MR GLADSTONE AND PROHIBITION.

Evening Star, Issue 14632, 31 July 1911, Page 4

MR GLADSTONE AND PROHIBITION.

•TO 'HIE EDITOE. Sir. —Mr Heniiislon started out by say in ; :; that the Prohibitionists had better leave Mr (Mudstone aione. In my reply, proving that Mr Gladstone favored granting Local Option. I said lint the "trade’' v. wild fwii lie gi.ri to <io so. Mr Detmioin’s Lot Lrtcr proves- this, for he "hopes that the ..;e;ai- of the "Teat commoner will bo Lit in peace. ’’ and says he “takes leave of the sniip et.’’ In , :h- r words, acknotv-leiuT-.s <!t fi-:;:. He tries to emphasise the wt.iil “ cent : ■■! ” ns inferring that Mr Giadf.io;:'' c:ib tne-mt cor.liol of existing litnif.eMr GbuUior.e, hov.-.-ver, meant, and. voU'd. that the people should have control of the actual issue of licenses—a very <Mi'.’rent thing. The letter Mr Donmston quoted ns to Mr Gladstone not asking another ,;uau u> lie an alif-itainer was written so long nco tbit hardly any at that date were nkstaini-rs. Mr Gladstone's conversion to the principle ci Local Option look plate rinee that date. The first time Sir Wilfred Lawson's Local Option Bill was before the House Mr Gladstone voted against il, but always after that he voted for it, aud Lor;:! Option has been a plank of the, LibcrM party ever since. Had Mr Gladat-nre been with as Ui-Jay be would Lav. lu'e;i st;:tiding behind .Mi* Lloyd George in saying that "the .sale of drink is making a mnekoir of oar < ivilisution.”— 1 n;n. ct,.. durp.ETAr.Y Xo-ucr-KSE Party. July :>i. ILK.—I have just found that in a speech on Hu ember 7. 1695, Mr Gladstone stated that ct far as his in If intuition went in evojy case that- the landlord had refused licenses: the result had been eminently be-nc-hcial. Thin pute .Mr Gladstone entirely in accord with us.—S.X.L.P.