Essays physiological and critical on the principles of temperance

Front matter

mm iSiSi

OJ'.

p

Chapter I

Does fhjsiology or experience teach that alcoholic liquors form part of the ordinary sustenance of man in health, particularly under exposure to heat or cold ? 41

Conditions of health, 41 — Organism of man, 42 — Need of heat,

42 — Building material, 43 — Food of two kinds. Fuel and Nutriment, 44 — Drink of one sort — Air, or an adapted atmosphere —

Life, and its dependence on Oxygen, 45 — Perfection of Nature, .

46 — Can Alcohol answer the end of Water? 47 — Can alcohol be Food ? 48 — Liebig deelares it cannot repair waste. Dr Paris and Dr Pereira on Alcohol as Fuel, 49 — Conditions of combustion —

Origin of Fat and Oil, 51 — Heat-values of Alcohol and Food compared, 52 — Uses of ternary compounds of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, 54 — The crucial test— Alcohol impedes ventilation,

54 — Dr Prout’s Experiments, 55 — Dr Davy’s, Dr Bocker’s, and Dr Hammond’s, 56 — Experience the final touchstone, 57 — Result of trial in England, in India, in America, and in the Arctic Regions, 58 — Dr Sladcn, Captain Head, Dr Hooker, and W. Cobbett, 59—64.

IV.

Chapter II

Is there any special modification of the bodily or mental condition of man, short of actual disease, in which either the occasional or the habitual use of alcoholic liquors may be considered necessary or beneficial ? G5

Disease defined, 65 — Dr William’s test of the use of stimulants,

66 — Dr James Johnson — Alcohol for nursing mothers, 97 — Dr Carpenter — Peculiar constitutions — Dr Christison, 68 — Alcohol tends to disease, and vitiates the blood, 69 — How medicines act,

70 — The case of the Maisnn Cenirale, 71 — Error of Carpenter.

Chapter III

Is the employment of alcoholic liquors necessary or beneficial in the practice of medicine ? If so, in what diseases, or in what form and stages of disease ? 75

The dilemma difference between necessity and utility, 73 — Tn poison physic, in physic poison, 74 — Carpenter on medical quackery, 75 — Example of empiricism, and difference of doctors, 76 —

Injury of alcohol in Gangrene, 77 — Worse than useless in Cholera,

78 — Cold water Cures, 79 — The Fehrfugum Magnum, 79 —

Note, Testimony of Dr Arniitage, 80 — Miiller — Dr Hope’s cases of stomach disease, 81 — Dr James .Johnson — Professor Carpenter,

82— Condiments, 84.

Chapter IV. What relation does alcohol sustain to the healthy system ? ... 85

Is alcohol food or poison ? Poisons defined and classified, 85 — Christison’s statement of the threefold action of ardent spirit,

86 — The general and remote effects of alcohol explained by Prof. Peeeira, 86 — Three degrees of toxic influence — Excitement — Inebriation — Apoplexy or Coma.

Chapter V

How does the ascription of the quality of ‘poison' to Alcoholic Liquors consist with the fact that many drinkers of them have attained a good old age? 8S

The old-age fallacy, 88 — Counteracting agencies, 89 — The atheism of the objection, 91 — Facts of Experience vastly in favor of Abstinence, 92 — Teetotalisin secures both intensity and protensity of Life, 93. Note, p. 119.

Chapter VI

What are the effects of alcohol upon the healthy body ? ... 9 !•

Adaptation of Food to Organism, 94 — The seed of all Drunkenness, 95 — The fat-fallacy, 96 — Course of alcohol thro the system,

97— JF//y alcohol is a Robber, 98— Muller and Dr Paris on sliniulus, 99, 100 — Effects of alcohol on the blood — Professor SenoLTZ, 100 — Healing of wounds, 101 — Action on the nervous-system, 102 — Contrast between a natural and non-natural stimulant, 1 04 — Topical effects of alcohol — Action on the Saliva, 105 Case of St Martin — Ocular Demonstration, 106 — Delusion^ of

CONTENTS.

T.

IV, not feeling mischief, 107-Dr Ojiston’s remarkable eases, etc 108-Dr Beddoes, m—mstory of the Gastric Secretion, 110 — Alcohol impedes Digestion, 111 — Irritales the Lungs, etc. 11^

A postman’s Esperienre, 113— Pedestrian exercise best performed without alcohol, 113— Dr Percy’s experiments 117— Meet of alcohol on the Heart, 117— A Brain-poison, 118— Divine Law fixed and inflexible, and not dependent on human opinion, 11a True temperance involves a dual test, 120.

Plea for the Primitive Diet of Mankind

I. The Authority of Nature, 122.

II. The Analogy of Nature, 124,

III. The History of Nature, 126.

IV. The Dietetic Laws of Nature, 128.

V. The Histology and Pathology of Nature, 13o.

VI. The iEconomics of Nature, 140.

YTI. The Ethics of Diet, 141. Testimony of Travelers, 147.

V. On Longevity, its Laws and Conditions y

CONTUOVERSIAL APPENDIX.

I. On the Chemistry and Physiology of Temperance.

VI. Fallacies of Professor Johnston iii- X

Reswnh of the Laws of Life, iii. — Alcohol, compared with oil or fat-making substances, gives out less heat, vi. — Mistake of Blackwood and the Leader, vii.

Critique on the Chemistry of Common Life viii.

A ludicrous blunder in physiology, x. — Eallacy that spirits ' supply the place’ of food — Coffee versus Alcohol, xiii. — Alcohol retards Digestion, liv. — Fiction relative to digestive fermentation, xvi. —

Lehmann on Coffee ; mistake of calling it nutritive, xvi.

How to make Alcohol : a discovery, liv.

VII. Dissection of the Westminster Kevievt, etc. ...Ixvii.

1. Analysis of the puffery of Mr Harrington Parker, Beer

Merchant, and agent for Allsop’s Pale-Ale Ixvh.

2. Reply to the Westminster Review Ixxiii.

I. Examples of the Reviewer’s abuse, Ixxiii.

IT. Of his fabricated and imputed arguments, Ixxv.

III. Of his swindling Definitions and illicit Logic, Ixxx.

lA. Of his perverted Science and fraudulent Suppression, Ixxxvi.

0-^ V. Of his erroneous and hypothetical Physiology, cvi.

VI. Of his suicidal admissions, exxii.

VII. The ignored basis of Teetotalism, exxvi.

Experience of distinguished men, in America, cxv. — Of Sir John Ross, Captain Kennedy, Sidney Smith, etc. cxxvii. —

Lehmann on the last verdict of Science, cixix.

VIII. Exeter Hall Manifesto, by Drs Carpenter and Lees cxxxi.

Dr R. Davis’s criticism on the Manifesto, cixxvii. — Notes and Letter in reply, cxxxix.

VI.

CONTENTS,

IX. Professor Youman’s answer to the Westminster ... cxl. 1st. Alcohol is not Food, cxl. 2nd. Alcohol is poison, cilii.

X. The Logic of the Leader -. or the Westminster article

in process of hatching cxliii.

XI. The Westminster Reviewer’s Response, a vtrhatim

reprint from the Leader, with Notes cxlviii,

XII. Does Alcohol make the body warmer ? clxii.

Controversy with T)r Jonah Hoenke, Professor Muspbatt, and their aides.

XIII. The Blunders of Blackwood clxxii.

Erratum. Mr P. Bayne, not the author of book referred to, but of Christian Life.

XIV. More fallacies of the Faculty. Professors Laycock

aud Moleschott clxii.

II. Articles on the Wine Question, etc.

XV. Bible Wine Question newly stated and illustrated . . . xvii.

XA'^I. Unbelievers and the Bible xxi.

XVII. The objection from ZmifecZ-prohibition xxiii.

XVIII. The Man-iage at Cana explained from an

original point of view ••• xxvi.

Note on the Logic of the Leader, xxxiii.

XIX. Controversy with Zeta in the JSrasoner ... xxxv.

Classification of Yayin and Oinos, xlii.

XX. Bible Temperance : a Letter to the Rev. ^ James

Gibson, M.A., in reply to his Principles of Bible Temperance

XXL Letter on the principles of genuine Teetotalism ... cxciii.

XXII.The Duty of Magistrates and the Policy of the Future ccxi.

[vii.]

iSlottos.

“Wine is a Mocker — Strong-drink is raging.” — Solomon.

“Alcohol is a very dangerous, tricksy Spirit.” — The Westminster T^viewer.

“ It is the very sophistical art of swindling ( Erschteichung ) conclusions by an incorrect application of the laws of thought, in which all Liebig’s writings show him to be a master. By this he has managed to bewilder and bribe the public so often with half truths. It could only have been in such a deceptive way that he could persuade people of such absurdities, as that the cultivation of Beet-sugar — that blessing to Germany- — was inadmissible and siUy, — Coffee and Tea, those active sleep-destroying nervous drinks, were healthy articles of diet, — Tobacco, with its poisonous nicotine, the most disgusting dirtiness that ever came into the world, with which a man makes a chimney of his throat [and a dust-flue of his nose], sacrifices his teeth and his palate to filth, soot, and mould, and fills his dress, his furniture, and the atmosphere of his rooms with stinks — was advantageous, good, and decorous ; and so on.”

Baron Von Reichenbach.

“ The school is, above aU, the place where we can guard with success the young against the sad consequences of the use of strong drinks, and the numerous evils of tobacco. It is upon the young that we can act the most powerfully, in making them regard it as a poison. Teaching them to fear alcoholic drinks and the grievous efi^ects of the use of tobacco, is to render them an eminent service, at the same time that we contribute to the improvement of the public health,” Baron Seutin, M.D., Bruxelles.

The habitual use of spirits, and of absinthe, leads the Soldier to indiscipline and to mutiny. In campaign, it is their most fatal enemy, and during the first years of the occupation of Algeria, strong liquors caused, in the ranks of our army, more ravages than the bullets of the Arabs.”

Marshall Bugiaud.

When the brain is affected, it causes a true mania for wine and stimulants ; when it is the stomach, it is usually a symptom of an inflammatory or otherwise morbid condition of the stomach, vary common in drunkards, and also common in cases of indigestion in delicate women. Eeing temporarilg relieved vm.

MOTTOS.

by alcoholic slimulants, it lays the foundation for an ever-growing habit of taking them in women, and excites a more and more urgent desire in the drunkard. It is iu this way that many persons of position and education have become irrecoverable sots.

“ I am glad for one to have the opportunity of gratefully acknowledging my own obligations (in this respect) to what may he termed teetotal science.

‘ Abstinence Societies have explained the rationale of intemperance in its compound character as a disease and a sin ’ — (I quote and adopt the words of au eloquent advocate of the cause, the late Mr Kettle) — and in doing that, have laid the foundation for a solid reform in morals generally, for they thereby established a great moral principle.

“ The promoters believed that if the true action of alcoholic drinks was fully comprehended by the people, the use of them would cease as matter of course. Much may he done thro the convictions, hut nothing is more certain than that men may know the right and yet the wrong pursue.

“ A pledge is a bond of union, as the expression of a creed, — that is its main use. Doubtless the desire to he consistent often counterbalances desire to drink, — then also it is useful. And iu those cases in which the mere taste or smell of the liquor is an irresistible temptation, a pledge of rigid abstinence is necessary, and cannot fail to he usejul."

Professor Laxcock, M.D.

“ For one restraint. Lords of the world besides.”

Milton.

Introduction

What Teetotalism is not.

Isaac Tatloh, the author of the Natural History of UntJmsiasm, when reeently leeturing to tlie young men of Manchester, chose for his topic, the whimsical one of ‘Epidemic Whims.’ Eor him, undoubtedly, there is a titular Btness in the selection, and, as we shall presently show, the treatment, tho sadly serious, was substantially in keeping with the theme. The triad of Modern ‘Whims’ chiefly dwelt upon were — Vegetarianism,- Teetotalism, and Maine-law-ism. The writer may presume to affirm, that he knows as well as any man living, the principles, motives, and history of all three ; and comparing the truth as it is, with the truth as Mr Taylor has represented it, he can only hope that the author of the Natural History of Enthusiasm, knew very much more about that subject than the triad of isms whose genealogy he now professes to trace. If not — his celebrated book is rather suited for the liuing of young men’s trunks than of their heads.

Mr Taylor, who plumed himself on his own frankness of assault, will not be offended at our curt out-spokenness of defence. The rebuke of ignorance has no right to be offended with the rebuke of knowlege. But, however tliat may be, we commence with the unqualified, clear assertion, tliat, from beginning to end, his representations are sheer, downright misrepresentations not even parodies of parallels, they are in every particular- contrasts to the truth of fact. Mr Taylor has never referred to a single authority in support of his statements ; and the accredited literature and manuals of these movements are in flat contradiction to his serious and unjustifiable imputations, — as we shall presently show.

This, however, is not Mr Taylor’s first offence. Turning back many years, we find the germ of his recent outbreak in his ‘ Lectures on Spiritual Christianity.’ It was not surprizing that a mere Book-man should, at a distance, so misapprehend the movement of the men of Preston ; but what was an excusable error in 1841, becomes a grave offence in 1856. We cannot noio submit to have the calumny revived and circulated — at least without protest and contradiction. Mr Taylor, we know, has not been in Hip Van M'^inkle’s somnolent condition during this interval ol fifteen years ; and he was bound cither to have sought for information, or to have kept silence. “ He who judgeth a cause before he readeth of it, to him it is folly and shame.” Nevertheless, we quite believe in Mr Taylor’s sincerity. Perhaps the old prejudice has become so stereotyped with age, that he has mistaken a modem movement, based altogctlier upon modern, practical, and common-sense motives— for one of those Ancient Heresies of which he . wrote so much— and so fast— that their very phantoms haunt him yet, mingling confusedly with the work of every-day-life !

In his third lecture on Christianity, he says that, “ it rejects any “ interested concession to virtue implying disaffection to virtue’s sell, “ and commands every man to be religiously virtuous, not factitiously Works or Dr Lees. Vol. III. A.

X.

WHAT TEETOTALISM IS NOT.

“ abstinent. Not only is a conventional, arbitrary morality incomplete’, “ it is unlawful — it is prohibited — ^it is an insult, at once to the law “ and to mercy.”

If Mr Taylor can for a moment descend from this high-flying spiritualism, we might ask him to expound the famous texts of Paul : — “ All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.” “if eating flesh oi drinking wine, or anything, eause my brother to offend, then will I not eat meat, or drink wine, while the world shall stand.” Should he begin by explaining this and the other — then, we too, claim the benefit of the explanation — or would know the reason why ? If he concludes by qualifying the deelaration of Paul, then we demand also that the qualification be extended to us — since our practice is the same. If Paul’s abstinence was not ‘factitious,’ why should ours be so ? If his self-denial illustrated Christianity, why should ours be an insult to it ? Does the mercy of Heaven hind us to brew beer or broach burgundy ?

Mr Taylor then proceeds to affirm that the first characteristic of Christianity is this “ That it attaches a sovereign importance to “Truth, as furnishing the only solid support for the motives of self- “ government, purity, and charity” (p. 128).

In the preceding page, he says ; — “ As we challenge entire iudcpen- “ dence, and disdain every ambiguity, we cannot do less than plainly “ express the opinion that the benevolent, and no doubt greatly success- “ful endeavors now making to repress the use of intoxicating liquors — “ involving pleas and pretexts winch common-sense resents, might well “ bear to be seriously re-considered.”

Now what has Mr Taylor done toward this reconsideration ? His opinion — his fears and fancies rather — have been dormant for fifteen years. Common sense has not, practically at least, resented, but sustained and made national and world-moving, the great enterprize of Temperance Societies. Had he then brought out liis evidence, his lecture on ‘ Epidemic Whims’ would have been as unimportant as it is really uncalled-for. Does he suppose that the men of Manchester advocate Teetotalism and Prohibition as Falsities ? — or that they will accept his ‘ assurance’ that they are so ? He speaks against ‘ Popery, but virtually assumes that we should regard his dicta as final ! He has in this country a fair field and much favor — he has the power to challenge an open encounter — why, then, have not the forces of Error been routed by the plialangcs of Truth ? For the thousandth time we say — it is not opinion, drivel, declamation, prophecy, that we want — but EVIDENCE. Give us that — show that our faith, our fanaticism, our whim — is not Truth, and we will gladly spare you — and ourselves— the wearisome retailing of the sequences. It is a truism that ‘ mistake brings mischief’ — but hitherto we have seen only the good of our doctrine ; when the evil begins to come, we may grow doubtful — but in the meanwhile we believe that, in this matter, we are wise and our critic otlierwisc.

Wc, too, attach a sovereign importance to truth : but what is truth ? Mr Taylor, like Pilate, doesn’t stop to listen — the Teetotaler, like Daniel, tries both sides of the question. Wc, too, believe that truth is the only solid basis of a permanent reform ; and therefore do not divorce expediency from truth. Wc, too, have self-government, puri-

BEPLY TO ISAAC TAYLOU, si'.

ty, and charity for our aims, and believe truth to be t he guide thereto. If you would not be burnt or defiled, handle not fire and pitch. If you would not be deceived, trust not that which is deceptive. If you would not be excited, avoid the excitant. “ Wine is a mocker — strong-drink is raging” — and, notwithstanding Mr Taylor’s denial, “ he who is deceived thereby is not wise.” If this be truth— then, acted upon, and only then, it will secure our own safety and purity, and that of our neighbor. Abstract truth will do nothing ; it is the guide of the actor, but only the action can realize the result.

If, on the other hand, this be not truth, — if we are bodily better with strong-drink than without it, — if it has no tendency to seduce and deceive, by disturbing and altering our physical system, — if our brethren are not weak, and can safely follow our example, — if men are really better, purer, wiser, for drinking it, — then Teetotalism is a great mistake, without any solid basis, and the sooner it is abandoned, of course the better. There is much virtue — but also much feebleness— in an ir. Youth and senility are apt to be alarmed at ifs and huts — for our part, however, being neither in our nonage nor our dotage, we can simply smile at the Epidemic of the Nursery.

The whole of this controversy may be put into a nutshell, when we have any mind to deal with possessed of directness of insight, and at the same time free from polemic mystification and verbal jugglery.

1. Are we under some moral obligation to drink either pale ale or pale sherry ? If not, we may please ourselves and abstain, without any insult to heaven.

2. Are we bound by physical-law to drink port or porter, for the benefit of our health ? — that is, is it necessary to life ? Who, in the face of millions that abstain, and enjoy better health than before, will answer ‘ yes’ ?

_ 3. Are we placing ourselves and others out of the way of a temptation, when we resist appetite and refuse to sanction customs ‘more honored in the breach than the observance’ ? If so, we are not only ‘abstaining from the appearance of evil,’ but its reality, and strengthening ona. moral will in learning to say No : which is ‘ «e^-governmeut’ of the liighest kind.

If so much is granted — all is granted : for the rest follows as a matter of course — and Mr Taylor is acute enough to know it. Now we ask him distinctly to point out the pleas and pretexts here which common-sense resents and Christianity discards ? He may begin to speak of other doctrines that wc hold — to which we respond : They are ‘ inferences’ from these premisses, legitimate or otherwise— but we must have the logical foundation first laid down. Is that false ? If so, wliCTe and why ? If true — then we need not fear any conclusion faiily drawn from it.

Those premisses, however, arc simply a statement of the fact, fhat No EVIL, BUT MT7CII GOOD, ADItEKES TO ABSTINENCE; wllicll, bcillg interpreted or reversed, since abstinence is a mere negation, is equivalent to predicating that Much evil, and little good; adiiebes to drinking. Why this is so, is not now the question— but if this be the fact, it IS quite clear that even to a man laboring under a chronic and stationary whim, it would seem whimsical in the extreme to al-

XU.

TTUAT TEET0TALI3M IS NOT.

legp that Virtue, Christianity, aud the Bible ineulealed the reverse ! It is precisely because Mr Taylor feels this, that he carefully sliuns all special and tangible arguments — his abstractions would look ridiculous when placed side-by-side with the concrete — his generalities vanish into pointless truism at the first touch of reality — and his terrible imputations crystalize into opaque prejudices in the presence of the living Truth.

The Manchester-Young-Men’s-Lecture, as was to be expected, treated the same topics in a more vivacious, ad captandw^ style, under the head of Dietary and Reformatory whims. Mr Taylor defined a whim as “ a notion, or course of conduct founded thereupon, which, “ while it embraced a truth, nearly smothered it with absurdities and “specious-jargon.” flow serviceable a few distinctions would have been here ! But alas ! our literary Thrasher did not condescend also to winnow the Epidemic whims, and exhibit which was the pint of wheat and which the peck of chaff! We suspect very strongly, moreover, that the ehaff was with the chaffer ; and we do not see that it had even speciousness to recommend it. According to the reporter, “ he had no mercy for the dupes of dietary whims,” who seem to have been identified with the Lovers of Aiitibilious Pills. He asserts that ‘ every creature’ is good eating — a pleasing discovery to those who have been the dupes of an old prejudice against the kitchen rabbits that cry mew. lie gives, too, some very novel-readings to divers texts of Scripture.

“ Let no man judge you in meats and drinks” — he reads — “ Let no men (as we do) judge ^ meats and drinks” 1

As to meat suspected to have been offered to Idols, “ Eat, asking no questions for conscience's sake” — he reads — “ Eat everything, from lion to lamb, from vermin to veal, from tiger to turtle, asking no question for your stomach's sake” ! !

Erom “Every creature of God is good” — ^lie infers — Every living THING is good — ‘ made j says he, ‘to be quartered, cooked, and eaten’ 111

The 104th Psalm which explains the ‘ food ’ which God ‘ brings out of the earth’ for the use of men, as vegetal productions (wine, oil, and bread), ne so liberally enlarges into whatever comes out of dead beasts and brute matter, as to include arsenic and alcohol, opium and tobacco, quicksilver and sea-weed, clay and custard, pork aud porter, cabbage and castor oil, beef and bread, aud even beetle, — in short, to use his own words with a negative, the psalm w'as “a charter of life” which announces that “there is nothing on earth that might NOT be safely swallowed — unless it be Autibilious pills” ill!

Even this docs not cap the climax : by-and-bye, Mr Taylor out-sartors himself. He says that “ the import of the language in which this “ancient delusion expresses itself, is just this : —

“ The constitution of the world is not good, but evil, altogether mil. “ Hold back, therefore, from the creature, and use none of those things. “ Temperance is a delusion, — spurn, then, the proffered gifts of God “ wrap yourself in your lofty pride — starve, blaspheme, and die !

“ This, we arc bold to say, is the i’aiuly intekpuetud language “of tliose who labor to put abstiiicucc in the place ot tcinporancc, and “ who say to me. It is vain for you to allempt to keep the law of God,

REPLY TO ISAAC TAYLOR.

xm.

Now what can we say to interpretations, wliicli even Bedlam never surpassed in extravagance ? Charity itself eompels us to tliis assertion, since if it is not ‘ Midwinter Madness,’^ it is something very much worse than any mental ‘ delusion’ to which Mr Taylor can be subject — it is a perversion and an outrage.

Where do teetotalers, or vegetarians, assert that the constitution of the world is evil at all, or evil only? On the contrary, they actually deduce their doctrine from natural-law.

How do they contrive to live — and as their Assurance Societies show, live healthier and longer than their neighbors— if they use NONE of God’s creatures ?

Where is the evidence that they ‘ starve,’ or even eat less than their drinking-friends ? Do they really live or looh worse ? Has Mr Taylor, we wonder, never heard of a Vegetarian banquet ? The real and best dietetic gifts of God are gratefully accepted by us — are preferred to the artificial and inferior articles of human device ; — and teetotalers as little ‘ blaspheme’ as starve or prematurely die.

Who has ever said that we cannot keep the dietetic law of nature ? Why preach it, if we believe that we cannot practice it ?

Where do we put ‘abstinence’ in the place of ‘ temperance’ ? We acknowlege the latter to denote the larger-virtue ; but it is childishness or senility which would exclude the less from the greater. ‘ Mutton’ is not verbally the same in comprehension — it is larger — than ‘ Chop’ — but nevertheless ‘ chop’ is mutton, in ‘ the nature of things.’ So abstinence from bad things (as opium, arsenic, alcohol, or tobacco) is part of that course oe conduct dictated by genuine Temperance. The reason which objects to an unfitting quantity, equally objects to an unfitting quality ; and the pretentious critics who overlook this, are the reverse of philosophers — notwithstanding the grandiloquence of their style, or the grundyism of society. For our part, we do not care to conceal the profoundness of our scorn, indignation, and disgust at the repetition, year after year, of these stale, stupid, and exploded fallacies.

Mr Taylor knows that both Vegetarians and Teetotalers base their doctrines upon natural law — as interpreted by Experience and Science : for he attempts to answer their appeal by one of the most despicable parodies whieh the whole history of polemics can furnish. He says : —

“ They refer to Professor So and So’s last work — proving that cere- “ als have a poisonous basis ; that muscular-fibre contains only five “ per cent of nutritious aliment, whereas soup made from potato par- “ings has 95 per cent of solid nutritive matter.”

We do not know whether or no any of Mr Taylor’s hearers were verdant enough to laugh at this unrelieved balderdash — we should have experienced a very different feeling at so pitiable an exhibition of imbecility — or worse. Mr Taylor scouts ‘ Science’ and despises ‘ Experience.’ Living in_ the fifth heaven of dogmatic and egoistic Spiritualism, he declaims, like many before him, against that which he does not understand. They who do understand organic chemistry and physiology, speak very differently of the relations of those sciences to Temperance. On the 22nd of the same month of December, 1850, in which Mr Taylor delivered his whimsical diatribe, the ccle-

WHAT TEETOTALISil IS NOT.

braled author of the Hand-Book of Organic Cliemiatry, Professor Gregory, M.D., of Edinburgh, in an address to the students connected with the University Temperance Society, made this emphatic declaration : —

“ The argument from science was entirely in favor of the Temperance “ movement ; because, while on the one hand, they had the mere pos- “sibility that alcohol might not be injuiious in certain conceivable, “but RARE CIRCUMSTANCES ; Oil the other hand, in these circum- “ stances, even when they did occur, alcohol was not the best agent, and “ they could, always supply Us place by other and better materials, which “were entirely free from its injurious qualities.” *

Mr Taylor ranks the advocacy of a law for Prohibiting the Liquor Tr^c, amongst “ ill-considered schemes of popular agitation : laws which abrogate virtue by substituting compulsory-abstinence.”

He has so little, or so ill-considered the question, as not to know the difference between a public-business and private-life ; does not, in fact, know what a Maine Law proposes, and what it does 7wt propose to do. We know of nobody that aims at ‘ compulsory abstinence,’ either from dominoes or drink ; but we do know of laws that refuse to license or tolerate the trade in gaming and the traffic in gin. We quite agree that it is a ‘duty to look well to our remedies’ ; will ilr Taylor answer our reasons ? The Alliance Prize Essay waits his refutation. The great cause of crime is drinking ; the causes of that are false notions and bad customs : and our philosophy is to remove the causes that the effect may cease. Mr Taylor thinks all tliis very ill-considered : but what does it matter what Mr Taylor considers ? He has some scheme or other — we can’t understand precisely what — which will “ forward the object with more success, and wuth less ambiguity in the result.” As to that, we are sceptical of his theory — and quite satisfied with the success of prohibition. Parishes without jdrunkards, and counties without criminals, arc very satisfactory facts. Besides, we have a higher authority than all the Book-men in the world ; we have the Bible. When the Almighty designed to secure Jiis work of the Tabernacle from being interfered with by the Intemperance of the Priests, he prohibited them^ from drinking the drink while employed in his service. (Lev. x.) T'here was neither ambiguity in the process nor dubiety in the result. B'hose lofty pride rejects this Divine example ?