But, my lords, if the motion, in which I concur, be overruled on a pretence of necessity, it will show an eager desire to hasten a bill, which, if referred to any twelve men, not of either house of the senate, their examination would terminate in this, that they bring it in guilty of wilful murder.
Lord CHOLMONDELEY spoke next, in substance as follows: — My lords, as there is no doubt but particular measures may be sometimes necessary, I discover no reason that ought to hinder the mention of that necessity; for surely where it can be asserted with truth, it is the most powerful of all arguments, and cannot be wisely or honestly neglected.
In the present case, my lords, I can discover no impropriety in mentioning it; for I suppose that noble lord did not intend to restrain it to the most rigorous sense; he did not mean, that there is the same necessity of reading this bill to-morrow for the success of the war, as of extinguishing a fire for the preservation of a town; but that the reasons for despatch absolutely overbalanced all the pleas that could be offered for delays.
This necessity, my lords, I am not ashamed to assert after him; nor can I think it consistent with common prudence, in the present situation of our affairs, to defer the third reading beyond to-morrow; for the supplies which this bill must produce, are to be employed in attempts of the utmost importance, and which cannot fail without the ruin of a great part of mankind, and an irreparable injury to this nation.
I cannot, therefore, but confess my surprise at the vehemence with which this bill is opposed; vehemence so turbulent and fierce, that some lords have been transported beyond that decency which it is our duty and our interest to preserve in our deliberations; nor have restrained themselves from expressions, which, upon reflection, I believe they will not think defensible; from among which I cannot but particularize the horrid and opprobrious term of murder.
The reverend prelates, who have spoken against the bill, may be easily believed to be as zealous for virtue as those who have indulged themselves in this violence of language; yet they have never charged those who defend the measures now proposed with the guilt of murder, but have decently delivered their own opinions, without, reproaching those who differ from them.
For my part, my lords, as I cannot think the motion for farther delay, seasonable or proper, or necessary to the discovery of truth, or consistent with the welfare of the nation, it is my resolution to vote against it.
The duke of BEDFORD spoke next, in substance as follows: — My lords, the ardour with which the noble lord appears to resent the indignity offered to the bill, shows only that he himself approves it, but not that it deserves the approbation of the house.
I think it of use, notwithstanding the plausible pleas of decency or politeness, that every thing should in this house be called by its right name, that we may not dispute for one thing, and vote for another; and since the bill will certainly destroy multitudes, if it promotes the sale of distilled spirits, and it has been proved that it will promote it, I know not by what appellation to denominate its effects, if that be denied me, which has been already used.
[The speaker then put the question in form, “Is it your lordships’ pleasure, that the third reading of the bill be put off for five days?” It was resolved in the negative by 52 to 29.
It was then ordered, that the bill should be read the third time on the day following, and that the lords should be summoned to attend.
On the next day, the house, according to the order, met, and another debate ensued, which was begun by lord HERVEY, who spoke in substance as follows:]
My lords, the tendency of the bill, which we are now to approve or reject, is so apparently destructive to the ends of government, so apparently dangerous to publick happiness, and so contrary to the institutions of the most celebrated lawgivers, and the policy of the most flourishing nations, that I still continue to think it my duty to struggle against it.
Almost every legislator of the world, my lords, from whatever original he derived his authority, has exerted it in the prohibition of such foods as tended to injure the health, and destroy the vigour of the people for whom he designed his institutions.
The great instructor of the jews, who delivered his laws by divine authority, prohibited the use of swine’s flesh, for no other cause, so far as human reason is able to discover, than that it corrupted the blood, and produced loathsome diseases and maladies which descended to posterity; and, therefore, in prohibiting, after this example, the use of liquors which produce the same effects, we shall follow the authority of the great governour of the universe.
The author of another religion, a religion founded, indeed, on superstition and credulity, but which prevails over a very great part of the earth, has laid his followers under restraints still more severe; he has forbidden them to dispel their cares, or exalt their pleasures, with wine, has banished from their banquets that useful opponent of troublesome reflection, and doomed all those who receive his law, not to sobriety only, but to abstinence.
The authority of this man, my lords, cannot indeed be urged as unexceptionable and decisive; but the reception of his imposture shows at least, that he was not unacquainted with human nature, and that he knew how to adapt his forgeries to the nations among which he vented them; nor can it be denied, but the prohibition of wine was found generally useful, since it obtained so ready a compliance.
All nations in the world, my lords, in every age of which there remain any historical accounts, have agreed in the necessity of laying restraint upon appetite, and setting bounds to the wantonness of luxury; every legislature has claimed and practised the right of withholding those pleasures which the people have appeared inclined to use to excess, and preferring the safety of multitudes whom liberty would destroy, to the convenience of those who would have enjoyed it within the limits of reason and of virtue.
The welfare of the publick, my lords, has always been allowed the supreme law; and when any governours sacrifice the general good either to private views, or temporary convenience, they deviate at once from integrity and policy, they betray their trust, and neglect their interest.
The prohibition of those commodities which are instrumental to vice, is not only dictated by policy but nature; nor does it, indeed, require much sagacity, when the evil is known, to find the proper remedy; for even the Indians, who have not yet reduced the art of government to a science, nor learned to make long harangues upon the different interests of foreign powers, the necessity of raising supplies or the importance and extent of manufactures, have yet been able to discover, that distilled spirits are pernicious to society, and that the use of them can only be hindered by prohibiting the sale.
For this reason, my lords, they have petitioned, that none of this delicious poison should be imported from. Britain; they have desired us to confine this fountain of wickedness and misery to stream in our own country, without pouring upon them those inundations of debauchery, by which we are ourselves overflowed.
When we may be sent with justice to learn from the rude and ignorant Indians the first elements of civil wisdom, we have surely not much right to boast of our foresight and knowledge; we must surely confess, that we have hitherto valued ourselves upon our arts with very little reason, since we have not learned how to preserve either wealth or virtue, either peace or commerce.
The maxims of our politicians, my lords, differ widely from those of the Indian savages, as they are the effects of longer consideration, and reasonings formed upon more extensive views. What Indian, my lords, would have contrived to hinder his countrymen from drunkenness, by placing that liquor in their houses which tempted them to excess; or would have discovered, that prohibition only were the cause of boundless excesses; that to subdue the appetite nothing was necessary but to solicit it; and that what was always offered would never be received? The Indians, in the simplicity of men unacquainted with European and British refinements, imagined, that to put an end to the use of any thing, it was only necessary to take it away; and conceived, that they could not promot
e sobriety more effectually, than by allowing the people nothing with which they could be drunk.
But if our politicians should send missionaries to teach them the art of government, they would quickly be shown, that if they would accomplish their design, they must appoint every tenth man among them to distribute spirits to the nine, and to drink them himself in what quantity they shall desire, and that then the peace of their country will be no longer disturbed by the quarrels of debauchery.
It is, indeed, not without amazement, that I hear this bill seriously defended as a scheme for suppressing drunkenness, and find some lords, who admit that fifty thousand houses will be opened for the publick sale of spirits, assert that a less quantity of spirits will be sold.
The foundation of this opinion is in itself very uncertain; for nothing more is urged, but that all who sell under the sanction of a license, will be ready to inform against those by whom no license has been purchased; and that, therefore, fifty thousand licensed retailers may hurt a greater number who now sell spirits in opposition to the law.
All this, my lords, is very far from certainty; for it cannot be proved, that there are now so great a number of retailers as this act may produce: it is likely that security will encourage many to engage in this trade, who are at present deterred from it by danger. It is possible, that those who purchase licenses may nevertheless forbear to prosecute those that sell spirits without the protection of the law. They may forbear, my lords, from the common principles of humanity, because they think those poor traders deserve rather pity than punishment; they may forbear from a principle that operates more frequently, and too often more strongly; a regard to their own interest. They may themselves offend the law by some other parts of their conduct, and may be unwilling to provoke an inspection into their own actions, by betraying officiously the faults of their neighbours; or they may be influenced by immediate terrours, and expect to be hunted to death by the rage of the populace.
All these considerations may be urged against the only supposition that has been made, with any show of reason, in favour of the bill; and of these various circumstances, some one or other will almost always be found. Every man will have either fear or pity, because almost every good man is inclined to compassion, and every wicked man is in danger from the law; and I do not see any reason for imagining that the people will tolerate informers more willingly now than in the late years.
But suppose it should be granted, though it cannot be certain, and has not yet been shown to be probable, that the clandestine trade will be interrupted; I am not able to follow these ministerial reasoners immediately to the consequence which they draw from this concession, and which must be drawn from it, if it be of any use in the decision of the question, nor can see that the consumption of spirituous liquors will be made less.
Let us examine, my lords, the premises and the consequences together, without suffering our attention to be led astray by useless digressions. Spirits will be now sold only with license! therefore less will be sold than when it was sold only by stealth!
Surely, my lords, such arguments will not much influence this assembly. Why, my lords, should less be bought now than formerly? It is not denied, that there will be in every place a licensed shop, where drunkards may riot in security; and what can be more inviting to wretches who place in drunkenness their utmost felicity I If you should favourably suppose no more to be sold, yet why should those who now buy any supposed quantity, buy less when the restraint is taken away?
If it be urged, that the present law does in reality impose no restraint, the intended act will make no alteration. There is no real prohibition now, there will be no nominal prohibition hereafter; and, therefore, the law will only produce what its advocates expect from it, a yearly addition to the revenue of the government. But, my lords, let us at last inquire to what it is to be imputed, that the present law swells the statute book to no purpose? and why this pernicious trade is carried on with confidence and security, in opposition to the law? It will not surely be confessed, that the government has wanted authority to execute its own laws; that the legislature has been awed by the populace, by the dregs of the populace, the drunkards and the beggars! Yet when the provisions made for the execution of a law so salutary, so just, and so necessary, were found defective, why were not others substituted of greater efficacy? Why, when one informer was torn in pieces, were there not new securities proposed to protect those who should by the same offence displease the people afterwards?
The law, my lords, has failed of a great part of its effect; but it has failed by cowardice on one part, and negligence on another; and though the duty, as it was laid, was in itself somewhat invidious, it would, however, have been enforced, could the revenue have gained as much by the punishment as was gained by the toleration of debauchery. It has, however, some effect; it may be imagined, that no man can be trusted where he is not known, and that some men are known too well to be trusted; and, therefore, many must be occasionally hindered from drinking spirits, while the law remains in its present state; who, when houses are set open by license, will never want an opportunity of complying with their appetites, but may at any time enter confidently, and call for poison, and mingle with numerous assemblies met only to provoke each other to intemperance by a kind of brutal emulation and obstreperous merriment.
This bill, therefore, my lords, is, as it has been termed, only an experiment; an experiment, my lords, of a very daring kind, which none would hazard but empirical politicians. It is an experiment to discover how far the vices of the populace may be made useful to the government, what taxes may be raised upon poison, and how much the court may be enriched by the destruction of the subjects.
The tendency of this bill is so evident, that those who appeared as its advocates have rather endeavoured to defeat their opponents by charging their proposals with absurdity, than by extenuating the ill consequence of their own scheme.
Their principal charge is, that those who oppose the bill recommend a total prohibition of all spirits. This assertion gives them an opportunity of abandoning their own cause, to expatiate upon the innocent uses of spirits, of their efficacy in medicine, and their convenience in domestick business, and to advance a multitude of positions which they know will not be denied, but which may be at once made useless to them, by assuring them, that no man desires to destroy the distillery for the pleasure of destroying it, or intends any thing more than some provisions which may hinder distilled spirits from being drunk by common people upon common occasions.
Having thus obviated the only answer that has hitherto been made to the strong arguments which have been offered against the bill, I must declare, that I have heard nothing else that deserves an answer, or that can possibly make any impression in favour of the bill; a bill, my lords, teeming with sedition and idleness, diseases and robberies; a bill that will enfeeble the body, corrupt the mind, and turn the cities of this populous kingdom into prisons for villains, or hospitals for cripples; and which I think it, therefore, our duty to reject.
Lord LONSDALE next spoke to the effect following: — My lords, the bill, on which we are now finally to determine, is of such a tendency, that it cannot be made a law, without an open and avowed disregard of all the rules which it has been hitherto thought the general interest of human nature to preserve inviolable. It is opposite at once to the precepts of the wise, and the practice of the good, to the original principles of virtue and the established maxims of policy.
I shall, however, only consider it with relation to policy, because the other considerations will naturally coincide; for policy is only the connexion of prudence with goodness, and directs only what virtue each particular occurrence requires to be immediately practised.
The first principle of policy, my lords, teaches us, that the power and greatness of a state arises from the number of its people; uninhabited dominions are an empty show, and serve only to encumber the nation to which they belong; they are a kind of pompous ornaments, which must be throw
n away in time of danger, and equally unfit for resistance and retreat.
In the present war, my lords, if the number of our people were equal to that of the two nations against which we are engaged, the narrowness of our dominions would give us a resistless superiority; as we have fewer posts to defend, we might send more forces to attack our enemies, who must be weak in every part, because they must be dispersed to a very great extent. The torrent of war, as a flood of water, is only violent while it is confined, but loses its force as it is more diffused.
In consequence of this maxim, my lords, it is proposed, that because we are at war against two mighty powers, we shall endeavour to destroy by spirits at home, those who cannot fall by the sword of the enemy, and that we endeavour to hinder the production of another generation; for it is well known, my lords, and has in this debate been universally allowed, that the present practice of drinking spirits will not only destroy the present race, but debilitate the next.
This surely, my lords, is a time at which we ought very studiously to watch over the preservation of those lives which we are not compelled to expose, and endeavour to retrieve the losses of war by encouraging industry, temperance, and sobriety.
Another principle of government which the wisdom of our progenitors established, was to suppress vice with the utmost diligence; for as vice must always produce misery to those whom it infects, and danger to those who are considered as its enemies, it is contrary to the end of government; and the government which encourages vice is necessarily labouring for its own destruction; for the good will not support it, because they are not benefited by it, and the wicked will betray it, because they are wicked.
Complete Works of Samuel Johnson Page 309
