In effecting a change in their systems of brewing, therefore, it is for the brewery proprietor to judge first, whether or not such parts of the process could be adopted with advantage, without the great rink and expense of altering his utensils and general arrangements. I see no difficulty whatever in the matter. An English brewer, without any alteration of the utensils, may adopt, at any time, the Scotch modes of mashing and boiling the worts ; and, according as those are judiciously carried through, it would be certainly attended with very great advantage, keeping the strength of the ales out of view altogether ; because just as good ale can be brewed by one system as by the other. But economy in short boiling, and in obtaining a fine aromatic extract from the hops, are valuable considerations, and are of such easy attainment, that the subject cannot fail to attract inquiry."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, pages 199 - 200.
Sending beer out to be bottled, graded by the price per hogshead. Does that remind you of something? Sounds just like William Younger's Shilling Ales that I discussed yesterday.
Scots brewers preferred a short boil. Hang on, weren't they supposed to boil for hours on end to concentrate and caramelise the wort and to get colour? Oh, I remember that's made-up bullshit. Let's have a look what William Younger were up to in 1858. The only worts they boiled for more than 2 hours were for Table Beer, Pale Ale and Porter. Can't imaginer they were after caramelisation in any of those. Pale Ale you'd want to keep pale and Porter was already dark. None of the Strong beers was boiled for more than 1.75 hours. And it was the second wort that was boiled for longer, not the first runnings of popular myth.
Stewart really wasn't keen on long boils:
"The process of boiling the worts, like all the other processes in brewing, requires much attention and care to bring it through successfully with the least possible loss, and to preserve the aroma and first bitter of the hops. In the Rules on Brewing, I stated that one-and-a-half hour's boiling is sufficient for any wort whatever. I shall be glad to find that the experience of others, in the English system, confirms this statement. From my own knowledge, I repeat, that it is not only sufficient, but more than enough to extract the virtue of the hops in the greatest perfection; although it is the practice, in many districts of England, to boil for two-and-a-half hours. By boiling so much, the fine essential aroma and first bitter are driven off, and a nauseous bitter left, injurious to ales of every description. There is much room for improvement in boiling and infusing the hops,—the subject is worthy of the best attention of those who are judicious enough to take advantage of the knowledge of the fact. The subject, indeed, is so important, that I shall recur to it again in the description of the system of English ale-brewing."A naseous bitter. That's an evocotive description - it's giving me a lump in my throat - but what doeas it really mean?
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, pages 206 - 207.
It sounds as if Stewart is talking about getting hop aroma rather than bitterness. Now there's an interesting point. English beer had lots of bittereness, Scottish beer lots of hop aroma. That's a new one. It could explain why William Younger was so keen on Goldings and Saaz.