The condensed argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by F.R. Lees.
- Lees, Frederic Richard, 1815-1897
- Date:
- 1864
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The condensed argument for the legislative prohibition of the liquor traffic / by F.R. Lees. Source: Wellcome Collection.
12/160 (page 12)
![order to dispose him to obey the laws—to remove from him temptations to crime, and govern him by his inclinations and knowlege. “ There are some cases in which the power of injuring may be taken away, by excluding what Tacitus calls irritamenta malorum[the sub- jects and suggesters of the offence] as the prohibition of the sale and fabrication of dies for coining; of poisonous drugs ; of concealed arms; of dice, and other instruments of prohibited games:” [to which may now be added the prohibition of lotteries, betting-houses, brothels, prize-fights, and crime-engendering drinks.] “ Mahomet, not trusting to reason, has sought to put it out of the power of men to misuse strong liquors. If we regard the climate of hot countries, in which wine produces fury rather than stupidity, it will perhaps be found that its total prohibition is more gentle than its permitted use, which would have produced numerous offences, and consequently numerous punishments. “ T axes upon spirituous liquors, in part, accomplish the same end. In proportion as the price is raised above the reach of the most nume- rous class, the means of yielding to intemperance are taken from them. Under this head may be mentioned many English statutes relative to the sale of spirituous liquors ; their open exposure to sale is prohibited. “By a statute of George m., any individual is forbidden to have more than 501bs. of gunpowder in his house ; and the dealers in gun- powder are forbidden to have more than 200ibs. at one time. The reason assigned is the danger of explosions.” Here a man, carrying out such objections as are commonly urged against a Prohibitory liquor-law, might say, “ I am very careful— why do you limit mg liberty because some careless fellow blows his house up ? Why not wait till the action is done ?” The answer would he, that we care more for the safety of the many than the con- venience of the one—that the condition wanted is not the punishment of another, but the protection of ourselves—that the punishment after the act, or involved in it, comes too late to remedy the evil—that so far as it operates, it is in the direction of preventing a future calamity of the same kind—and that the past disaster ought to have been pre- vented by law as much as any apprehended future one. As the only legitimate answer to the claim for protection against the possible danger of explosion would be a proof that such protection must in some other direction largely subtract from human happiness, so in regard to the Liquor-Traffic, it must be shown that its free operation involves such an amount of rational enjoyment as will counterbalance the varied and prodigious social evils with which it is inseparably associated. Bentham proceedsAll other indirect means which can be employed must have reference to the direction of the inclinations; to the putting in practice the rules of a logic too little understood at present—the logic of the Will—a logic which often appears in opposi- tion to the logic of the Understanding. This contrariety amongst motives often exists only from the unskilfulness of the Legislator— from an opposition he has himself created between the natural and political sanctions—between the moral and religious sanctions. If he could make all those powers concur towards the same end, all the faculties of the man would bo in harmony, and the inclination to in-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b28141106_0012.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
