Teetotalism in relation to chemistry and physiology : the substance of a lecture delivered in the Music Hall, Leeds, April 9th, 1851, under the auspices of the Temperance Society / by Dr. Frederick R. Lees.

  • Lees, Frederic Richard, 1815-1897.
Date:
[between 1800 and 1899?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Teetotalism in relation to chemistry and physiology : the substance of a lecture delivered in the Music Hall, Leeds, April 9th, 1851, under the auspices of the Temperance Society / by Dr. Frederick R. Lees. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/12 (page 3)
    This reasoning, as it appears ter me, is so ambiguous in its character as to be dangerous m its tendency. Don’t you think, gentlemen, that the very agreeableness of the stimulant would be likely to have a disturbing effect on the judgment? Is it not proverbial that our appetites blind our reason ? You may always suspect a chain of logic which is closely attached to a liking. If, indeed, the question wrere to be determined by the evidence of a lull and careful experience,—to be settled by the induction of facts only, appealing to the pure intellect, logically trained,—we could have no objection whatever to the statement of Dr. Lankester. Conscience, we fear, has nothing to do with the matter. The advice, practically, would lead to no additional trials and tests of our system; to no further Search for evidence; to no careful induction and comparison of facts; but simply encourage the drinker to wait for the distant settlement of the question by the physiologists—satisfied, in the meanwhile, with mis-called moderation in the use of the ‘agreeable stimulant.’ The observations of Dr. Lankester, in his second lecture, very naturally excited remarks from the teetotalers who heard him, and especially from, two gentlemen who have furnished me with notes of his lectures. Hence Dr. Lankester opened his third lecture by observing that “he was informed that he had been somewdiat misunderstood in his remarks on alcohol. He had, indeed, not spoken out s6 plainly as he ought to have done, from a reluctance to deprive teetotalism of the credit which had been thrown over the system by Dr. Carpenter’s treatise.” Truly, this is very amusing, gentlemen, and, I must add, equally conceited. Dr. Lan¬ kester, forsooth, will extend his forbearance to our system, because bis friend, Dr. Carpenter, has cast his mantle over our imperfections! Permit me to tell him, thro you and the press, that wre do not need his forbearance, and that we challenge his opposition! Let him speak out, therefore, as plainly as he can,* and I, for one, shall be prepared to listen, and, I hope, to answer. He has elsewhere given utterance to his stereotyped objections, which whatever may be his intention, are calculated to do far more harm amongst the weak and the fashionable classes, than a bold and honest opposition. Many of you will recollect howr, in this hall, fifteen years ago, the late and lamented Dr. Williamson was put forth as. the learned and eloquent champion of ‘ a little wine ’; and you will recollect also that we had no very great difficulty in coping w'ith his arguments, which were far more subtle than those of our last antagonist. Since then, both thro the press and on the platform, we have fought many battles, but never yet cried out for quarter. So late as last year, the drinking-doctors of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Dr. Glover, and Messrs. Potter, Newton, and Larkin, conspired in a ferocious attack upon teetotalism, and in particular against myself and Professor Carpenter. Leaving medicine and physiology, the doctors turned divines also, and treated us with filthy placards, holy psalms, and rabid personality. Yet we had no difficulty in putting them hors de combat, and making them ashamed, if not of them¬ selves, at least of their arguments. We have never yet sought forbearance, .arid we will not accept it now. If we are right we shall be able to stand, if we are wnong we ought to fall. The teetotalers of Leeds, at least, know nothing of mere expediency : wre stand upon principle, and the truth will uphold us. Teetotalism does not live upon ‘Credit’; it is the expression of the Divine law—of natural facts,—and Dr. Carpenter, I presume, was convinced by the evidence of the pre-existing facts,—he did not make them. Teetotalism, as an organized system, had endured and conquered the opposition of thirteen years, had become ‘ a Great Pact,’ before Dr. Carpenter wrote his book. That book, allow me to say, can confer no credit upon Teetotalism ; it does not contain a single important truth or principle not already published by the teetotalers themselves, and in a form quite as logical. The essay, however, is very creditable to the heart and head of its amiable author; and is calculated to effect great good, by finding its way, with our facts (and the Prince Albert dedication) into certain classes of society—into literary cliques and conventional circles— whence the simple God’s truth of popular Teetotalism -would be excluded.' The truth is indebted to no man; and it is presumption and pride to talk about any man conferring ‘credit’ upon the truth. In the course of the same lecture, Dr. Lankester gave us a specimen of his wit and his philanthropy together. He raised the ready laugh against the poor, ignorant, well-mean¬ ing teetotalers, by relating the old story (to which I recollect replying fifteen years ago) concerning the company in London, that ‘ long, long ago,’ employed an apparatus for “catching the alcohol evolved from bread (dough?) in baking.” This argument, I * B