For government to offer encouragement to ale-houses, is to act the part of a _felo de se_. Nor ought the public ever to be lulled into an acquiescence by the flattering bait of immediate gain, which ere long they would be obliged to _pay back to paupers, in relief, with a heavy interest_. Half a century before, the historian Smollett (v. 15) had remarked:-- After all it must be owned that the good and salutary effects of the prohibition were visible in every part of the kingdom, and no evil consequence ensued _except a diminution of the revenue_ in this article [spirits], a consideration which ought at all times to be sacrificed to the health and morals of the people. And nearly half a century before Smollett, John Disney (magistrate and divine) had written:-- I deny the assertion that the revenue of y^{e} crown will really be impaired by prohibiting tipling & drunk^{ss}.... 3 parts in 4 of the pore families in this kingdom have been reduced to want chiefly by haunting Taverns or Ale-houses. Espec^{y} labouring men, who very often consume there on the Lord’s day what they have gotten all the week before, & let their families beg or steal for a subsistence the week foll^{g}.... Now I suppose you will grant me that as the No. of poor & ruined families encreases in a nation, the Prince that governs must find a proportionable decay in his Revenue. On the other side, all such laws duly executed as keep men by sobriety temp^{ce} & frugality in a thriving condition, do most effectually provide for the happiness of the people & for the riches of the Prince.[252] [Transcriber’s note: letters printed in ^{superscript} in the original text are thus indicated.] But there are symptoms of a decline in this source of revenue. A leading London daily paper has lately thus adverted to this momentous menace:--