Pros And Cons Of William Hogarth Dbquor

In the 17th and 18th century, distilled liquors were a popular discussion topic, and a prominent part of the English economy. Many praised the liquor business as a noble and profitable industry, but others denounced it as leading to bad behavior and corruption. The most important and controversial of these distilled liquors was gin, and the consumption of which increased dramatically during the 1700s. The three strongest arguments concerning the restriction of gin were that it would be beneficial to health , it would decrease profits and economic benefits, and it would cause a rise in morality; however only the aspects of public health and morality were mentioned in the Gin Act of 1751, which finalized the restriction of gin production in England.

The Gin Craze of the 18th century led to large amounts of controversy over the restriction of the liquor, one of which being the effect it would have on the health of the people. Unlike beer, which had formerly been the most popular drink in England, gin was concentrated and thus could do more detriment to the human body; this adverse impact was noted by many. In the book Distilled Liquors: The Bane of the Nation, an observer told his perception of gin drinkers in London, portraying them as unhealthy and wretched victims to the destructive liquor (Doc 3). The author uses strong language to paint a picture of filthy, ragged men women and even children, all piled in heaps of insalubrious drunkenness, and truly conveys his disgust for gin and its effect on health. Because the majority of authors title their own literary pieces, and the title of this book has a strongly negative view towards distilled liquors (calling them the bane of the nation), it is quite possible that the writer had a preexisting bias against gin, and thus cannot be trusted to provide wholly accurate information on its effects without using hyperbole to embellish his observations. However, this source still demonstrates the detriment of gin, and clearly supports that its restriction would improve the overall health of the English people. Eventually, many English citizens pushed for the restriction of these alcoholic spirits in the name of increased health and dignity for the working class, which caused Parliament to pass five separate acts in 1729, 1736, 1743, 1747, and 1751, all of which designed to control the consumption of gin. Members of the nobility were concerned with the excess drinking of gin, one of which being Lord Lonsdale, who highlighted some issues with distilled liquors in a speech he gave to Parliament. Lonsdale claimed that strong alcohol such as gin caused poor functioning of the mind and poisoned the body; his statements pointed out the cripples in hospitals due to overdrinking, and he even addressed the infertility liquors could induce in mothers, and the birth defects it created in newborn children (Doc 9).

This perspective on the effects of gin on well-being certainly points out that the author of this source would be in favor of the restriction of gin and the result it would have to help clear up health issues in England. Others expressed their hatred for gin and its terrible impact on well-being through more creative means than speeches. One of which was William Hogarth, an 18th century artist and social critic who had a strong stance on distilled liquors. In his piece entitled Gin Lane, Hogarth portrays a nightmare vision of a London street, and uses dramatic imagery to condemn the gin craze by depicting the working class drinking itself to death (Doc 11). The scene abounds in pain, suffering, and morbid conditions, even so far to show gin addicts burying a dead drinker and a woman letting her infant fall to its certain death. This strong social commentary embodies Hogarth’s view

of gin, and his opinion that it is wholly injurious to both the physical and mental health of the poor. In contrast to this portrait of a hellish and corrupted London, William Hogarth also painted a piece entitled Beer Street. This piece is a direct opposite of Gin Lane, and is abound with plump, happy, healthy figures. The subjects pictured in Beer Street are productive and smiling, engaging in activities such as painting a masterpiece, constructing buildings and wooing a lover (Doc 12). Because these artworks were painted by Hogarth to prove a point by using strong imagery to embody the evil of gin, they cannot be seen as accurate depictions of the true effects of liquor on the poor, as the two works are portrayed in the two extremes of good and evil. However, the striking distinction between Beer Street and Gin Lane clearly shows Hogarth’s perspective that while the mildly alcoholic beer was conducive to healthiness and joy, the evil of gin only led to pain, suffering and death. As these two works were put into print by their creator for the sole purpose of backing the Gin Act of 1751, it stands to reason that William Hogarth believed the restriction of gin would be extremely beneficial to the health of England’s working class. Many others voiced the same concerns, protesting against the effects of gin on health and sobriety, which made health issues a major argument in support of the Gin Act of 1751. This was noted in the preamble of the Gin Act, which claimed the restriction of the spirit would help preserve the health of England’s common people. Putting a stop to the source of drunkenness was, in the opinion of Parliament, a solution to the increased unhealthy state of the working class. Therefore, the Gin Act of 1751 sought to the preserve the health of the people, who were put in danger by the unwholesome effects of gin.
One argument against the restriction of gin focused on the economic benefits and profits found in the production and sale of the alcohol.

From 1701 to 1751, gin production levels increased by nearly 600%, while beer production stayed fairly stable and only increased a negligible amount (Doc. 1). It can be reasonably inferred that gin sales increased as a result of a larger supply, which was in turn beneficial to the liquor industry and the finances of the large number of workers involved in the production or sale of gin in all of England. Because this data was collected and processed in the 18th century, when data records were quite poor compared to modern day standards, it cannot be certain that the statistical information is wholly accurate concerning the production of alcohol. However, from this data it is easily gleaned that gin production marginally surpassed that of beer over the course of 50 years, and this in turn created economic benefits for the liquor industry, which made a greater net profit on gin than beer. Great numbers of Englishmen entered the liquor industry, drawn by the profits promised by gin, and by the 1730s there was hardly a tavern in all of England that did not owe a large share of its revenues to the sale of gin (Doc. 4). Many families of England championed the liquor industry, and gave their utmost support to the distilling and sale of spirits, which points to how gin created economic benefits that would induce such support. These same

families and groups were highly opposed to the restriction of gin, as this would curb the economic benefits they received from the sale and production of liquor. Others pointed out how the production and sale of gin was beneficial to other industries and demographics that were vital to the economy. Daniel Defoe, an 18th century author and social commentator, was quick to praise the gin industry for effectively using up the surplus of grain that had resulted from the new practices of the agricultural revolution (Doc. 2). The distilling of gin required a great quantity of grain, and this was very beneficial for ridding the economic market of excessive grain that would have dramatically lowered prices and placed farmers in financial crisis from slashed profits. The restriction of gin production would create a surplus of grain on the market and lower prices, thus causing an upset in the profits and monetary stability of farmers and agricultural workers. Hence, the gin industry was a great help to the economy and the state of agricultural economic balance in England. Some critics of the Gin Act took a different route than pointing out the economic benefits of gin, and rather focused on the huge problem created by the extreme taxes on gin that resulted from the restriction of its production. In a letter to John Moore, an affluent distiller, a critic of the Gin Act complained that the heavy taxation on gin licenses was offensive to the right to property, and that it was only a matter of time before Parliament inflicted even more exacting taxes (Doc 5). This protest towards the restriction of gin helps demonstrate what changes the effects of the taxation of gin production would have had on the mood of distillers, who would be upset at the potential loss of profits due to harsh fiscal policy. One member of Parliament made a seemingly sardonic comment concerning the potential tax on gin production, stating that His Majesty King George II should be alerted to the huge loss of federal revenue that would incur from the inevitable refusal to pay taxes by gin distillers (Doc 6). This outlook on the heavy taxation that would result from the Gin Act of 1751 showed the ludicrous demanding nature of the potential fees, portraying them as so unreasonable that absolutely no one would pay them. This would undoubtedly have an unfortunate effect on the finances of the government of England if it did happen to occur after the passing of the Gin Act. Because of the obvious satire in the tone and wording of the speaker, one can infer that he is using scorn to make a point about the ridiculous nature of the taxes and does not mean what he says in a literal sense. In addition, this member of Parliament would have no source of concrete knowledge concerning whether all of the distillers of England would pay their taxes or not, and this makes this source factually unreliable. Nevertheless, this outlook shows how the high taxes resulting in the passage of the Gin Act might end up being ignored by a few distillers, which would harm instead of aid the economic state of the federal government, and also would cause failure to effectively restrict liquor production. Despite the myriad of profits and economic benefits associated with the free and unrestricted sale of gin, no mention of finances or economics was mentioned in the Gin Act of 1751, perhaps due to the fact that its discussion would have been counterintuitive to the point of the explanation of the Act. However, despite its lack of mention in the Gin Act of 1751, the production and sale of gin in 18th century was linked to profits and various economic and financial benefits.
One concern with the consumption of gin was the adverse effects it had on morals, and this led many to push for its restriction in order to increase the quality of the principles of the English people. In Middlesex England, officials were concerned with the increased drinking by the people and how it seemed to induce a reduction in morality and an increase in depravities and wicked behavior (Doc. 7). They expressed their worries in a petition to Parliament in 1736, and it is easily inferable that they would have pushed for the restriction of gin, as it would have reduced the newfound vices they saw emerging in the public. It was not only political figures and officials who saw issue with the augmented consumption of gin, but also religious leaders. John Wesley, the implementer of the Methodist religion, commented on how followers of Methodism must cease their quarreling, cursing, brawling, drunkenness in order to be accepted into the religious community (Doc. 10). This statement was made in order to set the conditions for a holy life of avoiding sin, but also made commentary on the drunken state of much of the working class, and how such people without moderation were morally corrupt due to their intoxication on the concentrated liquor. Because of Wesley’s methodical and precise religious practices, and the fact that he created a religious movement, he has the perspective of a religious leader, which could taint his viewpoint as to whether the drinking of the working class was violation of morals or not. Due to his statement of his comprehensive standards for behavior, it can be inferred that John Wesley would be influenced by his religious philosophies in his view on the drinking of gin. It is overt that John Wesley would be in favor of the Gin Act of 1751, because in his eyes, the reduced consumption of the spirit would help curb the immorality of the people of England. Others, however, did not see alcohol as an issue that would cause poor morality, because it could always be drunken in moderation. Lord Bathurst, a noble of the 18th century, was quick to point out that a single drink of even concentrated liquors such as gin could not lead to either delinquency or wickedness. In this statement, Bathurst indirectly shows that it is a lack of moderation causing immorality, not the production of gin. Through, it can easily be inferred that Bathurst would agree that the sins of the people are not the fault of the liquor, but the fault of the people themselves for failing to drink with self-control. However, the majority of gin critics were quick to point fingers at the liquor and blame it for the upsurges in crime and declines of morality in the English working class. One reason for the increase of immorality correlating with the increase in gin consumption may have dealt with that fact that in the 18th century, women were finally allowed to drink beside men in bars. This led to an increase in prostitution and child neglect, leading gin to be known as “mother’s ruin”. One example of terrible morality induced by alcoholic addiction is the appalling story of 1734 housewife Judith Dufour, who strangled her two year old son, dumped his body in a ditch, and sold his clothing to buy gin. In The London Tradesman, author Campbell used strong language to convey how the evil of gin was consuming the people entirely, and eventually there would be nothing left but the sins of gluttony and slothfulness as people became overcome by their own addiction to liquor. Because of the obvious hyperbole and ludicrous embellishment used in this excerpt, it can be assumed that Campbell does not mean what he says literally, but rather is using it to make a point about the corruption of gin and the fact that it must be taken away from the common people to fix the social issues it had created. However, despite the unreliability of this document to factually state the effects of gin on the English people, it paints a vivid picture depicting how the spirit has a definite negative effect on morals and behavior. Thus, many people were highly concerned with how gin seemed to facilitate the degradation of morals in English society, and this was addressed in the preamble of the Gin Act of 1751. Referring to gin as a great evil and discussing its detriment to the morals of English subjects, the Gin Act was certain to mention the preservation of ethics as a valid reason to restrict the production of gin. Therefore, the effect of gin on morality was a great one, and was of such concern to Parliament that they chose to include it in the Gin Act of 1751.
Throughout the 18th century, the topic of distilled liquors, especially gin, was a popular one due to all of the effects the gin industry seemed to have on the society and economy of England. Three of the most important of these effects were those of health, economic benefits, and morality, all of which had an impact on the daily lives of the English people. When Parliament began to pass acts to restrict the production of gin, most argued that these acts, such as the Gin Act of 1751, would help to improve the health and morals of English citizens, but would be detrimental to the finances and economic standing of several demographics. While economics was not mentioned, the topics of health and morality were discussed in the Gin Act of 1751.