three possible explanations.
I set aside the suggestion that property owners are frightened by
the sequel to prohibition in Russia. I have heard it argued that
the prohibition ukase of the tsar was responsible for the Russian
revolution. That is probably true, for a people stupefied by alcohol
will stand anything. The inefficiency and corruption of the tsarist
régime was so appalling that no sober nation could have tolerated it
without rebellion for a single year, and when the fumes of vodka ceased
to muddle and blind the _moujik_, he rebelled against the autocracy
that had betrayed his country into disaster. The Russian experiment in
drink, therefore, contains no warning against prohibition, except a
very limited one, that those who wish to misrule a country in safety
must first of all drench it with alcohol.
There is, of course, the ready explanation that old countries are very
conservative, and do not take kindly to change. Their joints are stiff
with age, and they creak along well-worn paths slowly and painfully,
but they lack the suppleness of limb that tempts younger communities
to sprint across untrodden country. That is the argument. I am afraid
this explanation will not hold. Old countries when thoroughly moved can
leap like the hart. The French Revolution demonstrated how vigorously
one of the oldest nations of Europe could tear along unbroken tracks
when impelled by a new passion. And I saw Britain spring to arms in
1914, when five millions of men joined the colours without the lash
of compulsion to stir their blood. England renewed her youth, and her
movements had the energy, the audacity, and the endurance of a people
untired by a march of centuries. This people, if stirred by a call
which reaches its heart or conscience, is capable of action as bold
as that which wrested Magna Charta out of a despot in the twelfth
century, overthrew an ancient religion in the fifteenth century, led
a king to the scaffold in the seventeenth century, or challenged
the greatest military empires in the world in the sixteenth, the
nineteenth, and the twentieth centuries. And if they were convinced
that the liquor traffic must be destroyed, they would execute it with
as little compunction or hesitation as they displayed in suppressing
the mass or in decapitating Charles I.
At the present moment the British people are not in the least persuaded
that the evils of alcohol for a minority of the population cannot be
dealt with effectively without resorting to the very drastic expedient
of forbidding its consumption by the majority who use it in moderation.
Are they likely to be convinced? That depends on the failure or success
of all other expedients to exterminate the evil of alcoholism.
That brings me to another explanation. America reached prohibition by
the path of experiment. The federal system lent itself to the trial
of every form of remedy, including prohibition. For well over half a
century you have had almost every form of temperance expedient ever
suggested in actual working in some State or other of the American
republic.
When I was a lad I heard debates and addresses in Welsh about the
comparative merits of the "Maine Law" and high license. High license,
reduction of licenses, local option, prohibition, have all been
tried. They have all been in operation quite long enough to enable
the American public to form a judgment on their merits. Statistical
results over long periods constitute a reliable basis for inference.
American federalism furnished the opportunity, and the States took full
advantage of it. Hence the prohibition law.
To the practical man the figures in the prohibition States looked
attractive from a business point of view. He hesitated, but the moral
wave that swept over America carried him over the bar. But without the
experience at his door I doubt whether the American business man would
have assented to prohibition.
The British constitution does not lend itself to these valuable
experiments. Otherwise, London might have tried one experiment,
Lancashire another, Yorkshire a third, Scotland a fourth, and Wales a
fifth. The whole legislative power of the United Kingdom was until
quite recently vested in the imperial Parliament. Ireland has now a
legislature of its own. In theory, what suited one part of the kingdom
must do for the whole, and what did not suit the more populous parts
could not be permitted to others.
As far as Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are concerned, there was in
practice a certain relaxation of this rule. But as far as the liquor
laws went, any serious alteration in any part of the kingdom was
difficult to secure if it offended the prejudices or damaged the
interests of the rest. It took years to get it through Parliament even
in a mutilated condition.
There was no real freedom of experiment. The Scottish local veto act is
a compromise modified to suit English sentiment. Even as it is, it took
thirty years of Scottish insistence to carry. Wales has been unable to
secure local option, although it has been demanded by four-fifths of
its representatives for over a generation. We have, therefore, in this
country been denied the practical experience which has guided America
to so dramatic a conclusion.
In the absence of such experience it has been found impossible to
educate and organise public opinion throughout Britain to the point of
concentrating attention and pressure on this one issue. Other issues
always cut across and jam the current.
You cannot secure unanimity of action on temperance reform even amongst
the religious forces. If they were united in their demand, and prepared
to enforce it at elections, nothing could resist their power. Between
elections they seem agreed in their policy; but no sooner does the
party bugle sound than they all fall into rank in opposite armies, and
the temperance banner is hurriedly packed into the cupboard for use
after the polls have been declared. It is then once more brought out to
wave over the tabernacle, and its wrinkles are straightened out in the
breeze.
I have seen the fiercest champions of local option supporting brewers
at elections because they were the official opponents of Irish Home
Rule in the contest. I remember being told by an eminent Scottish
divine, who was a strong temperance advocate, but who had hitherto
supported anti-temperance candidates because of his inveterate
opposition to Gladstone's Home Rule, that, unless his party carried a
measure of local option for Scotland soon, he would have to abandon
them, home rule or no home rule. He died without redeeming his
promise. The time never came for him. The Irish issue dominated
elections for nearly a generation. Free trade played a great part also.
If the exigencies of party conflict had permitted the same consistent
propaganda work, extending over the same number of years, to be devoted
to the drink problem as was given to the wrongs of Ireland or free
trade, no doubt public opinion could have been educated up to the point
of supporting drastic reform. But this has not been found practicable
by political parties owing to the distraction of other issues.
This is the main reason why British opinion is so far behind American
opinion on the temperance question. In America the battle of sobriety
was fought on the State platform, whilst the national platform was left
free for other conflicts.
The war, however, enabled the British government to effect reforms
which have materially reduced the consumption of alcohol in this
kingdom. These results have been achieved by an enormous increase in
the taxation of alcoholic liquors, and by a considerable reduction in
the hours of sale. The taxation of beer was raised from £13,000,000
in 1913 to £123,000,000 in 1921. The duty on spirits in 1913 yielded
£22,000,000, in 1921 it gave the revenue £71,000,000.
One of the effects has been an appreciable reduction in the alcoholic
strength of the beverage sold. The hours of sale in the morning and
afternoon have been curtailed appreciably. By this measure the workman
is prevented from starting his day by drinking alcohol, and the
afternoon break prevents the drinker from soddening all day.
The effect of these combined measures has been highly beneficial. The
quantity of beer sold fell from 34,152,739 barrels of 36 gallons at
standard gravity of 10.55 in 1913, to 23,885,472 standard barrels in
1921. Spirits fell from 30,736,088 proof gallons in 1913 to 20,162,395
in 1921. These figures represent a remarkable and almost sensational
reduction in the quantity of alcohol consumed by the population.
Convictions for drunkenness fell from 188,877 in 1913 to 77,789 in
1921. Deaths from alcoholic diseases were more than halved during the
same period. This is the most distinct advance in the direction of
effective temperance reform hitherto taken by the British Parliament,
and the effect is striking in its encouragement.
It would be a serious national misfortune if the admirable results
attained by these war measures were lost by relaxations. Most of
the pressure exerted upon Parliament has up to the present been in
the direction of easing the grip of the state on the traffic. Most
candidates in all parties at the last election were forced to pledge
themselves to support reduction in the beer duty. Clubs, even more than
"pubs," have urged extensions in drinking hours. The beer duty has
already been reduced. It is anticipated that the reduction will have
the effect of increasing consumption. This is regrettable, for it means
so much reclaimed land once more sinking into the malarial swamp.
There is one consolation, however, that the women will claim the
next turn in reduction of taxation. Sugar and tea will then provide
effective barriers in the way of a further cheapening of alcoholic
liquors just yet. But all this is a long, long way off prohibition.
A majority of 20 to 1 against Mr. Scrymgeour's prohibition bill, and
a majority of 4 to 1 in favour of cheaper beer--both recorded in the
same parliamentary week--is not encouraging to those who would suppress
alcohol in Britain.
Temperance reformers here are, therefore, watching the progress of
America's bold bid for sobriety with hopeful, if anxious, eyes, and
with longing hearts. What Britain does next will depend entirely on the
success or failure of what America is doing now.
XXXI
UNOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF "OFFICIAL" INFORMATION
A storm is working up over the publication by public servants of
information which came into their possession in the course of their
official careers. The immediate occasion is Mr. Winston Churchill's
story of the war. Angry questions are being asked in parliament, and it
is publicly announced that the Cabinet have appointed a committee of
its members to consider the whole problem.
It is rather late in the day to make all this fuss about the
publication of war documents, for generals, admirals, and ministers
in all lands, including ours, have during the last three years
been inundating the European and American public with a flood of
reminiscences, explanations, criticisms, attacks and defences on the
conduct of operations, either of the Great War or the Great Peace, in
which they were engaged. Warriors on land and on sea have displayed an
unprecedented eagerness to inform the public as to their own share
in the great victory, and as to how much more brilliant that share
would have been but for the wrongheadedness or stupidity of some
collaborator. Like Julius Cæsar, they mean to live in history not
merely through their battles, but also through their commentaries upon
them. On the other hand, statesmen have been engaged in disclaiming
responsibility for particular parts of the Treaty of Versailles,
and where blame has been attached to them, either by opponents or
supporters, for the form in which those parts were cast, they have
striven hard to prove that it was attributable to pressure which
they were unable to resist from other actors in the drama. In each
case highly confidential information is disclosed, secret documents
are used, cabinet and council proceedings are published, without the
slightest regard to precedent. One disclosure has led to another, one
revelation has rendered another inevitable.
A general, admiral or minister criticises on the strength of
half-disclosed minutes or documents some other public functionary,
military, naval, or political. What is the latter to do? His
reputation is at stake. Is he not to be allowed to repair the
omission or to correct the misquotation? Take the case of ministers
who played an important part in the conduct of the war or the peace,
and whose actions have been subjected to malignant and persistent
misrepresentation. In attacking these ministers statements are made
which, if accepted by the public, would irretrievably damage or even
destroy their reputation. In formulating the attack a document is
partially quoted, or the report of a council or cabinet meeting is
misquoted. The minister knows that a full and fair quotation would
clear his good name of the imputation sought to be cast upon it. Is
he not to be allowed, in those circumstances, to publish it? A mere
denial would carry no weight. A full revelation would settle the
dispute in his favour. The publication cannot conceivably affect any
public interest, it would supply no information which could serve any
possible enemy of his country. Is he not to be allowed to use the only
means available to redeem his credit from the ruin of accepted calumny?
His critic has been allowed to disclose secret information without
protest. Is he to be forbidden to do so in self-defence? He claims that
he served his country faithfully to the best of his powers in time
of crisis and peril. For that he is defamed by men who had access
to secret information and use it freely without criticism, censure
or demur. Why should his country deny him the same privilege for his
protection? That is the case which the cabinet committee will have to
consider. Whatever general rules may be laid down they must in all
fairness take into account these exceptional circumstances. Those who
are now taking a prominent part in emphasising the enormity of giving
to the public documents which were acquired in the public service
had not a word to say when portions of those documents were used for
purposes with which they were in sympathy. Is it not rather late for
them to protest now? There is such a thing as fair play even when
politicians are attacked.
So far as the British are concerned the writing of the books of the
type alluded to was started, I think, by Field-Marshal Lord French of
Ypres, in his book, _1914_. This work is of the nature of an apologia;
and the writer, to assist in establishing his case, alludes to
discussions with the cabinet and does not hesitate to quote textually
secret memoranda and dispatches written by himself and others. The late
Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fisher, gives in his book, _Memories_,
examples of his own intervention at the war council meetings. In his
autobiography, _From Private to Field-Marshal_, which appeared some
time later, Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson, who was for over two
years the confidential adviser of the cabinet and as such attended
all war councils and most war cabinet meetings, when it suits his
argument gives to the public his version of what passed at these highly
secret conclaves. Though he does not quote secret documents textually,
he describes the proceedings and deliberations of the supreme war
council, inter-Allied conferences and the war cabinet, and refers to
the opinions of individuals. In his recent speeches he has gone even
further. A still more recent work, _Sir Douglas Haig's Command_, is
the result of collaboration by two authors of whom one, at least,
held an official position during the war, being Sir Douglas Haig's
private secretary when he was Commander-in-Chief of the British army
in France. This book is even less reticent. It, also, is essentially
an apologia and justification of an individual. To establish their
case, the writers not only summarise some of the secret proceedings of
the supreme war council and war cabinet, but give extracts of their
decisions. These extracts are freely used as the basis of animadversion
on the council and cabinet of that day. It is true that some of
the quotations are stated to be taken from French books previously
published, but others are not, which arouses curiosity as to the source
of the knowledge displayed.
In addition there have been endless articles in magazines and
newspapers, some signed, some written anonymously, all attacking either
ministers, generals or admirals, and most of them clearly supplied with
secret information by men who must have acquired it in their official
capacity. As to all these disclosures protest has hitherto been silent.
But when it is indicated that replies are forthcoming and that these
replies will reveal the real nature of the misquoted documents or
proceedings, the wrath of the assailants and their sympathisers knows
no bounds.
What happened in reference to the consultations held in connection
with the framing of the peace treaty affords an illustration of the
way these revelations occur. The question of the publication of
these proceedings was definitely discussed at Versailles, after the
signature of the peace treaty with Germany on the 28th June, 1919, by
President Wilson, representing the United States, M. Clemenceau and M.
Simon, representing France, M. Sonnino, representing Italy, M. Makino,
representing Japan, and myself. This is what occurred on that occasion.
For the first time I quote from my own notes written at the time:
"President Wilson was strongly of opinion that these documents
ought to be treated as purely private conversation, and he
objected to the communication of the accounts given in the Notes
of the private conversations, in which all present had spoken
their minds with great freedom, as improper use might afterwards
be made of these documents. On the other hand, he did not object
to the Notes being communicated to special individuals in the
personal confidence of members of the Council. Though he looked
upon certain statements, the conclusions and the actions as being
official, and therefore available in the appropriate offices, the
actual conversations were private. In the United States no one
had the right to claim documents of this kind. President Wilson's
view was that each government should take the course traditional
in its own country with the clear and distinct understanding that
no one should under any circumstances make the _procès verbal_
public. M. Clemenceau did not think that such documents should be
regarded as private property, whilst M. Sonnino thought they need
not be considered as official documents.
"For my own part I was anxious to know what the precedents were. I
also felt bound to enter a caveat that if attacks should be made
on the political heads I might be forced in particular cases to
refer to these Notes, and I gave warning that I might have to do
so unless a protest was then made. M. Clemenceau agreed so far,
that it might be impossible to refuse extracts from the _procès
verbaux_ to prove particular facts."
It will be observed from this record that I was the first to safeguard
the interest of persons who, I felt certain, would be attacked for
their share in the treaty. I am the last to take advantage of the
proviso.
What followed? M. Clemenceau was bitterly attacked by his political
opponents for surrendering French rights to the treaty. President
Wilson was also attacked by his political opponents for his assent to
other provisions of the treaty. In self-defence they authorised the
publication of the secret reports of the Paris meeting.
M. Clemenceau entrusted his defence to M. Tardieu. M. Tardieu, in
his book _The Truth About the Treaty_, gives most of his attention
to the drawing up of that international instrument, but deals with
the last portion of the war period and quotes from the proceedings
of inter-allied conferences, and also of the supreme war council,
giving the opinions of individuals. He does the same with the
deliberations of the peace conference. In fact the whole book is
based on international proceedings of a secret nature. M. Poincaré,
in maligning his rivals, has not refrained from making full use
of information which came to his knowledge as President of the
Republic. For example, in his article, _Souvenirs et Documents_, in
the _Temps_ of the 12th September, 1921, he quotes _in extenso_ a
letter of April, 1919, from himself as President of the Republic to
the President of the Council, M. Clemenceau, and a letter from me in
reply to the President of the Council. My consent was not even asked
to the publication of my letter. This correspondence referred to the
period proposed to be placed on the occupation by the Allies of the
left bank of the Rhine. According to Signor Nitti, M. Poincaré makes
somewhat similar disclosures in his articles published in the _Revue
des Deux Mondes_. All these disclosures were partial, truncated and,
therefore, misleading. They did not give the public a complete account
of what occurred. The impression created was, therefore, unfair to the
other actors in that great drama. That is undoubtedly what impelled
ex-President Wilson to hand over his documents to Mr. Ray Baker
with a view to the presentation of the case from the standpoint of
the American delegation. Hence his book, _Woodrow Wilson and World
Settlement_. It is mostly based on the secret minutes of the supreme
war council, numerous extracts from which are given. Signor Nitti,
the late Italian premier, on the other hand, expressly states that he
does not publish any document which was not intended for publication.
Nevertheless, he prints a memorandum written by myself for the peace
conference in March, 1919, under the title of _Some Considerations
for the Peace Conference before they finally Draft their Terms_, and
also M. Clemenceau's reply, both of which are secret documents. But he
excuses his action in this case because extracts from this memorandum
had already been published.
I only mention these matters, not by way of arraignment of these
various distinguished men for divulging secrets they ought to have kept
under lock and key. That is not in the least my object. I do so in
order to point out that general rules as to the conditions under which
confidential material can be used are not applicable to circumstances
of the Great War and the peace that ensued. Disclosures already made
largely for purposes of criticism and aspersion upon individuals
or bodies of individuals have given the assailed parties a special
position which cannot in justice be overlooked.
_London, March 17th, 1923._