ATTEMPT TO MAKE BRITAIN DRY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 78, 1 April 1931, Page 9

ATTEMPT TO MAKE BRITAIN DRY.

prohibition bill is DISCUSSED BY M.P.’S. (Special to the “Star.”) LONDON, February 16. The downing of Winston in Dundee in 1922 was one -of the sensations of the year. For it was done b}*- a lifelong prohibitionist who had never a claim—or made one publicly—save and solely that he wanted to make Scotland dry. And Dundee, mark you, the jutopolis of Great Britain, is no model of sobriety. But Mr Scrymgeour did it. Dundee laid at his feet the tribute to character and singlemindedness. Mr Scrymgeour is still ploughing his solitary furrow and invited the House of Commons to read a second time a Bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes in Great Britain. From this wholesale taboo of alcohol but one exception the Bill proposed to make—the sale of alcohol for medicnial purposes provided it were labelled ** Poison.” Entertaining. The Bill’s backers, all of them members of the Labour Party, included Mr Maxton and Mr Barr, Gleswegian9 both. It was an entertaining' interlude in an arena which nowadays has an atmosphere of almost unmitigated gloom. The temperance reformer did not lack support from the Opposition benches in debate, if not in th® division lobby. The redoubtable Lady Astor let her heart run away with her head. She hit hard—now to right of her, now to left, and brought down on her devoted head the reproof of the Speaker. She declared her belief in a different method from prohibition—local option. Or rather she added the three options of no drink, drink as it is, or public control.

Under local option she declared the first thing the public would do would be to remove the trade from private hands and vested interests and that would result in less drinking. The drink interest was powerful in the House of Commons, but more so in the House of Lords, which might be called the “beerage.” Here the Speaker reminded the noble lady that she must not say anything disrespectful of the other House. Lady Astor continuing, ** I withdraw, but seeing how many peers there are interested in the trade I thought it appropriate. It was difficult to talk on the question in the House because all the party leaders were so timorous on the question and all parties had wet sections. The Liberal Party has got less a wet section than any other, but the trouble is they never had a dry leader. . . Turning now to the left, having dealt so faithfully with the right and middle parties, she went on: As for the Labour Party, I believe the drink trade could count on fifty members voting how it wanted them to. The trade spent £BOO,OOO annually, she said, in advertisements in the Press. They saw on the hoardings pictures of handsome strong athletes, but the athletes who were really strong did not drink. Why were we beaten at cricket? The Australians did not drink, To Be Labelled. Sir William Wayland, who by the way is a supporter of the butter making campaign, moved the rejection of the Bill. He jeered at the idea that old and popular beverages should be done up in blue bottles and labelled poison. More, he carried war Into the enemy’s camp and threatened to take Mr Scrymgeour’s glass of milk from him. Mr Macquisten, as became a member for Argyll, where West Highland whisky comes from, put up a plea which ranged from the Bible through the ages. Pagans, he said, did not consume alcohol, and for that reason when the great plague devastated Europe the Christians hardly suffered while pagan populations -ffere decimated. He wished, he said, the Temperance party would realise how unpopular they were, and what a miserable world it would be if they got their way. People would need strong drink to contend with it. Their view when based on religious grounds was blasphemous and utterly opposed to Holy Writ. He was reminded of the Glasgow councillor prohibitionists who, when faced with the problem of Christ’s turning water into wine, said: “ It was the only mistake He made in His life/’ The House had little doubt about the Bill. Even those who like Lady Astor were teetotallers, voted against it. To the number of 137 against 18 the Bill failed to obtain a second reading. But Mr Scrymgeour hugs the flattering unction to his soul that this after all was four more votes than when he introduced his Bill in 1923.