The portion devoted to the subject of intoxicating liquors would make a
curious chapter in the history of legislation in almost every European
country. Here there is a double cause of disturbance, since besides
notions about the balance of trade and the like, many well-meaning,
though not always judicious, attempts have been made to render such
legislation conducive to sobriety and morality. Thus among the Irish
statutes one stumbles on an act of Queen Elizabeth's reign 'Against
making of Aqua Vitæ.' It is justly described as 'a drink nothing
profitable to be daily drunken and used,' 'and thereby much corn, grain,
and other things are consumed, spent, and wasted to the great
hinderance, loss, and damages of the poor inhabitants of this
realm'--for which reason are passed provisions, not to modify but
entirely to suppress it--with what effect we may easily know. But our
object at present is not with legislation for the suppression of
drunkenness, which always deserves favourable consideration, but with
the commercial regulations affecting liquors, and the strange notions of
political economy involved in them. The subject is so ample that we are
obliged to restrict our illustrations almost entirely to one small
country--Scotland.
It will rather surprise the reader perhaps to find that, for the
promotion of their economic ends, the laws seem to have been directed
more to the encouragement than the suppression of drinking. The earliest
interference with commerce in liquors appearing among the Scottish acts
of parliament is very imperious and comprehensive, but not very
explicable in its objects. Statutes at that time were short, and it will
cost the reader little trouble to peruse that which was passed in the
year 1436, and the reign of James I., 'anent Flemish wines.' 'It is
statute and ordained that no man buy at Flemings of the Dane in
Scotland, any kind of wine, under the pain of escheat (or forfeiture)
thereof.' Doubtless parliament believed that it had reasons for this
enactment, but it would not be easy to find out at the present day what
they were. In 1503 a more minute act was passed referrible to ale and
other provisions. It appoints magistrates of towns 'that they set and
ordain a certain price, goodness, and fineness, upon bread, ale, and all
other necessary things that is wrought and daily bought and used by the
king's lieges. And that they make certain purviews and examinations to
wait daily upon the keeping thereof. And when any workman be's noted
taking an exorbitant price for his stuff, above the price, and over far
disproportionate of the stuff he buys, that he be punished by the said
barons, provosts, and bailies, &c.' A little later, in 1540, an act was
passed 'touching the exorbitant prices of wine, salt, and timmer.' The
provisions that follow are somewhat curious, and rank among the most
barefaced instances of a class legislating, not only for its own
interest, but its own enjoyment. In the first place, the provosts and
bailies--supposed to be always excellent judges of good cheer--are to
fix a low and reasonable price at which the wines and other commodities
are obtainable. When this is fixed, it is appointed that 'na man is to
buy till the king's grace be first served. And His Grace and officers
being content for so meikle (much) as will please them to take to our
sovereign's use entirely, that noblemen of the realm, such as prelates,
barons, and other gentlemen of the same, be served at the same prices;
and thereafter all and sundry our sovereign lord's lieges be served at
the same prices.' Evidently it was cunningly foreseen that but little
wine would be imported at a compulsory and necessarily an unremunerating
price. Of such as did come, and was thus sold cheap, the 'prelates,
barons, and other gentlemen' who sat in parliament, sagaciously provided
that they should have the preemption; and it is pretty clear that the
'all and sundry' who were to come after them would have little chance of
obtaining any of the cheap wine.
Fifteen years afterwards, during the regency of Mary of Lorraine, it was
found that the act just cited was not sufficiently stringent, and that
some sterner provision must be made to enable the aristocracy to get
cheap wine. An act was passed referring to the previous one, and stating
that 'nevertheless the noblemen--such as prelates, earls, lords, barons,
and other gentlemen--are not served according to the said act, but are
constrained to buy the same from merchants at greater prices, contrary
to the tenor of the said acts.' Hence it is declared that whenever wines
have arrived in any town, and the prices have been fixed, the
magistrates 'shall incontinent pass to the market-cross of that burgh,
and there, by open proclamation, declare none of the goods foresaid as
they are made, and that none of the goods foresaid be disposed of for
the space of four days.' Thus were measures taken to let the privileged
persons have the benefit of their preemption.
That these acts, and the proclamations for enforcing them, were not a
dead letter is shewn by the criminal records. On the 8th of March 1550,
Robert Hathwy, John Sym, and James Lourie, burgesses of Edinburgh,
confess their guilt in transgressing a regulation against purchasing
Bordeaux wines dearer than L.22, 10s. (Scots of course) per tun, and
Rochelle wines dearer than L.18 per tun. On the 4th of May 1555, George
Hume and thirteen other citizens of Leith were arraigned for retailing
wines above the proclaimed price--which for Bordeaux and Anjou wine was
10d. per pint; and for Rochelle, Sherry, and something called
Cunezeoch--which may for all we know to the contrary mean Cognac--8d.
per pint.
In Ireland the privilege of having their wine cheaper than other people
was given to the aristocracy with almost more flagrant audacity. By the
Irish statute of the 28th Elizabeth, chap. 4, imposing customs-duties on
wines, the lord-lieutenant is not only authorised to take for his own
consumption twenty tuns, duty free, annually, but he is at the same time
declared to have 'full power to grant, limit, and appoint, unto every
peer of this realm, and to every of the Privy-Council in the same, and
the queen's learned counsel for the time being, at his or their
discretion from time to time, such portion and quantity of wines, to be
free and discharged of and from the said customs and subsidy, as he
shall think to be mete and competent for every of them, after their
degrees and callings to have.'
To return to Scotland. In the ensuing century we find the legislature
resorting to the homely liquor of the working-classes. On the 23d
December 1669, an act was passed which begins in the following
considerate and paternal fashion:--
'Our sovereign lord, considering that it is most agreeable to reason and
equity, and of universal concernment to all his majesty's subjects, and
especially to those of the meaner sort, that a due proportion be
observed betwixt the price of the boll of beer and the pint and other
measures of ale and drinking-beer rented and sold within this kingdom,
that thereby the liberty taken by brewers and vintners, to exact
exorbitant prices for ale and drinking-beer at their pleasure, may be
restrained. Therefore his majesty, with advice and consent of his
estates of parliament, doth recommend to and authorise the lords of his
majesty's Privy-Council from time to time, after consideration had of
the ordinary rates of rough beer and barley for the time, to regulate
and set down the prices of ale and drinking-beer rented and sold in the
several shires and burghs of the kingdom, as they shall think just and
reasonable.' The council were authorised to make their regulations by
acts and orders, 'and to inflict such censures, pains, and penalties
upon the contraveners of these acts and orders as they shall think fit;
and to do all other things requisite for the execution of the same.'
When the Scottish Privy-Council ceased to exist by the union with
England, there was some difficulty in knowing how this act should be
applied. The Court of Session, looking upon the supply of ale as vital
to the country, took on itself to protect the public, just as a
passenger sometimes undertakes the management of a vessel which has lost
its proper commander. On the occasion of the malt-duty being extended to
Scotland in 1725, they thought a juncture had come when it was
absolutely necessary to interfere, as there was no saying how far the
brewers, let loose from the old regulations of the Privy-Council, might
abuse the public by charging an extravagant price or selling a bad
article. The Court of Session is the supreme civil tribunal in Scotland.
Its rules of court for the regulation of judicial proceedings are called
'acts of sederunt.' On this occasion it passed 'an act for preventing
the sale of bad ale.' The object was an excellent one, but we are apt at
the present day to consider that brewers under the influence of
competition can best save the public from bad ale, and that judges are
better employed when they direct their attention to the protection of
the public from bad law. They enacted that the brewers should sell by
wholesale at a merk Scots per gallon, and that dealers should sell by
retail at 2d. per pint. They professed to make this regulation from
'taking into consideration the frequent abuses in vending and retailing
bad twopenny ale; and that from the present duties and burdens wherewith
the brewers of ale in and about the city of Edinburgh are charged,
occasion may be taken by ill-designing persons to impose on the lieges
and undersell fair dealers, unless the prices for brewers and retailers
be certain and fixed.'
The brewers threatened to give up their business, and the court found it
necessary to take farther measures. Another act of sederunt was passed.
It is best, we think, where their contents are so curious, to quote the
documents themselves, however stiff or formal they may seem, and the
commencement of the act follows:
'Whereas, in the information and memorial this day offered by his
majesty's advocate to the Lords of Council and Session, it is
represented that the brewers within the city of Edinburgh and liberties
thereof, and others who have the privilege of furnishing the said city
with ale, have entered into a resolution and confederacy that they will
at once give over brewing when the duties on malt granted to his majesty
by act of parliament are attempted to be recovered; that this resolution
and confederacy must bring much distress on the good people of the said
city through want of ale, and likewise by want of bread, the preparing
whereof depends upon yeast or barm, and must produce tumults and
confusions, to the overthrow of all good government, and to the great
loss and hurt of the most innocent of his majesty's subjects, and is
most dangerous and highly criminal.'
Thus, it being clearly shewn that the refusal of brewers to brew ale at
the price fixed by the judges of the Court of Session must produce
something like a French revolution, and be followed by general anarchy,
the court next proceeds to declare--not in the best of
composition--'that it is illegal and inconsistent with the public
welfare for common brewers, or others whose employment is to provide
necessary sustenance for the people, all at once to quit and forbear the
exercise of their occupation, when they are in the sole possession of
the materials, houses, and instruments for to carry on the trade, so
that the people may be deprived of, or much straitened in their meat or
drink; and that so to do in defiance and contempt of the laws is highly
criminal and severely punishable. And therefore the said Lords of
Council and Session, to prevent the mischiefs threatened to the city and
limits aforesaid, do hereby require and ordain all and every brewer and
brewers within the city of Edinburgh and liberties thereof, and others
who have the privilege of furnishing the said city with ale, to continue
and carry on their trade of brewing for the service of the lieges.'
It is astonishing to find that the brewers gave way. Scotland was at
that time much under government and aristocratic influence; and very
likely the poor men felt that it would be better to lose a little money
than to fight a battle with the Court of Session, especially as the Lord
Advocate threatened to indict them for a conspiracy. That they continued
permanently to accept of the profits--or rather, perhaps, losses--fixed
by the Court of Session no one will believe. They would in due time
manage to get the usual profit of capital and exertion from their
operations, or else would contrive to give up business.
It is one of the consequences of adopting false and artificial notions
on political economy, that these drive the most conscientious and
virtuous men to the most mischievous and violent extremities. Where
things should be left to themselves they believe interference to be
right, and so believing, they think it necessary to carry out their
views at whatever cost. A remarkable instance of this was shewn by the
virtuous and high-minded Duncan Forbes of Culloden. He thought the
introduction of foreign commodities ruinous to the country. He
considered that whatever was paid for them was so much lost to his
fellow-countrymen. On this principle he waged a determined war against a
foreign commodity coming into vogue in his latter days, using all his
endeavours to suppress its use, and substitute for it a commodity of
home-produce. Will the reader, in the days of temperance societies,
believe that the commodity which he desired to suppress was _tea_, and
that which he wished to encourage was _beer_? Here are his own words in
a letter to a statesman of the time: 'The cause of the mischief we
complain of is evidently the excessive use of _tea_, which is now become
so common that the meanest families even of labouring people,
particularly in burghs, make their morning's meal of it, and thereby
wholly disuse the ale which heretofore was their accustomed drink; and
the same drug supplies all the labouring women with their afternoon's
entertainment, even to the exclusion of the twopenny.' After so
formidable a picture, it is not unnatural to find him thus crying out
against the influence of Dutch enterprise, which was then spreading the
drink which cheers but not inebriates throughout Europe: 'They run their
low-priced tea into Scotland, and sold it very cheap--a pound went from
half a crown to three or four shillings. The goodwife was fond of it
because her betters made use of tea; a pound of it would last her a
month, which made her breakfast very cheap, so she made no account of
the sugar which she took up only in ounces. In short, the itch spread;
the refuse of the vilest teas were run into this country from Holland,
sold and bought at the prices I have mentioned; and at present there are
very few cobblers in any of the burghs of this country who do not sit
down gravely with their wives and families to tea.'[Footnote: Culloden
Papers, 191.] What a frightful picture! We may laugh at it, but it
really was frightful to one who sincerely believed that the money paid
for tea was a dead loss to the country, and who did not know that the
tea was paid for by the exportation of home-produce.