[236-1] Commendable laws relating to luxury in Florence in the beginning of the 15th century. The outlay for dress, for the table, for servants and equipages was limited; but, on the other hand, it was entirely unrestricted for churches, palaces, libraries, and works of art. The consequences of this legislation are felt even in our day. (Sismondi, Gesch. der Ital. Freistaaten im M. A., VIII, 261. Compare Machiavelli, Istor. Fior., VII, a., 1472.)
[236-2] Thus Nerva (Xiphilin., exc. Dionis, LXVIII, 2); Hadrian (Spartian V. Hadrian, 22); Antoninus Pius (Capitol, 12); Marcus Aurelius (Capitol, 27); Pertinax (Capitol, 9); Severus Alexander (Lamprid, 4); Aurelian (Lamprid, 49); Tacitus (Vopisc, 10 seq).
[236-3] Extracted from the remarkable speech made by the personally frugal Tiberius (Sueton., Tib., 34) against sumptuary laws: Tacit., Annal., III, 52 ff. Compare, however, IV, 63.
[236-4] Tacit., Ann., III, 55: but the differences in fortune had, at the same time, become less glaring. Henry IV. also dressed very simply for example's sake, as did also Sully, and ridiculed those qui portaient leurs moulins et leur bois de haute-futaie sur leurs dos. (Péréfixe, Histoire du Roi Henry le grand, 208.)
[236-5] The gross luxuries of drunkenness and gluttony are a direct consequence of universal grossness, and disappear of themselves when higher wants and means of satisfying them are introduced. (v. Buch, Reise durch Norwegen und Lappland, 1810, I, 166; II, 112 ff.)
[236-6] While, formerly, they cared only to abstain from spirits, the so-called "total abstinence" has prevailed since 1832. Most teetotallers compare moderate drinking to moderate lying or moderate stealing; they even declare the moderate drinker worse than the drunkard, because his example is more apt to lead others astray, and he is harder to convert. (But, Psalm, 104, 15!) The coat of arms of the English temperance societies is a hand holding a hammer in the act of breaking a bottle. (Temperance poetry!)
[236-7] McCulloch, On Taxation, 342 ff. Speech of O'Connell in the House of Commons, 27 May 1842. The more serious crimes decreased 1840-44, as compared with the average number during the five previous years by 28, and the most grievous by 50 per cent. (Rau, Lehrbuch, II, § 331.) Recently, the first enthusiasm awakened by Father Matthew has somewhat declined, and the consumption of brandy therefore increased. Yet, in the whole United Kingdom in 1853, only 30,164,000 gallons were taxed; in 1835, 31,400,000; although the population had in the meantime increased from 10 to 11 per cent. In 1834, there were in the United States 7,000 temperance societies with a membership of 1,250,000. The members of these societies are sometimes paid higher wages in factories; and ships which allow no alcohol on board are insured at a premium of five per cent. less. (Baird, History of the Temperance Societies in the United States, 1837.)
[236-8] In the princedom of Osnabrück, the number of distilleries was noticeably diminished under the influence of the temperance societies; but the consumption of beer was rapidly increased twenty-fold. (Hannoverisches Magazin, 1843, 51. Böttcher, Gesch. der M. V. in der Norddeutschen Bundestaaten, 1841.)
[236-9] Even in 1838, Massachusetts had begun to restrict the sale at retail. The agitation for the suppression of the liquor shops begins in 1841. According to the Maine law of 1851, a government officer alone had the right to sell liquor, and only for the purposes mentioned in the text. The manufacture or importation of liquor for private use was left free to all. A severe system of house-searching, imprisonment and inquisitorial proceedings in order to enforce the law. Similarly in Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Michigan. (Edinburg Rev., July, 1854.) There are, however, numberless instances related in which the law has been violated unpunished since 1856, and still more since 1872. See R. Russell, North America, its Agriculture and Climate, and Edinburg Rev., April, 1873, 404.
[236-10] From the foregoing, it is intelligible why most modern writers, even those otherwise opposed to luxury, are not favorably inclined towards sumptuary laws. "It is the highest impertinence and presumption in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people and to restrain their expense, either by sumptuary laws or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception (?) the greatest spendthrifts in the society. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will." (Adam Smith, I, ch. 3.) Compare Rau, Lehrbuch II, § 358 ff. R. Mohl, Polizeiwissenschaft, II, 434 ff.