Gin consumption had become a serious problem and the conservative businessmen clashed with the liberal social reformers over how to solve it.
The opponents of this legislation can be defined as any person or organization who was opposed to the ratification of the Gin Act. This group was composed of distillers, merchants, and those worried about the government infringing upon personal property rights. Of the three often overlapping groups, the distillers protested the most vehemently. Daniel Defoe stated the case of the nobles most categorically in 1713. He argued that, ".The distilling of grain is one of the most essential things to support the landed interest and therefore especially to be preserved." Thus Defoe cited the economic importance of gin production for the upper class. The actual laborers were also financially affected according to the landowner William Pulteney. In 1736, the year of the first major gin act, Pulteney brought up the dependence of so many working families on liquor manufacture. Of course the reverse argument might mention something about the many families destroyed by the disease of alcoholism, but that is for later.
There also existed other financial reasons for citizens to oppose the institution of the Gin Act. Since 1689, when the crown opened the distilling trade to certain taxpayers, the government had collected a hefty amount of tax revenue. One member of parliament placed the value of tax money to be lost with the strict regulation of gin at over 70,000 pounds in 1736. Certain of the distillers were worried not only about their money, but the preservation of their human rights that had come to be expected in parliamentary post-Glorious Revolution England. John Moore, a wealthy distiller, was advised in 1736 that, "This year's gin act.strikes at the very root of property rights." Random personal opinions also littered this otherwise sensible debate.
