Keeping Small Beer

There were many odd features to Scottish brewing. One of which was its renown at making beers at either end of the strength spectrum. You'd wouldn't expect a country to be famous for both very strong and pretty weak beers. But Scotland was.

One of the myths that's hardest to permanently kick into history's long grass is that beer exported to the tropics had to be strong. It persists despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Below you'll find yet more.

"Keeping Small Beer.
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM Brewer at Dundee, late a partner and manager in the extensive Brewing Company at Glasgow, begs leave to inform the public, and his friends, that he continues to brew SMALL BEER that will keep through the most sultry summer months, in the greatest perfection.— The excellency of this Small Beer is such that when all other kinds become sour and useless, the above small beer stands the heat of any climate; the liquor retaining its original taste, flavour, and colour in the warmest, even in any part of the West  Indies ; —it has been much admired as table-drink for taverns or private families.

The Small Beer has also given intire satisfaction to ship masters who make voyages to any part of the West Indies ; but as no great quantity is made without being bespoke, Mr Cunningham wishes those who favour him with their orders, would do it before the brewing season is over, as it is not fit for use, either for home or foreign consumpt, in less than six weeks from the date of the commission. The Small Beer is sold at 3s. 9d. per dozen, bottles, &c included, or 24s. per hogshead.

Mr Cunningham also brews PORTER, allowed by the best judges not to be inferior in quality or Savour to London Porter: and as his machinery and materials are well adapted to that branch of manufacture, he flatters himself, the public, upon trial, will find it as good as any brewed in England, notwithstanding the many prejudices against Scotch Porter, which he now hopes are pretty much removed.

The prices of the several articles he manufactures are as follows, viz.

The above Keeping Small Beer, 24s. per hogshead.
Porter, from £2 12s. to £3 3 s. per hogshead.
Strong Ale, from £3 to £3 10 s. per hogshead.

Commissions from either town or country, directed to Mr Cunningham at Dundee, will meet with a ready and careful dispatch."
Caledonian Mercury - Monday 22 March 1773, page 4.

That's quite a claim, from Mr. Cunningham, that his Small Beer would remain sound "even in any part of the West  Indies". I suspect most modern brewers would struggle to keep their beers in good condition in a tropical climate for any length of time without refrigeration.

You have to consider the name for an explanation as to how a relatively weak drink could stand the heat. It's call Small Beer. The article dates from the 18th century, a time when Beer meant something specific: a malt liquor that was heavily hopped. It's also called Keeping Small Beer. Keeping, or a malt liquor meant to be kept for before drinking also implies extra hopping.

London and Country Brewer tells us something about how Small Beer was brewed in the 18th century. Often it was brewed from the later runnings of a stronger brew. But, especially when a better quality product was required, it could also be brewed "Intire", that is where all of the wort produced was used for Small Beer.

"'Tis therefore that some prudent farmers will brew their Ale and Small Beer in March, by allowing five or six bushels of Malt, and two Pounds of Hops, to the Hogshead of Ale; and a Quarter of Malt, and three Pounds of Hops, to five barrels of Small Beer. Others there are, that will brew their Ale or Strong Beer in October, and their Small Beer a Month before it is wanted."
London and Country Brewer, 1737, page 71.

Assuming 60 to 65 brewers pounds of extract per quarter of malt, that would give 5 barrels with a gravity of around 1035º.Note that the book also recommends keeping Small Beer before use, though two weeks less than the minimum recommended by Mr. Cunningham.

Moving on to the Porter, in the 1770's, that usually had a gravity of around 1070º*. Which would tally with it being about double the price of the Small Beer, after taking into account the tax. In the 1770's, that was 1s 4d for Small Beer, 8s for a Strong Beer (like Porter). 24s minus 1s 4d is 22s 8d; 54s (£2 12s) minus 8s is 46s.

Scots drinkers seemed to have some trouble being persuaded that locally-brewed Porter was as good as that from London. Was that pure prejudice or was there some basis to it? We'll probably never know. It is clear that Scottish brewers struggled to sell their Porter and that drinkers preferred the stuff from south of the border.





* "Statical Estimates of the Materials of Brewing" by J. Richardson, 1784, page 150.

Small Beer brewed from unmalted barley

Something new. That's what I learn every day. Unfortunately, I usually forget a couple of other things. Is my balance of learning positive? I hope so.

This is a weird one. It's taken from an encyclopedia article about brewing. For some reason, it starts discussing the use of raw grain in brewing. An odd thing to do because at the time it was published, 1839, brewing from anything other than malt and hops was strictly forbidden.

'The writer of this article,' says Dr. Thomson, in the supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'has several times tried the experiment of making ale from unmalted barley, and found it perfectly practicable. Several precautions, however, are necessary in order to succeed. The water let upon the ground barley in the mash-tun must be considerably below the boiling temperature. For barley meal is much more apt to set than malt, that is, to form a stiff paste, from which no wort will separate. The addition of a portion of the chaff of oats serves very much to prevent this setting of the goods, and facilitates considerably the separation of the wort. Care must likewise be taken to prevent the heat from escaping during the mashing, and the mashing must be continued longer than usual. For it is during the mashing that the starch of the barley is converted into a saccharine matter. This change seems to be owing merely to the chemical combination of a portion of water with the starch of the barley; just as happens when common starch is converted into sugar, by boiling it with very dilute sulphuric acid, or any other acid. This method of brewing from raw grain answers admirably for small beer. In our trials, he adds, the raw barley did not answer so well for making strong ale as for small beer. The ale was perfectly transparent, and we kept it for several years without its running into acidity. But it had a peculiar flavor by no means agreeable. Probably a little practice might have enabled us to get rid of this flavor, in which case, raw grain would answer, in every respect, as well for brewing as malt does.' He further states, that some years ago it was used to a considerable extent by several brewers of small beer in Edinburgh, and their beer was considered as greatly preferable to small beer brewed in the usual manner. But the practice was stopped by a decision of the Court of Exchequer.
"The London encyclopaedia, vol. IV Benedict to Cadiz" edited by Thomas Curtis, 1839, pages 523 - 524.

You've probably guessed why I've posted this text. It's the final few sentences. The bit about Small Beer brewers in Edinburgh brewing from raw grain. I'm sceptical as to whether the Small Beer brewed from unmalted barley was better than that brewed from malt. I can believe that it was cheaper: the malting process was skipped and the malt tax avoided. A double whammy. Of course tax-dodging is exactly why the practice was forbidden.


I'd love to find out more about this. . . . . . Been doing a quick search and came across this:

"In Germany, and many parts of Belgium, where a light colour is desiderated for beer, the above-mentioned chemical principle is taken advantage of. The white beer of Louvain is made from a wort, formed of a little malt, added to a large quantity of wheat flour; and, in the manufacture of the celebrated Bavarian pale beer, a large quantity of unmalted barley is employed."
"Journal of horticulture, Cottage Gardener, and Country Gentleman, Volume 3", 1862, page 143.

Surely it can't be true that unmalted barley was used in Bavaria? Then again, the orginal Reinheitsgebot doesn't mention malt. I just says beer can only be made from barley, hops and water.

Ah, this is more like what I was looking for.

"3752. Do you apprehend if raw grain was well ground and infused with a due proportion of sugar or molasses, so as in that way to obtain the saccharine matter, that you would be likely, from those materials, to produce a good and wholesome beer ?—You can produce excellent beer from raw grain alone, without anything else.

3753- What reason is there, except the question of revenue, which ought to prevent the State from permitting beer made of raw grain to be manufactured by brewers ?—In the year 1805 we had three brewers, and it struck me, during the time of my experiments, to try whether we could not make beer from raw grain; I made each of those brewers in succession try it; they were extremely unwilling to do it; they said it was absurd and ridiculous; but however they tried it, and found, to their great astonishment, that they not only made beer, but better beer from raw grain than had been done from malt; and after we had done, they set up as brewers, brewed from raw grain, and got all the business of Edinburgh; the consequence was, that the licensed brewers, who brewed from malt, lodged a complaint, an Exchequer trial took place, and the barons of the Exchequer prohibited it, though there was no law."
"Report from the Select Committee on the Use Of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries", 1836, page 245.

This looks like one of the sources of that encyclopedia article. It appears that some brewers in Edinburgh did indeed try to brew from raw grain. The bastards.

Edinburgh Ale in the 1830's

A short text today, but one that makes a couple of interesting points.

See if you can spot them:

"EDINBURGH ALE. While London bears the palm of superiority in the art of porter-brewing, Edinburgh challenges all the world to compete with it in the manufacture of ale. In the making of this luxurious beverage, it has, for a considerable period of years, had no rival, unless we allow, what is perhaps correct, that the brewers of Leith, Prestonpans, and Linlithgow, and some other small towns, are equally entitled to hold up the superiority of their liquors ; nevertheless, the whole fall under the designation of Edinburgh ale. This ale differs entirely, in body, flavour, appearance, and character, from the English ales. It is as clear as amber, and of the same colour; soft and delicious in taste; so strong, that a few glasses produce a slight intoxication, or inclination to sleep ; and has a thin creamy top. It is exceedingly difficult to keep, and is easily affected by atmospheric phenomena, although kept in casks in a close cellar, and generally turns hard or sourish after being kept more than a season. It is always used in Edinburgh in glass quart bottles —never in draught; and, when diluted with water, forms an agreeable table beer. It has been occasionally alleged, from the intoxicating qualities of Edinburgh ale, that it is mixed with cocculus indicus, or some other poisonous ingredient; but this is, without doubt, an idle fallacy, the liquor being simply the strength of malt and hops. It is used only in moderate quantities, being quaffed from long tapering glasses made for the purpose, and cannot be indulged in so freely as porter, to which it bears no other resemblance than it is made from nearly the same materials, differently prepared. The quantity of strong beer or ale made in Scotland annually amounts to about 110,000 barrels, upwards of 3000 of which are exported ; the chief export being to London. About 130,000 barrels of table beer are also annually manufactured, besides an immense quantity of small beer— a species of light, cheap, frothy liquid, in great domestic request in Scotland, and which, from its resemblance, in some respects, to ginger beer, might be manufactured in the English towns with every chance of success."
"Chambers's Edinburgh journal, Volume 1", 1833, pages 246 - 247.

First, the term Edinburgh Ale was used to describe not just beer brewed in Edinburgh itself, but in some other areas of Scotland. Leith is, of course, basically a suburb of Edinburgh. Prestonpans is a little to the East along the coast of the Firth of Forth. Linlithgow is about 15 miles due West of Edinburgh.

Then there's quite a nice description of the beer itself. Amber-coloured, clear, soft and dead strong. They brewing records certainly confirm the latter. And the colour, as everything was 100% pale malt. Oh, and it had a thin head. And was served in long, thin glasses.

Just been having a look at William Younger's records from the early 1830's. You know what's really striking about them? Really short boil times. Often just an hour, with the odd one as long as an hour and a half. That tallies with the description we saw a few days ago, saying Scottish brewers liked hop aroma rather than harsh bitterness. They were also still measuring their grain in bolls rather than quarters. Despite the boll having been officially abolished with the Act of Union in 1707. I should really extract all the information from the 1830's logs properly. Another job to add to the list.

Perversely, Scottish beer was almost all bottled at the start of the 19th century but had become predominately draught by the end. It's usually the other way around. I've no real explanation. Maybe it's because it didn't keep long in casks. Remember that the breweries didn't bottle beer themselves. That was done by publicans and grocers.

I'm surprised by the poor keeping qualities of Edinburgh Ale. It would start to turn after just three months in the cask. That's not long at all. Adverts for Pale Ale from later in the century guarantee that it will last at least 12 months in the cask, if unbroached. Given its strength, you'd expect Edinburgh Ale to be more robust.

I'm not sure which year those production figures are from. 110,000 barrels of Strong Beer is right for 1829. But that year the production of Table Beer was much greater than 130,000 barrels: it was 230,000 barrels. Perhaps that includes the Small Beer mentioned. Though Small Beer had ceased to exist as a separate tax category in 1802. Those 110,000 barrels aren't a huge amount. Several of the large London breweries produced more each year.

If that Scottish Small Beer resembled ginger beer, then it couldn't have been very alcoholic. More like a soft drink.

Early 18th century beer styles (part two)

I know I've already posted on this topic. But I've done some more work since then. So I have a few more styles for your delectation.

Note: the following was written using 18th century terminology. Malt Liquor general, Beer and Ale specific. OK?


Mild Ale
A further method of classifying malt liquors was their age. Ones sold young were described as Mild. Ones that had been aged were called Keeping or Stale. Most (but not all Ales) were sold "mild", but some beers were, too. Porter is a good example of a Brown Beer that was often sold "mild" from the 1700's right up until its demise in the 1940's. The big London brewers all made Mild Porter and Keeping Porter, which were often mixed before sale.

You can see that in the 1700's Mild Ale was a very vague term. It covered Ales of all colours and all strengths. It wasn't as much as style as a description of the level of conditioning. None of the beers described as Mild Ale at this time has any but the slightest similarity with modern Mild. Even the weakest would have had an OG of at least 1050º. Mild Brown Ale, brewed from 100% brown malt must have had the roasty flavour of London Porter, just with a much lower level of hopping.


Small Beer
When brewing a stronger Beer or Ale, a quantity of Small Beer was also made from the same grain. Quite often, the same hops were used, too. Though it was usual to add some fresh malt before the first Small Beer mash. It was produced quickly and intended to be drunk young, basically as soon as the fermentation had finished and it had dropped bright.

Intire Small Beer was not party-gyled with a stronger malt liquor, but brewed from its own mash. It was a new method of producing a higher-quality type of Small Beer. There were versions made from all three base malts.

These low-alcohol drinks were always made as Beers not Ales. The higher hopping rate of a Beer was needed to prevent infection, there being too little alcohol to give protection. At somewhere around 3.5% ABV, these Beers were of a similar strength to modern British session Bitter. In the days before easy access to clean drinking water, Small Beer was the everyday drink of young and old. It was seen as a necessity, not a luxury.

Low-alcohol Beers and Ales continued to be made in large quantities until the middle of the 19th century, when the provision of clean drinking water improved.


Burton Ale
Long before Pale Ale, Burton was already famous for its Ales. Burton had been renowned for its Brown Ales since the late Middle Ages.

"The Ale is incomparable here, as it is all over this County of Stafford. Burton is the most famous Town in England for it, as also Stafford-and Newcastle in this Shire. And indeed the best Character you give to Ale in London, is calling it Burton Ale; from whence they fend vast Quantities to London : Yet they brew at London some that goes by that Denomination." "A Journey Through England" by John Macky, 1722, page 168


White Ale
"Their white Ale is a clear Wort made from pale Malt, and fermented with what they call ripening, which is a Composition, they say, of the Flower of Malt, Yeast and Whites of Eggs, a Nostrum made and sold only by two or three in those Parts, but the Wort is brewed and the Ale vended by many of the Publicans; which is drank while it is fermenting in Earthen Steens, in such a thick manner as resembles butter'd Ale, and sold for Twopence Halfpenny the full Quart. It is often prescribed by Physicians to be drank by wet Nurses for the encrease of their Milk, and also as a prevalent Medicine for the Colick and Gravel. But the Dover and Chatham People won't drink their Butt-Beer, unless it is Aged, fine and strong." "London and Country Brewer", 1736.