The debate on the Pure Beer Bill, the second reading
of which was moved by Mr. Courthope in the House of Commons on Friday week, proved pure waste of time, but was conducted with perfect good humour and was enlivened by some highly amusing speeches. The line taken by the mover of the Bill, which enacts that 85 per cent. of the total saccharine-yielding materials employed should be barley malt, was that if the British working man or any one else wanted to drink beer of a certain standard of nourishment and purity, and took the trouble to ask for it, be should have the right to be supplied with it. The Bill, be further argued, would promote temperance and health. The course of the debate revealed irreconcilable contra- dictions of view as to the relative wholesomeness of barley and scientifically brewed beer. Mr. Paul extolled the latter, while Mr. Belloc enthusiastically supported the former, stating that there were very few nights when he went to bed without having drunk two pints of beer, and that it made all the difference to his health whether it was pure beer or made out of chemical substitutes. Mr. •McKenna, who obierved that the principle raised had never been treated as a party question, gave the Bill its coup de grace by noting that its promoters had left out all proposals for its enforcement, and the result would be that it would not be enforced at all. On a division the Bill was rejected by '164 votes to 109, or a • majority of 55. • •
Previous page
