No case against the United Kingdom Alliance and the permissive bill : a reprint and review of a pamphlet issued by the executive committee of the Provincial Licensed Victuallers' Defence League, entitled "The case against the United Kingdom Alliance and the permissive bill" / dedicated by the Executive Council of the United Kingdom Alliance to the sober judgement of the British Parliament and public.

Date:
[between 1872 and 1879?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: No case against the United Kingdom Alliance and the permissive bill : a reprint and review of a pamphlet issued by the executive committee of the Provincial Licensed Victuallers' Defence League, entitled "The case against the United Kingdom Alliance and the permissive bill" / dedicated by the Executive Council of the United Kingdom Alliance to the sober judgement of the British Parliament and public. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    50/104 (page 50)
    an infamous attempt to raise the revenue at the expense of the health and morals of the people. Lord. Hervey moved that several eminent physicians* should be summoned to the bar, to prove to the House the fatal effects of dram-drinking. But the palm of eloquence on this occasion was undoubtedly borne away by Chesterfield. His two speeches on this question, far better reported than most others of that day, may still attract our admiration, and have seldom been surpassed as combinations of lively wit and impressive forebodings. Yet, notwithstanding his exertions and those of the right rev, bench, the bill passed by a great majority. So ended the Gin Act, the first determined attempt to introduce the principle of prohibition. We may add to Lord Stanhope’s graphic narrative the striking fact (see McCulloch’s Commercial Dictionary) that within two years of the passing of the act, no fewer than 12,000 persons (in a population of about five millions) had been convicted of offences against it. “The more respectable traffickers abandoned the proscribed business, which fell into the hands of reckless and disreputable men, who set at nought the provisions of the law.’’ Just the result which may be expected to follow any advance towards the adoption of a Maine Liquor Law now. “ The law/’ continues our authority, “ became odious and contemptible (having no moral power to sustain it) ; and policy, as well as humanity, forced the Commissioners of Excise to mitigate its penalties. The Government relinquished the fruitless contest, The genius of inaccuracy possesses the authors of the pamphlet when referring to the past as well as to the present. The Gin Act took effect not in 1731, but in 1730, and was preceded by debates exceedingly interesting and able. Earl Stanhope’s description requires considerable modifications, in order to be accepted as accurate. The £70,000 clause for compensating the Crown, was carried on a first division by 211 votes against 109, and on a second division by 183 votes to 110. It is a great error to suppose that it was proved that the consumption of gin instead of diminishing had considerably augmented since the heavy duties were imposed. The journals of the House of Commons for 1743 (p, 200), contain a return of spirits manufactured, which establishes the contrary. Proof Spirits ......... June 24, 1735-6. Gallons. 6,083,016. June 24, 1736-7. Gallons. 4,233,072. June 24, 1737-8. Gallons. 5,401,902. Low Wines.. 9,972,147 f. 6,751,468§. 8,888,903. (Spirits under proof) The year 1736-7 thus showed a decrease of 1,800,000 gallons of proof spirits, 30 per cent, and of 3,000,000 gallons of low wines, 33 per cent, although during one quarter of the year (June to September, 1736) the law was not in operation—the very quarter, be it observed, wThen there would be the greatest activity in making and selling the gin before the new law had come into force.