For this reason, my lords, I cannot approve what has been recommended in this debate, any new law that may put the enjoyment of this liquor yet farther from them, by facilitating prosecutions, or enforcing penalties, as I am convinced that the natural force of the people is superiour to the law, and that their natural force will be exerted for the defence of their darling spirits, and the whole nation be shaken with universal sedition.

It has been objected by the noble lord, that the tax now proposed is such as never was raised in any government, because, though luxury may confessedly be taxed, vice ought to be constantly suppressed; and this, in his lordship’s opinion, is a tax upon vice.

His lordship’s distinction between luxury and vice, between the use of things unlawful, and the excess of things lawful, is undoubtedly just, but by no means applicable on this occasion; nor, indeed, has the noble lord, with all his art, been able to apply it; for he was obliged to change the terms in his argument; and, instead of calling this tax, a tax upon strong liquors, to stigmatize it with the odious appellation of a tax upon drunkenness.

To call any thing what it really is not, and then to censure it, is very easy; too easy, my lords, to be done with success.  To confute the argument it is only necessary to observe, that this tax is not a tax upon drunkenness, but a tax laid upon strong liquors for the prevention of drunkenness; and, by consequence, such as falls within the compass of his own definition.

That it is not a tax upon luxury cannot be inferred from the indigence of those whom it is intended to reform; for luxury is, my lords, ad modum possidentis, of different kinds, in proportion to different conditions of life, and one man may very decently enjoy those delicacies or pleasures to which it would be foolish and criminal in another to aspire.  Whoever spends upon superfluities what he must want for the necessities of life, is luxurious; and excess, therefore, of distilled spirits may be termed, with the utmost propriety, the luxury of the poor.

This, my lords, appeared to be the opinion of the noble lord who spoke so copiously on this question at the beginning of the debate; of this opinion was the reverend prelate when he observed, that necessity itself was become luxurious, and of this opinion must every man be who advises such a duty to be laid upon these liquors as may at once debar the poor from the use of them; for such a proposal evidently supposes them unnecessary, and all enjoyment of things not necessary is a degree of luxury.

To tax this luxury, which is, perhaps, the most pernicious of all others, is now proposed; but it is proposed to tax it only to suppress it, to suppress it by such slow degrees as may be borne by the people; and I hope a law so salutary will not be opposed only because it may afford the government a present supply.