Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Liberty

Continue Reading

Liberalism by Minoo Masani


Minoo Masani (Freedom First, April 1985)

The word “Liberalism” derives from liberty. In other words, the individual is in the centre of the picture. Society is there to serve the individual and not the other way round as certain other systems of thought like communism or socialism try to make out.

The essential elements of Liberalism are all-pervasive and touch every aspect of life. Insofar as matters of the spirit are concerned, tolerance, particularly tolerance of dissent, is basic. Whether an issue is religious, communal, regional, national or pertains to small groupings like caste and linguistic groups, tolerance of the other point of view and willingness to argue about it are of the essence of Liberalism.

Insofar as religion is concerned, Liberalism is not anti-religious but it is non-denominational and perhaps sceptical. A good Liberal does not attack all religions. equally as a ‘secularist’ would do. A good Liberal would tolerate and respect all religions equally. In that sense, Gandhiji’s attitude to religion was much more liberal than that of those who call themselves ‘secular’ and who look at all religions with an equally malevolent eye. The Indian Constitution is, in that sense highly liberal and extends equal respect to all religions and religious institutions.


Another basic characteristic of Liberalism is its pragmatic approach to whatever problem there may happen to be at a particular time. The Liberal does not approach any problem with a dogmatic or preconceived attitude. He is open-minded on all issues. Thus, for instance, in so far as democratic socialism is concerned, the Liberal would be quite prepared to accept a large dose of State control as the circumstances of a particular country, case and time may warrant. While holding the view that competition, consumer preference and the laws of the market should predominate, the Liberal is flexible about the exact nature of the mixed economy which would be desirable in a particular context.


The Liberal is of necessity a pluralist, that is, he does not accept the predominance of any one line of thought or dogma or even one class of society. In the Liberal’s mansion, there are many chambers and there is room for everything. The Liberal, therefore, believes in a pluralistic society where there are checks and balances between different organs of government, such as the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In a federal form of government, there have also to be checks and balances between the federal government on the one side and the state government on the other. In the case of countries with multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi¬lingual groups, such as India, the Liberal believes in the protection of the rights of the minorities. In the conflict between the individual and the state, there should be fundamental rights for the citizens with an appeal to the Courts of Law. There should be a separation of political and economic power. In other words, the Liberal believes in limited government. ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. God, in this case, is the conscience of the individual.

The Liberal is never a determinist. He never says that such and such a thing is bound to happen, as does the Marxist. All he can say is that, on the basis of a rational analysis, certain things are likely to result if certain things happen.

Justice And Modernity

The Liberal stands for justice for the underdog, whoever he may be. Thus, he is for equality of women with men, though he may not be for Women’s Lib with all its aberrations. The Liberal stands up for the rights of children and decent treatment for them. So too, the Liberal pleads for sympathy for the criminal and the odd man out.

The Liberal is a modernist. He is an advocate of change. He welcomes and cheerfully accepts modern technology with all its implications. He stresses the role of managerial skills in industry and business and other walks of life. He accepts the importance of science in modern society. It is not an accident that technology only thrives in freedom and, where freedom is denied to the scientist and technologist, there is stagnation.

In the conflict between modernism on the one side and obscurantism, whether that of the nation, caste or religion on the other, the Liberal is on the side of modernism and change. The Liberal is not against tradition. On the contrary, the Liberal respects what is good in the tradition of people and seeks to build and change on the basis of the tradition. In that sense, the Liberal is not an incendiary or disrupter but a constructive element of change.

“Bread Or Freedom?”

The Liberal rejects the false antitheses between freedom and bread which the communists and the fascists always pose. They ask: ” Do you want bread or freedom?” As if we have to choose the one or the other. As if, when you have freedom, you don’t have bread or, to have bread, you must give up your freedom? Now this is a huge hoax. Because, actually you don’t get bread except through freedom. There is no known instance in human history where a country of slaves get bread. Now, by bread, we don’t mean only bread. By bread we mean the good things of life – the material  values of life, consumer goods, as we call them. There is no known example in human history till this day where, by denying people freedom, you give them a prosperous life. On the contrary the ‘Affluent Society’ comes only where there is maxhiaum freedom.

Which are the countries where you have the most bread, to put it like that, that is, the best time? Obviously, the U.S.A. leads, Canada, Australia and New Zealand come very close, then come the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, then comes Switzerland, then you get West Germany, France, Italy, Japan and so on. Right down at the bottom along with us, you get the Soviet Union ahead of us, and China below us. In other words, when you do deny people freedom, you take away their bread also. That is natural. Why should slaves be well fed? Why should any government feed its slaves well? The Egyptians, who used slave labour to build pyramids, did not treat them well. They flogged them until they built the Pyramids and died in the process. It is only the free man who has a right to ask for bread. Because he has the right, he has got the strength, he has the vote, whatever you like to call it.

A Free Economy

A free economy therefore means that government has to play a rather limited and restricted part. Social control must be limited to a minimum. The whole idea of control is to interfere with people when something is going wrong. You stop a man from stealing, you stop a man from hitting somebody else, you stop a man from cheating somebody else, you stop an employer from cheating his worker – that is fair. But you don’t stop a man from doing something which he should be doing. So controls are only police measures to stop somebody from doing something he should not. The government should not be like the mother who told the nanny:” Mary, go and see what Johnny is doing and tell him not to”! Johnny should only be stopped when he is really doing something which he shouldn’t.

The second characteristic of a free society is that “the consumer is king”. Everything must be done to serve the needs of the consumer, not of the industrialist, not of the businessman, not of the factory worker, but of the man who consumes, because he is the ordinary citizen. We all consume. There is not a single human being in India today who doesn’t consume. He would be dead if he didn’t. We consume, you consume, our children consume. Now what does “the consumer is king” mean? It means that the consumer must determine the pattern of production. The consumer must tell the industrialist what to produce and what not to produce. The consumer can do this by his purchasing power, by the little money in his pocket. The industrialist or businessman only produces what he thinks will make a profit. In other words, if there is a demand for a commodity, you produce it. If there is no demand, you are a fool if you produce it because nobody will buy it and you will lose your capital. In this way, the smallest consumer can determine the pattern of production in a free country.

Every time we go shopping, we cast a vote. As you buy a ticket to back a horse, so you go to a shop and say “I want Haman” or “I want Liril”, or whatsoever it is. You cast a vote for that particular brand of soap against another brand, just as you vote for the Congress Party and not for me, or just as you back one horse and not another. Now, all these preferences for soaps and perfumes, for bread and biscuits and cakes, and whatever else you like, are totalled up on the economic tote and, by looking at the economic state, the business community and industrialist decide what is popular, what is favoured. They shift their production according to the demand.

That is what consumer being king means. It has led to the highest prosperity known in history, the highest standard of life and also of equality of opportunity and status. This is a paradox. The countries where there is greatest equality – there is nowhere perfect equality, nor can there be – but wherever there is equality of opportunity and of status, it is in the capitalist countries. Which is the country in the world where the worker calls his boss by his first name? The American worker never call his boss Mr. so and so. He always says Tom or John. That is the United States. People in Europe are shocked at this kind of “vulgarity” or lack of good breeding because they are still class bound. So you get this strange phenomenon that you get not only the most prosperity but also the greatest measure of equality, which is supposed to belong to socialism, only in so called capitalist, or what I call liberal countries.

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the very intelligent Prime Minister of Singapore, who is a socialist came to Bombay to meet Indian socialists some years ago and he asked a question of them. He said: ” It is pertinent to ask how is it that in Asia, countries like Japan, Hongkong, Formosa, Thailand and Malaysia, which are bustling free enterprise economies, have achieved success, while countries professing Socialism have failed to produce satisfactory results?”

Prof. Kenneth Galbraith, who was American Ambassador in Delhi and who was an ardent socialist and planner in Mr.Nehru’s time wrote a book called The New Industrial State. This is what he writes in this book:

“In India and Ceylon, and also in some of the new African countries, public enterprises have not, as in Britain, been accorded autonomy. Here the democratic socialist prerogative has, in effect, been fully asserted. India, in particular, has a legacy of colonial administration, has an illusion of official omniscience which extends to highly technical decisions… The effect in these countries of this denial of autonomy has been exceeding inefficiency in operations by the public firms… In India and Ceylon, nearly all public-owned corporations operate at a loss. The situation is similar in other new countries… One result is, that a large number of socialists have come to feel that public corporations are by their nature, in the words of a minister in the Wilson Government, ‘remote’, irresponsible bodies, immune from public scrutiny or democratic control”.

The reason why this should be so is very simple. The body politic is like our own bodies. It consists of organs developed by society over the last few thousand years since we were primitive apes or beasts. Now as human society develops, it throws up institutions. The Joint Stock Company has been thrown up in the last two hundred years to run business. The Government or State has been thrown up to rule, to maintain order. Our bodies are like that. We smell through our nose, we eat through our mouth, we hear through our ears, we breathe through our lungs, we digest in the stomach and so on. Now what would happen if we tried to distort our organs and asked them to do, something different from what they were meant to do. Supposing we tried to breathe through our stomach and digest with our lungs or hear through the nose and smell with the ear? What would happen? It just wouldn’t work. That is exactly what happens when we try to misuse an organ of society. Governments were thrown up by society and civilisation to protect the country from attack, to stop one person from attacking another, to see that justice is done. In other words, governments are there to keep law and order, do justice, protect people, protect the country from attack. That is where the basic functions of government stop. When government tries to run a factory and to produce either penicillin or steel or whatever it is, it makes a flop because governments are not made to make profits or to produce goods. Governments are not made to produce anything. Governments are meant to consume things, to keep order and give you a chance to produce. So State Socialism and Communism are a perversion of the laws of social growth. Therefore, they are bound to fail. The conclusion to which one is driven then is that we have got to turn to Liberalism from this barren path.

The Old Liberalism

. Liberalism is making a beginning in India. But this is not the first time that Liberalism has come to India. It came in the 19th century also. There was the old liberalism in India. Its leaders were Dadabhai Naoroji, Ranade, Gokhale, Rain Mohan Roy, Surendra Nath Bannerjee, whose names you know. I saw many of them when I was a boy or a student, attending lectures of Srinivasa Shastri. remember as a boy playing around the feet of Dadabhai Naoroji at Versova where he was a neighbour of ours. I have seen Dinshaw Vachha. I saw Pherozeshah Mehta. I knew Sapru and Jayakar. They have all gone and the old Liberalism has gone also. It was killed by Mahatma Gandhi. When Gandhiji came on the scene as a dynamic nationalist following Tilak and Lajpatrai, he had no use for the old Liberalism, because the old Liberals were extremely moderate in their opposition to British rule. They were for Indian self-government. As you know, Dadabhai Naoroji coined the word Swaraj. But the method of fight was very temperate and very moderate. He joined the British Parliament as a Liberal Member. He argued for India, but was a constitutionalist. Liberals are not people who go to the streets, wreck things, attack people and so on. Even today, they are not. So, being constitutional, they appeared to be terribly moderate. As a young man, I was extremely impatient with my father and liberals of that type for being so slow and gentle about the evil of foreign rule.


Even today, I am not against nationalism. I have been a very ardent nationalist in my time. But when we become free, we don’t need nationalism any more. It is like the measles. When you grow up, you don’t have children’s diseases like chickenpox and measles. Nationalism is a disease of foreign rule. When somebody is sitting on your chest, you want independence very ardently. You can’t breathe without freedom and that is as it should be. But when you are free, you don’t have to go on talking about your nationalism. Mature, advanced countries are not very nationalistic. They don’t need it. Go to Switzerland. They are a very patriotic people, but they don’t talk about Switzerland being the most wonderful country in the world! They are wonderful, but they don’t talk about it. So, as we grow up, there is no need to be juvenile about nationalism. Of course, love of the country must be there. When the country is attacked, we must rush to its rescue. We must make sacrifices for it every day. But we don’t want to be chauvinists. We don’t have to hate foreigners. We don’t have to throw out missionaries. Nationalism, while a good thing, has had its day. We can afford to relax on nationalism.

Ends And Means

Socialism has failed to deliver the goods. It has produced neither equality nor a better life for the masses of the people. The aims of socialism are good: I am still a socialist in that sense. If you put it to me: “Do you believe in Lenin’s ‘free and equal society’ ” I will say ‘yes’. If freedom and equality are the objectives of socialism, I am for it. But when I find that the weapon that I have used does not create freedom or equality, but creates tyranny and slavery on the one side and inequality and poverty on the other, then I would be a fool if I stuck to that weapon. I am not that conservative that I cling to an out-of-date blunderbuss when the weapon has become obsolete. What I am trying to say is, that the objectives of socialism are still valid, but the methods are lousy. The methods have failed. State planning, nationalisation, collective farming, these are weapons that have been tried and failed and only a stupid man hangs on to a weapon when he knows it can’t deliver the goods. We have to be true to the objective, not true to the method.

This I learnt from Mahatma Gandhi with whom I used to argue as a young socialist. He kept on saying that by doubtful methods, you can’t gel a good end. Ends and means are meshed, interlinked. The end does not justify the means. We have seen from experience that we cannot gel the good result of a free and equal society by injustice, by regimentation, by oppression, by lies.

The New Liberalism

So the new Liberalism has come to India after the failure of socialism. It is a fusion of western Liberalism and Gandhi. When the Swatantra Party was formed and I was drafting its programme, that is how I put it in an article in Life magazine – that two streams of thought had gone into the making of this effort, Western Liberalism as they understand it plus the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

What are these teachings that we graft on to Liberalism or fuse with Liberalism. First, that ends and means are interlinked; that if want a decent society our methods must be decent: We cannot create a free and equal society by expropriation, liquidation, lying as the communists claim they can. Secondly, as Gandhiji used to say repeatedly, “that Government is best which governs the least”. Minimum government. The essential thing is to leave the people free. Thirdly, Trusteeship, that those who have the good things of life, those who have wealth must use them for the good of the community. While we have a good time with what we have, we must not be devoid of a social conscience or a sense of social obligation. Gandhiji called it Trusteeship of the rich for the poor. He said: let every rich man use his wealth. Certainly, let him keep it. Nobody should take it away. But let him use it so that he can have a good conscience that he is doing what he can for those around who are not so fortunate.

Now democracy has its disadvantages. I am not starry eyed about democracy. I realise its limitations, its corruption, its deficiencies. Winston Churchill was a great democrat. He was asked a question about democracy towards the end of his life. He had tasted both the fruits and bitterness of democracy. He had been in political exile for many years before World War II. He was brought in during World War II, and then he was put back on the scrap heap when World War II was over. This is how democracy works. It is just as well. We in this country don’t place our great men on the scrap heap and that is why we are going down. After giving a little thought, Churchill said: “Of all the known systems of government, democracy is undoubtedly the worst – except for all the others”! That great Liberal in Asia, Carlos Romulo was once heckled by some communist students, in the University of which he was President, who asked him for a declaration of policy. They asked: “Mr. President, are you going left or right?” Romulo answered: “I am going forward”. That is the essence of Liberalism. Neither left nor right, but right ahead.


Continue Reading

Extract from “Socialism” by Charles Bradlaugh

From Our Corner, March 1st, 1884.

IN the first papers I defined Socialism to be that theory or scheme in which all individual private property is denied and in which society, organised as the State, owns all wealth and compels the equal distribution of all produce. That is, a Socialistic State would be a state in which everything would be held in common, and the results of the labor of each individual would belong to the State which would control and direct all labor.

Such a State, if realisable, seems to me fatal to all progress as neutralising all individual initiative. In any Socialistic experiments which have been tried with any approach to even temporary success, they have been maintained and the society held together by some “religious” tie or by personal devotion to some man, or the community has been directed by some strong chief; even in such cases of so-called success the community, limited in number, has held its own property as private and distinct from the dwellers around or near.

The difficulties of carrying on such communities have been found to increase with their size and the absence of any individual strong enough to govern and control malcontents. It is conceivable that in an entirely new country a Socialistic State might be built up, but even there its maintenance and continuance must, by the paralysis of individual effort, prevent any very high degree of progress in arts, sciences, or manufacturing enterprise. The successful advocacy of Socialism in England appears to me to be pregnant with the most serious dangers to our national welfare.

To render the establishment of Socialism possible in an old country like Great Britain it would be necessary to effect two revolutions:—One, a physical force revolution in which all the present property owners who might be unwilling to have their holdings merged in the common fund should be dispossessed. The other, a moral revolution, not only changing and reversing the present forms of speech, ideas and practices concerning property, but entirely effacing the habit of life resulting from long continued teachings, and long enduring traditions. The first revolution would be very difficult, if not impossible, and if possible would even in case of success be attended with serious immediate crime, and much. consequent mischief and demoralisation. Property owners are all those who have anything whatever beyond what is necessary for actual existence at the moment. They are, as I shall presently show, not the “mere handful” that some are fond of denouncing. They belong to the wage-earning class, as well as to the middle class, the capitalist class, and the landed class. Civil war with these would be in any case shocking and horrible.

During the contest, as the Socialists would be in the minority, terrible crimes would necessarily occur in the endeavor to equalise the opposing forces, and it is sad to find the probability of such crimes mentioned without reprobation in a document, signed amongst others by Miss Helen Taylor and Mr. J. L. Joynes. They and their co-signatories say: “Gunpowder helped to sweep away feudalism . . . now far stronger explosives are arranged against capitalism.” The very statement is mischievous in its implication, and if the last half of the quotation has any truth, which I do not believe, then those who signed it should at least have added the strongest possible word of condemnation of the criminal madness of those who dare to encourage the use of these “stronger explosives” in a social contest. I do not suggest that Miss Taylor and Mr. Joynes approve such weapons in a class war, but knowing that equally honest Socialists, as Mdlle. Louise Michel and Prince Krapotkin have distinctly defended and encouraged the user, I find it necessary to mark this beyond the possibility of mistake.

The second phase—that of moral revolution—involves the impossible, if meant as a sudden change. All the educators—schoolmasters, journalists, authors, and public speakers—must be first converted; and all the transmitted habits of thought, speech, and practice must be contested, in the thousand details of everyday life, where their potency is most felt. My house, my horse, my garden, my watch, my plough, my spade, my savings, my life-policy, my book—the constant affirmations of private property involved in these forms of speech must be all unlearned. There would, in a state of pure Socialism, be no inducement to personal economy, no check upon waste. Why should anyone be industrious, sparing, or thrifty? Miss Helen Taylor, Mr. Joynes, and their co-signatories, say that by less than 1 1/2 hours’ work per day, each man may, if labor be properly organised, live in absolute comfort. They do not condescend to statistics to verify this optimist statement, which I take leave to doubt; and they add, equally without evidence, that “were machinery properly applied, far less than two hours’ labor a day for each individual would suffice for all to live in comfort.”

That a Socialistic State would be fatal to progress as taking away the incentive to individual effort seems clear. While one or two exceptional men or women may, from time to time, be found willing to exert themselves without recognition, and without reward, for the good of the general body, ordinarily the spur to exertion is the personally expected benefit.

It is difficult to understand how in a Socialistic State there would be any free expression of opinion, or indeed, any expression whatever, except such as should be directed by the Stat Now, unpopular views may, with more or less difficulty, be published orally or in print. A man or body of men can at his or their private personal risk hire a hall, print a pamphlet or book, or publish a newspaper. If the utterance does not find favor the propagandist is discouraged or otherwise, by the personal loss or unpopularity; or in the reverse case is encouraged by the personal profit or praise.

But what is to happen when there are no private printers owning private presses and type, who may be hired out of the private moneys of aspiring publicists for their private profit? Now, an intending author buys the necessary paper for his book or journal from the stationer; the size of his edition is determined by his hope of profit and fear of loss, or desire of publicity, checked only by his means. What is he to do when there is no private paper mill? no private stationer? May every author, every poet, every waster of ink in a Socialist State, have her or his wisdom or folly alike published to any extent at the public cost? Or is there to be a tribunal to decide what shall or shall not be published? and if anything be published, to what extent? and under what conditions? And if there be such a tribunal, will the people, by plebiscite or otherwise, lay down general principles for the guidance of the tribunal, providing what may or may not be published? If there be any restriction, what becomes of free speech? If there be no restriction, how is reckless waste of labor and material to be prevented?

How are public meetings on public questions to be arranged? All halls will be State property. At present, subject to legal and social consequences, any one man may call a meeting upon almost any subject, if he can engage a hall and pay for bills and other announcements. Is the State to incur this expense in every district whenever one person may desire to convene a meeting? or is there to be a limitation as to the topics which the public may be allowed to discuss, and as to the numbers who may require and be entitled to have a public meeting convened?

Then what is to be the procedure as to theatres, music halls, popular concerts, and exhibitions such as Madame Tussaud’s? Now private enterprise caters for the public taste, in the hope of private profit; but, under a Socialist State, how are actors, singers, and dancers to be encouraged to perform in public, and how are they to be rewarded for performing? Henry Irving, Mary Anderson, Patti, Wilson Barrett, and even the great Vance, may, if we abolish private property here, be tempted to take-themselves and their talents to countries which do specially reward individual ability, proficiency, or genius.

How are literary men, scientists, and artists to pursue their studies in private, when there will be no private libraries, no private laboratories, no private studios?

How is railway travelling to be regulated? May every one, man, woman, and child, travel freely by any train to any distance? How are railway porters, engine drivers, guards, traffic managers, and general superintendents to be secured, without private and special individual reward? How is the selection of each individual in the nation for each pursuit in life to be determined? May a man who wishes to be a doctor be compelled by the State to be a scavenger or chimney-sweep or an agricultural laborer? Are the thousands who are employed in necessary work which is non-producing to share in the production of others, and to what extent?

Will it be possible when there is no private property here to acquire goods from foreign countries, and if yes, how? If the State barters with foreign individuals the surplus products which it receives from its own individual citizens, may it exchange for luxuries? or only for absolute necessaries? and if the former, are all the citizens to have the luxuries shared out to them indifferently? or what, if any, distinction is to be made? And how will it be possible to obtain foreign products here, when, as there will be no internal buying or selling, there will be no home markets? Will the State send out its own citizens as unpaid buyers, and experts of great intelligence and ability, who, without any individual profit, will exert’ themselves to make the best bargains in exchanging home commodities for foreign articles?

When the State takes charge of all children, how are they to be selected, and specially and diversely trained for different occupations in life as laborers, teachers, journalists, magistrates, scientists? Now some expend much money, or face special toil and hardship, hoping for, and encouraged by the hope of achieving, success in a particular line.

How, under Socialism, are inventors to be dealt with? are any opportunities to be afforded for costly experiments? Inventors are often very close to the fine line which divides genius from folly. Is there to be some investigating board to prevent idiotic waste? And how are intelligent inventors to be encouraged and rewarded?

These are only a few of the many thousand difficulties of detail which, at least, ought to be faced by those who propose to annihilate Individualism.

Continue Reading

Notes on Charles Maclean, the greatest public health scientist in human history

c.1766-c.1824 (“he … died at some point in late 1824 or early 1825“. Alex Chase-Levenson, in his 2020 book, The Yellow Flag, claims that Maclean “died in poverty in 1829” – that is almost  impossible, since Maclean was prolific and there is no written work since after mid-1824. Alex notes that the government provided “a grant to his widow from the Literary Fund”).


[his handwriting sample]

This 1952 article, Politics, Economics and Medicine: Charles Maclean and Anticontagion in England, is the only journal paper (of 1952) I’ve come across that doesn’t libel Maclean at every step and even ends with a wry, semi-positive comment about him. It is also biographical.

Brief biography:

Brief biography:,_1885-1900/Maclean,_Charles


Summary – from James Lind Library:


1796: Dissertation on the Source of Epidemic Diseases/ Calcutta or 1797:  Dissertation on the Source of Epidemic Diseases” (1800 edition available)

1797View of the Science of Life, co-written with his colleague, William Yates,

1804: ‘An Excursion into France,’ &c,

1806: ‘The Affairs of Asia considered in their Effects on the Liberties of Britain’

1810: ‘Analytical View of the Medical Department of the British Army,’

1810On the state of vaccination in 1810.

1810A View of the Consequences of laying open the Trade to India,’

1817, Pamphlet (38 pages): Suggestions for the prevention and mitigation of epidemic and pestilential diseases, comprehending the abolition of quarantines and lazarettos

Version 1 (google books) – always use this, as other versions are incomplete | Version 2 – and Version 3 – both these are missing pages 474 and 475]

1817 & 1818 Results of an Investigation Respecting Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases Vol. 1  (1817-492 pages) | another version. Volume 2 – of 1818 – Wellcome have digitised at my request. [Title page at Lind Library]

1818: ‘Practical Illustrations of the Progress of Medical Advancement during the last Thirty Years,’ .

1820Specimens of systematic misrule; or, immense sums annually expended in upholding a single imposture, etc

1820: The Triumph of Public Opinion, being a Standing Lesson to the Throne, the Parliament, and the People ; with proposed Articles of Impeachment against the Ministers in the Case of her Majesty.

1819-20: Summary of facts and inferences, respecting the causes, proper and adventitious of plague, and other pestilential diseases; with proofs of the non-existence of contagion in theses maladies:

c.1821-24Obligations of Governments to Abolish the Laws of Quarantine

1823 book: Remarks on the British Quarantine Laws: and the so-called Sanitary Laws of the Continental Nations of Europe, especially those of Spain [Also here]

Maclean’s petition to the parliament

1824: Observations on quarantine : being the substance of a lecture, delivered at the Liverpool Lyceum, in October, 1824

1824-25 (~500 pages): – 2nd edition in 1824 Evils of quarantine laws, and non-existence of pestilential contagion : deduced from the phaenomena of the plague of the Levant, the yellow fever of Spain, and the cholera morbus of Asia.| Another 2nd edition of 1825

Never published: ‘The Archives of Health,’

Also search:

Note: It appearse that he published a book in 1823, “The appeal of a freed Spaniard” – for which he wrote a foreword

Continue Reading
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial