As long ago as 1740 the problem of whisky in its relations to health and politics was under discussion. A physician writing under the name of E. B. printed a treatise on the virtues of whisky considered in its physical and political uses, which was printed at Dublin in 1740. It was written especially in relation to the conditions existing in Ireland. A somewhat learned but rather antiquated discussion of the virtues of the grains from which whisky is made is given as an introduction to the treatise on whisky itself. Attention is drawn to the fact that most animals live on grain, although the carnivorous animals are dignified by being mentioned. Man has half his food flesh, and the immoderate use of flesh is regarded as the cause of most of our distempers and particularly as the basis of gout and scurvy. It follows, therefore, in the course of the argument that if corn is used in the sense of barley, wheat, oats and rye, the liquor made from it has the same virtues. In other words, and in the language of the author, "All nourishment drawn from corn, though variously prepared, must answer the same good end in some degree, and share the virtues of its source and original."

The definition of whiskey nearly 200 years ago is most interesting. It is as follows:

Whisky is a water highly impregnated with the most spirituous part of the corn, and highly exalted by fire; it is distilled from oats or barley malted, replete with all the good qualities and nutritious parts of the grain, and cannot but be exceeding nourishing.

Further on in the treatise on whisky the author says:

Whisky drank too new, may hurt; but this is no objection to the liquor itself, but against the abuse of it; because whisky may be kept to grow old, and to become mild as well as brandy and rum. If people will drink it hot from the pipe, that is no fault of the liquor.

In argument that whisky is more wholesome than brandy the author says:

But why should not a spirit distilled from corn be more salutiferous to a human constitution than a spirit extracted from the lees and sediments of the worst of wines, as brandy is?

The effect of whisky in those days seems somewhat peculiar, as the author says:

Whosoever has drank of it in its purity, either in punch, or otherwise, has found his head easy after it, and not distracted, hot and crazy as after brandy or rum, it is a lighter and more volatile spirit than either, or any other spirit, it exhilarates sooner, and evaporates the speedier, but it is not so hot and acrid, so active and penetrating as brandy and rum. It is a grand opiate, and a most excellent narcotic, a great opener and emollient; and that it is a mild and gentle sudorific, all who have drank it will concede: It exhilarates quickly, but like a merry companion, does not tease us by the prolixity of its visit. It leaves us cheerful, it actuates the spirits and puts them into a regular motion, not confusing and perplexing, heating and fatiguing them like the other spirits, whose very qualities must produce this hurry.

The compounding of spirits, that is, the art of the rectifier, seems to have been as objectionable in those days as at the present time, for the author says:

Whenever foreign spirits grow scarce or dear, as is often the case, we are then sure to have the pernicious trade go on of mixing spirituous liquors, and instead even of those foreign spirits (tho' bad enough) we get some compound much more unwholesome, the consequences whereof are, the loss of our health, and entailing distempers on our posterity; but as the neatest and best whisky is always of a moderate price, it is less liable to be adulterated than those foreign spirits; and it will be the interest of every person who deals in whisky to have it genuine, as well for the publick good, as their own private benefit.