Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow SECTION XI.: GOVERNOR'S ILLEGAL ORDINANCES EXEMPLIFIED. - The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4

Return to Title Page for The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Law

SECTION XI.: GOVERNOR’S ILLEGAL ORDINANCES EXEMPLIFIED. - Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 4 [1843]

Edition used:

The Works of Jeremy Bentham, published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1838-1843). 11 vols. Vol. 4.

Part of: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


SECTION XI.

GOVERNOR’S ILLEGAL ORDINANCES EXEMPLIFIED.

2.

For Prevention of Drunkenness.

Improvidence—Indolence—Helplessness—all extensive as well as intense, to a degree scarce conceivable in this country, were the prominent features of this reformation colony, down to the time when its historiographer took his leave of it.* But of all these weaknesses, drunkenness was the principal and perennial source.

Prevention—anything like complete prevention—being out of the question, to snatch from this vice what could be snatched from it of its prey, would be as important an object as it was a natural one, to a governor legislating on that spot. But important is not strong enough. In this country, well-being only; in that, even being was attached to it. Upon sobriety, depended labour: upon labour, the means of immediate subsistence. In that state of things, to legislate against drunkenness was to legislate against famine. The means chosen might be more or less apposite; the result more or less successful. But the endeavour was as necessary as life is necessary: and for this endeavour, the authority obtained from parliament was as insufficient as for all the others.

Here, as in the case of famine, the same natural incompatibility established between the expedient and the lawful: to the governor the same distressing option between legal duty and moral, supposing the difference to have been present to his view.

Among the ordinances actually issued by him on this ground, it will be only by accident, if any one be found, that was not expedient: it will be only by accident, if any one can be found, that was not illegal. As to the test of illegality, it is already given. To apply it to the several ordinances, article by article, would to lawyers be unnecessary, to non-lawyers tedious beyond endurance.

No. 1. Collins, I. p. 175: 28th August 1791.—“Spirituous liquors . . . . Ordered that none should be landed, until a permit had been granted by the judge-advocate: and the provost-marshal, his assistants, and two principals of the watch, were deputed to seize all spirituous liquors which might be landed.”

No. 2, p. 300: July 1793.—“Spirituous liquors. Notice” (by the lieutenant-governor,) “that any person attempting to sell spirituous liquors without a licence, might rely on its being seized, and the house of the offending parties pulled down.

No. 3, p. 449: 18th January 1796.—“The governor forbade all persons . . . . to distil spirituous liquors . . . . on pain of such steps being taken for their punishment as would effectually prevent a repetition of so dangerous an offence.” “In pursuance of these directions,” pursues the text, “several stills were found and destroyed.” Rather more of the mystery of despotism than of the certainty of law in the above sanctionative part: but, by the practical comment, the mystery was unravelled.

The forbidden practice is spoken of as being “in direct disobedience to his Majesty’s commands.” Here then we have one instance at least, in which the name of Majesty was profaned, for the purpose of giving an apparent sanction to these violations of law, which were found better adapted to the purposes and dispositions of ministers, than the legal authority, which might or might not have been obtainable from parliament.

No. 4, p. 483.—“Direction by the governor . . . . that none of those persons who had obtained licences should presume to carry on a traffic with settlers or others who might have grain to dispose of, by paying for such grain in spirits.” Then, in case of contravention, comes the menace in the established mysterious style: their licences would immediately be recalled, and such steps taken for their punishment, as they might be thought to deserve.” Also that “trading, to the extent which he found practised, was strictly forbidden to others, as well as to those who had licenced public houses.” Observations, in various shapes, present themselves: amongst others a question, how a man was to know whether he was safe or no under this law? But as to what may apply more particularly to individuals there, this is not a place for observations.

[* ]Letter I. to Lord Pelham, p. 175 to 177.

[]Ib. p. 190 to 195.