An argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by Frederic Richard Lees.

  • Lees, Frederic Richard, 1815-1897.
Date:
1857
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by Frederic Richard Lees. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    104/326 (page 100)
    be taxed, bat suppressed; and heavy taxes are sometimes the only means by which that suppression can be attained. Luxury, or that which is only pernicious by its excess, may very properly be taxed, that such excess, though not unlawful, may be made more difficult. But the use of those things which are simply hurtful in their own nature, and in. every degree, is to be prohibited. None, my lords ever heard, hr any nation, of a tax upon theft or adultery, because a tax implies a licence granted for the use of that which is taxed, to all who are willing to pay for it. Drunkenness, my lords, is univer- sally, and in all circumstances, an evil, and therefore ought not to be taxed, but punished. The noble lord has been pleased kindly to inform us that the trade of distilling is very extensive, that it employs great numbers, and that they have arrived at exquisite skill; and therefore the trade of distilling ought not to be discouraged ! Once more, my lords, allow me to wonder at the different concep- tions of different understandings. It appears to me that since the spirit which the distillers produce is allowed to enfeeble the limbs, vitiate the blood, pervert the heart, and obscure the intellect, the number of distillers should be no argument in then favor; for I never heard that a law against theft was repealed or delayed because thieves were numerous. It appears to me, my lords, that really, if so formidable a body are confederate against the virtue or the lives of their fellow-citizens, it is time to put an end to the havoc, and to interpose, whilst it is yet in our power, to stop the destruction. So little, my lords, am I affected with the merit of that wonderful skill which distillers are said to have attained, that it is, in my opinion, no faculty of great use to mankind to prepare palatable poison; nor shall I ever contribute my interest for the reprieve of a murderer because he has, by long practice, obtained great dex- terity in his trade. If their liquors are so delicious that the people are tempted to their own destruction, let us at least, my lords, secure them from the fatal draught, by bursting the vials that contain them. Let us crush at once these artists in human slaughter, who have reconciled then countrymen to sickness and ruin, and spread over the pitfalls of debauchery such a bait as cannot be resisted!” The Bill passed, however, by a vote of 82 against 55—the Bishops of Canterbury, Asaph, London, Norwich, Gloucester, Oxford, Bristol, and Salisbury, and Lords Stanhope, Aylesford, Beaufort, and Gower, ranking amongst the dissentients. A Protest, containing the following passage, was signed by Lords Sandwich, Chesterfield, Talbot, Bristol, Halifax, Haversham, Alesbury, Bedford, Oxford, and Ward :— “We apprehend, that if an act designed to remedy such indispu- table mischiefs, was not found adequate, the wisdom of the legislature ought to have supplied its defects, and not have rescinded it by a law authorizing the manifold calamities it was calculated to prevent.” § 53. Did the relaxation of the law improve the condition of things ? Let us see. In 1750, the House of Commons was inun-