A PURE BEER BILL 281 



sugar or glucose containing arsenic, imposing a fine of 50 

 for any breach of this prohibition. 



The Council sent Mr. Read and Mr. Stopes as witnesses to 

 give evidence before the Royal Commission, and in their 

 Annual Report they recorded their appreciation of the ability 

 and persistence with which these two gentlemen represented 

 the interests of agriculture. 



Although nothing of more definite importance was actually 

 accomplished, there were one or two occasions when the 

 Government were very nearly giving the needed facilities 

 for the Bill to pass. The writer has vivid recollections of 

 telegrams sent to the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. 

 Balfour) on 23rd May, from the middle of a hotly contested 

 bye-election in East Anglia, which almost led him to believe 

 that the result largely hung upon this question. There is 

 little doubt that it had much to do with it, and at any rate 

 the Government refused to let the Bill through, and they 

 lost the election. One man who very largely managed the 

 campaign on behalf of pure beer especially deserves mention 

 for the skilful part he took, and that is Mr. F. H. Payne ; 

 he remained in the background, and very few knew how much 

 agriculture was indebted to him for the energy and tact he 

 displayed during this fight. 



1902. 



Sir Wm. Tomlinson obtained a place in the ballot, and 

 introduced what was called a " Beer " Bill this year, which 

 was backed by Sir Cuthbert Quilter, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, 

 and Mr. Corrie Grant. This Bill contained several new pro- 

 visions ; thus, it allowed the use of 15 per cent, of substitutes 

 in a liquor which still might be called " beer." It also laid 

 the onus of enforcing the provisions of the Bill upon the 

 Inland Revenue officials ; and it required imported beer to 

 be sold under a distinguishing name. The Committee of the 

 Chamber reported that they generally approved of the Bill, 

 but suggested some amendments. On second reading it was 

 rejected by 212 votes to 140. On the whole, agriculture 

 may be congratulated that this Bill was rejected, for it 



