An argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by Frederic Richard Lees.
- Lees, Frederic Richard, 1815-1897.
- Date:
- 1857
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.
130/326 (page 126)
![prejudicial to the health and morals of the people, yet no person ever thought of putting an end to the practice of brewing, in order to prevent the abuse of brewed liquors.* They urged that in all parts of Great Britain there are some parcels of land that produce nothing to advantage but a coarse kind of barley, called ‘ big,’ which though neither fit for brewing nor for baking, may nevertheless he used in the distillery, and is accordingly purchased by those concerned in this branch: that there are, every year, some parcels of all sorts of grain, so damaged by unseasonable weather or other accidents, as to be rendered altogether unfit for bread or brewery, and would prove a very great misfortune to the farmer, if there was no distillery for the use of which he could sell his damaged commodity. They asserted that malt spirits were absolutely necessary for prosecuting some branches of foreign commerce, particularly the trade to the coast of Africa, for which traffic no assortment could be made up without a large quantity of geneva, of which the natives are so fond, that they will not traffic with any merchant who has not a considerable quantity, not only for sale, but also for presents to then’ chiefs and rulers; that the merchants of Great Britain must either have this commo- dity of their own produce, or import it at a great national expense from Holland. To these arguments, it was replied that malt spirits might be considered as a fatal and bewitching Poison, which had actually debauched the minds and enervated the bodies of the common people, to a very deplorable degree; that, without entering further into a comparison between the use and abuse of the two liquors, beer and geneva, it would be sufficient to observe that the use of beer and ale had produced none [?] of those dreadful effects which were the consequences of drinking geneva; and since the prohibition of the distillery of malt spirits had taken place, the common people had become apparently more sober, decent, healthy, and industrious; a circumstance sufficient to induce the legislature not only to intermit, but even totally to abolish the practice of distillation, which has ever been productive of such intoxication, liot, disorder, arid distemper, among the lower classes of the people, as might be deemed the greatest evils incident to a well-regulated commonwealth. Their assertion with respect to the coarse kind of barley, called 1 big,’ was contradicted as a deviation from truth, inasmuch as it was used in making malt, as well as in making bread ; and with respect to damaged corn, those who understood the nature of grain, affirmed that it was spoiled to such a degree as to be altogether unfit for either of these purposes. The distillers would not purchase it at such a price as would indem- nify the farmer for the charge of thrashing and carriage. For the distillers are very sensible that then great profit is derived from their distilling the malt made from the best barley; so that the increase of the produce far exceeded in proportion the advance of the price. It was not, however, an easy matter to prove that the distillation of malt spirits was not necessary to an advantageous * Now-a-days the tables aro turned. Politicians and the. literary Champay tiers unite in denouncing moltspirits and ‘ heavy wet,' and in eulogizing ‘light wines. ^](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2476436x_0130.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
