This is an ingenious and interesting pamphlet. It is written with much force and originality; and we think we shall do the public a service by laying before our readers some of the author's remarks. There is no vice which steals upon us in so many attractive and deceitful shapes as that of intemperate drinking. In this country it is a national sin and infects every class of society. We meet its temptations in our social intercourse, at our public festivals—in the resorts of business; we see it indulged in by men of eminent character; spirituous liquors are kept in every sideboard, and brought forth upon almost every occasion. One class of society imitates the practice of another, and habitual drunkenness has become the stigma and disgrace of our country.
The pamphlet before us, remarks (page 6) that "the existence of this vice is now generally acknowledged, its progress marked, and its effects deplored. It is traced to the grog-shop where many of its most degrading effects are discovered, and mistaken for causes, and the remedy attempted to be applied."
"Though I am not disposed to become the advocate of grog-shops, or to avert from them any portion of merited animadversion—or inclined to become the apologist of those who, under colour of keeping a tavern, follow the business of dram-selling; I am not willing that these places should be considered either as the primary or principal cause of the evil under review. The current opinion that such is the case, is incorrect, as I shall endeavour to shew. And I am induced to do this, from the conviction that the mistake is calculated to stop investigation short of the true source, and thus prevent the remedies from reaching the fountain-head of the evil. It happens in this, as in too many other instances, that the little sinners become the subjects of censure, while those whose crimes differ from them only in magnitude, are overlooked, or treated with complaisance. Is it wrong to sell liquor by the glass, to those who drink it—and is it not wrong to sell it by the hogshead, for the purpose of being so disposed of? Are both these culpable, and shall those who import and sell it by the cargo, escape obloquy? And does the distiller differ from all those, in any other respect, than that he makes while they sell the poison for the purpose of its being drank? It is not my intention to censure the latter any more than the former class of dealers in ardent drink; and justice forbids that blame should attach itself exclusively to either. They are all particepes criminis, inasmuch as they all contribute facilities to the practice of intemperate drinking, and thus aid the continuance and increase of the evil. But its most prolific sources are not to be found among those classes of our fellow-citizens, considered in the business character. They only conform to the customs and habits of the community in which they live. They find their neighbours in the practice of using ardent drink, and profit by their folly. No one would be so weak as to invest his money in ardent liquor with the expectation of learning people to drink. It is the already acquired habit, which constitutes the basis of his calculations of profit. So far, therefore, from grog-shops being the primary or principal cause of intemperate habits, the reverse of the position approaches nearer the truth. The habit of intemperance is the cause of grog-shops.
"As the vice under consideration did not originate at those places, it is not limited to the class of people who drink there. The customers of coffee houses, hotels, and other taverns, and the sideboards and wine-cellars of private houses, prove the truth of this position. The landlords of those establishments would take it in dudgeon, to be told that their customers were of the lowest grade of society; and the proprietors of well stored sideboards and wine-cellars, would be highly offended at the imputation of drinking, or learning to drink, at grog-shops. If the practice of tippling was confined to the lower order of society, it could not with any propriety be regarded as a national sin. The character and habits of that class of the community can never alone constitute national character. Admitting, therefore, that intemperate drinking is justly attributed to us as a feature of our national character, it follows irrefutably, that the causes which produce that effect are not confined to the purlieus of bar or tap-rooms. The upper classes of society never follow the examples of the lower: but the latter do, as far as they are able, imitate the customs of the former. Had the habit of intemperance originated in the lower class, it would not, in all probability, have extended beyond it. As its prevalence is so general as to become a reproach to the nation, the inference is conclusive, that it is the progeny of higher parentage than grog-shops."
"The radical sources of the evil" says judge Herttell, "are in the fashions, customs, and examples, of what are called the upper or wealthy classes of the community."
After remarking the common practice that intoxicating liquors are universally used as a table drink, he proceeds, "Such being the practice, the parents of a family must, of necessity, adopt one of the two following measures:—The children must be permitted to partake of the common table beverage, or they must not. In the first case they are reared from their childhood to the habitual use of ardent drink. If the other course is pursued, and the use of the liquor interdicted to the children, while the parents daily drink it in their presence, he is very little acquainted with human nature, who does not know, that the value of the article is thereby arbitrarily enhanced—the disposition to enjoy it increased,—and, that as soon as the restraints of the parents are removed, and an opportunity presents, the forbidden fruit will be tasted, with as much avidity as if both conscience and justice demanded satisfaction for lost time and pleasures. Under such circumstances, how vain is it to hope that children will not acquire the habit of intemperance—and how weak is it to wonder at their becoming drunkards! Parents can hardly be said to have arrived to years of discretion, who shall expect that their admonitions against intemperance will be heeded, while their daily example is counteracting their influence. How ridiculous is it for them, while drinking wine and brandy in the presence of their children, to attempt to persuade them, that it is not good for them! Should it happen, that in a family of half a dozen sons, there should be a sober man, the merit is his, and not his parents'; nor are they to be pitied, except for their folly, should they all be drunkards; and such is frequently the result. Thus, almost every family becomes a school for intemperance, and a nursery of customers for taverns and grog-shops.
"Again; inebriating liquors have become the medium universally adopted by society for manifesting friendship and good will, one to another. It need only to be mentioned to be admitted, that it is the common practice, when friends or even strangers visit each other, they have scarcely time after being seated, to make the usual inquiries about health, and the common place remarks on the weather, before they are invited to drink intoxicating liquors. The welcome is deemed kind and sincere, in proportion to the frequency, and earnestness of the importunities to drink—liberal in proportion to the variety of the liquors; and their richness and profusion add to the other temptations to drink. Not to offer them would be deemed unfriendly, mean, or unmannerly. Not to accept them, would be attributed to ill-nature, or a want of politeness. Hence, the visitor drinks to reciprocate good will for the proffered kindness, or in self-defence against the imputation of ill-breeding. And the visited, takes a glass for the company's sake, as it is called; and to evince his satisfaction on seeing his hospitality accepted in the spirit in which it is offered. In this way do the laws of fashion and custom constrain people to drink, who otherwise would have no inclination, or who have acquired that inclination, from the frequent if not daily occasions which occur, for tendering and reciprocating through the customary channel, sentiments of hospitality and good will to their associates, friends, and strangers. Thus is the vice of intemperate drinking ingrafted on the virtue of hospitality; and so long as that virtue is cherished, and ardent liquors continue to be tendered as evidence of its existence, so long will the use of that article as a drink continue, and the vice of intemperance grow out of it. This unnatural blending of virtue and vice, together with the practice of using inebriating drink as a table beverage, are the radical sources of that intemperance, which is said to be "the crying and increasing sin of the nation." It is at the family table, the first rudiments of intemperance are taught; the first examples set, and the first essays at tippling attempted. The practice is continued by the frequent display of hospitality and politeness, through the medium of ardent drink. The acquired habit, shows itself on holy-days, at dining and other parties, and on all convivial occasions—is pursued at taverns, and at last, descends to, and terminates its career at grog-shops. Look at the catalogue of family misfortunes, and few will be found to have escaped the direful disease of intemperance; few which have not had their prosperity and happiness blighted by the extreme of that vice, in some one or more of their members." No doubt it is in the opulent that many of the vices of society originate. Their weaknesses and errors are palliated; their example imitated and their indulgences eagerly craved by the poor. While therefore, the general practice of using ardent spirit continues among them, our author reasons that the popular remedy of curtailing the number of grog-shops, though it would lessen the practice would not destroy the habit of intemperance. Should there remain a solitary place where liquor can be procured, the sin of intemperance will continue to be committed, and its associate vices and immorality entailed on society.
"What!" says he, "it may be asked by the reader, are we required to relinquish the use of wine and ardent spirits, in order to prevent their abuse by others? Shall we deny ourselves the reasonable enjoyment of them, because others become intemperate? Are we to be interdicted the moderate use of them, because others drink to excess and get drunk? As well say the querists, might it be expected that we should extract our tongues, because others back-bite their neighbours!
"In the first place, permit me to remark, that I have not uttered a word against the moderate or reasonable use of ardent liquors. But before we go farther, it may be proper to analyze the terms, moderation and intemperance, as they relate to the use of inebriating drink. There can be no objection to its reasonable, necessary, and moderate use. But I do contend, that the use of it by any person in a full state of health, is at all times unnecessary. The effect of strong drink, is to excite the animal spirits to a preternatural action.—When taken by a person in full health, it raises the animal spirits above the healthy standard. This is unnecessary—and inasmuch as it creates a deviation from a state of real health, it produces disease, and hence its use is immoderate, intemperate. The indirect debility which succeeds the exhausted stimulant, is another and a worse state of disorder, which goes to confirm the truth, that the first draught of ardent drink taken by those in full health, is unnecessary, unreasonable, and excessive. Nor is this all—this indirect debility prompts a repetition of the draught—and now the practice of drinking has commenced. The animal spirits having sunk as far below as they have been raised above the healthy standard, an increased quantity is required to raise them as high as before. Thus the habit of intemperance progresses. The spirits, now ebbing lower than before, demand increased support, the yielding to which demand, confirms the habit of intemperance. But it unfortunately happens, that the term moderate, when applied to intoxicating drink, by those who use it, is as unmeaning as the word enough in the mouth of a miser, when speaking of his money. Each drinks according to his taste and strength of habit, and calls it moderate. Thus every grade of drinking, from the single glass of the novice, to the full bottle of the initiated, is termed moderate. And every degree of excitement, from moderately merry to moderately drunk, is honoured with the same name. The real truth is, it is a poor apology for a bad practice; and a moderate degree of reflection would lead those not slaves to the habit, to view it in that light."
"I have the authority of distinguished physicians for remarking, that next to intemperate eating, intemperate drinking engenders more bodily diseases, than any other single cause. That more die of disorders occasioned by drinking, before they become drunkards, than live to extend their intemperance to that extreme. That the constant exercise of the labouring class, procrastinates, while the want of exercise tends to facilitate the fatal effects of intemperance in the other class of society—and hence it is, that the moderate drinking, as it is modestly termed, of the latter, destroys at least as many as the drunkenness of the former, and in that ratio is as injurious to the community. The reason these facts are not subjects of general observation, is, that when people who are not reputed drunkards, die of complaints brought on by drinking, their death is imputed to the disorder, while that escapes being attributed to its true cause—whereas, reputed drunkards stand little or no chance of dying by any other means; for be they drowned by accident or hanged for murder, their end is generally, and perhaps too often, correctly ascribed to intemperate drinking."