... “If any ordinary-keeper shall in his house permit unlawful gaming, or suffer any person or persons to tipple in his house, or drink any more than is necessary, on the Lord’s day, or any other day set apart by public authority for religious worship, ... the court may disable such offender from keeping ordinary thereafter, until they shall think fit to grant him a new license, or may restore him to keep ordinary upon his former license, as they shall see cause.”
In 1769 the cause of temperance achieved two signal successes; one consisting in the revocation of the import duty on beer, and the other in the renewal of legislation encouraging viticulture. The idea of fostering the manufacture of malt liquors found many advocates at this time, and there can be no doubt that many of the best Americans strove, by precept and example, to bring about a change of drinking habits, in the manner indicated, long before the passage of the two acts just cited.
As to the encouragement of wine-making in Virginia, we have seen that it dates back to the earliest periods of Colonial legislation, and that then it was suggested by the abundance of grapes found everywhere by the first settlers. Neither these early attempts nor subsequent efforts led to any lasting results, because viticulture was not understood by the English colonists, while the French vintners, who, on uncommonly favorable terms, had been induced to emigrate to Virginia on the condition that they plant vineyards and instruct the colonists in viticulture, failed to do what was expected of them, finding the planting of tobacco to be more profitable.
The sporadic attempts to encourage the manufacture of malt liquors was equally unsuccessful. The inducements offered to hop growers, even if they had been sufficiently alluring to tempt farmers to abandon the profitable cultivation of tobacco, could not have over-balanced the many difficulties which climate and the absence of industrial enterprise placed in the way of brewing. There was another drawback, however,—the cheapness of domestic spirits, which were not burdened by internal taxes.
MARYLAND
Under circumstances and conditions similar to those prevailing in Virginia, the brewing trade in this Colony lagged far behind the comparatively rapid progress achieved in other respects. Enterprising Dutchmen from the settlements on the Delaware had intended years before to emigrate to Maryland for the purpose of introducing the brewing industry there; but a want of capital and other obstacles had deterred them from carrying out their plans. In 1676 there were no malt-houses in the province, and the planters, chiefly engaged in raising tobacco, saw no inducement to plant barley or any other cereal, beyond what they needed to make bread with. The poorer people brewed small beer from Indian corn dried in common stoves, and from molasses mixed with bran. As beer constituted an indispensable part of every meal, it is reasonable to assume that tavern-keepers brewed a similar beer, unless they could obtain malt either from England, or from one of the other American colonies.
There appears to have been no lack of orchards at this time, and many planters made their own cider, and also brandy from apples. The fact that the law against selling liquors on Sunday contained a separate clause enjoining owners of orchards not to violate the said act, proves that these persons made a practice of selling their products.
Like their colleagues of Virginia, the lawmakers of this Colony honestly strove to encourage the domestic manufacture of fermented beverages, and, also like the Virginians, they believed that nothing would serve this laudable aim better than to make the domestic product cheaper than the imported article.
Of curious interest is a resolution of the Assembly, embodied in an act passed in 1674, declaring that “noe rates of prices of anie accommodacons be set or ascertained, but such only as are of absolute necessity for sustaining and refreshing travelers, that is to say, man’s meat, beer and lodging.”
THE
CAROLINAS