Gin Dbq Essay
After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the beverage gin began to overtake beer. Soon the distilling of gin was available to anybody that was willing to play taxes. However the government had an inconsistency for their taxation method. The Gin Act of 1736 was an example of the governments many actions toward the distillation of gin. At first the Gin Act imposed a high license fee for gin retailers with a very high gallon tax but within a few years these rules changed. Although there were numerous shop owners and peasants that made their livings off gin, there were many that conflicting views from the community about the restriction of the sale of gin in the 18th century.
There are various documents about the diverse views from the community …show more content…
Some of the wealthy are against gin while some of the wealthy are for gin. As an example Lord Bathurst and Lord Lonsdale are both wealthy lords but their views on the restriction of gin is completely different. Lord Bathurst argues that gin is good for the people’s health, whereas Lord Lonsdale argues that gin destroys the human body. Therefore Lord Bathurst is non supportive of the restriction of gin while Lonsdale is. In documents 11 and 12 a painting about a street that produces beer is compared to a street that produces gin. In the street that produces beer, the society is developing, people are well fed, and they are not drunk or rioting but in the painting of the gin street, people are drunk, babies have birth defects, buildings are crumbling and basically people are in chaos. Also there are distillers that have differing views about the restriction on the restriction of gin. An anonymous person from Distilled Liquors: The Bane of the nation stated that because of gin people were never in a clear state of mind and even if they were they would go back drinking, hence supportive of the gin restriction, while in a letter to John Moore, an important distiller in 1736 stated that the Gin act strikes the very root of property rights because of the high license fees thus non supportive of the gin
There are various documents about the diverse views from the community …show more content…
Some of the wealthy are against gin while some of the wealthy are for gin. As an example Lord Bathurst and Lord Lonsdale are both wealthy lords but their views on the restriction of gin is completely different. Lord Bathurst argues that gin is good for the people’s health, whereas Lord Lonsdale argues that gin destroys the human body. Therefore Lord Bathurst is non supportive of the restriction of gin while Lonsdale is. In documents 11 and 12 a painting about a street that produces beer is compared to a street that produces gin. In the street that produces beer, the society is developing, people are well fed, and they are not drunk or rioting but in the painting of the gin street, people are drunk, babies have birth defects, buildings are crumbling and basically people are in chaos. Also there are distillers that have differing views about the restriction on the restriction of gin. An anonymous person from Distilled Liquors: The Bane of the nation stated that because of gin people were never in a clear state of mind and even if they were they would go back drinking, hence supportive of the gin restriction, while in a letter to John Moore, an important distiller in 1736 stated that the Gin act strikes the very root of property rights because of the high license fees thus non supportive of the gin