Pubdate: Sun, 19 Jan 2003
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2003 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Alan Riding
Note: Alan Riding is the European cultural correspondent of The Times, 
based in Paris.

THE GIN CRAZE

Gin -- or Madam Geneva, as it was then known -- became all the rage among 
the poor of early-18th-century London. At one point there were no fewer 
than 7,044 licensed retailers in a city of 600,000 people, plus thousands 
more street vendors peddling a spirit far rougher than today's gin. The 
guardians of the public weal were soon alarmed.

Drunken men were not fit for work or for war. Drunken women neglected their 
children.

The poor in general were getting out of hand.

Listing the dastardly effects of gin on "the poorer Sort of People," Sir 
John Gonson, chairman of the Westminster bench of justices, wrote in 1728, 
"In hot Tempers, it lets loose the Tongue to all the Indecencies and 
Rudeness of the most provoking Language, as well as the most hellish Oaths 
and Curses, and is frequently followed by Quarrels and Fightings, and 
sometimes has been the Cause of Murder." Well, clearly not that much has 
changed.

Still, many of England's powerful seemed unworried.

The landed gentry, for instance, made a tidy profit out of selling surplus 
grain to distillers. The government, run from 1721 to 1742 by the bloated 
and amoral figure of Sir Robert Walpole, was happy to collect excise taxes 
and license fees associated with gin, above all when this provided funds to 
keep George II happy. And the London Company of Distillers boasted more 
than a few friends in the House of Commons ready to defend its interests in 
exchange for bribes.

With the lines drawn, then, a protracted battle followed as Parliament 
adopted a flurry of largely ineffective laws -- no fewer than eight in 22 
years -- designed either to suppress gin consumption or to extract as much 
money as possible from it. Led by the magistrate Thomas De Veil, the 
reformers were naturally the most zealous, bolstering their campaign for 
prohibition with sorry tales of abandoned children, whoring mothers and 
irresponsible fathers.

The government, on the other hand, liked the tax revenue from gin sales but 
was wary of stirring up the poor.

By coincidence, this stormy period of English history has now been 
revisited in two new books: "Craze: Gin and Debauchery in an Age of 
Reason," by Jessica Warner, a professor of history at the University of 
Toronto, and "Gin: The Much-Lamented Death of Madam Geneva," by Patrick 
Dillon, an English writer and architect.

Both books cover much the same ground, with Dillon perhaps the livelier 
writer (Dillon recognizes Warner's previous articles on the gin craze in 
his acknowledgments). Both books also compare the fight against Madam 
Geneva with Prohibition and the more recent war against crack cocaine and 
other drugs.

Past and present meet in the specificity of urban culture.

Certainly 1720's London was as lively as 1980's New York. With its 
population swollen by immigrants from the countryside, its economy booming, 
its politics alive with warring between Whigs and Tories, London was a city 
open to novelty. "A city of transformations was a city of insecurities," 
Dillon writes, "and insecurity was reason enough for any Londoner to turn 
to a new drug." A pricey gin had arrived from the Netherlands in the late 
17th century, but once an affordable local version was available in the 
early 1720's, laced with fruity additives to disguise its fiery taste, the 
gin craze began.

Both authors have scoured newspapers, court documents and parliamentary 
speeches to capture the mood of the times.

Many of the poor, used to drinking pints of beer, were evidently ill 
prepared for the new hooch, which not infrequently killed them. Quoting one 
contemporary record, Warner reports that "a laborer by the name of George 
Wade went to a public house in Westminster, 'drank a Pint of Gin off at a 
Draught, and expired in a few Minutes.' " Then there were those widely 
reported cases, duly confirmed by physicians, where drunkards spontaneously 
caught fire (although their beds or chairs were mysteriously undamaged).

The warnings were not heeded.

Gin was everywhere on sale. "Gin sellers also did well at public hangings," 
Warner notes, adding, ominously, "Sometimes even the hangmen were drunk." 
Women, too, were caught up by the craze, both as vendors and consumers.

Hogarth's 1751 engraving "Gin Lane" shows what could happen next. "Madam 
Geneva's blouse hangs open," Dillon observes. "Sometimes she has to take to 
the streets to pay for her habit; her legs are covered with the sores of 
syphilis." This was the sort of image propagated by reformers, but gin 
remained an appealing escape from grim lives for many poor Londoners.

Predictably, the trouble began when the government decided to clamp down, 
motivated initially more by money than by morality.

The first two legislative moves failed badly, but the Gin Act of 1736 gave 
reformers all they wanted: it raised taxes and license fees and rewarded 
informers who squealed on illegal vendors.

Naturally, informers were not popular.

Many were severely beaten and some were killed by mobs. The laws also fed 
popular resentment against the authorities. "When gin was banned," Dillon 
writes, "subversion almost became too easy. To cock a snook at the ruling 
classes in winter 1736, all you had to do was buy a dram."

Soon the cumulative effect of attacks on informers and riots had undermined 
the 1736 act. A new act in 1743 eased prohibition by reducing licensing 
fees for publicans, raising excise taxes for gin and banning informers.

But the battle was not over. After a peace treaty in Europe in 1748, the 
return of some 80,000 newly unemployed soldiers and sailors set off fear of 
a crime wave and a fresh law-and-order panic, prompting the toughest 
anti-gin legislation to date in 1751. But it was no longer necessary.

Consumption was now falling and when harvests failed in 1757, the 
government, fearing food riots, banned grain sales to distillers. The gin 
craze was over, at least for the 18th century.

When gin returned to fashion some 80 years later, temperance societies were 
quick to resume their campaigning. Once again, though, the real problem was 
not what people drank, but who did the drinking.

In the quiet comfort of London clubs, gin could be tippled with impunity.

But when the poor drank it to excess, they were viewed as a threat to society.

Charles Dickens saw through this hypocrisy. "Gin drinking is a great vice 
in England," he wrote in the early 1830's, when he was still a journalist, 
"but wretchedness and dirt are greater."

For much the same reason, the futile battle against gin consumption 
anticipated the ineffectiveness of Prohibition in the United States in the 
1920's. "Alcohol was the conservatives' scapegoat," Dillon writes. "Just as 
gin had in the 1720's, it became a focus for all the evils of the age. 
Drink threatened America's security and damaged its economy." And, he 
reminds us, "Even so, Prohibition never stopped people drinking."

Warner comes even closer to endorsing Dickens. Recalling the failure of 
many antidrug campaigns since the 1970's, she argues that we are "too 
easily seduced by the notion that the complex problems that come with 
complex places boil down to a simple and single source, be it gin, heroin 
or crack cocaine." England's 18th-century reformers got it all wrong. "It 
was not gin that made people poor," she writes. "It was poverty that made 
them drink."

Alan Riding is the European cultural correspondent of The Times, based in Paris.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D