An argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by Frederic Richard Lees.

  • Frederic Richard Lees
Date:
1856
Catalogue details

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 The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    34/332
    Duties of Government, lays down tlie following principles, under the head of ‘ Police Laws’ :— “ The right of nature, when applied to social life, condemns all actions in which one man encroaches on the due province of another, and hence, includes all those cases in which the injury strictly arises from a blameable oversight, or where it is always associated with the action, or with such a degree of probability in the consequence, that the agent either perceives it, or becomes accountable by overlooking it. But that the State should rest here seems justly questionable ; especially when we consider the importance of the injury to be appre- hended, and the possibility of rendering the restriction imposed on freedom only moderately hurtful to the citizen. In such a case it is clear that the right is undeniable on the part of the State.” Why should not this hold good against the Traffic ? It is always associated as a trade with injury to others—there is a certainty in the consequences, as the Traffickers themselves admit; and the extent of the evil accruing is absolutely unparalleled by any other noxious agency operating in the nation. “ The only mischief, of any considerable amount, which can be made to impend indiscriminately over the whole number of members in the community, is that complex kind of mischief which results from War [Traffic in strong drink], and is produced by the instru- mentality of certain adversaries [citizens]: by their being invited or encouraged to invasion [to traffic]. In this way may a man [or a party] very well bring down a mischief, and that a very heavy one, upon the whole community in general, and that without taking a part in any of the injuries which come in consequence to be offered to par- ticular individuals.”* War is not the only grave mischief which may be done to an entire community. Citizens at home may become as truly the instruments of invading rights, destroying property, and creating insecurity and alarm, as foreign enemies—just as Civil War is no less an evil than Invasion. The party that introduced the Beer-shop Act—a measure of good intentions but fearful issues— invited and encouraged the operation of a system that has brought upon England “more complex mischiefs” than many wars :—the politicians who uphold the Traffic, one and indivisible, “though ■without taking a part in any one of the injuries” resulting, we arraign at the bar of history as amongst the greatest enemies of their country. The Westminster Review, for October, 1854, reviewing Humboldt’s book, notwithstanding a strong prejudice against the legislation we defend, concedes sufficient for its justification. The reviewer thus writes of ‘ Force ’ :— “It can only guard the arena in which improving influences may “ operate.”—p. 492. How ‘ guard ? ’ Can it not, at the behest of wisdom, prohibit the entrance of mischievous beasts into the field ? Can it not also harrow up and burn the noxious weeds that choke the soil, and rob the precious grain and roots of their nourishment ? Can it not quite as Bentham. Works, i. p. 101.