Gin Act DBQ

5/12/2018 Gin Act DBQ - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gin-act-dbq 1/3

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. Parliament’s decision to restrict the sale of gin in England was supported due

to gin’s negative effects on the body, mind, and morals, and debated because of gin’s

positive economic effects and escapist pleasures.

There were many arguments against gin’s 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

nation’s 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 England’s 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 gin’s 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 Hogarth’s 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 Hogarth’s

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 it’s 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

Documents

Gin Act DBQ