Tobacco, indeed, has not properly been produced as an instance; for I never heard, that however it may be disapproved by particular men, of whatever rank or abilities, it was prohibited by law; nor should I think any such prohibition necessary or reasonable; for tobacco, my lords, is not poison, like distilled spirits, nor is the use of it so much injurious to health, as offensive to delicacy.

The poisonous and destructive quality of these liquors is confessed by the noble lord, a confession with which I find it very difficult to reconcile his solicitude for the distillery; for when it is once granted, that spirits corrupt the mind, weaken the limbs, impair virtue, and shorten life, any arguments in favour of those who manufacture them come too late, since no advantage can be equivalent to the loss of honesty and life.  When the noble lord has urged that the distillery employs great numbers of hands, and, therefore, ought to be encouraged, may it not, upon his own concession, be replied, that those numbers are employed in murder, and that their trade ought, like that of other murderers, to be stopped?  When he urges that much of our grain is consumed in the still, may we not answer, and answer irresistibly, that it is consumed by being turned into poison, instead of bread?  And can a stronger argument be imagined for the suppression of this detestable business, than that it employs multitudes, and that it is gainful and extensive?

Nor can I discover, my lords, how the care of preserving the distillery is consistent with the ends which the preamble in this bill declares to be proposed, or which the advocates for it appear to desire.  If the consumption of distilled spirits is to be hindered, how is the distillery to remain uninjured?  If the trade of distilling is not to be impaired, what shall hinder the consumption of spirits?  So far as this bill operates, the distillers must be impoverished by it; and if they may properly and justly suffer a small diminution of their profit for a small advantage to the publick, why will not a greater benefit be equivalent to a greater diminution?

Nothing, my lords, is more apparent, than that the real design of this bill, however its defenders may endeavour to conceal it in the mist of sophistry, is to lay only such a tax as may increase the revenue; and that they have no desire of suppressing that vice which may be made useful to their private purpose, nor feel any regret to fill the exchequer by the slaughter of the people.

Lord AYLESFORD then rose up, and spoke to the following purpose:—­My lords, the noble lord who spoke last in defence of this new scheme, appears to have imbibed very strong prejudices in favour of the distillery, from which he finds it practicable to draw large sums for the support of the measures which have been already formed, and which he, therefore, considers as the most important and beneficial trade of the British nation.

It is not improbable, my lords, that in a short time all the provisions which have been made by the wisdom of our ancestors for the support of the woollen manufacture, will be transferred for the encouragement of the distillery, which appears to be at present the reigning favourite; for it is evident, that both manufactures cannot subsist together, and that either must be continued by the ruin of the other.