The Gin Act In 1751, the English Parliament passed the Gin Act.

This act prohibited gin makers from selling to unlicensed merchants, sold licenses only to large land-owners, and charged high fees to merchants eligible for licenses. The passing of this act and previous gin-restricting acts were highly controversial among every level of society, with artists, authors, lords, and Parliament members arguing over the matter for different reasons. Parliaments decision to restrict the sale of gin in England was supported due to gins negative effects on the body, mind, and morals, and debated because of gins positive economic effects and escapist pleasures. There were many arguments against gins restriction. Daniel Defoe was of the opinion that gin benefitted the economy by allowing wheat that would otherwise have been wasted be distilled and sold (Doc. 2). Also, he thought that it kept the urban populous interested in maintaining rural farms. This was important because if the urban population lost interest in farmers, agriculture could fail, an industry absolutely vital for a nations existence. William Pulteney, in a speech to Parliament, was concerned about the financial security of small family businesses who sold gin (Doc. 4). He pronounced that, if not for gin, most of these businesses would die off, and he could not approve of any decision that would hurt the people. Small businesses were important at the time, as they were contributing to the thriving English economy. In document 6, a Parliament member states, as of 1736, the government had gotten 70,000 in annual revenue from gin taxes (Doc. 6). Such a loss of earnings would be detrimental to Englands funds. As

for psychological effects, Lord Bathurst asserts that a moderate drink of liquor even as questionable as gin could and should be used for relief from stress and escapism (Doc. 8). He even went as far to say that the gloomy England climate supported such drinking motives. Contrary to the above arguments, many were in favor of gins restriction. One anonymous author wrote that the drunken cycle of intoxication, sobriety, and working towards re-intoxication, once started, would be impossible to get out of (Doc. 3). Document 13 also depicts a world where a Bacchic cycle keeps people and their children in an unending cycle of drunkenness, published in The London Tradesman. This concept is significant because such a cycle would make the people impossible to rouse out of their perpetual drunkenness, leaving no hope for enlightenment. Document 10 shows how one religious author, John Wesley, believed spirituality was not possible through sin, and how drunkenness was one of those sins. His desire to support the gin acts was fueled by the fact that God condemned drunkards, and he wanted to bring spiritual enlightenment to all. William Hogarths work on Beer Street showed a happy street, thriving on English beer (Doc. 12). However, his painting Gin Lane depicted a horrid, crude, chaotic street, portraying the negative effects of gin on the people. Gin, being a much more alcoholic beverage, created a much more intoxicated feeling than beer. This would create much more chaos than beer, as demonstrated by Hogarths work. Government bodies also exhibited distaste for drinking. The County Magistrates of

Middlesex complained to Parliament that their subjects were incapacitated and criminally inclined due to gin consumption (Doc. 7). Lord Lonsdale shared similar ideas, but added that women who drank grew infertile or had diseased babies (Doc. 8). He also presented these ideas to Parliament. These opinions were significant because both the country magistrates of Middlesex and Lord Lonsdale were heads of their local government, and were clearly seeing the effects of deleterious effects of gin on their subjects. Such effects would be undesirable to a local ruler, as local rulers like their citizens to be useful to their domain. Parliament itself viewed gin drinking as detrimental, as they passed the Gin Acts of 1736 and 1751, which proved effective, successfully plateauing gin production from 1741 to 1751 (Doc. 1). Their reason was that gin had lowered the health and morality of the people. The consumption of gin was heatedly debated over by many. Most commented on how gin had adverse effects, such as body deterioration, moral attrition, and induction of criminal tendencies, leading to a useless and possibly societally harmful individual. Although some believed in the economic benefits of gin and its role in pacifying the people, the majority opinion of the educated was that gin consumption should be stopped, due to its adverse effect on drinkers and rising popularity. Government bodies especially were against the sale of gin because their ability to govern individuals was severely impaired while their subjects were intoxicated. Eventually, the Gin Acts took their toll and expunged the Gin Craze from England.
Liu - 2