was adopted. More fortunate than her, however, we had, in our Chesterfields, Lonsdales, and Herveys, men, patriotic and wise enough to steer her back into the Harbour of Restriction.

After the Revolution of 1688, commercial relations with France being interdicted, any person was permitted to set up a Distillery, on giving ten days notice to the excise, and paying some trifling duties. Here we had free trade with a vengance, with no restriction save that of a fiscal nature, such as our present tealicence. The effect was what might have been anticipated. The business of Distilling, especially in London and Westminster, increased and florished, but the people faded and decreased. Health, good order, and morals, were so visibly retrograding, that it now became needful to pass other acts to check the operation of the former. By the 12th and 13th William III., part of the preceding act was repealed, and all persons were prohibited from selling spirits by retail, without having first obtained a licence, like that for the sale of ale.

§ 50. Very frequent alterations in the spirit-laws took place after this time; sometimes based on fiscal, and sometimes on social, considerations. Indeed, no one subject has given Parliament a hundredth part of the trouble which this system of Licensing and Regulating the Traffic has done. The 1st Anne (cap 24), permitted tradesmen whose principal dealings were in other goods, to sell spirits by retail, without a licence, provided they did not allow tippling in their shops or houses. Again, in the following reign, encouragement was given to this baneful Traffic. The 2nd George II. (cap. 17) imposed a duty of £20 on the retail licence to sell spirits, which, for the first time, was ordered to be renewed annually. Spirits became cheap, and debauchery and degradation progressed at an alarming pace. As the Penny Cyclopædia observes, a new and most pernicious element in the compound of mischief produced by public-houses, sprung into existence."+ A clause was introduced into the 2nd George H., placing Spirit dealers under the same regulations as Publicans, in respect to 'Licences.' This act, after reciting the inconveniences' arising "from persons being licensed to keep inns and common ale-houses by justices living at a distance, not being truly informed as to the occasion or want of such inns, ale-houses, and victualling-houses, or the character" of the persons licensed, provides that no licence to keep an inn, ale-house, or victualling-house, or to retail strong waters,' should be granted but at a general meeting of justices of the division. The act was evaded, by reckless persons hawking colored spirits, with other

*Parl. Hist. xii. p. 1213.

The Middlesex Magistrates, in 1725, report that in London and Southwark there were 6,178 places "wherein geneva, or other strong waters, were sold by retail." Yet, they add, though giving a proportion in some districts of one to every seventh house, there is "reason to believe the report is very far short of the true number."

1

names, about the streets, and exposing them for sale on bulks, sheds, or stalls. The 6th George II. (1732) repeals the £20 licence, and striving to stop the evil which had been done, imposes a penalty of £10 upon the retail sale of spirits, except sold in dwelling-houses! Gin, at this time, was 6d. per quart. This shuttlecock legislation was a vain attempt to serve God and Mammon, to raise a revenue by the sale of spirits, without destroying the health and morals of the community. Coming after so many encouragements to drinking, this provision was. not likely to be very serviceable. Virtually, it left the sale open, by making every householder into a Publican, and, as SMOLLETT remarks, "without making any regulation for preventing the excessive use of such liquors. Lord CHOLMONDELEY (Parl. Hist. xii.) describes this measure as extremely injurious; the poor being restored to their liberty of getting drunk as usual, did, like men set free from gaol, make a most extravagant use of it. Under this open trade, gin was consumed, with an intemperance more resembling a tribe of savages than of a civilized people. The Parliamentary History of the period (vol. xii., p. 1213), records the fact, that signs were publicly hoisted, "drunk for a 1d.; dead drunk for 2d.; clean straw for nothing."

§ 51. Things had reached such a pass, that in 1735, the Middlesex Magistrates, in quarter sessions assembled, petitioned Parliament in these terms :—

"That the excessive drinking of spirituous liquors was debauching the morals, and driving into vice and wickedness, the lower orders of the people.

"That spirits were sold by persons of all descriptions, by which means journeymen, apprentices, servants, etc., were drawn in to taste, and by degrees to like, approve, and immoderately to drink thereof; thus destroying the health, morals, peace, and strength of the lower orders," etc.*

This petition being referred to a Committee of the whole House, it was resolved :—

"That the low price of spirituous liquors is the principal inducement to the excessive and pernicious use thereof.

"That in order to prevent this excessive and pernicious use, a discouragement be given thereto by a duty to be laid on spirits sold by retail. "That the selling of such liquors be restrained to persons keeping publie brandy-shops, victualling-houses, coffee-houses, ale-houses, innholders, and to such Surgeons and Apothecaries as shall make use of it by way of medicine only." +

The Legislature, at last, seeing the frightful demoralization that was following the policy of former parliaments, appeared resolved to annihilate the Traffic in gin and strong waters. The fault, however, lay in the want of progressive preparation for that final result, most devoutly to be wished'; since the Governmental power must never be strained too far, nor exerted

*Maitland's History of London, p. 350.

+ English Commons' Journal, xxii., pp. 582, 586.

too suddenly, without a moral power to sustain its tension. The 9th George II. (1735-6) enacted that Spirits should not be sold in less than two gallons, without a Licence, for which £50 was to be paid; and that 20s. per gallon should be levied upon Gin.*

Here was a prohibitory law in effect, antagonizing instead of expressing the wishes of the people, but with fatal facilities of evasion, and totally devoid of the Maine-Law Machinery for making it effectual-viz. the simple destruction of the liquor. The Act came in force, Sept. 29, 1736, and produced vast excitement. The populace of London, Bristol, Norwich, and other towns, honored what they called the "death of Madame Gin" with formal "funeral" processions, whereat many of her devoted admirers, male and female, got "gloriously drunk." The distillers took out Wine licences, offered gin-spiced and winedfor sale, under a new name; while drams were sold in the brandy shops, under the quaint appellations of 'Sangree,' 'Tom Row,' 'Cuckold's Comfort,' 'Parliament Gin,' The Last Shift," 'Ladies Delight,' 'King Theodore of Corsica,' 'Cholic-and-GripeWaters,' etc.-this last reminding us of a similar evasion of the late Scottish Public-house Act, practiced for awhile in Glasgow, where some druggists sold on the Sabbath, colored-whisky under the title of 'Cholera mixture'! Lord CHOLMONDELEY said, on the part of government, that the law exposed them to rebellion, and that they had information of its being designed; but by parading the troops in the dangerous locality, they had probably prevented riot and bloodshed. In March, 1738, a proclamation was passed to enforce the Act, and to protect the efforts of the officers of justice. In this matter, the government at least had more spirit and sense of duty than in our days of Beer-bills and Hyde Park mobs, if not more success. The consumption of spirits in England and Wales rose from 13,500,000 gallons in 1734, to 19,000,000 in 1742, and there were within the bills of mortality more than 20,000 houses and shops in which gin was sold by retail. As might be expected, Informers became objects of popular hatred, and were hunted through the streets. Of course, the more respectable Traffickers abandoned the proscribed business, which fell into the hands of reckless and disreputable men, who set at nought the provisions of the law. "Within two years of the passing of the Act," says the historian,† though 12,000 persons had been convicted of offences against it, "it had become odious and contemptible; and policy, as well as humanity, forced the commissioners of excise to mitigate its penalties." The government relinquished the fruitless

contest.

§ 52. Memorable debates took place in Parliament (those in the Upper House were especially remarkable for the enunciation

* See Debate on Sir Joseph Jekyll's motion. Chandler's Hist, vol. ix, p. 158. + Tindal's Continuation of Rapin, vol. viii. pp. 358, 383. Edition of 1759.

G

of sound principles and noble sentiments), and the obnoxious Act underwent some modification. On February 15th, 1743, the Lords read for the first time, a Bill "For repealing certain Duties on Spirituous Liquors and on Licences for retailing the same, ," which was ordered a second reading, and the Lords to be summoned. It imposed a small duty per gallon at the stillhead, and the licence was to cost but 20s., which was to be granted only to such as had Licences for selling Ale. Some one, in the debate, talked of curing drunkenness by penalties. Lord HARVEY asked "How can the laws be remembered in the heats of drunkenness?" A motion was made to call Physicians to the bar of the House.* The BISHOP OF OXFORD said "The increase of the sale of distilled spirits, and the propagation of all kinds of wickedness are the same. I should think, my Lords, that Government approaching its dissolution, that was reduced to submit its decrees to their judgment who are chiefly accused of the abuse of these liquors....The effect of the law was not less than any one who foresaw such opposition might reasonably have conceived. In this city [Westminster] alone, there were before the commencement of that law, 1500 large shops in which no other trade was carried on than that of retailing these pernicious liquors, in which no temptation to debauchery was forgotten, and, what cannot be mentioned without horror, back rooms and secret places were contrived for receptacles of those who had drunk till they had lost their reason and their limbs. Those that follow this trade under restraint, would pursue it more diligently if that restraint were removed. As to false informers, the sword of justice should have been drawn against both, nor should it have been laid aside, till both species of wickedness had been exterminated. When, my lords, was any design of great importance effected without difficulties? It is difficult, without doubt, to restrain a nation from vice; and to reform a nation already corrupted is still more difficult: but it is the duty of government to endeavor them. It has been found by experience, that nothing can restrain the people from buying these liquors, but such laws as hinder them from being SOLD."+ Lord TALBOT accused the government of laying poison in the way of the people, establishing by law a practice productive of all the miseries to which human nature is incident. BISHOP OF SALISBURY was sarcastic. 66 To prevent the excessive use of anything by allowing it to be sold without restraint, is an expedient which the wisdom of no former age ever discovered." The Bill was read a second time, Feb. 21. Lord HERVEY, on that occasion, observed; "As it is the quality of this malignant liquor

The

* Mr PORTER, in his 'Progress of the Nation,' cannot understand why Physi cians should have been called before the House. It was with the view of placing spirits in the same category with other poisons.

Timberland's History and Proceedings of the House of Lords. (London, 1743 vol. viii.

...

to corrupt the mind, it likewise destroys the body....Drunkenness not only corrupts men by taking away those restraints by which they are withheld from the perpetration of villanies, but by superadding the temptations of poverty-temptations not easily resisted even by those whose eyes are open to the consequences of their actions, but which will certainly prevail over those whose apprehensions are laid asleep, and who never extend their views beyond the gratification of the present moment. Instead, therefore, of promoting a practice so evidently detrimental to society, let us oppose it with the most vigorous efforts; let us begin our opposition by opposing this bill, and then consider, whether the execution of the former law shall be enforced, or whether another more efficacious can be formed. ...No man, unacquainted with the motives by which senatorial debates are too often influenced, would suspect that after the pernicious qualities of this liquor, and the general inclination among the people to the immoderate use of it, it could be afterwards enquired, Whether this universal thirst for poison ought to be encouraged by the legislature?" Lord LONDSDALE Said-"In every part of this great metropolis, whoever shall pass along the streets, will find wretchedness stretched upon the pavement, insensible and motionless, and only removed by the charity of passengers from the danger of being crushed by carriages or trampled by horses, or strangled with filth in the common sewers; and others, less helpless perhaps, but more dangerous, who have drunk too much to fear punishment, but not enough to hinder them from provoking it....No man can pass a single hour in public places without meeting such objects, or hearing such expressions as disgrace human nature, such as cannot be looked upon without horror, or heard without indignanation, and which there is no possibility of removing or preventing, WHILST THIS HATEFUL LIQUOR IS PUBLICLY SOLD... These liquors not only infatuate the mind, but poison the body; they not only fill our streets with madmen and our prisons with criminals, but our hospitals with cripples... Nor does the use of spirits, my lords, only impoverish the public by lessening the number of useful and laborious hands, but by cutting off those recruits by which its natural and inevitable losses are to be supplied. The use of distilled liquors impairs the fecundity of the human race, and hinders that increase which Providence has ordained for the support of the world. Those women who riot in this poisonous debauchery are quickly disabled from bearing children, or, what is still more destructive to general happiness, produce children diseased from their birth, and who, therefore, are an additional burden, and must be supported through a miserable life by that labor which they cannot share, and must be protected by that community of which they cannot contribute to the defence." The BISHOP OF SARUM nobly pleaded for the Young. The children, my lords, to whom the affairs of the present generation must be trans