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.

  • Frederic Richard Lees
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.

    1/12
    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. Frederic R. Lees, F.S.A., Edin., in reply to state¬ ments advanced in the Mechanics’Institution, by Dr. Edwin Lankester, F.R.S., Lond. The lecture was heard by a crowded audience with marked attention, and thriiout warmly applauded.] Introduction. Bentlemen,—most of you are already aware of the occasion of my addressing you to-night, on the subject announced—“ The Harmony of Teetotalism with the Natural Laws of Diet, and with the Theory of Liebig concerning Animal Heat.” I say Theory of Liebig, which I am not disposed to dispute, tho it is quite certain that some of his opinions and statements are not only doubtful, but erroneous. Dr. Lankester, in a course of three lectures, delivered in our Literary Institution, “On the Natural History of Plants yielding Food,’’ went out of his way to discuss questions concerning that non-natural product—“Alcohol: its forms, wine, beer, spirits,”—and to give an “ estimate of (them), as articles of diet,’’ professing to correct the chemistry and physiology of the Teetotalers! Had Dr. Lankester furnished us with fresh food for thought—had he shown us that some natural and scientific facts had been overlooked in the theory of our system—we should very respectfully have accepted his suggestions for what they were worth; but, as it is, we are entitled to complain of two things—First, the long and widely- published arguments of the Teetotalers on the very topic of his remarks, are ignored as non-existent, thus conveying the impression to his audience that we were ignorant of what he had got to say, while the fact is, that he was, or affected to be, ignorant of what we had said and written in reply to his adopted hypothesis. Second, there is not, in all his objec¬ tions, one that is original or new; on the contrary, most of them are very stale, and have been, time after time, shovrn to be equally 'flat and unprofitable.’ Indeed, had the objec¬ tions I have to notice appeared in any of the usual channels for such things, I must con¬ fess that I would not have taken the trouble to refute them for the hundredth time; and the only reason for my doing so now, is the fact that they issued from the platform of our Literary Society, and were listened to with satisfaction by a number of polite and placid gentlemen, fond of ‘the agreeable stimulant,’ as Dr. Lankester calls it, and thus likely to- accept what the learned Doctor told them, for a good deal more than it was really worth. Authority—even the authority of an F. R. S.—would gain a credit and a currency to which it was in truth not entitled on this subject—all the more because Dr. Lankester avoided the grosser absurdities of our opponents, and re-produced only those plausibilities which were most indefinite in their shape, or most difficult to understand from the com¬ plexity of their subject, or the scientific details which they involved. I am not surprized at Dr. Lankester. , The-medical profession—to which, I believe, he nominally belongs— has been true to its ancient character in opposing the dietetic truths of teetotalism ; for it has, in turn, opposed the most important discoveries which have ever been made in medi¬ cine and physiology. I recollect that The British and Foreic/n Medical Review, edited by Dr. Forbes, the Queen’s Physician, in the year 1848, just after the publication of Liebig’s famous work on Organic Chemistry, announced in the usual ex cathedra style of the pro¬ fession, that the new theory quite exploded teetotalism, which must be regarded thence¬ forth rather as a vulgar expedient than a scientific principle! One unfortunate gentleman —Surgeon Jeaffreson—challenged us to discussion. I met him in the Town-hall of Framlingham; heard him give a bad edition of Liebig’s theory to the rustics, which was applauded in exact proportion to its mystery; rose to put a few questions to the learned gentleman, which led him into a chaos of contradiction; whereon, as a last resource, he put on his cloak and hat, and, with umbrella beneath his arm, prudently made his bow and 4