ADDRESS
a:/3
ft'3z
H  -D    e
TO THE
I
A
'HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV,ES
OF THE
HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,
ON THE INEFFICIENCY OF HIGH DUTIES ON SPIRITS, IN PROMOTING TEMPER
ANCE, MORALITY AND REVENUE, AND THE EXPEDIENCY OF LOWER      ING- THE DUTIES, IN-CONFORMITY WITH THE STRONG
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
OF
-HONOLULU.
BY ROBERT ICRICHTON WYLLIE, ESQUIRE,
2-:MA TER OF FOREIG! RELATIONS.
touootutt,   ~altu.
-              -   1851.
;4 -Xb
I
4
IWMEI&XUMMIR (DI? (D(DIUMMIB(03 
LA1
nH
t
1! -
...'i.
. I 
.'I i
I A
1,,~ -.i -, it'*         
\#s ~~~~~~anf 3 I~~~~~~
lMr. Wyllie's Statement,
Of fasts, in relation to the high duty on Spirituous Liquors, prepared for
submission to the Special Committee of the House of Representatives,
on matters of Finance.
It has been found, in all ages of the world, and by the experience of
all nations, that the abuse of ardent spirits, or of any other liquor,
capable of producing intoxication, has been a cause of disease, of
poverty, of wretchedness and crime. This has been especially so
with Indian tribes, who, in the use of such liquors, are less capable of
selfrestraint, than theraces of men farther advanced in civilization.
On these Islands, previous to their discovery by Cook, the natives
intoxicated themselves by beverages of AVA.   After their discovery,
rum became known, and for many years produced most disastrous effects amnong the natives.  The vice had gained great prevalency, during the life of Kamehaineha I, who held it in such detestation, that he
made abstinence from ruin, a condition to'the succession to the throne.
It is well known that shortly before his death, he empowered Kaahumanu to depose his son Liholiho, if he should continue his habits of intoxication, and it is a well known fact that, on more than one occasion,
she threatened to exert that power.
Nevertheless a strong taste for spirits had been created; by the
journal of Don Francisco de Paula Marin, it appears that 1,330 gallons existed in the stores of the government, on the 30th Sept, 1819;
but the first record that he makes of a general drinking among the
chiefs, was on the 1st of December of that year. On the 3d of Deceminber, 1820, he states that all the people were drinking, but he makes
no mention of King Liholiho's indulging, till the 6th February 1821.
There is therefore reason to believe that the injunctions of His father,
who died on the 8th May, 1819, had had some effect upon him, from
that date till the 6th February, 1821. On the 26th February, Marin
records, that there was a great drunkenness, firing of cannon and
muskets; on the 10th and 12th March, he records, that the King was
drunk from the 18th to the 31st May 1821, that he was drinking every
day, and seldom in his senses; and from that period to the 27th November 1823, when he embarked for London, he appears to have lost
all self command, and been generally either inebriated or sick.
The habits in which the King indulged had extended to many others;
those habits continued after his departure, and the evil both to individuals, and to the state, became so apparent, that the ruling chiefs
were at last roused to make an attempt to check, if not altogether
eradicate a vice so destructive.:
h An.. 
9
I
0 
4
On the 8th of December 1827, the present King issued a law
which was printed, prohibiting the sale of all rum, under the penalty
of imprisonment; on the 7th October he issued another law, which was
countersigned by Kaahamanu, Governors Boki and Adams, and eight
other chiefs, and Which also was printed, rendering the retailing of
spirits, murder, theft, &c, penal offences; in 1835, he enacted the law
prohibiting drunkenness, and imposing a fine of $6in money, or a whipping of 24 lashes, one month's labor or one month's imprisonment, on
all parties found in the street in a state of riotous intoxication; on the
20th March 1838, finding that the use of ardent spirits and other intoxicating liquors still continued, with great injury to the country, the
King promulgated a law prohibiting the sale of spirits by any person
whatever, under a penalty of $50, for the first offence-of $100 for
the second-of $150 for the third, and of $50 more for every repetition of the offence, but with an exception from the penalty to those
who sold spirits by the barrel or large cask.
It may interest you to know that while the King here, was seeking
the prevention of a great evil to His subjects, by these laws, Queen
Pomare, was pursuing a similar course at Tahiti.  One  of her-laws,
enacted in 1836, provided as follows:
Any  person belonging to a vessel, on being convicted of selling
spirits, or in any way bartering with spirituous liquors of any kind,
either on board-or on shore. shall have no further trade or communication with the shore, but shall leave the port immediately."
These efforts made by the King, and Chiefs, to ameliorate the moral
condition of the people, ought to have commanded the respect of foreign nations. They were made in virtue of the right inherent in every
independent state, of carefully avoiding, as much as possible, whatever
may cause its destruction, hinder the perfection of the people, or retard their social progress. The King and chiefs were interrupted in
the philanthropic policy they had adopted, by Capt. Laplace of the
French navy. Hie arrived on the 9th July, 1839-on the 10th issued
a manifesto containing five demands, to be granted under the penalty
of immediate war; and, on the 17th, presented to the King, a convention of eight articles, the Vlth of which provided as follows —" French
merchandise, or known to be of French procedure, and especially
wines and brandies, shall not be prohibited, nor pay a higher duty
than 5 per cent ad valorem."
Thus in the brief space of eight days, was the whole policy of the
King and Chiefs, in regard to wines, and spirits overthrown. The
power of preventing the introduction of intoxicating liquors from
abroad, was wrested from them, but not their power over domestic distillation. Believing-that it would have some effect in checking intemperance, on the 1st of (Ictober 1840, they passed a law againt the distillation of spirits from potatoes, sugar cane, &c., subjecting both the
distillers and the drinkers to a fine, doubling itself by every repetition
of the offence, and where the fine was not paid-to hard labor, or
even confinement in irons.
.The convention with Great Britain, of the 12th February, 1844, in,
its Vlth article, stipulated as follows- "British merchandise, or goods 
5
recognized as coming from tihe British dominions, shall not be prohibited; nor shall they be subject to any import duty higher than five
per cent ad valorem."
That convention was - avowedly proposed by Great Britain, on
the basis of the Convention with Laplace of the 17th of July,
1839, a,  to place British subjects, on the same footing on which
the French had been placed. The only material difference, was
inthe words wines, and brandies, omitted in the  VIth article of the
British convention, and the words-"all the advantages which the English enjoy in the Sandwich Islands"-omitted in the VlIlth. The
Consul General of Great Britain arrived uinder a commission from
Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, to restore the Islands to their lawful
sovereign. and to offer that convention.  He had the great advantage
over Capt. Laplace, of having spent some time oni the islands, thirteen years before, during which he collected much information respecting them and their inhabitants. It was well known that he considered the vice of intoxication, extremely prejudicial to the natives,
and hence he very readily consented to the additional article, to that
convention, which you will find at page 25 of the appendix.
Encouraged  by that favorable disposition of the British Consul
General, the king ordered Mr. Judd, his then Secretary of state for
foreign affairs, to address the Earl of Aberdeen, with the view of liberating his Majesty, entirely from the restrictions imposed by Capt.
Laplace, as you will see by the two paragraphs-of Mr. Judd's letter of
the 15th February 1844, which you will find at top of page 26 of the
appendix. From his Lordship's replies, of 1st July 1844, and'1st of
May 1845, which you will find at pages 28 and 29 of the appendix, you
will see that the British government did concert with the French, in
the interest of the king's philanthropic policy, and that though the
latter would not consent to a total prohibition of wines and spirits, yet
they had very liberally consented to' modify the VIth article, so as to
allow of a high duty, provided it be not prohibitory, being levied on
these articles.
Accordingly, the Treaties of the 26th March, 1846, with France and
Great Britain, were jointly concerted, draughted and proposed by the
governments of those two nations; and they were most reluctantly accepted by the king, under the assurances, on behalf of both governments, of future modification. These declared identical treaties, superseded all previous agreements, conventions, and treaties, with
both nations, and nmodified tile Vith articles of the conventions of Laplace and oi Consul General Miller (that of 12th February 1844) as
follows:-"French (or British) merchandise or goods recognized as
coming from the French (or British) dominions, shall not be prohibited, nor shall they be subject to an import duty higher than five per
cent ad valorem. Wines, brandies and other spirituous liquors are however excepted from this stipulation, and shall be liable to such reasonable duty as the Hawaiian Government may think fit to lay upon
them, provided always that the amount of duty, shall not be so high as
absolutely to prohibit the importation of the said articles."
- Under the discretionary power possessed by the government, a joint
resolution of the Nobles and Representatives of the Hawaiian Islands, 
6
was agreed to and signed by the King and Kuhina Nui, on the 3d of
April 1846.  That Resolution imposed the following rates of duty:
$5 per gallon, on brandy, rum, gin, whisky,  arrack and all other
distilled spirits rot exceeding 55 per cent of alcohol.
$1 per gallon, wines of all descriptions, other than claret, cordials,
liqueurs, not exceeding 27 per cent of alcohol.
$0 50 cents. per gallon, on claret wines, ale, porter, beer, cider,
and all other fermented liquors, not exceeeing 18 per cent of alcohol.
$1 per gallon on claret wines, ale, porter, beer, cider and all other
fermnented liquors, cordials and liqueurs, exceeding 18 per cent of alcohol.
$5 per gallon on wines of all descriptions, ale, porter, beer, cider,
and all other fermented and spirituous liquors, exceeding 27 per cent
of alcohol.
$10 per gallon on distilled spirits, wines of all descriptions, ale,
porter, beer, cider and all other fermented liquors, cordials and liqueurs, exceeding 55.per cent of alcohol.
Previous to the enactment of the above resolution, though every
member of the government concurred in the opinion, that under the
VIth article, which I have quoted, the king's government had the undoubted right to impose upon wines, brandies and all spirituous liquors,
any duty they pleased, if it was only not so high, as absolutely to prevent their regular importation by the custom house, there was a difference of opionion as to the p)recise rate which should be imposed.
I, for one, considering the low rate that had previously existed-that
notwithstanding the right under the convention of Laplace to levy a
duty of five per cent ad valoremrn, on wines and spirits, the government
had not levied a higher duty than 3 per cent ad valorem, till the o10th
June 1815, even though a suggestion had been made through the public press, on the 1st July 1814, to raise the duty on all imports to five
per cent ad valorem, excepting only imports for the personal use of all
missionaries-that during all that lorng period, the imports of wines and
spirits, were not large, nor was much intoxication visible among the
natives-that all attempts at total exiclusion by penal enactments, or by
exorbitant duties had signally failed in other nations-I say from all
these. and other considerations, I was of opinion, that a duty of$2 per
gallon, on all descriptions of spirits, indiscriminately, and without reference to their comparative strength, would be high enough. Another
and a better man, now gone to his last account, recommended a simple duty of $10 per gallon; that high ilate was objected to, as certain
to stop all lawful importations of French and British spirits, and thereby violate the treaties; another proposed $5 a gallon, and'after muiich
said for and against, that rate was at last fixed upon, as one which
Great Britain could not consider prohibitory, because she herself, at
that very time, levied a duty of 22-6, or $5 40 cents per gallon on the
brandies of France, and which France was not likely to condemn, as
unreasonable, both for that same reason, and because the duty that
she herself imposed on British spirits was so high, as to exclude therni
altogether.  Nevertheless  it was distinctly understood that  nothing 
7
having even the semblance of a violation' of treaty should take place,
for if the duty of $5 per gallon, should stop, or materially diminish importations, that duty was to be lowered.
There was a still greater difference of opinion, in regard to including
ale, porter, beer. cider, and all other fermented liquors, among the
spirituous liquors, that the VIth article excepted from the general duty
of five per cent  ad valorem.  It was contended  by some, that they
could not, by right, be so included, while others took the ground, that
being all alcoholic, they were really spirituous liquors, more or less
intoxicating, and therefore could fairly be subjected to a higher rate
of duty. This opinion finally prevailed, but only with a distinct understanding, that the hilgher duty should be taken off,'if it were objected
to, as an infringement of the treaties which, so far as words are concerned, it undoubtedly was.
An objection having been made by H. B. M.'s Consul General, supported by Lord Palmerston, whose despatch the Consul Gen'l frankly
made known to the kings government, the duty on fermented liquors
was reduced, by order of the Minister of Finance of'the 18th March,
1847.
By referring to ihe note marked C page 9 to the -append!x of my
report to your Honorable House of the 22d April 1850, you will find
that Monsieur Dillon on the 30th March 1848, applied to the late Mr.
WVilliam Paty, then Collector General of Customs, for liberty to land,
for his private consumption, one barrel of wine, and one of brandy.
The liquors were on board the Ajax, Capt. Letellier.  Under the laws,
Mr. Paty could not grant that permission, and its refusal gave occasion to M. Dillon's Protest of the 3d April, 1848, which you find at
page 11 of the same appendix.
But it was not till the I 1th and 14th November, 1848, that M. Dillon
made any official demand, upon this Government, for the high duty it
had imposed upon spirits, by the Joint Resolution of the 3rd April,
1816. This fact I brought to the cognizance of M. Perrin, with six
important points for his consideration, as you will find at pages 48 and
49 of the Appendix to my Report of this year. M. Perrin evaded any
special reply to those points, and in that, I think, he acted wisely; for
no one can consider them, dispassionately, without arriving at the conclusion that, by her own tacit consent, France had fully acquiesced in
the course pursued by this Government, under the 6th Article of the
Treaty of the 26th March, 1846. Even supposing that she might have
claimed a right of objection, under the wording of that article, she had
not chosen to assert it, within any reasonable time, and under the most
copious advices forwarded both by M. Perrin and M. Dudoit, she had
ratified and formally exchanged the ratifications of the whole Treaty,
without any objection to any part of or word in it, for even the word
WINES still stands in the 6th Article, notwithstanding the Order of the
29th February, 1848, and the promises under which that order was
given.  But neither in good grammar, nor good logic, can it be contended that France, under the wording of that Article, (which was
her own deliberate and concerted wording) had ever any right to object to any duty imposed by this Government on wines or brandies,
,it 
8
0
however high, provided, under that high duty, such articles should still
continue to be imported at the Custom  House.   This is the stand
which this Government have ever taken, and which they still maintain.
This was the distinct understanding at, and after, the Conference of
the 26th March, 1846; it was the ground taken by Mr. Judd, on the
5th October, 1848 (see page 16 of the Official Correspondence with
M. Dillon); it was-the ground taken  by me,  on the 15tb January,
1849, (see page 133 of that Correspondence); and on the 25th August,
1849, with M. Dillon and Admiral de Tromelin  (see page'10 of the
Correspondence with those gentlemen); it was repeated on the 28th of
August, by the King's Commissioners, on board the steamer Gassendi;
it was confirmed by the clear and emphatic opinion of the British
Consul-General, in his letter to Admiral de Tromelin, of the 27th of
August, 1849 (see page 8,1 of the latter Correspondence); it was the
argument submitted to your Honorable House on the 22nd of April,
1850 (see page 37 of the Appendix to my Report of that date); it was
the right claimed for this Government in Paris; it was clearly asserted
by me at the Conference with M. Perrin, of the 6th-February last,
(see page 23 of the Appendix to my last Report); that right was/repeated in my Memorandums of l1th and 19th of same month (see pages
47, 49, 51, 56, and 58 of that Appendix); it was supported by the
opinion of the late U. States Consul, Mr. Turrill, (see page 64); it
was again asserted by me on the 22nd February last, (see pages 66 &
67); and, finally, the same ground was maintained in the JOINT DECLARATION, with M. Perrin, of the 25th of March last, published in
the "Polynesian" of the 29th of that month, which admits of no possible misconstruction.
Having thus discussed the RIGHT of France, under the 6th Article
of the Treaty of the 26th March, 1846, the next question which presents itself is her interest.
On the 15th of January, 1849, (as you will see at page 139 of the
official correspondence), I had the honor to state to Mons. Dillon that
there was not even the apology of a French interest to induce France
to recede from her own  voluntary and eminently honorable engagements, under the 6th Article of the Treaty of the 26th March, 1846.
This important fact I have shown with great clearness to M. Perrin,
as you will find in my Memorandums of the 18th and 19th February,
with their annexed tables, from page 46 to 62 of the Appendix to my
last Report.
The fact is, Mons. Dillon, for reasons best known to his own conscience, precipitated his Government into a demand opposed alike to
the clear right of this Government, under the Treaty, and to the inter'est of his own countrymen, the French distillers of spirits. Thus, in
this question, France has been arguing, all along, without right, and
contrary to her own interests.  It is-only just to Mons. Perrin, to say,
that he was not without a clear foresight of the favorable effect on
French brandies, of a high duty, applying equally to them and to inferior spirits, -for a letter which he addressed to M. Dudoit, from Valparaiso, on the 20th August, 1846, cannot be otherwise understood.
It is therefore to be presumed that M. Perrin could not, consistently
with his own convictions, attempt any refutation of the arguments m
40 
9
the above-mentioned Memorandums, either in regard to French  right
or French interests; but waiving these questions entirely, in his note
No. 9, of the 20th February last, (see page 61 Appendix) he reduced
the question to its simple merits, as an abstract question of political
economy and morality, in relation to encouragement of contraband,
without decreasing the acknowledged evil of intemperance.
By referring to page 58 of tile Appendix,  you will see that on the
19thi of February, I firankly admitted that that abstract question was
one deserving of your serious consideration; and at page 67 you will
observe that on the 22nd ofthat month, while adverting to the returns
and resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce, I pledged myself, indi   vidually, to M. Periin that if the question was presented in that
shape, and divested of all charges of "h iostility to France, or of bad
faith in this Government, under that Treaty," I should advocate a re    peal of the joint resolution of the 3rd April, 18b16, on the grounds
stated in the Report of the Chamber of Commerce, and  the moral
considerations recorded in his communications, for which I gave him
great credit.
The moral considerations that I then had in my view, you will find
at pages 43 and 65 of the Appendix. M. Perrin, in my opinion, de    served all the mnore credit for them,-that I had repeatedly shown himn
that the high duty had vastly increased the consumption of French
brandy, and that any material reduction would diminish that consump    tion, by enc(,uraging importation of British and American spirits.  If
you carefully eximine Table A, at page 54,  Tables 1, 2, and 3, at
pages 59, 60, and 61, and the Tables at pages 69, 70, and 71, of the
Appendix, you will find that fact demonstrated  in figures as clear as
any problem in Mathematics.
You will perinit me to add, here, another Table, which if not use
ful, is at least curious:
Gross Ii    nports         Inporits of Spirits
.-Increase
Y.ARS.   of eGoo ds             a consumed yearly,  Increase.
Y EARS.    v *     and         *     < <'Ices
paying 5      Decrease   paying  $5 per
Decrease.
cent. ad val.            gallon.
1817    $710,138                   Gallons 3271
Isis $605,618  104,5,0  314317
Decrease.                     Increase.
1819    $729,736  124,118                  5717       2274
|$Increase.                  Increase.
1850   $1053,058        3322               8252     Increase.
~~~~~~~~Increase.Inrae
From the above Table, you will see, at one glance, that while the
gross importations of goods, paying only 5 per cent. ad valorem duty,
2
i 
10
decreased from 1847 to 1848, nearly 15 per cent., the net consumption of spirits increased more than 5 per cent.-that while the
former, from 1848 to 1849, increased 20 per cent., the latter increased
66 per cent.; and while from 1849 to 1850 the former increased 44i
per cent., while the latter increased also) 443 per cent.
You will find the data on which these calculations are founded faithfully taken from the able statistical Exhibit of the present CollectorGeneral, Mr. Bishop, published in the " Polynesian," No. 38, o' the
1st February last, and from the annual returns of his lamented l)redecessor.   There ate amonrg you, good accountants, who can easily
correct my calculations, if I have made any mistake. I believe them
to be correct, beyond question, and wha' do they prove? Why, that it
was madness in M. Dillon, to bring any charge against this Government, under the joint Resolution of 3d April,  18-46-that  it was
wisdom in M. Perrin to desist fiom thl)at charge, as a breach of'I'reaty,
for, the benefit of that remarkable increase in the trade in spirits has
accrued almost solely to France; and that it would be folly in'this
Government any longer to trust the great and good cause of temperance to a duty of $5 a gallon on spirits, under which the consumlption
of spirits has increased, fromyear to year, in a far greater proportion,
than the consumnption of goods paying only 5 per cent. ad valore.
This brings me to the Report and opinions of the Chamber of Commerce, already referred to.  Frequent references had been made to
the opinions of individual merchants of this city, of great respectability.
While most ready to listen to their suggestions, and to profit by their
practical wisdom, on a question deeply concerning the internal policy
of the Government, in which  a great nation sought to interfere, on
grounds of Treaty right, and obligation, I did not think it proper or
decorous to proceed in the way of private canvass.  Of all ways that
is the worst to elicit the independent and impartial opinions of men on
any great principle of public policy. Under this conviction, I suggested to Mons. Perrin, that if we were to be intifluenced by the views of
merchants, we should apply to them, collectively, as Members of the
Chamber of Commerce, confining  ourselves to matters of fact, and
without seeking to make them  partizarns in a diplomatic discussion.
This being mutually agfreed, oni the 8th of February, I addressed to
H. N. Crabb, Esquire, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, the
letter of which I append copy, marked No. 1.']he blaik form which
it refers to, you will find printed at page 69 of the Appendix. In perusing these documents, you will see how carefully I avoided putting
any leading question.
I also append copy, marked No. 2, of the translation of M. Perrin's
note, of the 10th February, addressed to the same gentleman, who
kindly furnished it to me on the 26th of that month.
And I add copies, marked No. 3 and 4 of Mr. Crabb's reply, of the
lth February, and of the ten resolutions unanlimously adopted at a
meeting of the Chamber, on the 14th, and signed by the leading merchants and men of business of this city.
By  turning to my Dispatch to M. Perrin, No. 11, of the' 22nd of
February last, at page 65, you will find that I looked upon the Return
of the Chamber of Commerce (see page 69), and the opinion expressed 
I11
that more intoxication had existed among the natives since the imposition of the high duty of $5 per gallon on spirits, by the joint Resolution of the 3rd April, 1846, than what prevailed before, as altogether
fatal to the ground taken by Franrce, that by the imposition of' that
high duty the Kiug's Governnent-had violated the letter and spirit of
the 6th Article of the Treaty.
If you peruse with care miy Memorandum to M. Perrin, of the 6th
of February, with its enclostures Nos. 1 to 16, beginning at page 23,
and eiidii(g with page 3(, yo(,u will find the clearest evidence, consistent tllr(,ughotut, that the intelionn of M. Guizot and of' the Earl of
Atierdeeti, in fiamiing  the Treaty of 26th of March, 1846, was to disco(urage intemperance, in these  Islands, by consenting to a duty on
wines and spit its, not prohibitory, as the King's Government had asked
for, but just as high as this Governmnent might think proper to impose,
provided it did not prove an absolute, prohibition to their importation.
Both statesnmen, in the clear sense of their own worlds, undoubtedly
expected such a duty as would favor temperance, by materially decr(:asing the usual  impoitations, and such was the effect that this
Government expected fromy the Joint Resohlition of 3d April, 1846.
Neither Government expected tJat,by such a high duty as is distinctly
provided for in the 6th Article,a great stinmulus was to be given to the
importa,tion of brandies, forthe benefit of France,-I nmay say almost
exclusively-,)to the encouragement of contraband with all its concomitant immoralities, and, strange as it may appear, even to the increase of intemperance among the natives.
What I have already said, so clearly shows that remarkable increase
of the cotisumptioa of spirits consequent on the imposition of the high
duty, that any further illustration thereof may be deemed superfluous.
The fact is a very nimpo-itant one, not only as it refutes all charges of
breach of Treaty, but as it affects the cause of temperance on these
Islands.  If it be the fact that the duty of $5 per gallon both increases
the importations of brandy, and encourages intemperance, it is;high
time, that the duty should be lowered. Having myself lived constantly
in Honolulu during 492 days that spirits and wines could be imported
at only 3 per cent. ad valorern, and during 297 days that spirits and
wines could be imported at 6 per cent. ad valorem, I can say with
great truth, that during those periods, I observed less intemperance
both aniong the natives and foreigners, than I have observed since the
high duty was imposed. It belongs to you to verify this fact, by the
experience of others, and to ascertain, if it be true, as the Members
of the Chamber of Commerce declare, that the high  duty on spirits
has led to a snmuggling to the extent of TWO-THIRDS lsof the whole quantity that has been imported.  It is of the utmost nimportance to deternine, by evidence carefully and  impartially taken, if it be true, that
under ourt present system, in this very port, 900 barrels of brandy
were clandestinely landed in one  night, and  1,50 barrels in another
night, as stated by M. Perrin, in his Memoranduim of  h February,
(see page 43 of the Appendix)- as also whether it be lire, that for the
last fouror five years, the chief profit of coasting  vessels has been
made by carrying brandy, secretly received on board from foreign
ships in Honolulu to the small ports of the other islands, and.there
0 
12
selling it to regular customers, who secretly retail it out among the
natives.
Assuming such opinions and assertions to be well founded, what do
they establish? Why, that the consumption of spirits in 1S47, in
place of being 3271 gallons, -paying $16,355, was really 9813 gallons,
which should have p)aid $49,065,-thait in 1818, the consumption, in
place of being 3143 gallons,!Faying $17,215, was really 10,329 gallons, which shonld have paid $51,645,-tihat in 1849, the consuimption
in place of being 5,717 gallons, paying $28,585, was really 17,151
gallons, which should leave paid $5,755,-aind that in 1850, the consumnption in place of being 8,52 gallons, paying  $41,260, was really
24,756 gallons, which ought to have paid $123,780.  In short, by the
admission of'the above as facts, it would app)ear that in only four years,
where the King's Treasury ought to have received $310,'41 for duties
on brandy, it has only received $103,4l5, being a loss of $206,820!
But great as the loss of revenue appears to be, %hat is still m(,re to
be regretted is, the influence of an organized system of contraband
upon public morals.  Everywhere, it leads to perjury, lying, bribery,
deception, and all manner of corruption.  I amr not prepared to say
that the smuggling of spirits here has really been so great as is assumed above, on the faith of the Chamber of Commerce, but that it
has been great, and that the duty of $5 per gallon has much increased
it, and that, if continued, it will perpetuate it, I have not the smallest
doubt.  There is no man acquainted with the hist)ry of commerce, in
all countries and in all ages, or having experience, as a merchant, in
any country, who will say that so high a duty as $5 per gallon (on sl)piiits
can exist, anywhere, without creating a vast amount of clandestine
importation and crime.
If the King's Government erred in their belief that they could regulate the imnportations of merchants, and the habits of the polpulation,
by merely enacting a law imposing at high duty, they only followed
the example of older and more civilized nations.  Some of you may
not be aware, that in Great Britain, so long ago as the year 1736, an
ACT was passed, whose preanmble was as follows
Whereas, the drinking of Spirituous liquor, or strong water, is
become very common, especially among-people of lower and inferior
rank, the constant and excessive use of which tends greatly to the
destruction of their health, rendering them unfit for useful labor and
business, debauching their morals, and inciting them to perpetuate all
vices; and the ill consequences of the excessive use of such liquors
a.:e not confined to the present generation, but extend to future ages,
and tend to the destruction and ruin of this kingdoln."   The  intention of said act was to uproot spirit drinking entirely, and, with that
view, a duty of 20 shillings a gallon (almost precisely the $5 irn)p(sed
by our Joint Resolution) and a heavy license duty on the retailer of
spirits were imposed.  Extraordinary encouragements were  held out
to informers, and a fine of ~100 sterling was inflicted on every one,
who might sell the smallest quantity of spirits, on which the full duty
had not been paid. But, in place of answering the ends intended, its
effects were directly opposite. It is true the respectable dealers withdrew, from a trade proscribed by law, but it was taken up by the low 
13
est and most profligate characters, who as they had nothing to lose,
were not deterred by penalties from breaking through all its provisions. The populace espoused the cause ofl the smugglers and unlicensed dealers; the officers of the revenue were openly assaulted in
the streets of London, and ether great towns; ift()rmers were hunted
down like wild beasts; and drunkenness, disorder and crimes increased
with frightful rapidity.  Tiindall says —" Within two years  of tilhe
passing of the act, it had becomne odious and contemptible, and policy
as well as humanity, forced the Conlmlssi(,ners of excise to mitigate
its penalties."  During the two years of its unmitigated continuance,
no fewer than 12,000 persons were convicted of offenses connected
with the sale of spirits.  But no exertion, on the part of the revenue
officers and magiswates, could stein the torrent of smuggling.  Upwards of 7,000,000 of gallons of spirits were annually consumed in
London and its adjacencies, at the very time that their sale was frbidden by law.  The act had originally been  brought  fo)rward by the
king's Ministers, moved thereto by fierce denunciations firom the pulpit. But the Ministers were too wise to persist in a policy productive
of unmitigated evil, merely because it had been recommended by
preachers of the word of life.  Ii 1742 the high duties were repealed
and substituted by such moderate duties as were calculated to increase
the revenue arising from the use of legally distilled and imported
spirits, which experience had shown all the authority and power of
the British Government had st;een unable to abolish. The bill for that
purpose was vehemently opposed in the House  of Lords  by most of
the Bishops, and miany of the temporal Peers who exhausted all their
rhetoric in depicting the mischievous consequences that would  res:ult
from a toleration of the practice of spilit drinking.  To these  d('nunciations it was unanswerably replied, that whatever the evils of the
practice might be, it was impossible to repress them by pro(hibitory
enactments; and that the attempts to do so, had  been productive of
far more mischief than had ever resulted, or could be expected to resuit, from the greatest abuse of spirits.  The great statistical authority, Mclulloch, in whose pages these facts are recoidted, says that
the consequences were highly beneficiat.  JAn instant stop was  put to
snuggling; and if the vice of drunkenness was not materially dimnin.
ished, it has never been stated that it was increased.
Can any of you be so unreasonable as to believe that what so signally failed in Great Britain, after an experience of six yeals, with all
her hosts of excise and custom house oilicers, well-p)aid informers,
and milagistrates, and efficient army and navy, can possibly succeed,
here merely because we so will it, on the mtnere strength of a joint
Resoluti(,n imposing a high duty, and of one tide-waiter, in the whole
kingdom, starved on the scanty salary of $300 per annum? Perhaps
you may answer, it has succeeded, to the great benefit of the king's
revenue, and in proof thereof, point to the great q'iantities that have
been imported and paid the high duty since the 3rd April, 1846.  It
was exactly thus that the late Collector General, Mr. Paty, argued, as
often as I made known to him, the intelligence communicated to me,
that a vast deal of smuggling of spirits was going on. He never could
be made to believe it, and his strong ground was, that if such facilities 
14
of smuggling existed, no one would pay the high duty. Yet we have
the respectable merchants whose names are appended to the Resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce, on the 14th of February last,
vouching for the fact, that TWO THIRDS of the regular trade in spirits
is by contraband, and that our high duty is utterly useless, so tar as
regards the welfare of' the Hawaiian race.
No wise Government would disregard the weight of testimony so
unequivocally respectable and disinterested.  I mvselt am disposed to
look uponi it as a grave matter of fact, to be received as such, until it
can be disproved by a searching inquiry.  For several years  I have
seen men making fortunes, and building houses altogether disproportioned to the greatest possible profits of the regular  businress, in
which they were ostensibly engaged; and as we have no gold diggings here, I have suspected that the true secret of such rapid enrichment was the evasion of the joint Resolution of the 3id Api'il, 1846.
In my whole experience, as a general merchant, I have never known
a-single country which presents such facilities for smnuggling as these
Hawaiian Islands. No cuistomn house visit, so far as 1 know, is paid
to ships, after their discharge, to ascertain whether they have cornpleted it, according to their manifests, or still retain, in their holds,
say even 1000 l)arrels of Brandy,-with that or a greater quantity of
Brandy on board, they may renmaiin months in poit,-no coasting vessels are searched before they proceed to sea to the numerous bye
ports of the Islands open to them, and where no one is on the look out
for smuggling; I know of nothing, except the mere law, to prevent
the secret transshipment of spirits from foreign ships to such coasting
vessels, either in port, or by agreeing to meet for that purpose at sea,
nor to prevent any foreign vessel, even firom landing 1000 barrels of
Brandy, in Honolulu itself, in twenty moonless nights, between the
hours of one and two in the morning. How easy would it be, for
the Captain of any vessel having spirits on board, to arrange with
some one on shore, in a dark night, to send a launch, say with 50 barrels of 18 gallons each, at a given point, to be received by 50 stout
mnen, all bribed to silence, to carry the whole, in one trip, without the
slightest noise, to some large cellar in town, without the cognizance of
a single soul in Honolulu. beyond the parties immediately engaged.
And how easy would it be to repeat that operationi, either during the
same night, or in a succession of nights, until the whole supposed 1000
barrels of Brandy were safely disposed of.
I have known sniuggling to an immense extent carried on, isMexican
ports, in all the ways that I have here supposed, under circumstances
of far greater danger, and where the profit to be made was smaller.
That nothing of the kind has been detected, is no  proof that such
things have not been done.  Who is to make the detection, and is it
to be supposed that, under the heavy penalties attached by existing
laws to the smuggling of wine and spirits, the smuggler will not conduct his secret operations with far greater tact and precaution than the
petty contrabandist of ordinary goods, on whose clandestine introduction, the penalties are comparatively small?
What you have to consider and examine is the positive averments 
of the Chamber of Commerce, and whether the reward to the smuggling of wines and spirits does not  incite the importer to run  all
the very little risk that would attend such operations,-all Hawaiian
written laws and regulations notwithstanding.
The question of re'.a d or incitemient I will endeavor to make clear.
Suppose a Fretinch ship of 509 tons arrives from Bordeaux  (the most
convenient pott fir the shipment of spirits) with a general (.argo, assorted fior this market.  After laying in all the w),oilen, silk, linen and
cotton goods, all the har(lware, earthenware, glassware, shoes, gloves,
trinkets, and articles of fancy and taste, that it would be prudent to invest, for so small a market, the ship would still have a vast deal of
room; and the adventurer would naturally fill up with such bulky articles, as he might expect to'pay a good freight on such spare tonlnage.
If he knew our duties on Brandy, and the facilities, here, of aniuggling, he would naturally prefer that to all other commodities, as the
most certain to pay him well.  Beyond stowage for a general cargo of
$100,000, first cost, which would be qutite enough for this maiket, he
might bring say 1500 I)barrels of Brandy, of 18 gallons each, which
would make 27,000 gallotns.  By an elaborate cal(ltilation, kindly furnished me, on the 4tli January, 1848, by Monsieur Larancel, a well
educated gentlemanly young mnan of Bordeaux, I have reason to believe that 100 gallons of Brandy, after allowing all charges and 10 per
cent. for leakage, would cost in Honolulu $76.55. Allowing 10 per
cent. leakage, the above 27,000 gallons would be reduced  to 24,300,
which at $76.55 for every 100 gallons, would have cost the importer,
in Honolulu $18,601 65.  On his arrival, he finds himself with 1350
barrels of Brandy.   He resolves to sell one third, or 150 barrels, or
8100 gallons, and for the same gets $3.12 1-2 per gallons, which, according to the Chamber  of Commerce,  (see page  66  Appendix,)
was the average price both in 1845 and  1851t.  He thus realizes
$25,312.25.  He then in some of the ways I have mentioned as possible, arranges with some buyer to smuggle the remaining two-thirds,
that is 900 barrels, or 16,200 gallons, each, (that is the importer and
the huyer,) taking one  half of the duty.   He  would thus sell L.t
$5.62 1-2, and would realize $91,125.  But it is not to be supposed
that 900 barrels could be landed for nothing. Allow even $10 to each
native, for carrying each barrel from the boat, that would  be $9000.
Allow $S for each barrel to the sailors, that would be $4500 making
in all $13,5100. But most likely the buyer would have to pay one half
of the expenses; thus leaving only $6750, which being deducted from
the above $91,125, would leave $84,375, leaving thus to the importer $109,687.25, from which deducting for costs and charges $18,601.65, he world make a profit of $81,085.60.  Now I ask any  of
you to say whether such an enormous profit, can operate otherwise
than not only as a reward and an incitement to contraband, but as a
very great encouragement to all shippers from France to pour in
Brandies into this inaliket by every ship?
Let us see now how the accomplice on shore would fare.
His 16,2()0 gallois of Brandy would cost him as follows:
16 
16
Price at $5.62 1-2 per gallon, paid to the Captain, which is much
higher than the buyer is likely to pay,                 $91,125.00
Half of smuggling expenses,                             6,750.00
97,875.00
$97,875-00
By adding 5 per cent water, he converts his 16,200
into 17,010; he bottles it off, and gets. 85,050 bot  tles, and sells it at $2.00 a bottle (I believe a fair
average would be $2.50) and he thus realizes
He thus obtains a profit of
Again I will inquire who of you will say that such a profit does not
hold out a reward and incitement fi)r every honest merchant in Honolulu, to button utp his conscience in his pocket,-leave off his commrnission agency, and provide forever for himself anid family, by two or
three good brandy hits?
You will naturally be startled at such figures, and perhaps exclaim,
Can such things be? I d(o not say that they are, but that our legislation renders them possible, without one jot or tittle of benefit to ten'perance, tee-tolalism or any other ismn except contrabandism.  I know
of nothing to render such large operations of fraud improbable except
the want of adequate consumptioni and capital to conduct themn, oa  so
large a scale.  But whether, on such a large scale, or a smaller scale,
the principle remains the same, and it is this-that our fiscal system
in regard to spirits holds out such an enormous premiumn to smuggling,
and affords such vast means of bribery and corruption, as to render it
utterly impossible that the Government, with its small or rather no repressive mneans, can ever prevent it, or even discourage it.
The exampile of Great Britain 115 years ago, in imposing a similar
duty, with a view to temperance, justifies this kingdom for falling into
the same political error, in the high duty imposed on spirits, by the
joint Resolution of the 3d of April, 1846; but after being unideceived
by experience, she repealed her act; and so ought we, our said joint
Resolution, if, after due enquiry, you convince yourselves, that it has
increased intemperance, augmented the importation of spirits and the
profit thereon, promoted bribery and fraud, injured the honest merchant, and cheated the King's revenue.
But you will naturally ask, what duties would yiou advise us to impose in lieu of those imposed by fhe joint Resolution of 3d April,
1816? I shrink not firom a clear and unequivocal reply. You will
observe that M. Perrin, with some dexterity, in his despatch No. 9, of
the 20th February, last, (see page 65, of the appendix,) reminded me
that at the time of the im)position of the high duty, I, individually, had
recommended a duty of only $2 per gallon. He did not contend that
the mere expression of that individual opinion, bound the Government
collectively, in any way wha'ever; in fact, he thought so differently,
that in the joint declaration of the 25th March 1851, he took care, voluntarily, to put in $2 50 as a maximum of duty, to be submitted to your
consideration. He knew well that the Chamber of Commerce had,
unanimously, recommended a duty of only one dollar per gallon, but
170,100,00
$72,225-00 
17
he knew just-as web that at.tht low duty, the demaod fr Britislratd
Americu sirits wold revive, and  hat -FrenehBrandy would  oo
its, inence in this market;  -     Fr4  m   own part, I would'neither
impose a duty of $2- 50, nor of $2, nor of -$-, per gallon.  The King
being equally bouind by Treaty to France, Great -Britain, Denmark,
Hamburg, and4he United States, to-at}low to eah the rights and pit —
ileges — acrded to-the most favored n/tion, I would instanty repeal-the
joint resolution of 3d A-Ai4, 1846, which giVes-to-France-,- over all the
others,. aa tndue advantage,. for which she ha,s not been as thankful as
she eugh 1o have been. -- I would-place all other nations upon an exact
footing of parity with her.  Now, how isthis to b  done.?  It way be
done in a very simple- andeay maaaer. - - -
.1. Impose a duty of one hundred per cent,,ad volorem, on Brandy
and other-Spirits-istilled from grain or-other'-materiials,-Cordials, Absyihei Artack, Curacoa,  Kerschenwasser,-Liqueurs, Maraschino and
-all other.spirituo  beverages of a simiar' haracter.
2. Impose a duty of 40 per cent, ad valorem,'on burgundy, champag.e-, claret, madeira,- prt, sherry,and ail other wines:and imitations
of wine     -     -
3. Impose,,aduty of -  per -eut, ad  a6loremn, on ale, beer, porte,
ide", perry, in cask or in bottles....
4. - Impese a doytf 20 per  it,  ad -alorem, on rum, brandy, and
all other  pirituous li'uors distilled in the Hawaiian Islands  from
native pvod~ce, and allow a drawback of the full duty on all that may
bo ezxpo~ed'for'f ore/    cosamptin,- (of course this presIppses the
repeal of all existing laws that prohibit Io&qestic d./tillation.)
5-. Impe a duty'of 8 per cent, ad va.ovem, o0al wines and iniutations of-.wines, made in the HIawaian Islands, from native grapes, or
other frits, an-'allow a drawback of the full duty on all that may be
exported for flrig- con Ruption.  -
6. Impose a duty of 6 per cent, ad valorem, on all aleandother
fermented liquors, brewed 1( the Hawvaiian Islands, from native grains,
and alloW a drawback of the -whole -duty on all that ay  be exported
-for foreign consumption.  
I would propose that the three frst should take fIeetonly'after 12
nmooths from the,date of puhblication, -to-aUlw timne for stocks td wo'k
off, andior-all vessels coingn from foreilgn ports to know the law before they could import a -.cargo uef.rit-  Such a delay would also be
indispcnsable in the case of the 3rd suggestion, to allow timeto obtain
the eonset  f-.fthe British and French Governments  o -it,-ifor you
will see that- the wording of the 44h A.icl of the-]i.sh and French,
Treatiesdoes not allow of any higher duty being imposed on ats and
otherzfermentedciquors than 5-per'-.nt. ad valorem. 
So far as-Great Bi-itain is concerned, I would by no  eans appreherid any difficulty, for she has not been an interested -nation in her
policy towards these Islands;'and for the reasons above stated, I feel 
confident that ConsulGeneral Miller  would cheerflly receive'and
support such an application to his GoAverment.  Although opposed to
all Utopian Teetotalism, there is no-more decided or more consistent
enemy to intperance, on these Islands,  than the British Consul              3 
General.  He shewed this inrthe most unequi-vecaL manner, both during the Conferences that preceded the Treaty of the; tth February,
1844, and-the Treaty of-the 26th March, 1846, and he would the more
readily /upport such an arrangement,- if it aworded, in his mind, ahope
.of freeing the King from any further contetion about spirits, on which
his views were very frankly made known to Admiral de Troroelin.*
But there is -o reason why allI laws contrary to-the immediate adbption of suggestions Nos. 4, 5, and 6 should not be at once repealed.
It is due to the interests of Hawaiian planters and agriculturalists that
they should be repealed, and they may be repealed, without any injury whatever to-the cause-of-Temper-ece. - It no more follows that
because people make spirits, -they are to drink it, than because a:-iller nmakes flour, he is to eat it.
I would propose, that for the described foreign imports, the duty ad
valorem should fall upon the prime cost, increased by adding commission, packing, porterage, shipping charges freight, inAsuranlce, and interest of money up to date of manifest.- This,wotld neither occasion trouble nor delay,-for every merchantlknows that a-l such charges,-excepting
sometimes interest, are nicely calculated, and added to the prime cost,
in every invoice. To. guard against undervaling, by spurious invoices,
I would have a clause authorizing the Collector-General, or any of
his Collectors, to take the'goods so appearing to be-undervalued, at
the value declared, with an augmentation of so much per cent- or.that
declared value, as might be equalAo the average profit-of such-articles
at the time, to.be ascertained by three' impartial merchants of the
place.
Allow me to shew how this systewwould work practically.  For the
sake of clearness, I. shall take first, the article of French brandy   I
have already s.hewn on an authority, on which I fully rely, that 100 gals.
brandy imported from Bordeaux, adding all charges as above, woud
cost the importer in Honolulu-      -$76 55
100 per eent. duty on-c0st and charges, would be 
exactly               - -   -         -76 55
Allow the imnporter 100 per cent. profit on cost and
charges, that would be      -         - a           76 55
Allow 5 per cent. comnmission On $29 65c., that  -
would be          -         -         -         -   11 48
Allow for landing, storage, and petty charges      -    5  0
The 100 gals. would cost thespirit dealer         - $246 13
Add for his profit, say only 50 per cent. -     - - 13 -6
The retailing price of 100-gals. then- swells up to — $369 19
or $3 69c. -per gal.  -
This rule would equally apply to British, American, and all other
foreign spirits, allowing to them  the full advantage of their greater
cheapness, without violating the principle of equality, in regard  to
*This Was written.before I had any:knowledge of the inew British Treaty, anounced in my
letter to Mr. Parsons, of thd-16tb Julie.
.18 
19
France, for 100 per cent, ad valorem, is a fluctuating amount, vary ing
witl- the price on which it is calculated.
But I have to mention'another argument in favor of my three first
suggestions.   The  duties  proposed correspond exactly' with those
established by the Tariff of the United States, enacted tn 1846, and
which I believe is now in force, in the Ports of California and Oregon,
with which we have so much intercourse.   I hold itto be of vast consequence, not only~for the sake of the revenue, but even of temperance,
that our duties on wines, spirits, and ales, should assimilate, as much
as possible, to the duties levied in those ports.'Higher duties,- here,
will keep the prices of those articles higher in these Islands, and stimulate  shipments of them to our ports, which they know to be so
completely  devoid  of all means  of  detecting, and  of repressing
smuggling.
In due consistency with the principles herein-hefore advanced, and
with the facts adduced,  I would abrogate entirely and at oncie the
words —" provided brandy, wines, and other liquors which'have an
intoxicating effect, be entirely excluded from that trade or barter, any
vessel trading or bartering in which, shall wholly forfeit the-advantage
of this Resolution"-which words now stand in Section- 1 of the Joint
Resolutin of the 15th of June, 1847.  I should like to know of what
earthly use such a proviso is in the'case of whalers touching at the
Ports of Hilo, Kealakeakua, Hantlei, or even Lahaina.  A'whaler
may well land there, or'barter $1000 worth of brandy, and still c,laim
itlI the exemptions allowed under that very section.  It is a mere
mockery of temperance, to have teimperance in our laws, and sniuggling and intoxication in our practice; or to prescribe-rules to men at
war with their profits and their passkions, when we have no means to
enforce such rules, or even to know when they are observed.
There is not one anmorig you who holds intemperance and -all its accompanying bestialities, in more utter disgust than I do.  Nor is there
any one smore anxious to see the Hawaiians  a sober, industrious,
cha'ste,,and honest people.  If I coV!d persuade myself that the repeal,
of the laws I have mentioned would injure them, in any of those respects, I would be the last man that would vote for their repeal.  Some
of -you may think that these very laws have made the populationan
eminently temperate people, in comparison with nations who are governed by men without the lights of Teetotalism.  Let us dispassion-,
ately enquire if this be the fact.
According to the valuable statistical data of Mr. Armstrong, in the
Census, which he published, the whole populatiott-,of the Islands, in
1849, was 80,611. It was proved that the population had been decreasing at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum.   By this rule it may be
assuin'ed that the population in 1850 was 74,176 souls.  Now,  by the
equally valuable statistical table of Mr. Bishop, which you can peruse
in the "Polynesian" No. 38, of the 1st February last, -you  will find 
that 8252 gallons of spirits were consumed during the year.  Assu'ning that that was correct, and that 24,756 gallons were not consumed,
though that it was, is to be inferred, from the Report of the Chamber
of Commerce, every Hawaiian man, womtnan, and child,,including also 
20
all foreign residents, consumed of spirits, 0 tl1 of a gallon. Well,
you will-say, this looks mighty well, and so it does, till we compaq it
with tippling Godless Ireland, so notorious for its drunken brawls, its
crimes, and insurrections.  But  how stands the case with-unhappy
Hibernia? Look with astonishment at the following Table
-.~C-ONSUMPTION OF SPIRITS PER HEAD. A
YEARS.   POPULATION.
OF BRITISH SPIRITS OF FOREIGN SPIRITS.
1802      5,451,002    0,  12 of a Gallon         0, 18 of a Gallon
1812      6,036,008    0,  04,,               0,001,,
1821      6,801,827    0, 003,,               0,bo I,
1831      7,767,401  0, 002,,             -  0,001
1838      8,055,771    0, 002,,               0,002.
1841      8,179,359    0,0015,,               0,002,,
~- _ _       ii,, i......st L   ~,....... -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
If any one doubts these figures, I shall be happy to shew them, it
Porter's Progress of the British Nation, published tn London in i847.
They incontestably prove that, with- all ojQuP professed temperance and
teetotalism, the population of these -Islands consumes more ardent
spirits, annually, than even Ireland!
Supposing that the gallon of brandy-costs the Hawaiian only $1 50
cents per bottle, that would be $7 50 cents per gallon, so that -illth
part of a thousandth of a gallon costs the Hawaiian 83 cents yearly.
But let us suppose-that he obtains his gallon for the mere $5 of duty,
the same fractional part of a gallon would cost him 554 cents yearly.
The-following Table will shew-what the Irishman had paid, yearly, to
the British Revenue, for his drop of comfort, at the same periods'
Mean contri  Differential,
YEARS. Spirit' Mean duty- buttion to the duty on British
YEARS. Spirits.                       per gal.    Revenueper  and Foreign
head. -          Spirits.
$. d.        s.d.             s.  d.
8    British   )                              (   5   61
Foreign         6      -     0                 8  6
British   I                                  10  31
Fore11n, -            7 
,Foreign _  7
.0 
21
B5r0i1 )  I    00  &  1
British
Foreign 
British                                    6
Foreign  }
British 
Foreign                                    6
British  )
Foreign  )
O 9l & j
Thus the Hawaiians, not only, under our restrictive laws, -consume
more ardent spirits, annually, than the Irish, but are vastly more
taxed for the luxury.  -
But that is not the worst of those laws,-a worse consequence is,
that by raising too high the price of good liquors, -which, in moderation, are not- injurious to health, they lead the natives to inebriate
themselves with ava, and other compounds which, even used in moderation, are deleterious. -         - 
From the above Table, it will be seen, that the British Government
from 1802 to 1842, often varied their scale of duties, but always taking
care to impose a higher duty upon the spirits that were. of foreign
origin.  Protection of native industry, was, therefore,, at the bottom of
their system, but it is not at the  bottom of ours,-for we altogether
prohibit the native manufacture, and allow foreigners to enrich themselves, by having the monopoly of. tWade which cannot.be extirpated,
but, on the contrary, is growing upon  us, with gigantic strides.   For
the sake of clearness, I will demonstrate this in tabular form
. PROPORTION ANNU_111I. Y,ESTIMATED  SPIRITS CONSUMED      A    CNM
YEARS.                                    ALLY cONSXTMED
POPULATION.      YEARLY.
PER HEAD,
*1847     94,069       3271 Gallons.      0,034 per head.
t 1848     87,092      3443               039 
1849     80,641       5716,         0,070.
1850     74,176       8252   IX          0,11,1,I  -
* t I have estimated the population of these years, by adding eight per cent upwards from 1849,
1821
9
-31
6
6
. 0
6
1831
1839
1841
15 6
-0 oj
15 9
9 4
22 10,
16 1
0 ol -8L I 
22
From this, it is quite'clear,- that in only four years, the ratio of consumption of spirits, per head, has very nearly quadrupled itself, while
the number of native drunkards has visibly increased every successive
year.  Even the worthy Editor of the Polynesian, (who is no friend
to strong waters,) in his paper of the 7th of this month, publishes the
letter ofa very persevering correspondent, containing  a lamentation
on the drinking propensities of the nlatives in and around  Kalepolepo,
of which it would puzzle the well meaning writer, to give one such example on the-Islands, previous to the 3d April, 1846.  I fear there are
many Kalepolepos throughout the Islands. 
.But, perhaps the writer of that letter, and some of yourselves mav
contend, that taking the natiVes generally, they consume  very little
spirits, and that the unusually large ratio of consumption in this Kingdom, is almost wholly owing to the foreign residents.   By taking this
ground, you only pitch yourself from one dilemma to be transfixed on
the horn of another.  lPor why  should foreigners in this kingdom, if
such be the fact, consume more per head, than'they do in any other'
country,, unless it be inc-onsequence of ourfaulty legislation? There
is nothing peculiar -in the climate or topography of the Islands, as
compared with other countries, that can or ought  to convert white
men, here, universally into drunkards. But there is a peculiarity in our
legislation, and if that peculiarity  seduce white men  from the paths
of sobriety, into those of reckless and shameless intemperance, surely
that affords the strongest reason, why that vicious legislation should be"
reformed,, even for the sake —of the natives themselves,- for the example
of so many drunken white men, (I speak hypothetically,) must tell
powerfully on the habits'of the-natives.
According to the census of'mny good friend, Mr. A-rmstrong, published with his interesting report of 22d April, 1S50, I may assume  as-follows:
That the foreigners married to white wives, and native wves,'nd
unmarried, amounted then to,               -                    1045
- And their cbildren, white, and half-breed,                 91.7
-.~.    _~~1962
including 77 Prc,testant- Missionaries,  male and female Assistant Missi'onaries, and 129 children, and including 25 Catholic Priests and lay
Missionaries.  The Protestant Missionaries, with their wives and chitdren, I believe to be universally teetotallers, and  I would here remark, without intending any offensive levity, and still less, personality,
that accord-ing to.all outward indications of health laid down by-physiologists, the system does not seem to be favorable, either to their cornplIexion or their health.  But'Upon this point, the physicians of Hono-,
lulu, would be better authorities than I can pretend  to be, and also,
upon the point, whether those intractable complaints, arising from relaxation, as I have heard asserted, be far more  prevMenat among the
disciples of strict teetotalism, than those who, less scrupulous, follow
which was the rate of yearly decrease established by Mr. Armstrong's.census. Perhaps the pop,ilation of these years may have been some thousands less, but that would only very slightly affect
the ratio of consumption per head. 
the advice given by St. Paul to Timothy. Although the Catholin clergymen are not teetotallers, and present an appearance of more robust
health, yet, I believe them to be, without exception, temperate, and I
shall therefore include them, with the 231 persons to be deducted from
the 1962 foreign individuals, ( adults and children,) on whom we are
to lay the consumption of 8252 gallons of spirits in 1850, in order to
screen the natives fromn the charge of participating in the consumption
of ardent spirits.  I shall also deduct 788 children-, exclusive of the
129 missionary children, which will leave 943 foreigners as the consumers of 8252 gallons of ardent spirits in 1850.  To consume that
quantity of Spirits, each man and woman would require 8.708-.943tBhs
gallons of spirits in the year.  In this, there would be nothing impossible, for it would be only forty three bottles for each man and woman,
during the year; but looking at the averae consumption per head, as
it has been calculated in those nations which are  most-addicted to the
use of spirits, it is enormous.  Even dividing the  consumption among
the whole 1962 foreigners, including children, and missionaries of both
denominations, the average, per head, would be still upwards of four
gallons yearly, which is greatly beyond that of the most drunken -nation that I know of, either in the old or the new world. This remarkable phenomenon in the Hawaiian Kingdotn, must have a cause, and if
that cause be not our fiscal system, I'ask you to say, what it is?
I am  quite aware that no reduction can be made  in'the duties on
spirits without exciting much clamor on the part of many highly respectable and well mneaning men.  But statesmen and legislators ought
to be above the influence of clamor or private passion, in the- consideration of all measures for the public good. I have already shown
you that in 1742, the British Legislature did not regard the clamor of
the Bishops, nor-their own self love, when they repealed the restrict
ive act of 1736.  The sinister predictionsof many  well meaning men
were then disappointed, and so, I believe, it will be here.
-On the subject of a restrictive policy, McCulloch observes
"Our policy, if we may apply this term to so revolting a display of
short sighted rapacity, has had no other effect than to lessen thespublic revenue and enjoyments of the people, to injure our trade with
Holland, and to foster and promote the ruinous and destructive practice of smuggling. The enormous duties on Geneva, Brandy and Tobacco, have led to the- formation of the coast guard, and the preventive
water guard, costing together, about -~400,000 a year, and yet, notwithstanding this outlay, and notwithstaiiding the innumerable  penalties and punishments to which he is exposed, the trade of the smuggler
is-not put down, but is, on the contrary, in a peculiarly flourishing
condition; and so it will, in despite of every thing that can be done
for its suppression, till these duties are adequately reduced.   We  believe our Gin manufactories have nothing to apprehend from a reduction of duties on Geneva to ten shillings a gallon. The lower classes,
who are the great consurnmers, prefer English Gin to every other stimnulant.  Nothing would have so much influence in improving the quality
of the latter, as the admission of Geneva at a moderate duty.' It
23 
24
would also have the beneficial effect of putting an end to the -manufitcture of the spurious compounds sold under its name."
In another place, the same author says
"The-price of Brandy, in bond, varies- at this moment; from three
shillings to five shillings a gallon, ( imperial measure,) while the -duty
is no less than twenty two shillings, ten pence. Had the iniposition of
such a duty taken away the taste for brandy, it would have been- comparatively innoxious. But it has done no such thing. Its only effect
has been to convert a trade, that might otherwise have been productive of the most-advantageous results, into a imost prolific source of
crime and demoralization.  The temptation to smuggle, occasioned -by
the exorbitaney of the duty is-too overpowering to be counteracted by
the utmost penalties of the law.  All along the coasts of Kent and
Sussex, and the districts most favorably situated for running spirits,almest the whole of the latoringpopulation are every now and then wathdrawn from their ordinary employments, to engage in smugglin- adventures.  The efforts of the revenue officers to seize foreign Brandy
and Geneva, have, in innumerable instances, been repelled by force.
Bloody and desperate contests have, in consequence, taken place.
Many individuals, who, but for this- fiscal scourge, would have been
industrious and virtuous, -iave become idle, predatory and ferocious;
they have learned to despise the law, and to execute summary vengeance on its officers."       *       *    -   *   -..   "It is surely impossible that a system like this, evincing in every
part, a degree of ignorant rapacity, to be paralleled only by that- of
the savages, who to get at the fruit, cut down the'tree, should be petmitted for a much- longer period, to disgrace our fiscal -code.  Those
only, who are anxious for the continuance -of smuggling, with all its
consequent crime and misery, can be hostile to a reduction of the
duty on brandy. -By fixing it at ten shillings a gallon, neither the consumption of British spirits, or that of runm,- would be sensibly -affected.
The middle classes would, however, be able to use brandy on occasions when, perhaps, at present, they use nothing; its clandestine importation would be prevented; those engaged in smuggling would be
obliged to have recourse to industrious pursuits; and the manufacture
of the abominable compounds, that are now so frequently substituted
in-its stead, would be put an end to." 
Mr. McCulloch was right that such a system would not long Continue.  In 1846, the duty on foreign spirits was reduced to fifteen shillings per gallon.
The experiment from 1736 to 1742, was not the only one which the
British Government had made.  Mr. McCulloch states as follows
"Perhaps no country has suffered more from the excessive height
to which duties on spirits have been carried, than Ireland. If heavy
taxes, enforced by severe fiscal regulations, could make a people sober and industrious, the Irish would be the most so of any on the face
of the earth.  In order to make the possessors of property join heitily in suppressing illicit distillation, the novel expedient was here  resorted to, of imposing a heavy fine on every parish, town land, manor
land, or Lordship, in which an unlicensed still was found; whie the 
25
unfortunate wretches found working it, were subjected to transportation for seven years. But instead of putting down illicit distillation,
these unheard of severities rendered it'universal, and filled the country with bloodshed and even rebellion. It is stated by the Rev. Mr.
Chichester, in his valuable pamphlet on the Irish distillery laws, published in 1818, that the Irish systemn seemed to have been formed in
order to perpetuate smuggling and anarchy.  It has culled the evils of
both savage and civilized life, and rejected all the advantages which
they contain. The calamnities of civilized warfare, are, in general, inferior to those produced by the Irish distillery laws; and I doubt
whether any nation of modern Europe, which is not in a state of actual revolution, can fnrnish instances of legal cruelty commensurate
with those which I have represented."
"These statements are borne out to the fullest extent by the official
details in the Reports of the Revenue Commissioners. In 1811, say
the Commissioners, (fifth report, page 19,) when the duty on spirits
was two shillings six pence per gallon, duty was paid in Ireland on 6,500,3f1 gallons, (Irish measure,) whereas, in 1822, when the duty
was five shillings six pence, only 2,950,647 gallons were brought to
the charge.  T'he Commissioners intimate that the annual consumption
of spirits in Ireland, was, at this very period, not less than 10,000,000
of gallons; and as scarcely 3,000,000 paid duty, it follows that 7,000,000 were illegally supplied; and taking one million of gallons as
the quantity fraudulently furnished for consumption by the licensed
distilleries, the produce of the unlicensed stills may be estimated at 6,000,009 of gallons. Now, it is material to keep in mind that this vast
amount of smuggling was caritied on in the teeth of the above barbarous statutes, and in despite of the utmost exertions of the police and
military to prevent it; the only result being the exasperation of the
populace, and the perpetration of revolting atrocities, both by them
and the military. In Ireland, say the Commissioners, it will appear
from the evidence annexed to this report, that parts of the country
have been disorganized, and placed in opposition, not only to the civil
authority, but to the military force of the government."
"The profits to be obtained from the evasion of the law, have been
such as to encourage numerous individuals to persevere in these desperate pursuits, notwithstanding the risk of property and life, with
which they have been attended.
{ To put an end to such evils, the Commissioners recommended
that the duty on spirits should be reduced from five shillings six pence,
to two shillings the wine gallon, (two shillings four pence the imperial
gallon,) and government wisely consented to act upon this recommnendation.  In 1823, the duties were accordingly reduced; and the following official tabtle will show what has been the result of this measure."
I omit the elaborate table which follows, showing the results from
1821 to 18-13, inclusive. What they were will appear from the following remarks:
"It may appear, on a superficial view of this Table, as if the consumption of spirits in Ireland, had been nearly trebled in consequence
of the reduction of the duty in 1823. But in point of fact, it was not,
4
. I.I" 
26
in any degree, increased.  The reduction of the duties substituted legal for illicit distillation, and freed the country from the perjury and
other atrocities that grew out of the previous system; but it would be
wholly erroneous to say that it increased drunkenness."
The same system led to similar results in Scotland. Evidence was
obtained before the Commissioners of Revenue, that in tile Highlands
alone, 2,000,000 of gallons of spirits yearly, were illegally, distilled;
that in several districts, the excise officers were defoilced, and durst.
not attempt to do their duty, and that the smugglers carried their whiskey to market, escorted by armed men. in defiance of the laws.
To arrest the progress of demoralization, the government, "pursuant to the judicious advice of the Commissioners," reduced the duty
on Scotch whiskey, to the same level as that on Irish whiskey, and
the consequences were equally satisfactory.
So) it was also in England. The same Commissioners mention that
in November, 1823, when corn spirits might be purchased in Scotland
at about two shillings three pence a gallon, raw spirits could not be
purchased in England for less than four shillings six pence, ready
money, and four shillings nine penee, credit, omitting in both cases,
the duty.  In consequence of this state of things, the ADULTERATION
OF SPIRITS was carried oin to a great extent, and the large profits
made by the smuggler, occasioned clandestine importation in considerable quantities from Scotland and Ireland. At that time, the duties
on English spirits in England had been for some time eleven shillings
eight pence per gallon. To remedy the evils above described, the
duties in England were reduced to seven shill"ngs a gallon, in 1826.
Many complaints had been made of the influence of this measure, in
increasing drunkenness; but, (says McCulloch,) nothing can be imagined more completely destitute of foundation. He adds:
"How much soever, we may deplore the prevalence of gin drinking, we may be assured that the evil is not one which can be cured, or
even mitigated, by increasing to any considerable extent, the existing
duties on spirits.  Such increase would substitute illegitimate for legitimate channels of supply; it would injure the public revenue, and diffuse among the populace, the idle, disorderly, predatory habits that
mark the character of the smuggler, and it would do all this, without
lessening in any degree, the vice of drunkenness."
To show what a very small increase of duty will promote smuggling,
I may mention that that effect followed, in a sensible degree, in 1830,
when only six pence a gallon was added to the duty, and again in 1840,
when only four pence was added.
Now the question is, are we to profit by the experience of others,
and our own, or are we not? I say our own, for I hold it to be unde.
niably proved, not speculatively, but by the stern testimony of irrefutable facts, that our fiscal system, however well intended, and however
proper in the government as an EXPERIMENT, has not discouraged intemperance, or the consumption of spirits-has not improved the morals of the people, but while holding out an enormous premium to the
smuggler, has not even benefitted our revenue. In order to show tnhis,
I shall again make free with the valuable statistics of Mr. Bishop.; If 
27
you will tnrn t. his Table published in the Polynesian, No. 38, of the
1st of Eebruary last, you will see that the aggregate importations of
1847-8-9 and 1850, were 10,683 gallons, which, at $5 per gallon,
would yield $53,495 to the revenue. But supposing that where
one gallon has paid dnty, two gallons have been smuggled, as declared
by the Chamber of Commerce, (and if you dismiss their Report without seriously enquiriig into its truth, you will not act wisely,) then
the importation of spirits during these four years, must have been 32,049 gallons. Now, a duty of only $2 a gallon on that quantity, would
have yielded $64,098, to the revenue; whereby the King's revenue
would have benefitted precisely $10,603, during these same four years,
without adding one gallon to the quantity consumed, or making one
additional drunkard.
The duty that I have suggested, of one hundred per cent ad valorem, would not be so high, per gallon, but it would be more effectual
in preventing smuggling, and perhaps the consumption would soon
swell up to 15,000 or even 20,000 gallons, per annum.
What a death blow to temperance and morality, that would be, you
will say! And you would say so truily, if you could prove that the
cheapness and abundance of ardent spirits, must necessarily be accompanied by increase of drunkenness and crime.  But if you look
dispassionately, around you, among the nations of the world, you will
find the fact to be the ireverse. The most temperate nations in Europe,
are Spain, Portugal and Italy, yet they are wine and brandy producing countries. As compared with the English, Scotch and Irish, the
Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, and even the Americans, those nations
are essentially water drinkers, but will any one in his senses, compare
the notorious libertinismn, addictedness to the knife, and to rapine, of
those same temperate nations, with the high toned virtue and morality
that characterize their less temperate neighbors?
It is well known that the French, as a nation, who supply the world
with so much wine and brandy, are more temperate than either the
British or the Americans; but are public morals more pure or chaste,
or is crime less frequent in France than in England or the United
States?
My native country, Scotland, ranks high among the nations, for its
stern morality, strict observance of the. Sabbath, its educational institutions, the solidity of its banking corporations, and the rareness of
crime, relatively to the population. Yet, you will be surprised to hear
that it is the very country that consumes most spirits per head. In
1841, it was calculated that the average consumption of British spirits in Scotland, was 2'28th gallons per head; in England 0'51, per
head, and in Ireland 0'80 gallons each. From the latter, you will
see, by referring to the table before given, that in 1841, the greatest
quantity of spirits consumed in Ireland, must have been smuggled.
Still the Scotch consume nearly three times as much as the Irish,
though drunkenness and crime are not nearly so prevalent in Scotland
as in Ireland. To explain this phenomenon, for which, I dare say,
few of you were prepared, I cannot do better than quote from Porter's
Progress of the British Nation, which I have already referred to. He
remarks as follows: 
28
"The calculations which have been made concerning the consumption of ardent spirits in this Kingdom, so far as it can be shown by the
revenue accounts, will afford but little satisfaction to many persons,
who see an intimate connexion between the degree of that consumption, and the moral condition of the people.  It appears that taking
into account home made, colonial, and foreign spirits, the average
consumption, throughout the Kingdom, is somewhat greater now, than
it was at the beginning of the century; and it is hence inferred that
the vice of intemperance has gained an accession to the number of its
votaries. The particular examination of this subject belongs more
properly, to another section of this enquiry, and will not be further
entered upon, here, except to show that if, in the year of the greatest
consumption, the quantity used had been equally divided among the
people, the share of each would not have been quite the tenth part of
a gill per diem, a quantity that might be taken with imnpunity, by any
one advanced beyond the stage of infancy.  It is true, there is a very
great proportion of people in this country, who never taste intoxicating drink; but it is very possible, and, considering the general progress of society, as regards the means of commanding conveniencies
and luxuries, it is even probable that the number who practice this degree of abstinence, is constantly becoming less; it by no means follows, however, that an absolute and even a great increase in the general consumption of ardent spirits, affords certain evidence of increased
intemperance. It might even be, that the quantity consutimed throughout
the country, might be doubled, while the general character for sobriety would be improved."
And I would here remark that M. G. R. Porter, from whom I have
just quoted, is no novice or mere theorist in matters of trade and
finance; like Mr. McCulloch, and like Mr. Joseph Hume, he is a
man of facts and figures, whose statements are respected by the greatest of modern statesmen, both of England and of other European
States. If Mr. Porter's opinions required confirmation, those of you
who may have read McCaulay's History of England, will find it there,
and those of you who have read the Polynesian, No. 5, of the 15th,
will see it re-echoed in an extract therein published.
Be not, therefore scared, I beseech you, into the false notion that
because I suggest a system of duties that may have the effect of increasing consumption, I am hostile to the good and righteous
cause of temperance, or that intemperance is to be the necessary result of that increased consumption.  I have patiently waited the issue
of the experiment, and I have stoutly defended the right of the government to make the experiment; but unless my comprehension of the
facts and results, be singularly distorted, the experiment has signally
failed, and therefore ought to be abandoned. In saying so, I advance
only an individual opinion; I compromise no one of your Honorable
House, or of the House of Nobles, or even of the King's Government, for with none have 1 consulted. It was only from the King
himself, that I thought it necessary to ascertain, whether it would offend His Majesty, if I should state my deliberate convictions on this
subject; I found it would not, and I now fulfil both my sense of duty 
29
to our Sovereign, my sense of duty to my own conscience, and my
promise to M. Perrin, in my Dispatch before quoted, in suggesting to
your Honorable House, the abandonment of a system opposed to
the lights of the age, condemned by the experience of the last hundred years, and contrary to the best interests of this Kingdom.
Mr. Porter has shown that during the year of the greatest consumption of spirits in Great Britain, it had not exceeded the tenth part of a
gill a day, or the 320th part of a gallon, per head, without increasing
intemperance. The same thing might occur in these Islands, where,
calculating the population at only 74,176, ( as already stated,) at that
rate the consumption per day, would be 231 gallons, and by the year,
84,315 gallons, while at only one dollar duty per gallon, as recommended by the Chamber of Commerce, the revenue would  be $84,315 a year.
But supposing we take the rate of consumption, per head, of the
notoriously temperate, religious, orderly, well behaved Scotch, viz:
2,28 gallons, per head, a year; that rate, for 74, 176 Hawaiians would
be 169,121 gallons of spirits, yielding to the King's Exchequer, annually, even at a duty of fifty cents per gallon, $81,560.
But you mnay say, away with your English, and away with your
Scotch.  We wish to [rake the Hawaiians a better people than either.
And to that I would reply, may God help you to do so; but, in the
name of all that is chaste, pure, and holy, why not attempt first to put
dowvn the scandalous traffic in prostitution, carried on to a deplorable
extent, by the resort of young females to those ports where foreign
ships abound, and favored, not to say encouraged, by the great facilities of their transit from one Island to another?  With a view to putting an end to this abominable branch of industry, if such it may be
called, I drew up, last year, the sketch of an act to check this great
evil, through the machinery of passes to be granted only to those females who could give a satisfactory account of their object in visiting
sea ports. That act, I understood, met with no favor fi-om any one of
the Legislature.
Now, is there one among you so little versed in christianity as not to
know that between the unlawful use of women, forbidden by the law of
Christ, and the use of brandy and wine, not forbidden by the law of
Christ, but forbidden by the law of the teetotallers, there lies an immense difference? Is there one among you so unacquainted with the
New Testament, as not to know that teetotalism is no precept of christianity?  I fear some of you have been deluded in these respects, and
will think me scarcely in my senses, when I tell you that teetotalism is
founded on no plain injunction of the gospel, or even the example of
our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but only on the principles of
the false prophet Mahomet, which will be found in Chapters 2 and 5,
of the Koran.. Long before Mahomet's day, the Egyptian lawgivers
had called in the aid of religious imposture, against the use of wine;
and the heretical Munichceans, who started into existence about the
year 277, of our Lord, carried their profane zeal against wine so far,
as to forbid its use in the Lord's Supper. Thus, teetotalism, like free
masonry, in essence, though not in name, may lay claim to considera 
30
ble antiquity; but an antiquity of a kind, rather anti-christian than
christian.
But what I have here said, is not to be understood, in a sense disparaging to teetotalism, as a mere human commandment. VVWhat I ob..
ject to, is its being taught and inculcated as a christian doctrine, and
as I understand the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter XV, Verses 9,
and 11th, I consider that 1 have a very christian authority for that objection; let those who think otherwise, read, and carefully consider
Chapter XIth, of the same Gospel, and Chapter lId, of that of St.
John.
But intemperance and drunkenness are incontestably forbidden in
scripture, and I am free to confess, that to all who are in the degraded
condition of having lost the power of self-restraint, if they taste liquor,
( who, fortunately, are few in all countries,) their only safety lies in
total abstinence.   I am no enemy to teetotalism, in such cases, nor in
fact, in any case whatever, provided it be not obtruded upon us, as a
religious doctrine, that the use of wines and spirits is to consign us to
that place where there is eternal weeping and gnashing of teeth; and
teetotalism presented to the imagination of the simple minded, in such
magnified proportions of christian duty, and obligation, as to induce
them to seek for religion, pure and undefiled,  not in the pages of
scripture, but in a fountain of cold water. T''he effects of such a delusion are absolutely pernicious to good morals, for its tendency is to
withdraw the attention of mankind, from the cause of the widow, the
orphan, and the stranger, and other christian duties of active benevolence, inculcated by our Saviour, and fasten their hopes of salvation
upon the mere exercise of self denial, in regard to the use of strong
drinks.
Nevertheless, among the votaries of teetotalism, there are many
men, friends of my own, who practise and recommend that system, in
the spirit of the purest benevolence, and whose walk and conversation
prove that it is possible to do so, without forgetting other more difficult
duties prescribed by Christ, as those which lead the christian through
the strait and narrow path to the'wicket gate.' It would be, no doubt,
an easy way to arrive at that gaol, to which we all aspire, if we could
open a canal leading straight to it, and could paddle ourselves thereto,
along the surface of a stream; but scripture affords us no warrant for
such a presumption; it prescribes for us a more thorny and difficult
path; it tells us that charity will cover a multitude of sins, but it does
not tell us that cold water will blot them  out; and it has instituted
wine as the emblem of the precious blood of our Saviour, shed for our
redemption.
May I ask, reverently, did our Saviour, by giving men a taste of
wine, at his table, intend to throw a stumbling block in the drunkard's
way?
As a christian, I contend for that degree of righteousness which
may be measured by the precepts and example of  our-tord; and
that description of sin which may be made out clearly by the rules
which he has left to guide us to salvation. Any church that contends for more than this, is not an orthodox church; and any minister 
31
who inculcates more, does not preach sound doctrine,'and I would
eschew such edification. Any one who will either add or detract from
the doctrine of Christ, is nonie of his.  The anathema contained in the
18th and 19th verses of the 22d Chapter of the Book of Revelations,
might be added, ( were addition no: forbidden,) so much the more appriopriately to the four gospels, as the words of Christ himself, are
more to be reverenced, than the words of St. John the Divine.
But it is not contrary to scripture that men should make vows to the
Lord, that they will subject themselves to mortification for his glory,
and the.good of their own souls.
By turning to the VIth Chapter of Numbers, you will find the law
of the Nazaiites under the Mosaic dispensation; and by referring to
verses 11th and 12th of Amos, you will see that to give a Nazarite
wine to drink, was displeasing to God. Now why was it so? Not
because the use of wine, in general, was displeasing to God, but because the Nazarites voluntarily came under a vow to the Lord to abstain from wine and all intoxicating liquors, to let their hair grow without cutting,r shaving, and in other respects to observe a greater degree of purity than other men. Of this class were Sampson and John
the Baptist. Such vows of Nazariteship do not appear to have been
abolished after Christ, hence St. Paul took such a vow at Corinth, cut
off his hair at Cenchrea, and fulfilled the remainder of his vow at Jerusalem. It does not appear that either in the Old or New Testament
times, the Nazarites used to induce others to take the same vows, or
took those vows with a view to benefit any but themselves. Upon the
same principle, devout Catholics take vows to abandon the world and
shut themselves up in convents, that they may the better devote themselves to the service of God. In the same sense I can conceive that
a voluntary teetotaller, if he sticks to his pledge, may derive some
inward grace himself firomn, its observance, but except in the case of
helpless drunkards, as before mentioned, I question whether the teetotaller should attempt any proselytism, or to prescribe rules to the
people as to what they should eat, what they should drink, or what
they should put on. My own opinion is that all God's blessings are to
be received, with the giving of thanks, asktng no questions for conscience sake, and where gospel truth has made us firee, it is not for
presumptious man to impose restrictions.
These remarks, I offer, as connected with the question of the duties
on spirits, only so far as you may consider yourselves fettered by religious obligation, from considering it, dispassionately. It is not my
opinion, nor the opinion of any man, that ought to influence you in a
matter which addresses itself to your-judgment, and not to your passion.  I.have submitted to you facts, or what I believe to be facts.
These facts are proper subjects for your independent enquiry; it is for
you to verify them by evidence and research, or compare them with
others, warranting opposite conclusions which you may obtain.
I pretend to no infallibility in such matters, though 1 have had some
experience in them, and though I know that the principles which I
advocate, accord with those of the highest modern authorities, in the
science of political economy. I claim as a right to make those prin 
32
ciples known, in the year of light 1851, and I have no fear that for
their avowal, my character, ten years hence, will suffer, eithier as an
economist or a moralist. But I as fully admit your right to pass, and
enforce laws, by a vote of the majority, contrary to these principles,
and to every other of political economy, and even of public good, so
long as such laws conflict with no existing Treaty.  Here there is no
Treaty which obliges you, further than as I have before explained;
and however much I would deprecate the adoption of such a policy.
I would say that France, of all nations on earth, would have the least
reason to object, for you would be only exercising the right to govern
yourselves badly, in matters of commerce and finance, which she herself, has exercised, and most pertinaciously adhered to, since 1687, to
this dav.  The famous financier Colbert, only confirmed this system;
it was extended in the tariff of 1791, which, from beginning to end,
was a system of prohibitions; it was attempted, on a broader scale,
by the great Napoleon, under his continental system, and was even
applauded so late as 1832, by a Select Commrnittee of the Chamber of
Deputies. How atrange it is that a nation, otherwise, so advanced
and enlightened, should be so far behind other nations, in all that concerns the general inmprovemnent of the agriculture, trade and revenue
of the country!
In what I have herein before said of the neglect of this government,
fiom the 17th July, 1839, to the 10th June, 1845, a space of five
years and three hundred and twenty eight days, to exercise its right
to raise the duties on wines and spirits, from 3 per cent to 5 per cent,
I am not to be understood as grounding thereon any argument against
their sincerity in the cause of temperance. After Laplace, in 1839,
had punished the king and chiefs, so severely, under a charge that
they had executed the Treaty of 1837, contraly to the sense in which
it had been intended, conisented to and signed,-which they all knew
positively, not to be the fact,-it was natural to suppose, that after
Laplace, might come another to punish them, in a similar manner, under some pretence connected with his Treaty. In fact, they were bewildered, both in their ideas of words and figures; they were sure
that two and three made five, in their arithmetic, but they did not
know that the question of whether three and two did not make more
than five, in foreign arithmetic, might not involve them in a diplomatic
debate, of endless duration.''This may appear to you too absurd to
be true, but it is not one whlit more absurd than that because this government had imposed a duty on spirits, greatly extending the consumption of French Brandy, increasing the profit on it and driving all other
spirits nearly out of the market, a French Consul and Adjiral should
land a hostile force, destroy the only place of strength in the King's
capital, with all the munitions of war, carry off His Majesty's yacht,
and haul down the French flag, as you know they did in August,
1849?
But from this, you may reasonably infer one comfort, which is, that
if France has punished us for doing her good, upon the opposite principle, she ought to reward us for doing her harm, and nothing will so
much injure her trade, in brandies, as such a reduction in the rate of 
33
duties, as will revive the taste for British and American spirits.  This
was clearly pointed out to M. Perrin; in fact, his own  judgment had
never been at fault in regard to the effect of the high duty on French
Brandy; he wrote to M. Dudoit, from Valparaiso, on the 20th of August, 1846, in terms which clearly showed that he foresaw the favourable working of the high duty, as regards French spirits; I called for
that letter, and he shewed it to me, —and I only blamxne him for making
such a stout defence of blunders, not his own.
In conclusion, I recommend to your serious consideration the tabular statement marked No. 5, hereto appended, shewing how deeply
British and American interests are involved in this question, and also
to the tabular statement marked No. 6,'which will rectify many erroneous ideas, entertaiqed by well intentioned men, otherwise well informed, in regard to the supposed necessary connection between the consumption of ardent spirits and national immorality.
And I repeat, that for my mere opinion, I claim no respect what,ever, but for the facts that I adduce, I respectfully claim an impartial
enquiry.
Presented to the Honorable House of Representatives, on Wednesday, the 18th June, 1851, under requisition of that House, cornmmunicated on the 16th, to the undersigned.
R. C. WYLLIE.
No. 1.
Roubank, 8th February, 1851'.
SIR:-In the course of negotiations pending between me and the
Commissioner of the French Republic, it is of great moment that I
should know from the best sources, the following, viz:
1. The prime cost of Brandy in France, and how much per cent upon
prime cost, $5 duty per gallon amounts to
2. Ditto ditto of American Whiskey.
Ditto ditto of American Alcohol.
Ditto ditto of American Rum.
Ditto ditto of American Peach Brandy.
Ditto ditto American Cider Brandy.
3. Ditto ditto f British Rum in bond. 
Ditto ditto of British Gin.
Ditto ditto of Scotch Whiskey.
4. Ditto ditto of Danish spirits.
5. Ditto ditto of Holland Gin.
5
. 7.. 1 1
I 
34
6. Ditto ditto of Catalonian Brandy.
7. Ditto ditto of Chilian Aguardiente.
8. Ditto ditto of Peruvian Aguardiente.
9. Ditto ditto of Mexican Aguardiente.
10. Ditto ditto of Manilla Rum.
11. Ditto ditto of Bengal Rum.
12. Ditto ditto of East India Arrack.
13. Ditto ditto of Chinese spirits.
That I may be the better understood, and to save your titne-I
inclose a form in blank, to be filled up.
If I may ask so much, I would request you to convoke the members
of the Chamber so soon as possible, on this special subject; and that
they would favour me with a return, signed by those who may agree
to its perfect correctness, and permit me to make use of it, for official
purposes.
You may add any particular spirit of known consumption here, and
you can omit, in your return, those respecting which, the data may be
doubtful. And if you think proper to add any explanations, they will
be thankfully received.
With much respect, I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
(Signed.)    R. C. WYLLIE.
H. N. CRABB, Esquire, Chairman of the
Chamber of Commerce.
No. 2.
[TRANSLATION.]
HONOLULU, 10th February, 1851.
Mission of France at the Sandwich Islands.
MR. PREsIDENT:-Engaged with the Hawaiian Government in a
discussion respecting the law of the 3rd April, 1846, which establishes
the duty to be paid on the importation of Brandy into the Sandwich
Islands, I have to beg you to furnish me with the result of the operation of that law, so far as may have come to the knowledge of the
Chamber of Commerce.
In concluding the Treaty of the 26th March, 1846, the two contracting parties sought particularly to protect the native race from the abuse
of spirituous liquors; I wish to know if the end has been attained?
If the laws of the 6th of April, 1846, and the 27th September, 1847,
in limiting the cultivation, and use of ava, and in condemning to a fine
of $500 whoever should sell Brandy to the natives, have not effected
all that it was possible to do, and if the law of the 3rd April, 1846, is
not completely useless, so far as regards the Hawaiian race?
Does not that law encourage a considerable contraband trade, and
consequently a demoralization of the people concerned therein, besides
leading to disturbances of the peace of the realm?
Does not this shameful traffic paralize the regular trade?
Does it not amount to two-thirds of the regular trade?
Can you not give me precise information on this subject? 
35
Does not the American as well as the European, to whom the use
of Brandy is necessary, have to pay immeasurably high for it.
Has not the importation of Brandy higher than 55 per cent. of alcohol
strength complett ly ceased to the increase of that of less than 55, or
rather is not the first quality introduced exclusively in a contraband
manner?
If yodu will have the kindness to answer to these various questions,
sir, I beg that you will be good enough in concluding to indicate to me
an equitable duty which would appear to you to correspond with the
philanthropic views of the parties to the Treaty of the 26th March,
1846.
Receive, Mr. President, the assurance of the distinguished consideration with which, I have the honor to be
Your very humble and very obedient Servant
(Signed.)     EM. PERRIN,
Commissioner of the French Republic.
To the President and Members of the
Chamber of Commerce, Honolulu.
ME.|
,   1851. 
he Resolutions
amber of Com
mitted by you
but not from
lined to affix
I. 2.
Servant,
, President.
(Signed.)    H. N. CRABB,
His Excellency, R. C. WYLLIE,
Minister of Foreign Relations, Hawaiian Government.
No 4.
RESOLUTIONYS
Passed by the Hawaiian Chamber of Commnerce, at a Meeting held on the
14th February, 1851.
Resolved 1st, That the letters received from R. C. Wyllie, Esq.,
and Monsieur Perrin, be taken up in detail, and such information given
as may be in the possession of the Members of the Chamber.
Resolved 2nd, That the schedule of the Minister of Foreign Relations submitted to the Chamber of Commerce be returned, accompanied by a letter, stating that after mature deliberation, the
Chamber of Commerce do not find themselves in the possession
of data, to warrant them in giving the opinion desired by Mr.
Wyllie, in regard to the exact prices of the Liquors' mentioned, in the 
36
countries where they are produced, and, therefore, are unable to fill up
the schedule, with "Iperfect correctness."
Resolved 3rd, That the result of the operation of the law of 3rd
of April, 1846, placing a duty of $5 a gallon on Brandies, and other
Liquors, under 55 degrees of alcoholic strength, has been decidedly
prejudicial to the natives, it being the opinion of those members who
are old residents of these Islands, that prior to the passage of that law,
very little intoxicating liquor was used by the natives in comparison
with the quantity they now appear to consume.
Resolved 4th, That in the opinion of this Chamber, the laws of this
government passed on the 6th of April, 1846, and 27th of Sept. 1847,
limiting the cultivation and use of Ava, and mulcting any person in the
penal sum of $500, who should sell Liquor to any native, were calculated to do all that could be done to keep the natives from the use of spiritilous liquors, and that the law of the 3rd of April, 1846, placing a duty of
$5 per gallon on spirits is entirely useless, so far as regards the welfare of the Hawaiian race.
Resolved 5th, That in the opinion of this Chamber, the high duty on
spirituous liquors, encourages to a great extent, a contraband trade,
which must have a demoralizing effect on all concerned therein.
Resolved 6th, That the contraband trade paralizes the regular trade.
Resolved 7th, That it amounts to more than two-thirds of the regular trade.
Resolved 8th, That the American and European, to whom the use of
Brandy is necessary, have to pay immeasurably high for it.
Resolved 9th, That the importation of Brandy of a quality higher
than 55 degrees of alcholic strength, has nearly, if not entirely ceased,
excepting for medical purposes, and that, in the opinion of this
Chamber, considerable quantities of such description have been introduced in a contraband mannier.
Resolved 10th, That one dollar per gallon is a sufficient duty on
any liquor, not exceeding 55 degrees of alcoholic strength.
(Signed.)  H. N. CRABB, President and Chairman of Ex. Com.
GEO. F. HUBERTSON, Member of Executive Committee.
B. F. SNow,,. 
ROB. C. JANION,.  
A. B. HowE,,,,, 
R. COADY.
JAMES MAKEE.
R. W. HOLT.
DUGALD MACTAVISH.
F. ROD. VIDA.
HENRY ROBINSON.
JOSIAH C. SPALDING
H. SEA.
C. S. BARTOW.
H. HACKFELD.
JOHN MEEK.
ORNAN G. CLIFFORD.
D. PENHALLOW.  By H. N. Crabb.
F. A. NEWELL.      ByHN.Cab 
No. 5.
CALCULATIONS shewing the interests that France, Great Britain,
and the United States have in the Brandy question, agitated in the
Hawaiian Islands.
Yearlyproductions Yearly productions!Average Export tolAverage Export to
of Brandy from   of other ardent  Great Britain for  all countries for
the vine.           spirits.             10 years fron 1 830, 10 years from 18 30
to 1889.           to 1839.
( 5,225,000  Gallons               Pipes.
I   (Under the high Spirit of   1,200
uty of  $5 per Fecula.   Gallons.                              Gallons.
gallon,  in  the Spirit from                 1,771,155.          4.127,740.
France.       Hawaiian Is-  molasses & (          Average  value  of Average value of
Fnce...)   lands, a taste has Beet-root.. 6,000            ditt                ditto.
been created for Spirits from)        6,787,721-1-2 francs. 15,663,661-8-10 frcs.
the better quality  Potatoes    1,000
of Brandy to the Apples, &c )
exclusion of all
other spirits.)
.T        II   I    I    I        III                  I     II      
These are only approximations to the truth, for I have searched in
vain, for any clear and distinct tabular classification of spirits in the
French Dictionary of Commerce, such as is usual in the statistical
returns of Great Britain and the United States.
Great Britain Total quantity  of Total quantity  ofTotal quantity re-Total  quantity o0
and Ireland  proof spirits dis-  Rum imported to  tained for home   spirits  distilled
in 1849.      tilled.              the United King-  consumption.          and Rum import                                dom.                                    ed.
~ngland~~~.                                _al               o          s, a l o -s
England.        5,318,526 Gallons.       Gallons.            Gallons.            Gallons.
Sc6tland.     10,444,709,,        5,306,827.             8,039,862.         29,187,906.
Ireland.        8,117,844,, 
In 1840, there were in England, 106 Distillers and Rectifiers; in,
Scotland, 215, and in Ireland, 112.
The duty on home-made spirits is 7s. 10d. per gallon in England,
3s. 8d. in Scotland, and 2s. Sd. in Ireland. For the year ending 5th
January, 1850, that duty amounted in England to ~3,546,023; in
Scotland to ~1,271,417; and in Ireland to ~29,777; in all, ~4,847,217
of Revenue.
U. States ofN.                Gallons'distil-                Gallons brew-Men  em-Capitalin America in Distilleries.         led.        Breweries.          ed.       ployed.   vested.
En all the
!n 5allte~ }    10.806.     41,402,62~.        406.        23,267,780.    12,223.  $9,147,368.
States.   J
37 
38
When to the 41,402,627 gallons of spirits made in the United States,
we add the large importations of French Brandy, Holland Gin, and
West India Rum, probably not less than 1,500,000 gallons in 1840,
there would be 42,902;627 gallons of ardent spirits, for a population of
17,069,453 souls, which would be upwards of 2.51 gallons of Brandy
a-year for every man, woman, and child, including the slave population. But the Americans export spirits in considerable quantities, and
there is no reason to believe that their average consumption per head,
exceeeds that of the Scotch, which, as I have already shewn, is 2.28
gallons per head, of British spirits. Of foreign spirits, the Scotch consume very little.
From the facts apparent from the foregoing tables, you will see that
others besides France, have a greater interest in the consumption of
their spirits in these Islands, though they have not cared to press their
intoxicating liquors, upon the Hawaiian people, contrary to the policy
of the Government, nor to make an outcry, as France has done, notwithstanding that since larch, 1846, she has really had all the loaves
and fishes to herself.
But the King is bound to place all the foreign nations with which He
has Treaties, on a'parity' of right, privilege, and favour; the very
idea of'parity' excludes and forbids any special favour to any one
nation; and although neither the British Consul-General, nor the
American Commissioner has uttered one word of complaint against the
joint resolution of the 3rd April, 1846, which gives all the advantage
of the trade in spirits to France-yet,  upon every principle of fair
equity, and equality, they have a right to expect, that this government
will not continue a system which has worked so unequally and unfairly,
after the fact has been fully brought to the cognizance of the administration.
The claim of the United States to a parity with France is not weakened, but on the contrary, strengthened by the fact, that Capt. A. P.
Catesby Jones, made no attempt to force spirits upon the Hawaiian
people in his Treaty of the 23rd December, 1826,-that the late Commissioner, Mr. Ten Eyck, in his draughts of Treaties proposed on the
15th February, 1847, and 11th February, 1848, (see pages 41 and 69
of my Report to the Legislature of 1850), excluded altogether any
mention of wines or spirits, from a wish to concur in the temperance
policy of this Government-and that the United States' Government in
the Treaty negotiated with Mr. Jarve's on the 20th December, 1849,
now in force, not only pursued the same course, but left the King
entirely free, and unfettered, in regard to duties to be imposed within
His Kingdom, stipulating, only, that no higher duties should be levied
on their commerce and shipping, than upon those of the most favoured
Nation. Neither is the claim of Great Britain weakened, because the
British Consul-General yesterday sent in, officially, in the name of his
Government, the draft of a New Treaty, equally leaving to the King to
regulate his own imposts.
Without doing any injustice to France, you have it in your power to
do what bare justice requires, to England and the United States, and I
think you will neither actwisely, nor generously, if you decline to do it. 
39
In doing so, however much you may injure the French trade in spirits
in these Islands, France has shut herself out from any possibility of
complaint, by adopting the mistaken views, or rather the inspirations
of the private passion of M. Dillon.   What is indeed marvellous, is,
that my clear demonstrations of 15th January, 1849, (see page 134 of
correspondence with him) of same date ~see page 136),-in my notes appended to his OBSERVATIONS of 23rd Jan., 1849, (see page 169)-to his
OBSERVATIONS of 24th January, 1849, (see pages 174, 175, and 176)
-in my note No. 2, page 184-notes Nos. 5 and 6, page 201-notes
Nos. 33 and 37, page 213-notes 21 and 22, page 330-note 23, page
331-and note 3S, page 336, did not open his eyes to the fact that he was
adopting a course altogether adverse to French interests, and to his
own credit as a political economist. The course that he ought to have
pursued, and that any sensible practical man would have pursued, was
that marked out in my note No. 21, page 170, of that correspondence.
You will see by turning to M. Dillons observations, page 179, that
of $129,410 value of goods imported in 1848, from Valparaiso, he
would have it that two-thirds were French.   That assertion was contradicted in my note No. 16, at page 180, and in proof that the views
therein stated ware correct, I may add that, in 1850, the imports into
the ports of Chile, were as follows:                From England             $4,169,160.
,, the United States 4,052,524.
,,  Germany 976,000)
,, Holland 547,025 
,  Belgium  166,837   1,689,862.
9,911,546
,,  France....        1,342,733
or something over 13 per cent.
You will find at page 65 of the Appendix, that M. Perrin reminded
me of the opinions I had expressed on contraband, in my Report on
the finances of Mexico, published in London in 1844.   I am not
ashamed of, nor do I retract those opinions What they were, is shewn
in the following brief extract:  "Now whence derives its existence, this monster evil (contraband);
this reproach of the Mexican name; this foul blot on Republicanism;
this devourer of the vitals of the country; this cause of its bankruptcy
and discredit,of unpaid soldiers, civil servants, and creditors; this curse
and cancer spreading every where, vitiating all ranks and classes of
citizens, corrupting their morality, eating into the entrails of society,
and sapping the ground work itself on which the social edifice stands, in
proud defiance of all fiscal and penal laws, and, confessedly, beyond the
means of Government to control it?  I answer,  unhesitatingly, and
without fear of contradiction, founded upon the nature of men and
things, as tried and proved by twenty three years experience-in the
fiscal system which has been adopted and pertinaciously clung to, ever
since Mexico became independent."
The high duties imposed by the joint resolution of the 3rd April,
1846, if we persist in them, will most assuredly inflict the same curse
and throw the same reproach upon the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is for
you, in your wisdom and your patriotism to avert both. 
OD
Q0 -
CD
p lllla    0.,  ill,:S'L
...,D CD
:CD 3,           M k ~o
.c  O::-c:r,,.3
CD
~~~CD ~      C  O  U2    o':r:X~S                                                                          n  e c   ~,
cb  - Et2~ o       n
0  -         w
CD     -.. CD
C.4    C ID  I                                                                                       0
-  ~~~~   0 ~~  0        -           CD
w ~~~fl ~~~ 0         CD   CD
-     CD
CD~ C        D,
I.   o    0
o_.> o 
CDo   
0         rA oY 
C,.   CP    P
0             0
p -* D  N    gCD
C C    CD       I
p     ""z.n    r
P3 CD G Qv
iz g CDX
f L".J,.:,> 
CD    ~  
- CD 3    ~'r 
CM o CD,
~o P
Statistics of crime in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the years 1844, 5, 6, 7,
C',                                              _____                -
England & Wales. Totals.
Scotland.,,
Ireland.,
England and Wales.,
Scotland.,
England and Wales.,,
Scotland.,,
England and Wales.,,
Ireland.,,
England and Wales.,
Scotland.,,
Ireland.,,
England and Wales.,,
Scotland.,,
Ireland.
0
Execution of Capita]
Sentences.
'~ o,,     o ~ ~
16    37          4
1      0        20
9     9        46
12    30           0
0      0          (]
6    49          1
0      0  
8     38         4
8    23         84
12    41         1
2      1          C
28    27
15    47 
4       1        0
15    64         12
-          -    Ireland.,    41,980,38  3,050 18,114 20 20,76715         64        121160
I
I:
)z
)e
I
8, and 1849.
Convictions.
r. o
.: q  a   s
4 o ~
-,: Z.3 1: 
9  o  ~-30
__._
c;
I=
I.
e u
t.4
~'
-o
o
o
7
o
o
o
114
1
o
0
1
O
160
c0
0
-5
p
'A
c3
0
3,320
331
700
2,898
249
2,805
352
2,806
2.185
3,251
349
2,698
2,844
369
3,050
15,545
2,337
7,322
14,455
1,26~
15,283
2,731
18,685
13,033
19,589
3,336
15,448
18,091
3,100
18,114
7,856
825
11,383
6,870
830
6,935
950
7,251
15,976
7,423
1,196
20,286
6,786
1,063
20,767
184,
26,542
2,575
19,448
24,303
3,537
25,107
4,069
28,833
31,200
30,349
4,909
38,522
27,816
4,357
41,980
57
1
20
49
2
56
51
25
60
4
60
66
5
8
37
10
23
31
3
28
2
40
24
26
~24
30
29
$20
20
1845
A
1846
B
1847
C
.1848
184' 
41
Educated persons. Criminals.        Lunatics.
England,        1 in 20       1 in  900         1 in 783.
Scotland,       1 in 17       1 in 5,093        1 in 652. *
Ireland,        1 in 35       1 in  468         1 in 911.
Neither does it increase poverty, for the Scotch are notoriously a
thrifty, provident and industrious people; neither does it shorten life,
for of all the three kingdoms the bills of mortality show the greatest
degree of longevity in Scotland; neither does it cool zeal for religion
and education, for Scotland is full of churches and schools.
Another remarkable deduction to be made from the above table is
that, while the labours of Father Matthew have been eminently suc  cessful in diminishing the use of spirits in Ireland, they have had no
effect whatever on the diminution of crime. On the contrary, offences
have increased from 19,448 in 1844, to 41,980 in J849, precisely dur ing the five years of Father Matthew's greatest success in the cause
of temperance. Mr. Porter speaks of that meritorious man, as follows
" —  It (the falling off in the consumption of spirits in Ireland,)
resulted entirely from the efforts of one man, the Rev. Theobald Mat thew, a catholic clergyman, who availed himself of his power of influ encing his fellow-men to produce a sudden change in the habits of vast
numbers reclaiming them from the vice of drunkenness and its accom panying evils to an extent, which nothing short of the fact itself could
induce us to think possible.  "Father Matthew"-to use the name by
which he is familiarly known-aware of the command over themselves,
which many of his countrymen have occasionally exhibited in keeping
their vows to abstain, for some limited time, from the use of intoxicat ing liquors, led vast numbers to pledge themselves so to abstain, not
indeed for all future time, but until they should formally signify to him
their intention of recurring to the use of whiskey.   Many have been
led thus to take up the pledge of abstinence, because they can lay it
down again at pleasure; but as the renunciation must be a deliberate
act, which can hardly ever be performed when the temptation is upon
them, and as some degree of weakness would be implied in that renunciation, the chances are great that it will be postponed from time to
time, until the habit of propriety and the sense of personal respectability, and domestic comfort which it brings, shall have removed
all desire for a course of intemperance. If the change thus brought about
shall prove in any degree permanent, Father Matthew must be acknowledged one of the greatest benefactors that the people of Ireland
have ever known."
Although I have no faith in the coercion of fiscal enactments, in
furthering the good cause of temperance, yet I have much in the ameliorating influence of general education, and of persuasion, and I would
like to see many Father Matthew's among us! As for elevating teetotalism to something akin, or even superior to godliness, I altogether
reject it; and I would greatly prefer in any man, christian virtues
without teetotalism,-to teetotalism without christian virtues, and especially, without christian charity.
I This is so out of proportion to the result in the 6 years given in the above Table that some
error is to be inferred. Perhaps the outlaws were numbered with the lunatics. 
p