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.

    4/12 (page 4)
    think, is scarcely adapted to catch the teetotalers—it is rather like the bread and company together—stale and bankrupt! What does it mean (if it means anything) ? Is it a gentle impeachment, good Doctor, of our consistency ? If so, your iudictment is very badly worded. In eating bread, however, we do not use alcohol, for you admit that in progress of baking the dough, the spirit is evolved from it, and therefore does not remain in the bread. But the doctor deplores the waste of the food involved in the fermentation of the flour, and recommends the people to use unfermented bread, as we have long done ourselves. He deplores also the prejudice which leads to throwing the husk of the bran out of the meal destined for bread, and giving it to the cattle. But what did the philan¬ thropic doctor say concerning the enormous waste of precious human food (which leads to ‘dear bread ’) involved in the conversion of the produce of ten-million-acres of land, in the shape of fruits, grain, and roots, into beer, wine, brandy, gin, rum, and so forth ? Nothing—not one word—against the wholesale destruction of food involved in the manu¬ facture of the ‘ agreeable stimulant.5 His ‘ benevolence ’ would not suffer him to impeach the ‘ Bottle.5 II. Dr. Lankester, in treating of the chemistry of fermentation, observed that, “ altho the elements of sugar and aldohol were the same, but combined in different proportions, they possessed very different properties, and produced very different effects,55—an admis¬ sion, one might have thought, that would suggest the question—If the God-created sugar be right, why does man convert it into so very different a substance? But Dr. Lankester goes on, without stopping, to say that “ alcohol belonged to the same class of substances as sugar—substances which increased the heat of the body ”! I shall consider this last allegation by-and-bye; I only stop to say7, that this sort of classification is far too loose and general to be satisfactory, and indeed is practically deceptive. I deny that alcohol is properly included under the head of dietetic substances, such as sugar—since, in the Divine arrangement, such substances must fulfil two adaptations—first, their chemical constitu¬ tion must be right; and, second, their 'physiological properties must be in harmony with the end of their chemical structure—namely, to sustain or increase vitality. This, how¬ ever, is not the case with alcohol; for, while oil, sugar, etc., are neutral and innocent in relation to the living tissues, alcohol is acrid and stimulant—that is, produces an exhaustive re-action. Alcohol possesses very different properties from natural food; and no wise person would, therefore, use it to answer the same purpose. Dr. Lankester admits that “ alcohol in the form of spirit, renders persons liable to disease of the mucous membrane, which must cause premature death ;55 but, “ in fermented liquors, the alcohol and the water were chemically combined.55 Dr. Lankester, in his third lecture, attempted to explain this singular statement—which, after all, is but the turning up of a sedimentary deposit of twelve years ago. Alcohol, according to him and his syllabus, has a Protean existence; it is food to-day, it is physic to-morrow; it is fuel, and it is fluid; it is poison, and it is aliment; it is a type of such substances as sober-sugar, and also “an agreeable stimulant55 that will intoxicate. In short, gentlemen, it has many ‘forms —according to our learned instructor, “ alcohol is something more than a mere stimulant—altho it could not as yet be distinctly defined55!! I answer, that this pretended philosophy is pure blundering, contradicted by the clearest principles of chemistry, and the most obvious facts of physiological science and life. Do you not daily see the same effects produced upon men by beer and porter as by ardent spirits ? Do they not all intoxicate ? Do they not all paralyze the nerves, and affect the breathing and the brain? Was it not “ alcohol in the form of wine,55 which the drunkard of Solomon’s day was in the habit of consuming ? And is not this the language put into his mouth, when represented as rising from his debauch ?—‘ They have stricken me, but I felt it not.5 Is not the beer-drinker’s blood daik-colored or carbonized, as well as the gin- drinkers? Do they not both ‘reeland stagger as drunken men5? Will not wine and beer produce ‘redness of eyes,5 and inflammation—chronic inflammation—of the mucous membrane ? I know it will, for I have seen it. (Dr, Hun, an old opponent of teetotalism, confessed that even the use of the light wines of France is followed by such appearances.) What were found to be the facts in that remarkable case of the living man, San Martin, into whose stomach Dr. W. Beaumont had the opportunity of looking ? He distinctly