BISHOP STRETCH’S OPINION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 1006, 17 June 1909, Page 22

BISHOP STRETCH’S OPINION.

Says the Sydney “Evening News”: —“ Discussing the drink question at the Newcastle Synod yesterday, Bishop Stretch argued that drink was mostly an effect, rather than a curse. No doubt there are numbers of persons who succumb to drink because they have previously succumbed to something else. Most people would agree to that, though few would give it the wide application that Bishop Stretch claims for it. Nor would most people endorse the Bishop’s statement that ‘No one likes to drink for its own sake, and in 99 cases out of 100 the affect of drink can be traced to some definite cause.’ But, surely, drink is loved by many for itself. Some men like it for its actual taste, and many for its after effects. If the Bishop is right, all the poets of all the ages are wrong. Was Horace a deceiver regarding the virtues of his favourite Falernian ? Was Omar in error concerning the merits of the brand they sold at Naishapur? Was the bard who sang so melodiously of the ‘ Cruiskeen Lawn ’ suffering from some obscure complaint that made him burst into alcoholic song? Had the man who first controlled the ‘ Little Brown Jug ’ a more subtle reason for his praise of it than the contents of the flagon in question? The fact is that there is no reason, as a usual thing, to go beyond drink itself as a reason for drinking. If it were merely a medicine for mental worry or nervous disorders, it would be about as popular as medicine usually is. Whereas it is many million laps ahead of all the pills and potions of Esculapius, and the publican makes more money than the chemist.”