Dry neighbourhoods

Doing a customary very general sweep through the newspaper archives, I found in my dustpan this little gem:

"The Clayton Side
Mr. R Holden said some who had signed the petition against the public house resided in Seabridge-road and Myott-avenue, and they had a public house within a hundreds of their residence. There was a "fair number on the Clayton side who ought to have a say in the matter. As regarded shops, he thought that to-day many would vote in favour of them. The amendment was lost, seven voting in favour of it and 25 against."
Staffordshire Sentinel - Thursday 07 December 1944, page 1.

I was immediately intrigued by this short fragment. Where the hell was this? Why was there a petition against a pub?

The lucky residents of Seabridge Road and Myott Avenue didn't just have one pub within 100 yards, they had two. At least. There might have been more in 1944. Come to think of it, isn't this an odd topic to be wasting time on, knee-deep in WW II?

I'll spare you the whole article. It's pretty confusing and not very informative, despite being overly long. Cut short, residents of Westlands Estate, a posh-looking bit of Newcastle-under-Lyme complained to the council when someone wanted to build a pub. Pointing out they'd had a referendum - not sure exactly when, but at least 10 years previously - about whether to have shops or pubs. And voted against both. Not sure what law that could have been under. I though local vetoes were only allowed in Scotland.

Looking at a map, there still don't seem to be any pubs in what's quite a large area. It must be a real pain in the arse, if you live there. Though, if you voluntarily live there, you couldn't possibly care if there was a pub nearby. Is there still a ban on pubs in Westlands? Let me know if you have the answer.

I'm now wondering: How many other places in England were businesses banned? And when, if ever, did the practice end? No shops and no pubs - that's effectively dry. Or even just pubs not allowed, that's bad enough. I know it happened in Scotland. I think in Wales, too, but I'm not sure. (Someone better informed, please fill me in.)

Covenants on land sold for development forbidding pubs, I know that occurred. A big chunk of Leeds 6 originally was pub-less for that very reason. But I think as long ago as the 1930s that particular one had been dropped.

Let me know if you have any current or past examples. Not just restricted to England, or even the UK. 

A lot of questions and not many answers. Which is usually a sign that I'm standing on a precipice. About to dive off.

Effects of alcohol (propaganda)

The teetotallers in parliament were at it again. Thankfully, the government told them to shut the fuck up.

"3rd November.
EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL (PROPAGANDA)
Dr. Little (Down, Ulster Unionist) asked the Minister of Information whether he will use all the means of propaganda at his disposal to impress on people, young and old alike, that indulgence in alcoholic liquors is not only harmful to the individual but also a serious hindrance to the war effort and that national sobriety is essential for achieving the best work towards a speedy victory ?

Mr. Thurtle (Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Information) : No, Sir. It is no part of the duty of the Ministry of Information to lecture the public on the good or evil effects of alcohol.

Dr. Little : Will my hon. Friend cause regular statements to be made to the public through the Ministry of Information that persons under 18 cannot be served with alcoholic liquor in public houses and that it is illegal for adults to treat such persons ?

Mr. Thurtle : I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is no part of the function of the Ministry of Information to give lectures on the use or abuse of alcohol. I do not think the House would wish it to do so.

Viscountess Astor (Sutton, Plymouth, Cons.) : It is not true that no Government since the world began have ever" cared less about temperance than this Government ?

Sir Richard Acland (Devon, Barnstaple, Common Wealth) : As the Ministry of Information is advising the public to curtail the consumption of all sorts of things, such as fuel and water, might it not consider advising it to curtail the consumption of beer ?

Mr. Thurtle : The duty of the Ministry of Information is to give information to the public, but it is not the duty of the Ministry of Information to indulge in propaganda on contentious subjects."
The Brewing Trade Review, December 1943, page 374.

 Good on you Mr. Thurtle for putting those temperance twats in their place: 

"It is no part of the duty of the Ministry of Information to lecture the public on the good or evil effects of alcohol."

The Ministry of Information being the propaganda arm of the UK government. So, fuck off with your temperance propaganda.

With legendary piss-head Churchill in charge, the temperance lobby never stood a chance.

 

A trio of temperance twats

Despite zero encouragement either from the general public or the government, temperance twats kept banging their old battered drum.

First off, a Northern Irish Unionist MP asking that beer be rationed:

"ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR (RESTRICTION)
Dr. Little (Down, Ulster, Unionist) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider placing the sale of all alcoholic liquor on points ?

Mr. Mabane : My noble Friend is of opinion that my hon. Friend’s suggestion, even if desirable, would be impracticable.

Dr. Little : Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that in fairness to all, when the necessaries of life are rationed, there should be rationing of a luxury like alcohol ?

Mr. Mabane : My hon. Friend spoke of points. I think he will appreciate the difficulty of proper pointing as between champagne and mild and bitter.

Dr. Little : As the answer to this Question was so unsatisfactory and as the matter is one of vital importance to the nation at this time, I beg to give notice that I will raise the Question again on the Adjournment.
The Brewing Trade Review, May 1943, page 16

Hats off to Mr. Mabane for his answer "I think he will appreciate the difficulty of proper pointing as between champagne and mild and bitter." That put the bastard in his place.

This was a common temperance theme (along with the "destruction" of food in the production of alcohol): bread was many basic foodstuffs were rationed so why wasn't beer? Yes, beer wasn't rationed. But that didn't mean there was an infinite supply. Pubs regularly ran out of beer. 

And the whole point of rationing was to ensure that everyone got their fair share of essential goods, such as bread and meat. Not to limit supplies, which is what the temperance twats wanted to do with beer.

Next we have the first woman to sit in the House of Commons.

"CEREALS, SCOTLAND (WHISKY MANUFACTURE)
Viscountess Astor (Plymouth, Sutton, Cons.) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is prepared to take any action for the prohibition of the use of grain in Scotland for the manufacture of whisky ?
Mr. Mabane : No cereals from the next harvest will be allocated to whisky manufacture."
The Brewing Trade Review, May 1943, page 161.

I've some across Viscountess Astor quite a few time when researching the interwar period Because of the sort of material I look at, it was all related to temperance shit. It seems, however, that wasn't her least attractive opinion. 

She also turns out to have been anti-semitic and anti-catholic. Plus a bit of a closet Nazi, meeting von Ribbentrop in the 1930s when he was Germany's foreign minister.

Third and final of the temperance trio is Eleanor Rathbone. Who was MP for a university constituency. It's the first I'd heard of their being MPs specifically for universities. They were abolished in 1948 by the post-war Labour government.

"N.A.A.F.I. CANTEENS (SOFT DRINKS)
Miss Rathbone (English Universities, Ind.) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens mineral drinks are so often unobtainable that Service men and women wanting cooling drinks at dances, &c., are driven to drink beer and that many girls are thus acquiring a taste for it ; and will he therefore take steps to secure a greater supply of temperance drinks at such canteens?

Sir J. Grigg : All N.A.A.F.I. canteens are instructed to have available ample supplies of soft drinks, and I am not aware of the shortage referred to by my hon. Friend. The manufacture of aerated mineral waters has been cut down all over the country in order to save labour and transport, but the supply of non-alcoholic cordials to canteens has been increased.

Miss Rathbone : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information comes from an entirely unbiased source according to which canteens are pushing the sale of beer because of the higher profit ? Ought that not really to be overome in the interests of avoiding imported materials, as well as in the interests of temperance ?

Sir J. Grigg : Profits from N.A.A.F.I. canteens go back to the troops, so that that motive cannot be a very strong one. In the second place, the hon. Lady has sent me a letter containing complaints, but as the place of the complaints is unidentifiable, I can only say that unless she sends me more information I cannot investigate the matter.
The Brewing Trade Review, May 1943, pages 161 - 162.

Eleanor Rathbone seems a rather nicer person than Viscountess Astor, campaigning on many social issues, especially ones relating to women.

Surely beer, though, especially during the war, was a temperance drink?

Temperance campaigners in Germany

I'd always though the Germans were far too sensible - and loved their beer too much - to fall for that temperance crap. It seems I was wrong  

There was a temperance movement in Germany, and, as in many other countries, it reached its peak around the the end of WW I and its immediate aftermath.

It's amazing how events in Germany - at least when it came to beer and brewing - follow a very similar pattern to in the UK. Including the tactic of the temperance twats. Realising they had zero chance of getting total prohibition overnight, they instead chose a piecemeal approach. Hoping to gradually turn one area after another dry.

The bastards tried exactly the same trick in the UK. Where they succeeded in getting local veto legislation passed for Scotland. Allowing districts to vote for a partial or complete ban on alcohol sales. It initially had some limited success, for example in some of the posher bits of Glasgow, but quickly ran out of steam. 

Parts of Scotland remained dry for decades. But, as you only needed to travel a mile or two to buy booze, it had fuck all real effect.

The Germans never let things get that far:

"d) Temperance movement, opposition to the local veto
The efforts and attacks of the temperance movement to restrict the consumption of beer and alcoholic beverages continued during and after the end of the World War of 1914/18. They were particularly lively during the wars and the first few years after the war and reached a high point after the currency stabilized in around the 1930s. The temperance movement received strong impetus through successes in Scandinavian countries and after the introduction of prohibition in the USA. With considerable resources and strong support from the circles of women’s associations and charitable organizations, the temperance movement, which was united in the International Association against the Abuse of Spiritual Drinks, put the main focus of its activities, amongst others, in Germany. In later years the efforts of the temperance movement failed because of the defence of the economy and the attitude of the German population. But it tried again and again to force through legislation for restrictive measures in the field of the production of beer and alcoholic beverages. The efforts of the temperance associations and those close to them were aimed in particular at the introduction of a local veto law in Germany, which would have represented a serious interference with the way of life and the right of the population to self-determination. In the case of the local veto, the amount and type of sales of beer and spirits within a municipality were to be determined by a general referendum of the municipality members entitled to vote. The introduction of a local veto in Germany would have had disastrous consequences for the brewing industry.

The defense against these measures led to the formation of a broad counter-movement, which included all circles of the population and public life, and to the establishment of the Reich Committee against the right to a local veto."
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Berliner Brauwesens und seiner Organisation by Karl Bullemer, Berlin, 1959, page 131.

The brewers were well organised. And pointed out the economic impact if a local veto were introduced. They managed to ensure that a proposed law was voted down in parliament.

"In the months that preceded the decisive vote on the draft law in the Reichstag, the Reich Committee developed an extraordinary activity to educate the population, public opinion as well as the government and parliaments. In cooperation with the leading associations of the brewing trade based in Berlin, the Berlin association played a decisive role in the defensive movement. The combined defensive movement against the right to a local veto in all parts of Germany succeeded in bringing down the bill in the Reichstag. It was rejected at the session of the German Reichstag on May 11, 1926 by 241 votes to 163 with 3 abstentions. The rejection later formed the subject of lively discussion in the daily press.

In spite of this voting result and the legal and economic points of view presented by the Reich Government in the reasoning for the Bar Act against the introduction of the local veto law in Germany, the temperance associations tried again, albeit in vain, to force through the introduction of a local veto law, albeit in a milder form. Remnants of the application of the local veto law have been preserved in, amongst others, some Scandinavian countries."
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Berliner Brauwesens und seiner Organisation by Karl Bullemer, Berlin, 1959, page 132. 

I'm surprised, given the financial and social importance of beer in Germany, that the vote was as claose as three to two against.

The Situation in England

I couldnn't resist posting this as it gives me cahance to call temperance twats, er, twats, again.

This is really typical of the shit they got up to in the late 19th century, the miserable bastards,

"The Situation in England.
LONDON, july 6th, 1897.
The festivities connected with the jubilee of the Queen have entirely dwarfed and overshadowed everything else, and accordingly my budget of news this month is reduced to rather slender proportions. Although this great national event is somewhat outside my province, there is one feature of it, and that not an over-pleasant one, which may be suitably mentioned in your columns. On such big occasions charity is seldom absent, and everybody rejoiced to hear some weeks ago that a movement was on foot to give the poor of London a substantial jubilee feast. Money literally poured in for this deserving object, and one noted trader prevented the necessity of further contributions by putting down a check for the handsome sum of £25,000. Thus far everything went well, and the poverty-stricken denizens of the London slums looked forward to a sumptuous repast, where good English beef and honest English beer would play a leading part. But when the feast came off, it was noticed that the beef was there, but the beer was not. For some reason or other those narrow-minded "spoilsports," the teetotallers, were allowed to have the predominant voice, and the result was that no intoxicating liquor was allowed to be served at the feast which, had been wholly subscribed by public charity. This wretched bigotry has caused a good deal of irritation and disgust, and these feelings were intensified when it became known that several eminent firms of brewers had offered to send a supply of beer free. I have detailed this incident to show that the narrow-minded, sour visaged American prohibitionists have their counterparts on this side of the water."
American Brewers Review Volume 11, Issue 1, 1897, page 8.

Something similar often happened when the more compassionate workhouse guardians wanted to give the poor a pint of beer with their Christmas dinner. A killjoy temperance twat would veto the idea. They'd begrudge the unfortunate inmates even a single pint.

I've no problem with someone being teeetotal. That's a personal choice. But it really pisses me off when one tries to stop everyone else drinking. The utter, utter twats.

Reply to a temperance twat

Another newspaper extract filed under Temperance Twats. Though this time its's a response to terperance twaddle rather than the temperamce twaddle itself.

It was a rection to a temperance twat going on about "wasting food" gain. Not recognising the food value of beer was a typical temperance trick. It's obviously total bollocks, as anyone lucky enough to boast a beer gut will attest.

It's in the form of two letters to the editor reacyting to a twattish motion passed by local Methodists.

"BEER AND RATIONING
Reply to Councillor Halfpenny and Lichfield Methodists
To the Editor of the "Mercury"
Sir,—In your edition of Friday, September 12th 1941, a resolution was unanimously passed by the Methodists' September meeting calling the attention of the Government to the "wasting of food for alcoholic drink." This resolution was moved by Councillor Halfpenny. May I, with all the respect at my command, address thsse observations to Mr. Halfpenny as a member of the Methodist Church and not as a councillor.

I am sorry, Mr. Halfpenny, that you did not give some careful thought to the statement you gave and published in the Press. Men of thought and experience read the "Lichfield Mercury," and as a citizen of Lichneid and an ex-Service man of 1914-18 and 1939-41, I must reply to you. or. If I failed to do so the "very stones would cry out." Your resolution is very vague and covers a wide field; the point I wish to raise  with you is mainly the production of beer.

You say that land suitable for growing cereals and fruit is used for hops. Have you ever thought, or even inquired, if hops were not grown in Kent, what could be grown? Each county in Great Britain is suitable for various crops, viz.: Lincolnshire, carrots snd potatoes; Worcester, apples and plums; Devon, cider apples; Scotland, rye and barley. Grapes willl not grow in the Highlands, nor figs in Scandinavia. So what would you grow in Kent?

The Minister of Food has arranged that an extra quota of beer be allowed to ail industrial workers and in a lot of cases an extension of hours is allowed to that workers coming off evening shifts can have their pint of beer.

The Cabinet is unanimous in agreeing to maintain the output of beer for the workers. Surely, Mr. Halfpenny, you do not propose short-circuiting the brains and wisdom of the Cabinet by your superseding doctrine.

You say Parliament has imposed on us many restrictions and caused us to alter many well-established and cherished habits; then why are you pressing for the rationing of beer? Can you substantiate your statement that we are "wasting food for alcoholic drink"? Can you give the amount of sugar used in all breweries? Are you SURE sugar is used? is there not an acute shortage of the famous by-product from alcohol known as vinegar, and other by-products? How many tons of fertilisers are produced by the breweries? These long-shot statements are all very nice for the prople who do not think, you can't fool ail the people all the time.

Now, Mr. Halfpenny, I come to the last part of your resolution. A systematic poll taken of the population (including children) showed that 50 per cent, were abstainers. Mr. Halfpenny! Where was this poll taken? Who was the governing authority? Who were the presiding officers? Does your statement represent true figures, or was this poll taken at a Methodist Sunday school? If so, 50 per cent is very high. My dear Mr. Halfpenny, don't you think that a statement about an imaginary poll is very misleading and mischievous? Is it not bordering on careless talk (Emergency Powers Act)? Is it not almost equal to the present procedure of the Nazis? No — please give official figures in future.

Would a party of yours, say twenty men, change places with our steel workers, miners, munition workers or agricultural workers, and keep up their weekly, monthly and yearly output; on a pint or two of tea? I think not. So please refrain from calling a pull from a pewter, "Britain's bulwark," a luxury.
S. H. GISBY.
9, Shortbutts Lane,
Lichfield Mercury - Friday 19 September 1941, page 7. Lichfield."

To be fair, the writer of the letter was wrong about the use of sugar in brewing. It was most certainly used aall through the war, though the percentage was lower than it had been in peacetime.But the poll saying 50% of people were total abstainers is clearly total bollocks. I'd be surprised if it had been more than 10%.

The second letter makes a very valid point about the amount of income beer generated for the government.

"BEER AND TAXATION
To the Editor of the "Mercury"
Sir,—After reading the report of the quarterly meeting of the Methodists held at Lichfield last week, we begin to
wonder why some of these gentry do not take some work of national importance instead of wasting their time talking such drivel.

Firstly, the Government realises that from the brewing industry they find one of their best sources of income. The tax paid on beer (nearly sixpence on every pint) is returnable with a fat interest, as is War Loan. Si every beer-drinker is contributing directly to the war effort with every pint he drinks.

Secondly, every person who is unfortunate enough to have to soil his hands with manual labour realises that the energy used up by such work is in a measure replaced by the feeding value of beer.

Then, of course, the brewing industry and its dependent trades is the source of livelihood to a big section of the populace. But to deprive people of their means of subsistence is perhaps a duty of the Methodist Church, because you have to remember that there is still a very big percentage of unemployed in the country.

The Government very rightly has turned a deaf ear to the vapourings of such people, who pounce on a national emergency to try and enforce their views on a bigger percentage of the population than what they represent
ONE OF THE TRADE.
Lichfield.
September 16th, 1941"
Lichfield Mercury - Friday 19 September 1941, page 7.

In 1941, the yield from beer tax was £133,450,205. By 1945 it was £278,876,870. Money the Government could ill-afford to lose during wartime. Using tax on beer to fince war is an old tradition in the UK, going all the way back to the English Civil War.

Wet canteens for women

This article is filed in my notes under the heading "Temperance Twats". Becuse that's what it is: a rant by a temperance twat.

Mostly he seems pissed off because loony temperance ideas were rightly ignored during WW II. Which is why he mentions WW I, where governemnt stupidly leant their ear to such extremist nonsense.

"DRINK-PROMOTING" BY GOVERNMENT
METHOD MINISTER'S IMMODERATION
The Rev. Noel F. Hutchcroft, superintendent of the Birmingham (Methodist) Central Mission, yesterday issued a statement to his congregation on what he termed the Government’s drink-promoting policy.” He said; While no patriot has any right to hinder his country’s leaders by unnecessary criticism, it is his duty to draw attention to serious danger. The Government has, by the most amazing action seen in England for a century, created a situation by its drink-promoting policy and campaign which is at once an offence to common sense and decency and a peril to the nation’s chances of victory.

"During the last war the merchant navies of all neutral and allied States (including France, Italy and Japan) carried our food across the seas. To-day we fight without this enormous aid. The loss of such essential foods as eggs, bacon, milk and those citrous fruits which alone can maintain adequately the supply of necessary vitamins is made the more sinister when it is remembered that these shortages are seriously aggravated by the enormous consumption of pure, human foodstuffs and good animal and poultry foods in brewing. Yet the production of beer is still sanctioned at 100 per cent., though mysterious references are made to 'great reductions' when protests are addressed to the evasive Lord Woolton. In fact, the consumption of barley is fully as great as before the war and the shortage of that food is a chief contributor to the shortage of meat, milk and eggs. The British Government is not only prepared to sacrifice food and health for beer, but it has adopted methods which leave any student of the effect of alcohol on efficiency completely amazed.

“For months the evidence of history and science has been pressed on the Cabinet for consideration, but instead of inducing a sound policy it is set aside and ignored, and now the Government has thrown aside all restraint and emerged as the principal advocate and advertiser of the beer industry. It is not merely that the tone of broadcasting is alcoholic, but the very official activities of propaganda are the medium for drink advocacy. A recent publication bearing the words 'The Army at War, Issued for the War Office by the Min. of Information’ declares beer to be to Englishmen 'the most requisite and wholesome of luxuries.’

Wet Canteens for Women
The latest development of the Government’s drink advertising campaign is the most sinister. While every endeavour is being made to enlist girls in the uniformed services, the authorities have decided to introduce wet canteens for girls and women. This action in deliberately placing temptation and danger in the way of young girls fresh from home should shock the mothers of the nation and will undoubtedly prove a deterrent to all parents who have any anxiety about their young daughters.

“It might be said rightly that the modern girl is a fine type capable of looking after herself, but what right has the Government to join forces with the trade in liquor to conspire to put very real danger in their way? The first victim of alcohol is moral discretion. The Government is guilty of a betrayal of the nation’s youth in this and another Order. What can be said for the action in introducing an Order in Council permitting the establishment of beer canteens in every factory and even in hostels? It drives straight through all the careful legislation of past years, designed by painful experience.

"In an alleged democracy it permits action of at least highly questionable character to be undertaken without any reference to the views of the nation. It ignored the mass of evidence from science to prove that alcohol is the No. 1 enemy of efficiency and production. It overlooks the lessons of the last war. The Government has no mandate from the nation for these revolutionary proposals. They are an outrage to the finer feelings of the nation.

“The people of England have a right to ask what is the reason for the complete surrender of their highest interests to a traffic which is no friend to victory. Why is it necessary to pretend that alcohol is more to the nation than patriotism It is freely stated by the Trade ’ that the Government dare not restrict beer output for fear of causing unrest. That is tantamount to saying that the average British worker and soldier thinks more of beer than of hjs nation’s survival. Such a view is an insult to the men as it is to the intelligence of those who entertain it. Let the Government give the country the facts relating to food and production, and we can well afford to leave the result to the better nature of our people.”
Birmingham Daily Post - Tuesday 25 November 1941, page 2.

There's a typical temperance worry about women drinking. It was an obsession of the Victorians, a recurring theme in the 20th century and still a hot topic today. Negative stories about women and alcohol are still common in the shittier type of UK newspaper. As if the odd half of beer in the works canteen was going to corrupt those poor impressionable girls?

The we have the "food destruction" argument, which is total rubbish. Far more food value is obtained by turning barley into beer than using it to feed pigs. But simple facts aren't enough for this type of fanatic. Rather like those who ignore exprts today because their concusions aren't what they want to hear.

What did Rev. Hutchcroft want? Total Prohibition, obviously. Something which would have had a massive negative impact on morale. The twat. Thankfully pisshead Churchill was never going to cut of f alcohol supplies.

The Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill

One of the pet projects of the temperance bastards was local control, or as it was usually and more realistically called, the local veto.

The idea was to give districts the chance to vote on whether all or some of the liquor licences in that district should be abolished. The temperance twats saw this as a way of gradually turning the whole country dry. But it was all based on an illusion.

Temperance wankers had fallen for their own propaganda. They'd managed to persuade themselves that licensed premises were imposed on the working classes and, given the chance they'd willingly free themselves from them. Obviously this was total bollocks. If it had been true, the pubs would have been empty.

From this article it's clear that temperance lunatics employed some pretty dodgy tactics.

"The Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill
Out of parliament

THE opposition to the Local Veto proposals of the present Government, which has been very strongly marked from the first, is rapidly increasing in all parts of the Kingdom, and in many unexpected quarters. Of course it went without saying that these proposals would meet with the determined hostility of all branches of the liquor trade, but it could hardly have been anticipated that so many Radical organisations would express such emphatic disapproval as they have. Especially is this the case in the Metropolitan districts.

It may be of some interest to our readers if we reproduce here a few facts relating to the licensed victual lers’ trade in London. The capital invested, according to Mr. Charles Walker, the Chairman of the Central Board of the Licensed Victuallers’ Protection Society of the Metropolis, is £60,000,000. There are 14,000 licence holders, and if the Veto on the issue of licences was put in operation it would throw 100,000 people out of employment. The licence duties paid amount to between £50,000 and £60,000, which sum is passed to the London County Council for the relief of taxation. The leases are long, and when originally granted are seldom for less than fifty years. Some are for 100 years, and others even longer than that. These leases are very valuable, and bring large sums in the open market, £20,000 or £30,000 being common prices to pay for publichouse businesses, and houses have been known to change hands for as much as £100,000. The tied-house system does not prevail to any-great extent, but the brewers and the distillers advance loans to the lessees, and a man with £2,000 or £3,000 — and perhaps even less sometimes — would be able to purchase a business which cost, it might be, £20,000 or £30,000: the difference between what the tenant owns and what he pays remaining as a loan on the lease, &c., which are mortgaged to the brewer and distiller. If the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill passed and came into operation throughout London, 75 per cent. of the publicans would have to pass through the Bankruptcy Court, and be irretrievably ruined, for they would be saddled with a load of debt they could never repay. Money to the tune of about £45,000,000 would be simply thrown away in London alone. It must not be supposed that this enormous loss would fall wholly upon the shoulders of the licensed victuallers, for they are financed by the brewers and distillers. It is safe to say that many more people would be seriously injured by the Bill than could by any possibility receive benefit from it.

We commend to our readers the lengthy report published in another part of this number, of a speech delivered by Mr. Chamberlain at a large public meeting held at Birmingham last Thursday to protest against the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill. The speaker’s main objections to the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill were that “it will be ineffective; it involves the maximum of inconvenience and the minimum of real temperance reform; it is invidious, because it will press hardly upon the working classes, and it will not touch the propertied classes at all; in the third place, it is unjust, because it destroys the means of subsistence of one class of the community without giving them the compensation which has always been given in similar cases; . . . it is dishonest, because it is brought in to serve political exigencies and not to promote conscientious convictions." Such objections as these, which are illustrative of the views of the population in all parts of the Kingdom, cannot be honestly contradicted as far as the propositions in the Government measure are concerned. The meeting of workmen held in Trafalgar-square last Saturday to demonstrate against the principles of the Veto Bill was certainly not the success it was expected to be. The disgraceful rioting by organised teetotal mobs on this, as also on several other occasions, will do a great deal towards killing this most absurd measure, since it shows the sort of spirit in which they would work the Veto if ever they got the chance. Dr. Dawson Burns, speaking on behalf of the teetotalers, caused it to be believed that there was no intention of moving amendments or in any way interfering with the meeting, and relying upon his promise, the promoters made no effort to guard against surprise. But, at the very moment when Dr. Burns’ promise appeared in print, a confidential circular was being issued to members of teetotal societies calling upon them to be present in the Square by three o’clock, the meeting not being called until 4.30 p.m. The circular continued: “It is earnestly requested that no members will appear in regalia, or any attempt made to organise a procession; and, further, that no member will attempt to address the meeting or move amend ment to resolution.” The whole thing was a carefully planned surprise, by which the Square was seized before the legitimate meeting had assembled, and as discussion was prohibited, nothing other than deliberate disorder could have been intended. How well this intention was carried out by the brutal ruffians who have taken “Temperance ” as their watchword we are all aware. The lesson is one to be laid to heart. If all this can be done whilst we are still unshackled, what is likely to be the fate of average non-teetotal humanity when the fetters of the Veto are upon us?" Fraud, cunning, deceit, and ruffianly violence are the forces by which the Veto will be worked."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, pages 105 - 106.

Of course, the temperance madmen would have loved to see everyone in the liquor trade bankrupted. They didn't give a fuck about how many livelihoods they would destroy, nor that they would be robbing working men and women of one of their few pleasures. Like all fanatics, they weren't concerned about what sacrifices others would have to endure as long as they achieved their insane goals.

In the end, the local veto must have been a huge disappointment to temperance idiots. When a scheme was introduced in Scotland after WW I, it wasn't met the expected enthusiasm of the working classes. Only a few, mostly well-heeled, districts opted for the veto. And as new votes were held in later years, the number of districts suppressing the liquor trade tended to decline rather than increase.

Nationalisation of the Drink Trade

Those temperance bastards made several attempts to use WW I as an excuse to restrict alcohol sales. And just because the war had ended, it didn’t mean they stopped trying.

The sneaky bastards had a few approaches to gradually introducing prohibition. One was the “local option” which allowed districts to hold a poll on whether to go dry or not. They’d been at this one since before the war and there were a couple of attempts to get a bill through parliament. They eventually succeeded after the war, but not for the whole country.

Only Wales and Scotland were burdened with the ridiculous local option. But it didn’t go according to the temperance bastards’ plan. They expected that more and more districts would vote for a local ban until there was full temperance. A few well-heeled districts voted to go dry initially, but these were gradually whittled down over the years as fresh polls overturned the original decision.

A second line of attack was nationalisation.  For which they used the Carlisle scheme as an argument. They seemed to assume that nationalisation would inevitable reduce the amount drunk. Not so sure exactly why they thought that. I’m pretty sure than after a few years there wasn’t any difference between the amount drunk in Carlisle and elsewhere.

“NATIONALISATION OF DRINK TRAFFIC.
REFORM BY STATE PURCHASE
LETTERS FROM BISHOP BAYNES AND DEAN OF LINCOLN.
Writing to The Times to-day on the liquor problem, Bishop Hamilton Baynes, of Birmingham (formerly, St. Mary’s, Nottingham), says:

The first condition of real reform is to eliminate the element of private profit. Till that is secured no real progress is possible. The Carlisle experiment has shown, beyond all question, what can be done by State purchase. The Labour party have taken up the cause with enthusiasm, and the Government are assured of strong support if they will but take their courage in their hands, and face the big task of buying out the trade.

It is true, no doubt, that many people who were strong supporters of State purchase at the beginning of the war are inclined to hesitate now, partly because, through the great rise in brewery shares, they are afraid that the price now demanded by the trade may be prohibitive, and partly because they fear to add the already vast indebtedness the country.

The answer to these objections is (1) that the principle the excess profits tax may surely be applied to the breweries, and the purchase price fixed on the average of pre-war values; and (2) that the substitution of Government bonds for brewery securities is a measure that need have no influence on the finance of the country.

THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM.
The Government will, in fact, have made profitable speculation. For Carlisle has shown how, in spite of an immense decrease both in the number licensed houses and the drink consumed, the business is remunerative. We all hope that the consumption of alcohol will be greatly reduced as the result of State purchase and the reforms which that purchase will make possible. But over against the financial loss which such reduction would involve, it must be remembered that immense savings will effected by economies of management and concentration brewing in a comparatively small number of breweries.

When once the motive of private gain has been eliminated, and the monopoly value restored to the State, we shall have the clean slate which we have long desired, on which we may start fresh to inscribe a new and better system. Then, as in Carlisle, we can have something more like the Continental restaurant, where food as well as drink can be obtained — where a better moral atmosphere may reinforce a healthy public opinion and create self-respect.

DEAN OF LINCOLN’S REGRET.
The Dean Lincoln (the Rev. T. C. Fry) writes in the same journal:

Suffer me as a Churchman, a social student, and abstainer of over 40 years, to support the proposed policy of State purchase. Whatever prohibition can do in comparatively new countries, founded by the more adventurous folk ready to try experiments, in old countries it cannot become an accepted policy for at least two centuries. The only possible road of advance is nationalisation ; then no private interest will load the dice against reform. I only wish the Labour party had made it “plank" in 1915; it would have been carried then. Now the heavier price must be paid.”
Nottingham Evening Post - Monday 17 November 1919, page 1.

What self-righteous git the Dean of Lincoln was. I wouldn’t want to be sat next to him at dinner. Unless I’d had a few pre-prandial cocktails and was in a combative mood.

It’s weird how this idea persisted (and still does in some circles) that no-one in Continental Europe ever got pissed in a pub. They’ve obviously never been to Bavaria or the Czech Republic if they believe tosh like that.

Never trust someone who doesn't drink

I had to share this little gem on the character to teetotallers. It made me smile.

"DR. Burn on THE TEETOTALLERS.—Before concluding this paper I will briefly allude to the principles of total abstinence. Doubtless they, and their advocates have, in their time, done much good; still I cannot believe that their application is altogether unaccompanied with evil. Their votaries eschew drinking alcohol, but they find their grog — as it is vulgarly expressed — in doing other things which are not always innoccuous to society, Thus I have often observed that some teetotallers are great scandalmongers ; that others in virtue of the abstinence which they practise are vain of and ostentatious about their superior goodness; and others, again, are excessively libidinous — pickpockets are so, and they are exceedingly temperate. I have found natural teetotallers as a whole to be selfish, uncharitable, and badly qualified for the offices of friendship. But there are various classes of them, and the majority are teetotallers only in name; for when they are not great smokers, they are, most probably, great tea-drinkers, great swillers of ginger-beer, or great gluttons. I hope to live to see Great Britain more temperate than at present, but never teetotal. It we possess a faculty which discovers and appreciates alcoholic beverages, and other stimulating substances, it is but right that it should be temperately exercised.—Physiological Essays."
"Brewers' Guardian, vol. 1, 1869", July 1871, page 316.

It doesn't really need much comment, does it? Never trust someone who doesn't drink.

Last Of Scotland's Dry Towns Now Wet

Thought you'd like to know when this momentus occasion was:

"Last Of Scotland's Dry Towns Now Wet
KIRKINTILLOCH, Scotland
(AP) - The Scots of Kirkintilloch voted 5,293-4,858 to allow pubs in the town for the first time in almost half a century.

Residents in 1920 voted pubs out under a local option and the drys won five polls in the 48 years since.

Kirkintilloch, a town of 24,000, was the last of Scotland's dry districts."
Sarasota Journal Jan 6th 1969
(Thanks to Alan of A Good Beer Blog for finding this.)

A surprisingly high turnout. And pretty close.

Adnams and the Local Veto Bill

There will be a lot more about Adnams in the weeks to come. I've got a lovely collection of snaps of their brewing records. It would be a shame not to start using them.

But I'll begin with a random newspaper article:

"THE LOCAL VETO BILL, CONFERENCE OF SUFFOLK PUBLICANS.
A meeting of Licensed Victuallers of Lowestoft and neighbourhood was held at the Greet Eastern Hotel, Lowestoft, on Monday, under the auspices of the Lowestoft and East Suffolk Licensed Victallers' Association, of which Mr. B. Riden is the secretary. Captain E. M. U. Adnams, the Brewery, Southwold, occupied the chair, and amongst others present were - Mr. J. J. Dunne (solicitor of the National Trade Defence Association), and about 150 representatives of the trade from all parts of North Suffolk.

The CHAIRMAN said he did not anticipate that the Local Veto Bill wonld pass, but it was impossible to disguise the dangers which confronted them. The temperance reformers for years had been strengthening their forces against the licensing trade, and their undisguised desire was entire suppression, In their own interests, publicans should band themselves together to resist the assault. It was proposed to amalgamate the several Trade Protection Associations in North Suffolk. They had held meetings on the subject at Southwold, Beccles, and elsewhere, and it was to be seen whether the publicans of Lowsetoft were in favour of the proposal. He was entirely in sympathy with it himself, and he believed that if the members of the trade were banded together in the Division of North Suffolk, under one Association, they would be able to offer a very substantial support to any political candidate who would be prepared to champion their cause. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. DUNNE dealt at length with the Local Veto Bill, which he arged, would be mischievous, would lead to mush illicit drinking, and the establishment of ill-conducted clubs. He maintaised that it was not fair that the trade should be harassed by such legislation, and he confidently relied upon the licensed victuallers of the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk offering all the opposition in their power to the Bill, which they intended, not only to "scotch," but to kill entirely. (Hear, bear.) He directed attention to the project of one Defence Association for the Division, and he was confident that if they were thus banded together, seeing that they must either sink or swim together, they could almost command the seat for North Suffolk. (Applause).

Mr. RICHARD RIDEN read a reply from Mr. H. S. Foster, M.P., in which that gentleman intimated his intention of opposing the second reading of Bills which were antagonistic to the trade, and moved, "That this meeting protests against the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill, and pledges itself to prevent the passing of the same."

Mr. H. STEBBINGS seconded, and the resolution was carried unanimously. The proposals for the amalgamation of the Association were ultimately adopted."
The Ipswich Journal - Saturday 18 March 1893, page 8.

The Local Veto Bill would have allowed a vote on closing pubs in a district. It was one of temperance campaigners' attempts to set off a rolling prohibition of all alcohol. This bill failed, though the Temperance (Scotland) Act of just after WWI did allow for such votes in Scotland. Some areas did initially go dry, but the hoped for snowball effect never materialised and after a while nowhere new voted for it. Thankfully, they were never daft enough to introduce similar legislation for England.

Here, as promised are some Adnams beers from a little later:

Adnams beers in 1913
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
17th Jun	BS	Stout	1055.0	1014.0	5.42	74.55%	5.81	1.12
18th Jun	BLB	Pale Ale	1044.0	1007.0	4.89	84.09%	8.29	1.22
19th Jun	Tally Ho	Old Ale	1081.0	1025.0	7.41	69.14%	8.00	2.25
20th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1008.0	4.10	79.49%	5.12	0.66
21st Jun	X	Mild Ale	1033.0	1005.5	3.64	83.33%	4.86	0.54
23rd Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1008.0	4.10	79.49%	5.12	0.65
24th Jun	BS	Stout	1055.0	1014.0	5.42	74.55%	5.81	1.08
25th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1009.0	3.97	76.92%	5.12	0.65
26th Jun	DS	Stout	1060.0	1014.0	6.09	76.67%	6.35	1.34
27th Jun	XX	Mild Ale	1039.0	1007.0	4.23	82.05%	5.12	0.65
28th Jun	Tally Ho	Old Ale	1081.0	1027.0	7.14	66.67%	8.00	2.29
Source:
Adnams brewing records held at the brewery.

The low gravity of the new Mild Ales is striking. I've never seen such weak Milds before WW I. In fact X and XX look more like beers of the 1920's.

The two Stouts are also pretty weak. Neither would have counted as a Stout in London, BS being about the same gravity as Porter there.

BLB, on the other hand, is classic Light Bitter strength, in the mid-1040's, where you'd expect an AK or its like to be.

Then, just to be weird, there's Tally Ho at a fairly decent gravity.

It's all quite different from what I've seen in London. The hopping rates are also low. It's rarae to see anything with less than a pound per barrel at this date in London.

Lots, lots more to come.

Wet and dry in the States

Here's another result of my trawl for the word "pilsener" in the newspaper archive.

It's an article about the creeping prohibition in the US in the years leading up to WW I. I've been as guilty as everyone else of thinking that prohibition was introduced at a stroke in 1919. In reality, it had been happening county by country for some time.

Temperance campaigners in Britain took note and that's why they were so keen on getting "local option" legislation introduced. That would allow district to vote to close all alcohol outlets. After WW I, such legislation was introduced in Scotland and a few areas did become "dry". But in the 1920's the temperance campaign was running out of steam and they were unable to persuade voters to ban alcohol in most of the country.

"WAGES AND THE COST OF LIVING IN AMERICA.
A COMPARISON.
"WET" AND "DRY" IN THE STATES.
[By Special Western Gazette Correspondent.]
As in England, the liquor traffic question is very much to the front at this time the United States. The promoters of the trade and the townships and counties which permit the sale of drink are known "wet", and the prohibitionist party and districts "dry." A wave of temperance and "dryness" appears be spreading over the land. The raising of the cost of licenses from 350 dollars to 1,000 dollars of course caused the weeding out of many the small saloons, but the pace was not fast enough for the prohibitionists, and now the people are generally voting "dry." Racial feeling has, no doubt, something to do with the vigorous prosecution of the campaign against the saloons in the .Southern States, the ostensible object being remove one of the chief causes of crime among the coloured population. In the North the moralists receive great support from the moderate drinkers, who see in the war against the liquor interests a just retribution for the unjustifiable uses they have made of their vast monopolies. In this State of Ohio 66 out 88 counties have gone "dry," and in the adjoining State of Indiana 78 out of 92.


A WAY OUT.

New York City is declared "dry" on Sundays, a surprising fact when one sees the amount of business and pleasure going on there during that day. But it doesn't need even bold imitator of the "bona-fide traveller" in England get "wet" in New York. In justice to the hotels of that city, it is only fair to say that the drinking bars are not prominent features of the establishments. Still, you can find the buffets when needed. On the Sunday I was there I saw two men who had not registered at the hotel call for glasses of Pilsener. The smiling waiter hinted that the order must include food, and brought a couple of sandwiches with the beer. The sandwiches remained untasted, and would probably do duty again and again for the same purpose, much as that noted contract beast, "Old Jerusalem," was tendered and rejected at the British camps in South Africa during the Boer War."
Western Gazette - Friday 09 July 1909, page 5.

Of course, even when total prohibition came in, getting a drink wasn't much of a problem

I've seen something similar to the untouched sandwiches. I was drinking in a bar in Krakow in the mid-1980's. You had to have food to get an alcoholic drink. There were several blokes with a boiled egg an two 100 ml glasses of vodka.

De-alcoholised beer

I came across this bizrre article when looking for something else. It bears many hallmarks of the debate about alcohol going on in the years running up to WW I.

Certain, mostly obsessively miserable, elements in society had got it into their heads that any form of alcohol consumption was a Bad Thing and needed to be stopped at any cost. There was, however, one slight problem these nutcases had: temperance drinks tasted like shit and most, quite rightly, preferred beer. Which is why Mr. Overbeck came up with this idea:

"DE-ALCOHOLISED BEER.
GOVERNMENT VETO SALE.
GRIMSBY INVENTORS POSITION.
(SPECIAL FOR THE "DAILY MAIL.")
Our Grimsby representative writes: —Mr Otto Overbeck, F.I.C., analytical chemist at the Tower Brewery, Grimsby, is contesting an issue raised by the Customs and Excise Authorities respecting a matter the outcome of which will be watched with the keenest interest by the entire brewing trade, and incidentally by the general public.

Some two years ago, as stated in the "Mail", at the time, he discovered, after lengthy and patient research, a process of de-alcoholising beer. In other words, he was able to extract the alcohol out of beer, leaving the beverage unimpaired in its nutritive qualities, but minus its inebriating effects. This discovery, when announced, attracted the attention of the whole of Europe, since it seemed to settle what had long been needed, viz., the question of the ideal temperance drink. There was true temperance reform emanating from the laboratory of a well-known brewery firm. The irony of the situation!

After securing patent rights for the invention, Mr Overbeck took the obvious course preparing for the manufacture of the beverage. He had received inquiries and promises of orders from all parts of the civilized world. A private company was formed, and arrangements completed for the installationof a working plantat at Retford. This plant was duly set up, and without any breach of confidence it may be said that Mr Overbeck has incurred expenditure of about £2,000.

The fact of having invented not only a novel beverage, but taken a step along the road of moral well-being was a matter on which Mr Overbeck had just claim for pride, but his anticiptaions of due reward for his labours have for the moment been ruthlessly thwarted.

A BOMBSHELL.

The erection of the plant at Retford was but the preliminary to the erection of plants in other centres in the United Kingdom, with, of course, distributing centres in the Continental cities, but the Excise authorities in May last threw a bombshell at Overbeck's enterprise, and on the principle that often operates in Government intervention, the policy was completely thorough in its aim. It not only forbade Mr Overbock to sell de-aJcholised beer, but it nought to prevent his making any further experiments. The embargo came in the following letter:—

May 11th. 1914.
Sir, —I ajn directed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to inform you that if you wish to continue experiments in the de-alcoholising of your beer, you must apply for a renewal of your indulgences granted to you the Commissioners' letter of 4th June, 1912, and undertake that the experiments, which can only be allowed for a strictly limited period, shall be conducted under such arrangements as will render it impossible for any part of the alcohol to be collected. I am further directed to inform you that the Commissioners are not prepared to allow plant to set up for the purpose of de-alcoholising beer on a commercial scale, and that the permission accorded to you to the present to carry out certain experiments is not to be understood to imply that any extension of such a concession can be allowed. The application (if any) for a further renewal of the indulgence should be sent through me, and it should state what arrangements of the plant are proposed to render the collection of alcohol impossible.— I am, sir your obedient servant,
J. R. Freeman (Surveyor, Newark).

Overbeck replied to this that under the patent granted to him he had full power to continue his experiments, and he did not require any indulgence from the Customs authority.

Following correspondence, the authorities in London entered upon the scene, and Mr Overbeck received the following important letter:

Customs House, London, E.C.
June 8th, 1914.
Sir, —In reply to your letters of the 4th inst. and previous dates, I am directed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to inform you:
1. That the permission de-alcoholise beer was originally granted to your solely for the purpose of an experiment on your urgent representations that you had conducted laboratory experiments over period of thirty years, and that you wished to ascertain by means of a small working model whether there was anything in the opinion you had formed to the feasibility of producing a temperance beverage from beer treated in the manner proposed.
2. That the separation of spirits from fermented liquid elsewhere than at a licensed distillery is illegal.
3. That, with regard to any rights you may have under a patent, the Commissioners can only deal with the question as affected by the Revenue laws in force, and
4. That, under these circumstances, and seeing that alcohol can be recovered from beer by means of the de-alcoholiser, the Commissioners are unable to depart from the terms of the decision that they are not prepared to allow plant to be set up for the purpose of beer on a commercial scale.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. C. Byrne,
Otto Overbeck, Esq.,
Tower Brewery, Grimsby.

The whole point at issue is simple one, but Mr Overbeck and the Commissioners of Excise hold exactly the opposite view.

Taking as an illustration for the purpose of argument, say, a 36-gallon cask of beer with a fifty-five gravity, the duty is 7s 9d, which, of  course, Mr Overbeck would pay. These 36 gallons would be reduced on the basis of 55 gravity to 40 by attenuation, or, roughly, eight per cent. of proof spirits, and the yield would be 2.8 gallons od proof spirits, which at an excise of 14s 9d per gallon, would be a trifle over £1 9s 6d. The Excise authorities contend that in the de-alcoholismg of the 36 gallons of beer Mr Overbeck by distilling would obtain 2.8 gallons of proof spirit upon which he would not pay duty, and which he might use for other purposes and so the revenue would lose £1 9s 6d upon every 36 gallons of beer de-alooholi6ed.

MR OVERBECK'S CONTENTION.

Mr Overbeck's contention negatives this idea. First, he claims that the process is not distillation, and, secondly, that the spirit by the de-aicoholisation is absorbed and destroyed in the vast quantity of water utilised in the process of the manufacture. He submits confidently that after the process of de-alcoholising there is no spirit left, and as a proof of his statement, says the local Surveyor of Excise has visited the premises at Retford and seen the whole procedure from start to finish, and has failed to find any spirit whatever.

This suggests that the point view taken up by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise is wrong, and if Overbeck's contention as to entire absence of spirit after the process is correct, the Commissioners' objection must necessarily fall to the ground. From their point of view, they regard Mr Overbeck as being able to obtain spirit from the process, which he could use in other ways, and upon which he would not pay duty. That is the sole reason for the imposition of the veto upon the manufacture of this particular beer. The principle actuating their decision is, in a word, the safeguarding of the revenue.

Viewed from another aspect, assuming that de-alcoholised beer is manufactured and becomes popular, the decreased sale of alcoholic beer would naturally mean a great falling off in revenue duty. Probably this idea has also suggested itself to the Commissioners' minds.

It will, of course, be easily determined whether Mr Overbeck's or the Commissioners' contention respecting the presence or the absence spirit following the process is the correct one, but in the meantime Mr Overbeck is "held up."

The question is of too great, importance to be left where it isn and without betraying any confidence it may be said that the matter will be raised in Parliament. Until then Mr Overbeck in his efforts to advance the cause of temperance will have the sympathy of all true social reformers.

It is no small thing to tilt, single handed at the Government armoury, but Mr Overbeck, having gone so far, and being sure of the correctness his contention, will carry the matter as far it is possible to take it."
Hull Daily Mail - Monday 15 June 1914, page 6.

I'll begin with the huge misassumption at the start of the article: "leaving the beverage unimpaired in its nutritive qualities". That's bollocks. The bulk of the food value in beer is in the alcohol. Remove that and the mass of the calories are also removed. It's as bad as the pemerance twats who claimed that brewing beer destroyed all the food value of the barley. Also total bollocks.

Mr. Overbeck, being a brewing chemist, was very naive if he didn't anticipate problems with the Excise. They were a suspicious bunch, especially when it came to spirits. Their thinking seems pretty logical - if the alcohol was being removed from the beer, where was it going?

Now here's the second bit of bollocks: "the decreased sale of alcoholic beer would naturally mean a great falling off in revenue duty". Why is that bollocks? Because Mr. Overbeck was still planning on paying the duty on his de-alcoholised beer. The system of taxation in effect at the time meant that he had to. Duty was charged on the gravity of the wort before fermentation. Not on the alcohol content when it left the brewery, as it is today. Unless Overbeck started brewing his beer at a much lower gravity, the revenue would get just as much income from de-alcoholised beer as the normal stuff.

I can't help wondering what happened next. Probablt not a great deal as this was just a few weeks before the outbreak of WW I.

Men's Total Gloom Movement

I'd join an organisation called that. I wonder if it ever got off the ground?

Wondering what I'm talking about? Try reading the text below. It should help explain. It sounds a bit like a forerunner of CAMRA.

"Letters to the Editor
Beer-Garden Idea Supported
Sir,- May I be allowed to congratulate the Rector of Cheltenham on his supporting the establishment of continental-type beer-garden in Cheltenham.

The views put forward by the members of the N.B.W.T.A.U.* that the scheme would prove disastrous in giving additional allure to the consumption of intoxicants and cause the downfall of youth are, I suggest, both narrow and absurd.

The only disaster likely to arise would be caused by our climate's being most unsuitable for beer drinking out of doors.

In France, where normal times all types of drinks are obtainable at any time, and open-air cafés abound, I have only once seen a Frenchman drunk.

This, I suggest, is because drinking is done openly, and parents and children all go to cafés and eat and drink sensibly together.

There is no need for father to slip off for a quick-one on his own, or for youngsters to drink in places where they would not wish their mothers to accompany them.
CHURCHGOER.


Comfort and Less Beer
Sir,— I read with interest Canon J. B. Goodliffe's suggestion that the Montpellier garden might be used in the summer months as an open-air cafe, where refreshments of all kinds could be served, including music as well as beer.

The very word "beer" is enough. The members of the N.B.W.T.A.U. are appalled at such a plan, which would make drinking beer more "alluring!" Surely if they know anything about the subject they would realise what every publican knows i.e., that the more comfort he provides the less his clients drink.

A German and his family would sit all the evening in a beer-garden over two pints lager, listening to good music , and enjoying the open air.

I am thinking of founding M.T.G.M.—-Men's Total Gloom Movement. We shall meet at 8 p.m. in a very gloomy cellar each evening, the only seats being full barrels of beer for each member in order to lift the gloom.
S. L. GRIFFITHS,
22, Montpellier Walk,
Cheltenham.
Gloucestershire Echo - Thursday 19 December 1946, page 3."

"no need for father to slip off for a quick-one on his own" - how often that's been true when I've been with the family in the UK. And this "or for youngsters to drink in places where they would not wish their mothers to accompany them" sounds like all the Wetherspoon's I've dragged them into.

"I have only once seen a Frenchman drunk" not met my mate Stephane then. I've seen him pissed more than once. Associating with the British must have perverted his naturally temperate French ways.

Which all leads on to the important question: do you drink less the more comfortable you are? I', not sure it applies to me. I try to chug my beeer down at the same fast pace now matter what the environment. Though I will confess that a cool, shady beer garden can relax me so much I slacking the pace. What do you reckon?

I wasn't joking when I said that I'd join up for the Men's Total Gloom Movement. Sitting around in a beer cellar sounds like my type of fun. Though I would want to kick off a little earlier than 8 P.M. You'd want enough time for a proper session.





* National British Women's Total Abstinence Union - don't they sound like a barrel of laughs?

To Make Europe more Sober

I keep telling you how much impact WW I had, even on countries not engaged in the war. This article gives a handy roundup of the restrictions placed on the sale of booze in various European countries.

Though it's worth pointing out that this was still early days. The rules got progressively tighter as the war proceeded.

"TO MAKE EUROPE MORE SOBER.
LIQUOR RESTRICTIONS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES.
A White Paper has been issued showing the steps taken in European countries to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors since the outbreak of war.

Austria-Hungary: Sale limited to between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. On Sundays and holidays all liquor shops are closed.

Denmark : A more or less absolute prohibition of the sale of liquor to soldiers (and in some cases to civilians) has been issued in 16 police districts.

France; The sale of absinthe has been forbidden.

Germany : The sale of spirits has been forbidden to soldiers in the district of Berlin and province of Brandenburg. Local authorities are empowered to prohibit or restrict sale of spirits. The production of alcohol has been restricted.

Norway : The sale of spirits was forbidden until October 13. Now the sale is permitted four days a week. The police can prohibit the sale of wine or beer if the public interest makes it desirable. An extensive system of local veto was in force before war broke out.

Russia : The sale of all intoxicants is prohibited, except in first-class restaurants and hotels at meals.

Serbia: A decree was issued forbidding the proprietors of hotels and cafes to sell in any large quantity to soldiers or persons addicted to drink.

Sweden : Although the restrictions in force and the powers possessed by local authorities were deemed sufficient to meet the conditions, a Bill was passed giving extended powers to issue prohibitions " in times of distress and danger of war.

Switzerland : The sale of spirits made by the Government is suspended indefinitely. No licences are at present granted for the distillation of spirits.

No special measures have been taken in Bulgaria, Greece, Holland, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, Rumania, and Spain."
Tamworth Herald - Saturday 10 July 1915, page 2.

A couple of points to note. First, that these rules almost all concern spirits. Presumably from fear of soldiers or essential workers getting paralytic and unable to do what they were supposed to.

Second, that these restrictions, with the exception of opening hours in Austria, look voluntary rather than forced. That is, these actions weren't necessary due to supply restrictions. Those come later. Especially with regard to brewing, which, using stuff that could be used to make bread, was likely to struggle to find raw materials in times of food shortages.

In the case of Scandinavian countries, none of whom were involved in the war, these rules smack of temperance opportunism. Using a time of crisis as an excuse to force through restrictions on alcohol. It's a typical tactic of those two-faced bastards.

This was just a taste of things to come, especially for the Central Powers.