Religious and educational aspects of temperance / by various authors.

Date:
[1874?]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Religious and educational aspects of temperance / by various authors. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    162/172 (page 158)
    wise do, and it was argued that such a small quantity of copper could not possibly do any harm. Here is what the Lancet says:— “ It is just now, curiously enough, a vexed question how much copper —a foreign and, under certain conditions, poisonous substance, with which preserved peas are adulterated, to impart a fine green colour to the article—may be taken by the consumer without actual injury. This is a novel mode of looking at the subject. How much lead can be intro- duced into hair-dyes without afflicting those who use them with lead - colic or lead-palsy ? How much arsenic may be spread over wall-paper without seriously affecting those who inhabit apartments in which such deleterious decorations are employed ? How long may a man go on eat- ing dishes poisoned with minute doses of antimony before he succumbs 1 Common-sense suggests that it would be wise to eliminate poisons sucli as lead, arsenic, antimony, and copper from our food, especially when they are only required for colouring purposes. We think it would be well if the law simply registered and applied the dictates of common-sense.” Long live the Lancet. Only let me add alcohol, and I subscribe heartily to the whole of the statement. I wonder if our friends who have talked so much about the innocuousness of alcohol when it does not produce these marked effects will just apply this kind of reasoning (which appears to me to be, as the writer terms it, common-sense) to alcohol, as they do to the other things. (Cheers.) If I may venture to speak longer to the meeting, there is one other point—the moral point—which I think is of exceeding great importance. We are bound, I take it, to set a right and a true example in regard to this matter as well as all others, and it has been said in very high quarters, to which I generally—not always—pay the utmost respect, for I never respect error, no matter from what source it comes—(cheers)— though oftentimes it is unconsciously and unintentionally uttered—it has been said by some persons that moderate drinking is a better and far nobler thing than total abstinence. Aye ! it has been said by very wise men, men wiser than some of us—although we do not choose to agree with this particular statement—men whose motives cannot be ques- tioned, and who are earnest and true, and in regard to whom I desire to speak with the utmost reverence and charity—it has been said by them that moderate drinking is a nobler and a better thing than total abstinence. Well, it may he that a man who can take intoxicating drinks within certain limits, and who never does allow himself to exceed these limits, is a nobler and a better man than one who cannot, and who therefore must either abstain or exceed, although I would not like to claim that as my title to nobility, for I would think it sounded suspi- ciously like this : “ Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou,” and I would always pray to remember that I have nothing I have not received, and that if my nervous system or will is stronger than that of my neigh- bour I ought not to boast of myself or to despise him. (Cheers.) But suppose it to be true that these men are nobler and better in their ability to use intoxicating drinks than others who cannot take them without abusing them ; let me remind them that they are not dealing with the facts of the case in instituting this comparison. The comparison is not between the moderate drinker and the drunkard, but between th4