On the 29th of September, 1736, when the bill against spirituous liquors
took place, several people at Norwich, Bristol, and other places, as
well as at London, made themselves very merry on the “Death of Madam
Gin,” and some of both sexes got soundly drunk at her “funeral,” for
which the mob made a formal procession, but committed no outrage.
A double guard for some days mounted at Kensington; the guard at St.
James’s, and the horse-guards at Whitehall, were reinforced; a guard was
placed at the Rolls Office, Chancery-lane; and a detachment of the life
and horse grenadier guards paraded in Covent Garden, &c. in order to
suppress any tumult that might happen at the going down of spirituous
liquors.
Several of the distillers took out licenses to sell wine, others made
preparations to take to the brewing-trade, and some went down to Oxford
and Cambridge to open taverns there. The accounts of that period state,
that the university of Oxford intended to try their right with them; the
privilege of licensing vintners having been granted to it by a charter
of Henry VIII., and afterwards confirmed by an act of parliament in 13
Elizabeth.
The distillers and others in different parts of the town sold a liquor,
which seems to have been wine, with spices infused therein; and several
continuing to sell spirituous liquors contrary to the act, informations
were laid against them to the commissioners of excise.
Drams under the following names were sold at several brandy-shops in
High Holborn, St. Giles’s, Tothill-street, Rosemary-lane, Shoreditch,
the Mint, Kent-street, &c. viz. “Sangree,” “Tow Row,” “Cuckold’s
Comfort,” “Parliament Gin,” “Bob,” “Make Shift,” “The Last Shift,” “The
Ladies’ Delight,” “The Balk,” “King Theodore of Corsica,” “Cholick and
Gripe Waters.” These denominations were with a view to evade the late
act.
On the 14th of October, 1736, there came on before the commissioners of
excise the trials of Mr. Robert Kirkpatrick, surgeon and apothecary in
Turnmill-street, and Mr. John Thomas, chymist at Shoreditch, on
informations for retailing spirituous liquors, contrary to the intent
and meaning of the act; and they were both found guilty. The penalty was
one hundred pounds each.