The 1988 Gin DBQ During the mid to late 18th century, England went through many difficult times one of which revolved about the English Parliaments decision to pass the Gin Act of 1751 that restricted the sale of gin. This act did this in three ways, first by not letting distillers sell to unlicensed merchants, second by restricting the retailers by only those with a significant amount of land sell gin, and thirdly by charging high fees to all those still able to sell gin.
This reasonable decision about the restriction on gin was the philosophy of many who choose to side either for or against the sale of gin based on either their back round or experiences. This way of how the people chose sides was very realistic because everyone had a different familiarity with gin so their decision on whether being for or against the gin act will reflect their own personal experiences. To the people who were for the Gin Act of 1751 they had their reasons. Although most revolved around the fact that gin was an evil drink that turned good men evil and devastated the morals of all that drank it.
Our first individual that was for the Gin Act is an anonymous writer. His reason for being against the Gin Act is that he states that when he walks through the once great city of London and he looks in to the more credible bars only to see drunken men cursing and passing out right where they sit or fall. This anonymous writer has a good point here to show the fact that once respectable places that now serve gin have rapidly deteriorated because of the way men are addicted to gin(3). Our next personage that is for the passing of the Gin Act of 1751 is a group of County Magistrates from Middlesex England.
Their reason for their opinion on the Gin Act is that they say that the now increasing consumption of gin in England has destroyed the middle working class making them unfit for labor, declining the morals of the common man and having gin lead them into a life of evil and crime. These County Magistrates may have a good point here because the can see firsthand on how the gin affects the workings of the people and how the morals of these same people have gone down and along with that leading them into crime(7). This next citizen, Lord Lonsdale, expresses his opinion of being pro on the debate of the Gin act by giving a speech to Parliament in 743. In his speech he says that he is against the sale of gin because of the fact that the liquor invades the drinkers mind and poisons the body as well, and that it is the root of the problem to why the jails are full the streets are filled with madness and the child survival rate is so low. His testimony to what gin does to people may be a little over exaggerated, this is because he has no real facts to back up what he claiming although just reading this excerpt may show that he meant what he said and Parliament may have considered his opinion because of his tone(9). Our next gentleman that is for the Gin Act of 1751 is John Wesley.
His reason for being against it is that he has a major bias when coming to this sort of thing because of the fact that he is the founder of the Methodist religion. For this reason, his morals go against drinking so he would never be for anything that has to do with not being sober no matter what it deals with gin or beer. Here you can see how John Wesley’s biasness interferes with his argument on the sale of gin (10). To the artist of our next two photos those of being Gin Lane and Beer Street are by William Hogarth. His paintings reveal his ideology of the Gin Act of 1751.
He takes the side of being pro gin act, which is clear if you look at both photos. In his Gin Lane, the people are drunk, falling down everywhere, dropping kids, and performing evil acts. If you compare this to his Beer Street then you can see the clear difference because in this photo you can see a more relaxed environment no doubt due to the beer (11+12). The last supplied article being for the Gin Act of 1751 is an excerpt from The London Tradesman. In the excerpt, it states the increased popularity and sale of gin in the last ten years, which can be proven by document number ones’ chart. (1).
It also goes on to say that if this rate of popularity and sale continue to increase at the same rate of the last ten years then manual labor will no longer be around, sobriety will be a thing of the past and children will only witness and be a part of a drunken world. This also feels over exaggerated because of the fact that the article takes it too far when it is written that ne next generation children if gin continues on its upward streak will never observe sobriety(13). All that wrote or talked about being for the Gin Act of 1751 included good points and some had points that they could not back up.
To the people being against the Gin Act of 1751, they also had their side of the argument. Our first person to be against the Gin Act of 1751 is Daniel Defoe who was an author. His reason for being against the Gin Act is that he states that grain is in a surplus and the distillation process for gin uses this excess of grain that would otherwise waste away. His argument for the gin is very true in the fact that gin used the excess grain during this time of plenty (2). This next individual, William Pulteney, was a landowner that gave a speech to Parliament.
His speech contains the facts that many new taverns or bars have opened up and have been doing well because of their high sale in gin (4). The next person for the Gin Act of 1751 is an anonymous member of parliament that offers his take of the crisis. He says that if parliament were to pass this Gin Act then England would be out 70’000? because that is the money they make off the taxation of gin. To recuperate from this loss the government would be force to raise taxes on other goods even higher to the point where no one would be able to pay them.
This is a very good argument to consider when making the decision on being for or against this act because of the questions that it raises about more taxation 6). Our last anti Gin Act of 1751 supporter is Lord Bathurst. His reason for being against the act is that in this distraught economy one must enjoy a drink now and then to relax oneself. Although this may be true, he forgets to look at the people that abuse their drinking privileges by getting way past drunkenness (8).
This side to argument has much less to go on but they do make a fighting effort in all that they do have. In the Preamble of the Gin Act of 1751, it is very clear that the people for the gin act have won. To show this an excerpt reads, “Whereas the immoderate drinking of distilled liquors by persons of the meanest and lowest sort, hath in late years increase, to the great detriment of the health and morals…” This says that in short only the meanest people and peasantry drink and it has undercut the society, including the wellbeing and ethical bounds, of Great Britain.
To say this must have of been true because it got the attention of Parliament enough to make them side with the Gin Act of 1751. Both sides of this debate had very good points that they made. The decisions of each individual on either side were backed up with evidence to support their side of the argument, which made for a good battle between having gin and not having gin. In the end, though the Gin Act was passed and this shows that to parliament it must have been necessary because of the rapid decline in health and morals.
