Sunday, 22 July 2018

The English Lager Beer Brewery,

Setting up a Lager brewery in the UK in the late 19th century sounded like a surefire winner. Punters were willing to pay a hefty premium for Lager. How could you fail to make money?

This sounds so promising:

"The English Lager Beer Brewery, Limited.
With a capital of £100,000 in shares of £10 each, the English Lager Beer Brewery, Company, Limited, has been formed for the manufacture of lager beer. It is stated that arrangements have been made to acquire a freehold brewery with 20-quarter malthouse, stores, offices, stables, outbuildings, and dwelling-house, with freehold building land adjoining, situate at Batbeaston, Bath, possessing a suitable water supply. A special plant will be erected for the manufacture of lager beer, capable of producing 30,000 barrels per annum. The vendor undertakes for the sum of £39,500 to convey and assign the brewery, with malthouse, &c., and to reconstruct the brewery and fit up the same with a special lager-beer plant and machinery and fittings capable of producing ooobarrels per week; also, an ice factory, with the requisite machinery and plant. The first subscribers are :—

H. D. Parsons, 112, St. John’s-road, N.    1
C. S. Culley, I2, Penshurst-road, Hackney    1
C. Markham, The Quarries, Croydon    1
W. McCracken, II, Dovecote-avenue, Noel-park    1
J. Higgins, I4, Manley-terrace, Kennington    1
C.W. Hubbard, 47, Jackson-road, Holloway    1
A.J. Evans,9,,Belle Vue-villas, Wood-green    1

There shall not be less than three nor more than nine directors. The first are F. R. Crawshay, J.P., Lieut.-Colonel Perkins, J.P., Major F. R.  Howell, B. Payne, and J. P. Hall. Qualification, £259. Remuneration, £100 each when 6 per cent. dividend is paid, and further £50 each for every 2 per cent. above, with the proviso that in each instance the chairman receive £50 extra."
"The Brewers' Guardian 1890", 1890, page 29.
Sounds great. Yet three years later, everything had gone tits up:

The Company to be Wound Up.

An extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of this Company was held on Tuesday at the Brewery, Batheaston. In the absence of any director at the opening of the meeting, Mr. James Cochrane, of Bristol, was elected to the chair. There were also present Col. Worsley, Mr. J. Humby, Mr. B. Newstead (representing Mr. W. Ferguson), Mr. W. Stevens, Mr. F. J Ferguson, Mr. B. A. Dyer, representing shareholders, Mr. William Cooke, and Mr. J. P. Hall (secretary).

The minutes of the last general meeting were not read, as the minute book was the possession of one the absent directors (Col A. Thrale Perkins), who, however, subsequently arrived.

The Chairman read the report of the Committee of Investigation appointed at a shareholdors' meeting held on the 19th July. This stated inter alia:-

The Committee were met by one director only, Colonel Perkins, with the Secretary. The only accounts which were available for investigation were the approximate balance sheet produced at the general meeting and the books of account belonging to the Company; no effort appears to have been made even to ascertain the financial position for the period between the 31st day of December, 1892, and June 30th, 1893, and the books of account afford no information upon the subject. Dealing, however, with the approximate balance sheet, your Committee beg to report that it does not afford a reliable or correct view of the present financial position of the Company. An effort was made to ascertain from the books how much cash had been received, and what had been done with it, but your Committee regret to report that they were unable to extract the information either from the books or from the secretary. The Committee have ascertained that practically the whole of the paid-up capital of the Company, a sum of close upon £30,050, has been paid
by the directors to Mrs. Humby, or to her nominees, as the purchase money of the brewery, mill and premises. Unfortunately, however, this large sum did not secure to the Company the absolute possession of the property because it was not conveyed the Company free, but subject to mortgages amounting to £10,000. These mortgages consist of two, namely, one for £3,460, now held by independent parties, and another for £6,540 in favour of Mrs. Humby. It follows, that in addition to receiving close upon £30,000 as the purchase money for the property, Mrs. Humby is still the proprietor of a second mortgage on the whole property of the Company to secure a further sum of £6,540. Following the history of this mortgage transaction, we find that originally both the first and second mortgages covered the whole of the property—in other words, they included the mill. Within the last six months the first mortgage for £3,460 was transferred, and in this transaction the mill was withdrawn from this particular security, but it still remains, subject to the second mortgage, in favour of Mrs. Humby. We further find that this second mortgage is now held on behalf of the National Bank of Wales under circumstances stated to be as follows:—Mr. James Humby, the husband of the vendor, Mrs. Humby, had an account with the Bank and at some date, which your Committee is unable to ascertain this second mortgage of £6,540 was deposited by Mrs. Humby to secure the general account of her husband with the National Bank of Wales. In addition therefore to the liability of £6,540 on the second mortgage to Mrs. Humby (since transferred to or deposited with the Bank) this Company is also liable for its overdraft at the Bank which amounts to the sum of £10,647. So far as your Committee can ascertain the National Bank of Wales claim a security in respect of this overdraft upon an unpaid and uncalled capital of the Company and also hold limited guarantee of some sort from the Directors. In addition to the bank overdraft of £10,647, the Company appears to be indebted to the extent of about £2,000 — although in the absence of any information touching the last six months this figure must be accepted with some reserve — making a total indebtedness of, roughly, £12,500. As the whole paid-up capital was paid to Mrs. Humby as the price of property which was then and still is subject mortgages for £10,000, it follows that the only assets to meet this liability are the loose stock—casks, barrels, and bottles, and unfixed plant, of the total value of perhaps £200. Your Committee are of opinion that the value of the brewery and mill together is not more than sufficient to discharge the mortgages. Under these circumstances your Committee took the responsibility of passing a resolution calling upon the directors at once to take the necessary steps for winding up the company, and they also decided to request Colonel Perkins personally to take charge of the books and papers recording the condition of the company. The state of affairs disclosed by the investigation is such that the Committee are unanimously of opinion that a liquidator should at once be called upon to deal with it, and they urgently recommend the shareholders to wind the company in the most expeditious and speedy manner. In conclusion your Committee regret that the result of their labour has been of such a thoroughly unsatisfactory character, and beg to assure the shareholders that they will be prepared to give the liquidator every assistance in their power to enable him to conduct a careful investigation into the inception of the company and the causes that have contributed to such a disastrous result.

The Chairman, in answer to Mr. Dyer, said he had been informed tbat an execution was levied on Saturday by the National Bank of Wales. The Committee were of opinion that any winding should be perfectly independent of the Bank or those representing it.

Mr. Stevens, who said he represented shareholders to the extent of £4,000, alluded to passage the prospectus (dated January, 1890) with which the Company originated. One paragraph stated that a contract had been entered into, dated 7th November, 1889, between Charles Stewart Colley of the one part and Arthur James Evans as trustee for tbe Company on the other part, and that that contract might be seen at the office of the Company's solicitors. That was an important document but it had not been produced when they called for it. Perhaps Mr. Humby could throw some light upon it?

Mr. Humby said in some way the contract was lost. He said it was left with the Bank of Wales but the Bank said "No." At an early point in the constitution of the Company, two years ago, the contract was called for and could not be found. But (in answer to Mr. Dyer) the draft could be obtained.

Mr. Dyer — Perhaps Mr. Humby can tell us whether under that contract any shares were issued fully paid up, or to be issued?

Mr. Humby — No.

Mr. Stevens thought the money taken could hardly have paid the brewer's salary.

In the couree of discussion it was stated that the directors named upon tbe prospectus were F. E. Crawshay, J.P., Bridgend, Glamorganshire, Chairman, deputy-chairman of tbe National Bank of Wales; A. T. Perkins, J.P., East Court, Wells, Somerset; Major R. Howell, Oaklands, Aberdare, Glamorganshire, director of the National Bank of Wales; John Bellamy Payne, millowner and manufacturer, Chard, Somerset; James P. Hall, Bathampton. The first three, added tbe Chairman, appeared to be still directors, and the last six months Col. Perkins seemed to have discharged the duties of managing director. Mr. Payne, an exceedingly old man, never seemed to have acted; Mr. Hall, on becoming secretary, by the articles of association ceased to be director.

At this point Col.Perkins entered, and explained that he had travelled from Cardiff and been detained. In answer to a question he said he had neither seen the other directors, heard of them, nor had communication with them.

The Chairman said he thought from what had come to his knowledge that the liquidator should have power to go to the courts for assistance.

A resolution to wind the Company having been carried, the question of tbe appointment of liquidator was raised.

Mr. Ferguson said the shareholders and the committee had been most shabbily treated. He would, however, say this — he was sure there was nothing wilful the part of Colonel Perkins, but that it was want of business capacity. He did not suppose he would have allowed the Company to get into that serious state had he known otherwise.

Colonel Perkins said he knew there had been mismanagement, and if he had to give evidence on oath he would say things his own defence he would leave unsaid now. But he could not hold himself entirely to blame; he was but one of a body, and had been over-ruled. He was anxious for a thoroughly independent inquiry.

It was decided to appoint as liquidator Mr. Benjamin Newstead, of the firm of J. F. Lovering and Co., chartered accountants, 3, Church-passage, Guildhall, London, and was further resolved to instruct and empower him to apply to the Court forthwith for an order that the Company be wound up compulsorily, or under the supervision of the Court.

The Chairman alluded to the celerity with which tbe National Bank of Wales had put in its execution, and Colonel Perkins said he believed the reason was there was another imminent. He added that if he had been wrong in not taking measures with regard to the writ, it was because he did not know what to do with such document. —(laughter)—as he had had no experience with them The Colonel added that he had all the books in his care after the Committee of investigation finished, and had kept the business going paying small payments and receiving the same."
Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette - Thursday 10 August 1893, page 3.

It sounds rather like some sort of fraud. Pretty suspicious that most of the directors were nowhere to be seen. And whart about Mr. and Mrs. Humby? They seem to done rather well out of the disaster.

Saturday, 21 July 2018

Let's Brew - 1946 Barclay Perkins KK (bottling)

Yet another recipe from my new book. I got the ISBN number this morning. Ideally, I'll have it ready to go by Sunday. 

This is the bottling version of Barclay Perkins Burton. It’s surprisingly different from the draught version of KK, even though the two share a name. It wasn’t branded as Burton, however, being sold under the name of Southwark Olde Ale.

The grist contains no amber malt and the sugar in No. 1 rather than No. 3. Though the brewing record does have “3” crossed out, replaced with a red “1”. Was that a mistake or a recipe change? The other photos I have of this beer aren’t much help. One lists No. 3, the other No. 1.

Another big difference with the draught version is the lack of dry hops. This isn’t unusual. Bottled beers often lacked the draught version’s dry hops. There are more copper hops, however. 8.85 lbs per quarter of malt as opposed to 8.35 lbs. Not a massive difference, but I’m sure it’s no mistake.

It may look modest today, but 1047.5º was a pretty huge OG in 1946.

1946 Barclay Perkins KK (bottling)
pale malt 7.75 lb 74.70%
crystal malt 0.50 lb 4.82%
flaked barley 0.50 lb 4.82%
No. 1 invert sugar 1.50 lb 14.46%
caramel 1000 SRM 0.125 lb 1.20%
Bramling Cross 90 mins 1.00 oz
Fuggles 75 mins 1.00 oz
Fuggles 60 mins 1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins 1.00 oz
OG 1047.5
FG 1018
ABV 3.90
Apparent attenuation 62.11%
IBU 55
SRM 15
Mash at 152º F
Sparge at 165º F
Boil time 90 minutes
pitching temp 60º F
Yeast Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

Friday, 20 July 2018

The World‘s Beer Production

More stuff from the Brewers' Guardians that have just become available on Google Books. They should keep me in material for posts for month.

Today we're looking at some numbers about breweries and beer production.

"The World‘s Beer Production.-—The Austrian brewers’ periodical Gambrinus publishes in accordance with custom a tabular statement of the beer production and taxation in the world. It appears therefrom that in nineteen countries the enormous sum of 173,662,717 florins is yielded by taxes on the production of beer. The total beer production is set down at 236,319,397 hectos, deducting the quantity brewed in those countries in which no beer tax is levied, 231,701,652 hectos remain. Comparing the latter quantity with the yield of the brewing tax, it is seen that each hectolitre of beer pays on an average 1.34 florins. Whilst in the German Beer Excise District the tax per hectolitre is only 47 kreuzers, in Austria it is 2.18 florins. With the exception of a few unimportant countries from a beer-brewing point of view, as Roumania, Greece, &c., Austria can boast of having the highest tax on beer. In Austria-Hungary, in 1889, there were 1,952 breweries at work, in which 13,728,431 hectos. of beer were brewed (as compared with 13,184,026 hectos. in the preceding year). The revenue accruing therefrom to the State was 25,325,252 florins (24,358,773 florins). The malt used amounted to 3,549,564 centners, and the hops to 102,800 centners only. In the German Empire, in 1889, there were 25,434 breweries at work, and their total production was 47,602,939 hectos. of beer (1888, 26,240 breweries, 47,243,706 hectos. production). The amount of 36,691,500 florins was collected in taxes; 18,208,410 ctrs. of malt was consumed, and 385,000 ctrs. of hops. In Bavaria, of 6,930 breweries, only 6,881 were at work; they consumed 6,339,144 ctrs. (as compared with 5,952,424 ctrs. in previous year), and produced 14,064,842 hectos. of beer, the tax using to 15,964,250 florins. In the other countries there were 22,840 breweries, producing 112,331,347 hectos. of beer, and consuming 43,320,160 ctrs. of malt, and 1,198,686 ctrs. of hops; the taxes yielded 174,302,645 florins."
"The Brewers' Guardian 1890", 1890, page 259.

I've put that information into a nice table because it's much easier to understand:

Breweries, beer production, materials and tax 1888 - 1889
breweries production tax (florins)
1888 1889 1888 1889 1888 1889 malt hops
Austria-Hungary 1,952 13,184,026 13,728,431 24,358,773 25,325,252 3,549,564 102,800
German Empire 26,240 25,434 47,243,706 47,602,939 36,691,500 18,208,410 385,000
Bavaria 6,930 14,064,842 15,964,250 6,339,144
other countries 22,840 112,331,347 174,302,645 43,320,160 1,198,686
total 236,319,397 316,667,992
"The Brewers' Guardian 1890", 1890, page 259.

And people think that there are a lot of breweries nowadays. Almost 7,000 breweries in Bavaria alone. It's amazing that more beer was brewed in Bavaria than in the whole of Austria-Hungary. Especially when you take their populations into account: Bavaria 5,595,000, Austria-Hungary 40,066,600.

I've also derived some numbers of my own about the average amount of hops used per hectolitre:

Hop usage 1889
Country hops kg/hl
Austria 0.37
Germany 0.40
other countries 0.53
UK 0.53
"The Brewers' Guardian 1890", 1890, page 259.
“The Brewers' Society Statistical Handbook 1988” page 7
Brewers' Almanack 1928, pages 110 and 111

I had expected an even bigger difference between the UK and everywhere else. The UK figures are from 1902, incidentally.

Thursday, 19 July 2018

Ales through the Ages

I'm very excited that there will be another historic beer conference at Colonial Williamsburg this autumn. It it's naything like the l;ast one a couple of years ago, it's going to be a fun weekend.

Pete Brown, Stan Hieronymus, Martyn Cornell and myself, amongst others, will be speaking.

Ales through the Ages
October 19th - 21st in Colonial Williamsburg.

You can find more details here:
Conference Website –

That 1869 Adambier again

I’ve just got a new pdf book to play with. One I asked Google to make fully viewable a few weeks back. I just had an email saying that they had done that. I feel so proud.

The first thing I looked up was an article on the Pure Beer Bill. When I got to the appropriate page, I was amazed to see what the next article was: one about Adambier. Complete with a chemical analysis.

This is the article:

“Adam” Beer.
IN Westphalia a. peculiar beer is met with which. is there called by the above name or Old Beer. Unlike the majority of German beers. It is produced by “top” fermentation, and it is remarkable for its high percentage of lactic acid. One of these Old Beers, which was brewed from good raw materials and fermented with “top” yeast, after being kept for more than twelve months, and was very popular in the Dortmund district, had the following composition:—

Gravity 0.23 per cent. Balllng.
Extract 3.37 "
Alcohol 7.38 weight per cent.
Acid calculated as lactic acid 0.61 per cent.
Maltose (direct copper reduction) 0.66 "
Other sugars  0.62 "
Dextrin 0.50 "
Ash 0.284 "
Phosphoric acid 0.133 "
Nitrogen 0.112 "

From the above the following can be calculated :—

Original gravity 17.26 per cent.
Apparent fermentation 98.67 "
Actual fermentation 80.47 "

The remarkable features in the composition of this beer are the high percentage of lactic acid and the low percentage of dextrin. The beer was brown in colour, bright, without any sediment, and remained bright for a very long time; it was absolutely devoid of carbonic acid and tasted sour. A microscopical examination of the beer disclosed the presence of traces of yeast cells, very few rod bacteria, and traces of albumenous substances.”
"The Brewers' Guardian 1889", 1889, page 129.

When I started looking at the numbers, they looked remarkably familiar. Looking at something I’d written about Adambier a few years back I realised why. The article is clearly based on one in "Zeitschrift für Angewandte Chemie, Volume 3", also from 1889. That also comments on the high lactic acids and low dextrin content.

There are a couple of additions to put Adambier in context, but it’s really little more than a paraphrased translation of the German text. It’s a bit naughty nicking it without acknowledging the original.

You can find my translation of the German article here:

Wednesday, 18 July 2018

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1958 William Younger No. 3 L

Here's a nother bit from the new book. This time it's one of the 200 recipes.

They weren’t the most exciting brewery when it came to recipes, William Younger. Their No.3 Scotch Ale looks very similar to the Bitter XXPQ and the Mild XXX.

But why change a recipe when you have a good one? And why change what you’ve done for a century or more? William Younger’s recipes always looked creepily familiar, whatever the supposed style.

The colour of the finished beer would have been much darker than the calculated colour in the recipe below. Probably not just one shade either, if I know Scottish brewing. Anywhere between 15 and 50 SRM would be my guess. Depending on which market the beer was intended for. Colour it up with caramel as dark as you like.

1958 William Younger No. 3 L
pale malt 6.25 lb 64.10%
flaked maize 3.00 lb 30.77%
cane sugar 0.50 lb 5.13%
Fuggles 90 mins 0.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins 0.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins 0.50 oz
Goldings dry hops 0.125 oz
OG 1044
FG 1014
ABV 3.97
Apparent attenuation 68.18%
IBU 20
Mash at 149º F
Sparge at 160º F
Boil time 90 minutes
pitching temp 61º F
Yeast WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

Tuesday, 17 July 2018

Scotch Ale

Another book preview, I'm afraid, as we count down to the publication of Austerity!.

This time it's the fun topic of Scotch Ale.

"Scotch Ale
I’m only going to consider strong Scotch Ales as being in this category. Scottish Shilling Ales – 60/-, 70/- and 80/- are just types of Pale Ale.

Scottish breweries were dead dull for most of the 20th century, William Younger excepted. Most had a single recipe, from which they’d parti-gyle three Pale Ales – 60/-, 70/- and 80/- - plus possibly a Strong Ale. Sometimes they even managed to parti-gyle Stout with Pale Ale.

I’m classing Scotch Ale as two types. Which rather than pissing around with some abstract description, I’ll define in reference to two William Younger beers: No. 1 and No. 3. Though the latter type seems to have been peculiar to them. Strong Ales from other Scottish breweries were mostly along the lines of No. 1.

The No. 1 type of Scotch Ale was around 1070º - 1080º, dark and not particularly well attenuated. At most breweries it was parti-gyled with Pale Ales and so was effectively a double-strength Scottish Pale Ale."
"Austerity!" by Ronald Pattinson, 2235, pages 100 - 101.

Scotch Ale 1947 - 1950
Year Brewer Beer OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1950 Aitchison Scotch Ale 1080 1020.8 7.73 74.00% 55
1948 Aitken Strong Ale 1067.5 1021 6.04 68.89%
1948 Ballingall "Angus" Strong Ale 1073.5 1023.5 6.49 68.03%
1948 Calder Scotch Strong Ale 1065.5 1019 6.04 70.99%
1950 Campbell Royal Scotch Ale 1080.1 1014.2 8.66 82.27% 77
1948 Dryborough Strong Ale 1060 1019.5 5.25 67.50%
1947 Fowler Heavy Ale 1081.4 1025.5 7.27 68.67%
1948 Fowler Twelve Guinea Ale 1080 1021.5 7.63 73.13%
1949 Fowler Extra Strong 1078 1012 8.68 84.62%
1949 Fowler Twelve Guinea Ale 1077.7 1030.3 6.13 61.00% 100
1948 Jeffrey Strong Ale No. 1 1067 1025 5.43 62.69%
1948 Jeffrey Strong Ale 1065 1019.5 5.91 70.00%
1948 Maclachlan Strong Ale 1070.5 1024.5 5.96 65.25%
1948 McEwan Strong Ale 1078 1022.5 7.23 71.15%
1950 McEwan Scotch Ale 1088 1022.6 8.56 74.32% 63
1947 Murray Heavy Ale 1066.3 1017.25 6.38 73.96%
1948 Steel Coulson Strong Ale 1063 1026 4.77 58.73%
1947 Usher Old Scotch Ale 1073.5 1020.5 6.90 72.11%
1948 Usher Strong Ale 1090.5 1024.5 8.63 72.93%
1947 Younger, Wm. No. 1 Strong Ale 1074 1022 6.76 70.27%
1950 Younger, Wm. Scotch Ale 1087.6 1017.5 9.21 80.02% 60
Average 1074.6 1021.4 6.94 70.98% 71.0
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
Thomas Usher Gravity Book held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document TU/6/11.

Monday, 16 July 2018

Want to see my beautiful face


Then - if you're in the USA - you'd better get to Foggy Noggin in Bothell on the 10th August:

Because that and a talk in Colonial Williamsburg in October are likely to be my only events in the USA for the rest of the year.

I'll be talking about - while we're drinking it - No. 1 Ale. The Ur Barley Wine. It should be lots of fun. Especially as the six beers are all over 8% ABV.

Many of the recipes feature in my ground-breaking book on Scottish beer:

Scottish Pale Ale Grists 1948 - 1965

 Now the new book is almost done, it's time for a little preview. This is something I literally just finished writing five minutes ago. On the ever fescinating topic of Scottish Pale Ales.

Scottish brewers were, for the most part pretty dull when it came to recipes. Most only had the one.

I’ve only bothered with one of a brewery’s Pale Ale range, as all were parti-gyled together. Except at the ever contrary William Younger. Not only weren’t their Pale Ales parti-gyled together, they all had slightly different recipes. The crazy bastards.

Scottish Pale Ale grists 1948 - 1965: malts and adjuncts
Year Brewer Beer OG pale malt black malt enzymic malt flaked maize flaked barley
1958 Bernard Pale 1/1 1031 75.20% 0.82% 13.08%
1948 Drybrough P 60/- 1030 79.11% 0.78% 1.65% 10.55%
1954 Drybrough 60/- 1032 74.52% 2.40% 0.64% 6.01% 6.01%
1960 Drybrough 60/- 1031 74.95% 0.44% 12.49%
1965 Drybrough 60/- 1031 74.45% 0.06% 12.07%
1951 Maclay PA 6d 1030 86.33%
1956 Maclay PA 6d 1030 74.82% 11.51%
1965 Maclay PA 6d 1030 74.82% 11.51%
1962 Thomas Usher P 1/4 1036 69.23% 6.29%
1957 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 77.03% 13.75%
1960 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 71.39% 19.99%
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP Btg 1031 92.86% 7.14%
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP 1031.5 88.24% 11.76%
1949 Younger, Wm. Ext 1047 87.50% 12.50%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPQ 1033 60.00% 26.67%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPSL 1038 58.62% 27.59%
1958 Younger, Wm. EXT 1046 60.94% 29.69%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPS Btg 1038 62.16% 32.43%
T & J Bernard brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number TJB6/1/1/1.
Drybrough brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number D/6/1/1/6.
Drybrough brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number D/6/1/1/7.
Drybrough brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number D/6/1/1/8.
Maclay brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number M/6/1/1/28.
Maclay brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number M/6/1/1/35.
Maclay brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number M/6/1/1/44.
Thomas Usher brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number TU/6/9/1.
Robert Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number RY/6/1/2.
Robert Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number RY/6/1/3.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/88.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/3/112.

I’ve lumped the malts and adjuncts together because there aren’t many of either. Mostly it’s just pale malt and flaked maize or barley. A couple of examples have a small amount of black malt for colour. But there’s no crystal malt in sight.

William Younger loved to stuff their beers with adjuncts. Before WW II most of their beers were 40% grits. The beers above aren’t quite that bad, but those from the 1950s all still have over 25% flaked maize.

Two sugar tables for this set.

Scottish Pale Ale grists 1948 - 1965: sugars
Year Brewer Beer OG no. 1 sugar invert Avona Hydrol
1958 Bernard Pale 1/1 1031 6.54% 4.36%
1948 Drybrough P 60/- 1030 2.64%
1954 Drybrough 60/- 1032 3.21% 3.21%
1960 Drybrough 60/- 1031 6.81% 1.51%
1965 Drybrough 60/- 1031 7.38% 0.67%
1951 Maclay PA 6d 1030 9.59%
1956 Maclay PA 6d 1030 7.67%
1965 Maclay PA 6d 1030 7.67%
1962 Thomas Usher P 1/4 1036 17.48%
1957 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 4.58% 3.67%
1960 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 3.81% 3.81%
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP Btg 1031
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP 1031.5
1949 Younger, Wm. Ext 1047
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPQ 1033
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPSL 1038 2.30%
1958 Younger, Wm. EXT 1046 3.13%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPS Btg 1038

Invert sugar is as popular as ever. No. 1 being what you’d expect in Pale Ales. The unspecific “invert” is most likely either No. 1 or No. 2 invert. Avona and Hydrol are enigmatic proprietary sugars.

Scottish Pale Ale grists 1948 - 1965: sugars again
Year Brewer Beer OG cane candy caramel malt extract other sugar
1958 Bernard Pale 1/1 1031
1948 Drybrough P 60/- 1030 0.88% 4.39%
1954 Drybrough 60/- 1032 0.80% 3.21%
1960 Drybrough 60/- 1031 1.51% 0.76% 1.51%
1965 Drybrough 60/- 1031 2.68% 2.68%
1951 Maclay PA 6d 1030 0.24% 3.84%
1956 Maclay PA 6d 1030 0.24% 1.92% 3.84%
1965 Maclay PA 6d 1030 0.24% 1.92% 3.84%
1962 Thomas Usher P 1/4 1036 0.00% 2.10% 4.90%
1957 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 0.05% 0.92%
1960 Younger, Robert 60/- 1030 0.05% 0.95%
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP Btg 1031
1949 Younger, Wm. XXP 1031.5
1949 Younger, Wm. Ext 1047
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPQ 1033 8.89% 4.44%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPSL 1038 6.90% 4.60%
1958 Younger, Wm. EXT 1046 6.25%
1958 Younger, Wm. XXPS Btg 1038 5.41%

A more normal lot of sugars. Though exactly what is meant by cane and candy isn’t 100% clear. I assume that cane refers to some partially refined cane sugar. There’s lots of malt extract again, always in tiny quantities. The largest amount used is under 3% of the total grist.

Pale malt, flaked adjunct and sugar. That’s all there is to Scottish Pale Ale grists.