been held to call attention to the obvious inconsistency, and indeed the absurdity, of a crusade in favour of food economy when foodstuffs were being used for products which, even if you assume they are wholesome and not deleterious, are at any rate not indispensable. I had nothing to do with the calling of those meetings. I was not asked to attend or to write messages to them or assist in getting speakers; in fact, they were quite spontaneous in their character and local in their organisation. Nor were they by any means attended by what the scoffers might describe as the usual temperance fanatics. The resolutions were carried with unanimity by persons not unfriendly to the Government in other matters, and I share those views.

I thought it was only right that I should at any rate try to obtain the personal attention of the leaders of the Government in this matter, and after exhausting such Parliamentary opportunities as presented themselves I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister just before Christmas, to which he gave a reply which was published in the newspapers on the 4th January, and in that reply, although he dealt with the limitation of barrels, he did not go so far as many of us desire. I hope the House will believe that I am not seeking to curry favour in this matter, or merely making an electioneering speech, when I say that Scotland does consider that she has a special grievance in regard to this matter. It is not denied by the Government that Scottish opinion does demand far more drastic treatment. To discuss the claims on the part of Scotland to local self-government in this matter would be a little irrelevant, but it is undoubtedly the case, and I base my opinion upon the conversations of a number of soldiers in third-class railway carriages who did not know me from Adam, and that opinion is that many people think if separate treatment were given to Scotland it would be a very great advantage.

The Prime Minister spoke of legislation by consent and of not going too far in advance of public opinion. It might prove an alluring topic to discuss how far the present Government follows public opinion rather than newspaper opinion. As regards public opinion the Government has nothing to fear in Scotland on this subject, and although my communication to the Prime Minister was very widely published, I have not received a single protest from my Constituency. Our case in a nutshell is that Scotland is being kept back against her will, owing to the needless timidity of the Government in regard to this matter. It would be a waste of time to go into the question of brewing profits at the present moment, but I read in a city article the other day dealing with comparative values now and ten years ago that if I had invested ten years ago only the capital of my Parliamentary salary in this business I should have been literally a millionaire at the present moment. I see that the idle rich are exhorted to drink white wine in order that there should be more beer for the workers. I think in the advanced stage of rations to which we shall come you could easily enforce a system of prohibition at any rate on persons engaged in sedentary occupations just as you are going to enforce decreased meat rations.

I have been speaking of the opinions of other people, but I should like to give a single instance from my own experience. The case against any further limitation is that you will cause unrest among what are called the workers, and that I suppose includes those who are engaged upon military service. My service was on the London aircraft defences and our efforts on the subject of temperance were almost sublimely simple. We had no speeches or deputations, but we enacted in the usual curt military fashion that no intoxicating liquor was to be permitted on any of the stations, and that the severest disciplinary measures would be taken against any officers or men who transgressed that order. I do not wish to press that analogy too far, but this is not a question of principle so much as a war purpose. I was one of those responsible for the enforcement of that order, and we never had the smallest trouble. You might go at length into the question of the comparative claims of food. I know we all receive a large number of circulars, and I received one the other day from the master bakers, arguing that cake and biscuits were more essential food than beer. One could multiply instances, and I believe that preference has been given in this matter to the brewer as against the miller in regard to the best grain in a recent Order.

February and March are the normal months for hatching chickens. I do not know whether hon. Members read the "Poultry World" and other papers, but if they did they would find in one of those journals a heading, "Is the poultry industry to perish?: write to your M.P.s at once. "I understand that the most drastic and severe indications have been issued quite recently affecting breeders by the Board of Agriculture. I have had a communication which states that the Board of Agriculture have been considering this question, and I am informed that on a small farm they have been advised to kill off all the cross-breeds, and to keep only 10 per cent. of the normal number for eggs. This breeder had asked if he could be promised enough grain which would entitle one to get sittings at this time of the year? I am told that the answer is doubtful. I have only time to cover a small portion of the field, but I think I have said enough to show the justice of this demand.

10.0 P.M.

Major DAVIES

I rise to support the Amendment. I should like to specially refer to the feeling with regard to this matter in the United States and in Canada. I think it is a perfect scandal that up till now the Government have taken no notice of the desire expressed by our Allies across the Atlantic that steps should be taken to prohibit entirely the manufacture of alcoholic drinks in this country, so as to economise the barley, sugar, and grape which are now used in this manufacture. It does not require much consideration of this question to understand the attitude which a large number of people in the United States take up on this matter. They have made and are making enormous sacrifices in order to provide food for ourselves and for the peoples of France and Italy in this great War, and only this morning we read in the "Times" that an officer of the Ministry of Food— Sir William Goode— speaking yesterday of the dependence of this country on America for food, said: We were compelled to rely upon the United States and Canada for 65 per cent. of our essential foodstuffs. If we could roll Lloyd George, Lord Northcliffe, and the whole clever Geddes family into one superman— it would be an interesting experiment— and appoint him Food Controller, they would find that that incarnation of all the talents was still powerless to give the people of this country even a pound of meat a week unless he could get North America to provide him with the bulk of our vital foodstuffs and the money with which to buy it, to say nothing of getting the ships to bring it home. What he wanted them to realise was the amazing way in which the energies and the sentiment of the American people had been harnessed in a great national movement of organised self-sacrifice, so that we and our European Allies should have food enough to carry on the War and to keep up the health of our civilian population. In addition to that we have an estimate that between 25,000,000 and 26,000,000 bushels of foodstuffs have voluntarily been saved during the last five months in the United States in order to make sure that our population and that of our French and Italian Allies shall have sufficient food to carry on with. It appears to me that these considerations should carry great weight with the Government, and I should very much like to know from the Under-Secretary for the Food Department whether the Foreign Office has called his attention or the attention of the Food Controller to this feeling both in Canada and the United States. Canada went in for prohibition not long after the War commenced, and when America came into this struggle she went on the water wagon at once without any hesitation. But now, after four years of war, we still in this country lag behind, and are prepared to squander our foodstuffs in the manufacture of beer and other alcoholic liquors. We remember how, at the commencement of the War, the Prime Minister went down to Bangor, and at a meeting there denounced drink as a worse enemy than even the peoples of the Central Empires. He has now been in office for twelve months, and I think the House is entitled to know what the Government has done during that period to get rid of this great drawback to the efficiency of the nation. There has been a policy of hesitation, delay, and vacillation. First, the Government curtailed to a certain extent the manufacture of beer and spirits, and then they increased it on account of pressure from certain quarters. Over and over again the country have been told that in order to be successful in this War we must have increased efficiency all round. Apparently the Government is not prepared to tackle this question, and I think the time has now come when the House of Commons should express in no uncertain voice its desire that some drastic action shall be taken. Failure to do so might even lead to a position of unpleasantness in our relationship with the people of America and our fellow citizens in Canada, who look with horror on the spectacle of their young men coming over to this country, after having lived under conditions of total abstinence during months of training, and then finding themselves in a country where the sale of liquor goes on unchecked. For these reasons the House should insist that this question should not be played with any longer. This is a time when every ounce of food is of importance, not only for feeding the people of this country, but for feeding our stock, and we have a right to expect that the Food Controller and the War Cabinet should deal with this question once and for all.

Colonel WALKER

It seems to me that in this Debate we have an example of those who, professing democracy, are really becoming autocrats. We have a man who sets himself up as a democrat showing himself autocratic enough to dictate to the majority of the inhabitants of these Islands that they should be teetotalers. That is against the will of the people as a whole. Anyone who chooses to dictate and overcome the feeling of the majority of the country is, therefore, acting in a very autocratic manner, and cannot claim when they follow that line that they are true democrats. This Assembly is supposed to be a democratic institution. We say that we govern this country by the opinions of the majority. Let us follow for a moment this line of argument that we should cease to brew. I have heard it said just now by one hon. Member that Germany was reported to have ceased this industry. I do not believe that. I would say that that rumour was very much like that which we heard the other day of the strikes, and that they would heartily welcome the idea that we should follow what is supposed to be their example, or necessity, and make all the people of this country pacifists because they could not get a glass of beer to drink, and would want to end the War on any terms whatever. That is the commonsense view from which to look at this question. That is the line at all events that I take, and I think the people of this country would be very unhappy indeed if they were deprived of those necessities that they like to indulge in after following their vocations. We also have it admitted by the Mover of this Amendment that beer is a food.

Mr. MILLAR

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I certainly never admitted that beer was a food. I said that was one of the reasons put forward for providing beer, and in challenging that I asked the Government whether they were prepared to accept the Report of the Committee discounting that.

Colonel WALKER

I for one, and a good many others also, believe that beer is a very valuable food. We have had these questions argued out many times, and they have been verified by experts who have investigated for the Government. It is hardly necessary for me to go into all these details when, no doubt, the Minister who will answer on this Debate will be able to put forward all the necessary figures which will answer the Mover of this Amendment on that point. He, no doubt, would like to abolish all liquors of every kind, and make us indulge in tea drinking. Does he claim that tea has any food value? He admits that there is no food value in tea. Why then does the country spend such a vast sum of money in drinking tea? What possible value can it have for the country if it has no food value? Simply and solely because it is a stimulant. Does not alcohol also possess that quality? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Alcohol has no stimulating advantages! None! Yet I think that the arguments that have been brought forward by the hon. Gentlemen, in moving and seconding this Amendment, would have had much more force if they had been indulging in alcohol themselves. We always hear that when a man has indulged too freely we know what his character is. In vino veritas. We know also that it has been the endeavour of many faddists of the same category as the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment to do away with the rum that is dealt out in the trenches to soldiers. That would be a very fatal thing to do, simply and solely because those who advocate that action do not recognise the extraordinary value that that spirit possesses. It is not as a beverage. Anyone who consumed rum as a beverage would find that it was not equal to the advantages of other spirits, but it has a great advantage in one particular, and perhaps some of the Members of this House are not aware of it. It is a very old tradition in our Navy that when on our sailing ships ropes had to be handled it was necessary to deal out rum to the sailors simply and solely because it had this wonderful advantage, that it goes to the fingertips. The power of that spirit is so wonderful in circulating the blood that the soldier is able to perform his duty of handling his rifle even in the coldest weather, and any man who has tried the experiment, be he teetotaler or not, knows full well by experience the great value which that spirit has had during this War. There are many other points in connection with the use of all these alcoholic forces which have their advantages, and I am not one who would see them done away with merely for the sake of pandering to these extraordinary faddists.

There has been a great attack made upon the trade of the licensed victuallers. A movement which is called the "Strength of Britain" movement has been systematically persevered with at great expense. It is more or less engineered and financed by the members of the cocoa group, the men who make cocoa. Large sums have been provided to uphold that movement. What is the true secret of it? The House will be astonished to hear that the idea really was started by an individual who was interested in acquiring spirit for the manufacture of silk, and it was entirely a trick, from what I have hoard, to get the help of all these teetotalers and to support them in this wonderful movement to do away with all the distilleries in Great Britain, so that the whole of the spirits which are manufactured in this country could be acquired and turned into silk. That is the origin of this "Strength of Britain" movement. I had no intention of interfering in this Debate or of making any remarks at all. I am not one of those who indulge very often in addressing this House. I prefer to listen and gather wisdom from others, but I have failed to gather that wisdom so far from the Mover or any of the supporters of this Motion, and I shall leave this matter entirely and with perfect confidence in the hands of the Minister who will reply to this Debate.

Major HAMILTON

I have listened to a previous Debate on this subject some little time ago, and I must confess that then I was impressed by the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, whom I am glad to see on the Government Bench. He pointed out to the House on that occasion the very great danger to the country there would be, both in carrying on this War and in the natural desire which we in this House have for civil peace at home, if any action such as is suggested by the Mover of this Amendment were taken at the present time. I am sure that those who remember his speech, which was of the gravest possible character, cannot possibly agree with this Amendment. What are the arguments brought forward in favour of this Amendment? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt) said that Scotland was anxious to become teetotal, but was kept back against her will. I do not really know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that. None of us in this House can prevent either him or any other gallant Scotsman from refusing to drink either whisky or beer. He said that when he was in the anti-aircraft section in London an Order was issued that men when on duty should not take alcoholic liquor. He seemed to think that was very exceptional in the British forces. I have never known any officer or man in the Army who has been allowed to take alcoholic drink except in the front line trenches when he has had issued to him at the Government expense a tot of rum to keep up his circulation, which is very good for him. I do not think that in the anti-aircraft section in London a tot of rum is necessary except perhaps in very severe weather, and the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to say, because a man in that section is not allowed to have any alcoholic drink when on duty, that therefore the whole country should become teetotal and that working men working in blast furnaces, which was one of the instances given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, should not be allowed their glass of beer. I am quite honest about it. When I was in the engineering shops working very hard as an engineer, I enjoyed my glass of beer. I enjoy it still, and I hope that I shall be able to do so for some time. The Amendment practically calls upon the Government to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicants. I am not very well up in the amount of intoxicants now being manufactured, but I believe it is a fact that there is no whisky being manufactured in the country at the present time. I may be wrong—

Mr. HOGGE

You are right.

Major HAMILTON

The hon. Gentleman opposite, who I am sure knows, bears me out that whisky is not being manufactured. He sits for an important Division of Scotland and knows quite well that the industry is confined to Scotland. I am sure he is right. This is an Amendment moved by that good faction which we have always with us in this House like the poor— the faction of the teetotal cranks. I am not a teetotal crank, and I do not think it would be wise at this present time to totally prohibit the sale of beer. I am, indeed, deeply sorry that we have not a member of the Labour party to get up to-night in this House and support our point of view. Personally, if I thought that it would help the War and the country I would— and I am sure all my friends would, too— would turn teetotal to-morrow. I do not think that it would help. The amount of beer that I have consumed in the last twelve months has not taken much beer out of the mouths of working men for whom it should be reserved. The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs seemed to be very much impressed by the fact that he had not heard from his constituency against the speech that he made, I presume, advocating prohibition. I must confess that I have heard from my Constituency. The teetotal crank is with us in our constituencies as he is with us in this House, and I have heard from the teetotal cranks in my Constituency begging me to go in for prohibition and for the stopping of the brewing of beer. The gentlemen who have taken the trouble to spend a penny stamp in writing to me are not the gentlemen who drink the beer. I may say that in my Constituency there is no drunkenness, and has not been since the War began. The small amount of beer now drunk in this country does not tend to drunkenness. The action which the Government has taken, and is taking to-day, has reduced drunkenness and over-drinking in this country. The working men who are called upon to work long hours should be supplied with their beer. If the Government like to prohibit the sale of beer in the House of Commons and in the Carlton Club, the Reform Club, the National Liberal Club, or any of the clubs in the West End, I do not think that any of the members of those clubs would object. I am certain that the brewers-would not object, because they have sufficient sale for their product elsewhere, and the working men want all the beer the Government allows to be produced in this country. We must be influenced by what we hear from our constituents, but we must also bear in mind that people who are very keen teetotalers— all credit to them— are always ready to write to their Member of Parliament and advocate their point of view, while the ordinary working man, who likes his pint of beer when he leaves his job, does not take the trouble to write to his Member of Parliament, asking him to see that he gets it. I believe that if he met his Member of Parliament in the street he might suggest that he was thirsty. That is possible, but my Constituents do not write to me asking me to make the speech I am making to night. I am only making it because the Labour party are not here to put the working man's point of view.

Mr. HOGGE

They never are.

Major HAMILTON

I would ask the House to remember the very able speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Munitions about nine months ago on this subject, when he begged this House not to take any drastic action to prohibit the production of beer for the working classes of this country.

Sir HERBERT ROBERTS

The House will probably know my views on this subject. I can honestly say that from the outbreak of War I have at all events endeavoured to look upon all these matters from a national standpoint. I admit that much has been done to curtail the consumption of alcoholic liquors in this country during the last year or two. I also agree with the last speaker that in spite of the very large amount of money which is spent upon drink even now, there is not much drunkenness, at all events it is not apparent visually as one goes about from place to place in the country. But I think everybody here will agree that it is unfortunate and not in the best interests of national efficiency that £200,000,000a year should be spent upon the consumption of drink. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Walker) reminded the House that we are a democratic country. We are. I am not going to refer to him or any of those who oppose my views on this matter of drink as fanatics, or cranks or anything of that sort. It is only fair that everyone should express the views which are his true convictions in the matter. I rather deprecate labelling one another in this way because one happens to hold divergent views upon a very important question of this kind. I have risen for the purpose of making a suggestion. We are a democratic country, and we can only carry what we deem to be a reform of this kind in the way of a still further prohibition of the consumption of drink with public opinion on our side. Would it not be possible for the Government to go this far in the direction of the Amendment, that any area of the country— the area which I know best is Wales, where the feeling is undoubtedly very strongly in favour of prohibition— should have a chance of showing by a decisive vote whether it would be prepared to adopt a measure of total pro- hibition for the period of the War. That would not run counter to any democratic principle, but would be carrying out the wishes of the people so far as that area was concerned. At all events, a suggestion of that kind is worthy of consideration.

Mr. CLYNES

The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and those who have supported it have presented with great force and moderation a case which must be considered. I cannot as yet, in the absence of a Drink Controller, do more than state the attitude of the Food Ministry towards the problem which has been raised in this discussion. This is one of what I might call the odd jobs which at present seem to be unloaded upon the unfortunate Ministry of Food. I cannot answer for the Prime Minister, except to say that I recognised several of the quotations used by hon. Members in the Debate, and I long ago came to the conclusion that it was easy for any controversialist to quote something from a speech of any Prime Minister to defend any kind of case that he wishes to support. I have no doubt that the responsible heads of this Government, as of preceding Governments, have been conscious of the situation created by the consumption of drink, and by the importation of cereals for its manufacture, but problems raised in this manner cannot be arbitrarily decided and settled according to one's own particular point of view, and without taking fully into consideration not merely the aspects of the case, but the consequences which may be possible under any step that we may take. I accept the argument of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that he addresses himself to this question from the standpoint of it being a war problem only, but he and his friends have not rid themselves of the suspicion that they are seeking to use the conditions of war to give effect to the special views and convictions which they themselves hold on this highly controversial question, and I have known them to be arraigned in the same dock of complaint as the brewers and distillers. The feeling of many working men is that the extreme teetotal element in this country stands in the same position as the representatives of the brewing and distilling interest, and that they have both availed themselves of war-time conditions to apply effectively the particular point of view which they may have. I am not saying that the workmen are right in that view, but I have still some little liberty to go amongst the industrial population, and some opportunity to visit the ordinary public-house, and still a means of ascertaining the point, of view of a very large section of the population on this highly controversial topic. We as a Ministry of Food have to a great extent an open mind on this question so far as it raises a great question of national policy. Our mind certainly is not closed to the appeal which is based upon the argument of what is essential for the winning of the War.

There has been during a recent period, and during the last eighteen months, as the returns show, a very considerable reduction in the consumption of intoxicating drinks of all kinds. That reduced consumption is not merely due to the restrictions in regard to hours and the opportunities for taking beer. It is due to the weakness of the beer itself. Teetotalers, in my opinion, have reason for a great deal of satisfaction in the very character and quality or want of quality of the beer which is now being sold to the masses of the working men of the country. The reduction has had the very welcome effect of greatly lessening the number of convictions for drunkenness. All these things are very welcome features of that process of moral reform which may be effected either as a means of winning the War or as a means of keeping men and women as a whole at their industrial tasks at munitions or other incidental war purposes; but we can carry these purposes to extremes. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment referred to the evidence adduced before the Industrial Unrest Committees which were specially created to investigate the underlying cause of industrial unrest last year. Before accepting my present position at the Ministry of Food I had the opportunity of serving on one of those committees, and for five or six weeks we sat, very often until midnight, taking evidence and investigating facts, to ascertain what was the feeling. It is true that no very strong protest was shown, in the evidence which we received, against the restrictions which had been imposed; but those restrictions rather applied to closing hours and certain other conditions than they could be said to apply to the arguments germane to this particular Amendment. The Amendment asks the Government to prohibit the manu- facture or sale of intoxicants. The opinion I formed from my experience on that occasion was that, while workmen would submit to a great deal of inconvenience and would tolerate being deprived of much of the opportunity to indulge in the working man's social habit, and whilst they would not say that the hours should be extended from 9.30 to 10.30 or 11, not a single item of evidence that I can recall was adduced in support of the idea of absolute prohibition which is the aim of this particular Amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

Will the hon. Gentleman accept the opinions from the industrial workers taken by plebiscite in the big industrial areas in Scotland— Govan, Clydebank, and other places?

Mr. CLYNES

I am going into that side of the argument. While not proposing to speak for the Government, I want to express some views of my own derived from association with the classes of workmen who are so materially affected by this Amendment. The fact that was adduced by my hon. Friend as an argument for the Amendment, that the quantity of beer had increased from a previous lower barrelage, is, to my mind, an illustration of the danger that confronts us if such an extreme Amendment as this were put into force. For what was the reason of the Government having to concede that increase? It was an increase conceded in response to the very formidable demands which were expressed in so many parts of the country at the meetings at which it was said that the shortage of beer was an increasing cause of industrial unrest and discontent. The increase was not due to any secret machinations of the brewing interest. It was made at a time when the teetotal party in the country were carrying on a propaganda to the contrary, It was made because it appeared to the Government that this quite natural demand of so many workmen in this country had to be met in larger degree than could be done by the barrelage at the time. The question of how far shipping arises in this argument can assume many forms. There is a man who may not consume his quantity of sugar, as I do not, for instance. There are men who take very little bread or cereals in the ordinary form. Have they the right to say that they are entitled to their particular proportion of sugar and cereals in liquid form, or have we the right to prescribe precisely the particular way in which they must receive their quota of these things? At a time when we are talking so much about liberty we should be careful about further diminishing it, and careful about further arousing the resentment of so many industrial workers on whose services we are depending for the effective prosecution of this War.

I am somewhat in touch yet with the kind of work which is being performed, in a heavier degree than ever, by some millions of the industrial population of the country in mines, on railways, in munition factories, industrial and chemical works, gasworks, and other forms of exhaustive labour, by people who are toiling long hours in conditions of greater pressure than ever were known in pre war days. I saw miners in Manchester only a few weeks ago who came to us and said, "Here we are coming from the pit, soaked with dust and exhausted with toil, and the taverns are either closed or there is a very small share to go round among us. Our bread is carried down to the pit in the morning, and cannot be eaten by us and is often thrown away for want of the glass of beer to which we have been accustomed." I have seen photographs of great heaps of bread swept up in the huge working-class dining rooms, that are established in and attached to so many industrial establishments at the present time, because the men could not get the drink to which they are accustomed. I am not presenting any point of view as to whether it is good or bad, or right or wrong, but here are facts, and the question arises as to whether you cannot produce as great a wastage of food by absolute prohibition as you can hope to effect a saving of food by adopting that policy. Many workers in munition works, chemical factories, miners, and many others have this very natural inclination, and whether you regard it as a physiological or psychological question is an affair of Members of this House. I take it just as a practical problem of the moment, and I say that I feel absolutely certain that if the Government attempted to go to the extreme of this Amendment there would be an increase of unrest and very strong expressions of resentment, and the feeling that those whose shoulders carry the heaviest load of labour were again made the victims of this drastic step embodied in this Amendment. For that reason. while the Government will keep its mind open to the realities and the arguments of this appeal, I think that it will not rashly commit itself to the extreme proposal of the Amendment. I am asked what I think of the evidence presented in any Labour quarter in support of the doctrine of this Amendment. I admit that it is not only possible but easy to get a particular verdict at a particular meeting for anything; that you can arrange certain meetings or conferences for certain purposes, and have your resolutions passed in support of almost any programme.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Does that apply to the Independent Labour Party?

Mr. CLYNES

I am coming to the Independent Labour Party. I say of the national conferences representing the trade organisations in this country and in Scotland, that have met ever since the War, not one of them, whether they met separately in Scotland, or together in this country as representing the United Kingdom, has ever passed any resolution in favour of the doctrine embodied in the Amendment.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

A resolution was passed last May by the Independent Labour Party.

Mr. CLYNES

I am speaking of the National Party, representing millions of workers in various trade unions, and not the organisation to which my hon. Friend alluded. Bodies that represent in a way the mind of the trade organisations on the war issues cannot be expected to pass any resolution in favour of the adoption of this Amendment. I will only add this, that, as a member of the Labour party, I heard communications read two or three weeks ago from a body whose precise title at the moment I forget— I think it is "The Strength of Britain Movement"— suggesting that representatives of the Labour Assembly at Nottingham should accept an invitation to a gathering that had been arranged by that body. The Executive of the National Labour Party could not officially accept the invitation, and left it to any individual member attached to the movement to attend the gathering if he wished to do so. I know from experience and personal contact that no responsible national organisation representing labour feeling would accept the doctrine of the Amendment. The view in the mind of many working men on this topic of shipping is expressed in this form. Hon. Members have pointed out that ships are engaged carrying in the course of the year some 600,000 tons of cereals for this purpose. How many ships, say working men, are engaged in carrying costly ornaments and materials for costly and expensive dress? It is still true that there is a great deal of importation and exportation of many things of an extremely costly and ornamental character.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Everyone of those articles have been prohibited for a very long time, and if any are admitted they are only admitted by licences granted by the Government.

Mr. CLYNES

Exactly, but licences go a long way. The figures covering our transactions of importations and exportations show that there is a wide range covered by those licences. The workmen would want to know whether those articles, which are not at all indispensable, were absolutely essential to the winning of the War. Expressed in these terms, the mind of the working man should be fairly treated and listened to, because his mind is framed by his very hard experience. Take the point of view of the soldier who gets short leave from France and whose social habit has been to get into the nearest bar. Who would blame him, when we think of where he comes from and what he has to go through? Any hon. Member can express for himself the mind of the soldier who, having in that way done his bit, comes back and finds what he looked forward to as a feature in his short leave absolutely prevented by the Government of the day. I say, on behalf of the Food Minister, that those are points of view of the ordinary "Tommy" and of the ordinary workman which cannot be set aside by any argument, fundamental as it may be in itself, as to the great labour and cost and use of our shipping for this purpose. I would appeal to my hon. Friends not to press the view in this Amendment. If they do, I am certain, from pretty regular personal contact with the masses of the people who would be immediately affected, whose enjoyments are very limited indeed, whose luxuries are but few, and who look forward to their glass and pipe after the labour of the day is done, that you will be carrying this doctrine in war time too far. I ask the House to hesitate before taking a step which, if taken, would cause far greater trouble than it could possibly allay.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

We are accustomed to hearing discordant views from members of the Government, and I cannot help thinking that there is a startling contrast between the speech just delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Food, and the speeches which were delivered only a very few days ago to an assembly of farmers by the Food Controller and the Minister of Agriculture. In several of the speeches there has been a complete ignoring of the serious facts which confront the nation. I would appeal to the Government by quoting the words, which I must do from memory, of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Food Controller. Only a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture, addressing the farmers of the country, said that the next few months would be the most critical in the history of the nation. We were crossing, he said, the rapids, and unless we pulled together we should meet with disaster, and he warned the farmers that there were not foodstuffs to feed even the cows supplying milk for more than four months, and that after that time they must go on grass. And the Food Controller said in the most serious tones— and I think, from all I know of the facts, he was not exaggerating or talking in language of undue pessimism— that in four months the position of wheat would be very serious indeed. Those are the facts we start from. It is no use the hon. Member representing this as a question of teetotal cranks. It is a question of food supply. It is no use his bringing before us pictures of the soldier coming home and not being able to get intoxicants. The question is, when the soldier comes home, will he be able to get food?

We had a Debate this afternoon which shows, I think, that agriculture is very well represented in this House, and, if I may say so, I think the case for agriculture was put with exceeding ability by speaker after speaker. But what fact emerged from that Debate? That all the representatives of agriculture were troubled about the feeding of animals. They thought the Food Controller was making a mistake about the feeding of pigs, and they put a case which, to my mind, was a very strong case. If you cannot afford to give barley to pigs, which, as representatives of agriculture pointed out this afternoon, in the shortest space of time produce the largest amount of useful food and fat, which is required especially for the young people of the country, how can you afford to give it to the brewer's vat? That is the whole question. It is a question of our position. The Prime Minister put it very clearly, and my hon. Friend passed over the Prime Minister's remarks of a few months ago with a very cynical reference. He said you can find in the speeches of the Prime Minister statements to support any point, of view. I do not assent to that general remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true!"] Why, if the Minister of Agriculture and the Food Controller are right, and if the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture is right when he told the people he had not food for more than one fowl out of twenty, this is not a question of choice; this is not a question of cranks or teetotalers; it is a question of food necessity, and I do not put it on any lower ground than that. One hon. Member opposite spoke of what had been' done in the United States and Canada. Another hon. Member spoke with doubt about what Germany had done. We know that last November Germany decided that the amount of barley to be given for malting should be reduced in Bavaria to 15 per cent. of the pre-war quantity, and in the rest of Germany to 10 per cent., and all the German papers are full of information that it is the intention of the German Government to stop the use of barley for beer altogether. Are we to be capable of less self-denial than our German opponents? That really is the question. Now what is the answer to it all? That you dare not propose it to the working classes. I dare say if things were as usual a great many of the working classes would object to the stopping or diminution of brewing. We are doing the very opposite to what the United States, Canada, Germany, and Austria are doing. We have been increasing the quantity of barley given for brewing this year. The Prime Minister laid down a standard of 10,000,000 barrels. The quantity has actually been 55 per cent. more than that. If you say to the working man, "Will you give up your beer?" I dare say he will say, "No." But if you say to him, on the authority of the Minister of Agriculture and on the authority of the Food Controller, that it is a question between food and drink— and for the life of me I cannot understand why in the world in the subdivisions of the present Government food and drink should be divorced from one another; why one man should control cereals as applied to food and have nothing to say on the question of what proportion of the cereals should be given to drink— it seems to be an unfortunate division of authority— if, I say, you put it clearly and strongly to the working men of the country that this question is really a question as to whether we are to be short of cereals for food or whether by giving up beer or a proportion of beer— the hon. Gentleman did not suggest any reduction in the quantity; he said he had an open mind— I have no doubt what would be the answer of the working man. I have had a higher opinion than to suppose that the working man would prefer to the food of his wife, and children, and himself, the mere indulgence in a drink— which is unnecessary. It is not a question of teetotal fanaticism, it is a question of the shortage of food. For my part, I cannot help thinking that the figures given by the Shipping Controller as to twenty-nine ships of 5,000 tons making four voyages a year to carry the necessary quantity of grain for beer are figures we cannot afford to ignore, especially when we consider the sinking of ships this week, the figures being up again. It will not do if you tell the working men one thing one day and another thing the next, or different Ministers tell him different things. Tell him the facts. I accept the facts, which I think are correct, stated with all seriousness, and with a full sense of responsibility, by Lord Rhondda, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture. If those facts are as stated, and we cannot afford to feed the pigs, or poultry, if you are going to be in a serious position in four months about wheat, then the answer from the Government Bench is not unsatisfactory. The House has a right to hope that the Government will take this matter into serious consideration, and follow the example of almost every other country engaged in the War, and reduce the quantity of cereals that are going to the production of alcoholic drink.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. HOGGE

I beg to move—

Mr. BONAR LAW

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

To be presented by Privy Councillors and members of His Majesty's Household.

Forward to