Strong beer production in London 1815 - 1817

Parliamentary Papers. What wonderful number mines they are. I've been at the coalface all week, hacking them free.

This particular set is dead useful for me, frantically researching London brewing as I am. It's a full list of London brewers from the second decade of the 19th century, including the amount of beer they brewed. It gives a very good impression about the structure of the industry in the capital.

All the famous names are in there: Barclay Perkins, Whitbread, Hanbury, Meux, Reid, Charrington, Hodgson, Calvert, Elliott, Combe. But there are some fairly substantial breweries that I've never heard of Starkey, Tickell, Wyatt, Stretton, Marlborough. I wonder what happened to them? Of course, when breweries had the form of partnerships (which most did, even the large ones, before 1880) their names could change quite often as partners joined, left or died.

Let's kick off with the full list. It's in just-about alphabetical order. I've kept the order from the original document because, well, I could be arsed to re-order it.

Strong beer production in London 1815 - 1817
Brewer	1815	1816	1817
Anderson & Co	6,824.0	7,423.8	5,501.5
Addison, John	741.8	648.0	594.0
Baldcok & Co.	178.8
Butt, John	824.5	626.3	568.8
Bowman, Richard	2,947.5	3,567.0	2,688.8
Barker, Arthur, now Rand & Co.	1,039.5	1,414.3	1,221.0
Blackmore, William	56.3	70.3	81.8
Burrell, Joseph	345.3	759.0	842.5
Blackmore, Benjamin	40.3
Blackwell, Peter and Thomas	1183	817.25	664.75
Betteley, Samuel	14.0	58.0	83.0
Brown and Co., now C.A. Smith	513.5	439.3	352.3
Barlee, Charles William	1,037.3	171.8	0.0
Buckley & Co.	70.0	0.0	0.0
Barclay & Co., 1st house	307,306.3	309,593.0	258,981.3
Barclay & Co., 2nd house	30,315.5	20,608.3	22,503.5
Bacon, Parsley	77.0	109.3	123.0
Clarke, Richard	0.0	0.0	6.8
Charrington & Co.	20,444.0	18,172.0	16,886.3
Cox, Peter	1,933.5	1,836.8	1,223.3
Cox, John	174.5	143.8	228.3
Calvert & Co.	119,333.3	85,925.0	98,301.3
Cocks & Co.	38,107.3	36,101.3	25,756.0
Clarke, Richard, now Allatson & Co.	178.5	359.3	201.3
Combe & Co.	105,081.0	100,665.8	110,776.0
Churchill, Jo	1,499.5	1,236.8	924.8
Cropper, James	14.3	18.0	10.8
Crofton, Abraham, now C. and T. Ellis	1,079.5	1,756.8	1,200.5
Cape, John	1,959.3	0.0	0.0
Clarke & Co.	6,779.5	7,265.5	6,917.0
Cowell, Matthew	393.0	45.3	109.3
Culham	0.0	32.3	0.0
Clarke, Henry	0.0	0.0	16.5
Drane & Co.	2,738.5	3,643.3	2,481.3
Dickinson, Rivers and John	16,281.5	9,521.0	8,420.0
Dean, William	370.8	749.8	215.8
Davies, David	45.0	44.3	52.5
Drury & Co.	7,050.3	6,696.5	4,743.8
Donaldson, John	7,504.8	7,242.8	6,564.8
Duckworth, john	0.0	30.0	41.3
Dansie, Crown	0.0	224.8	522.5
Edmonds & Co.	1,293.5	1,859.8	2,057.5
Eves, William	0.8	17.8	0.0
Eley, John, now Andrew Eyre	576.3	423.3	143.3
Eves, John	11.5	0.0	0.0
Elliott & Co.	56,922.3	46,587.5	55,163.0
Foot & Co.	0.0	0.0	16.0
Gutterson & Co.	2,308.3	2,220.0	2,134.8
Goodwin & Co.	72,080.0	77,249.3	60,307.0
Gillett, Thomas Richard, now William Cobbett	175.0	107.8	72.3
Green & Co.	14,072.0	14,181.3	10,991.8
Goding, Thomas and James	14,491.0	12,729.3	12,352.8
Hoffman. John	264.0	689.0	197.5
How & Co.	658.8	653.0	625.0
Hanbury & Co.	172,169.8	185,041.5	168,756.3
Hardy, Samuel, now Charles Ross	203.0	187.3	173.8
Hale & Co	10,134.3	9,274.8	7,763.8
Howson, Edmund	660.3	343.3	276.3
Hornwood, Charles	52.3	110.0	90.3
Hollingsworth & Co.	32,256.5	31,273.8	7,029.5
Hodgson & Co.	21,641.5	22,592.5	22,730.0
Harrison & Co.	0.0	98.0	0.0
Holcombe, William	0.0	99.8	0.0
Jones & Co.	4,045.8	3,095.8	3,376.3
Ingram, William	0.0	32.0	0.0
Kirkman, Joseph	4,126.5	3,400.5	1,737.8
Kewell & Co.	0.0	0.0	78.8
Lyons, Luke	401.5	267.0	282.5
Levesque, Daniel	57.8	42.8	62.5
Lloyd & Co.	135.0	440.5	543.5
Morton & Co.	3,433.0	3,879.5	2,099.3
Marlborough & Co.	17,889.3	19,812.8	0.0
Mitchell, John	11.5	75.0	22.8
Meux & Co., now Reid & Co.	182,104.8	189,020.8	157,131.3
Mantell & Co.	868.3	884.3	1,091.5
Meux & Co.	123,100.0	99,671.0	124,468.0
Meaton, William	27.8	29.5	26.0
Mattam, Anne	2,283.0	2,552.5	2,166.5
Needham, James	0.0	0.0	30.3
Newman, Edward	391.3	325.5	226.8
Poulain & Co.	1,010.8	912.3	726.5
Piggott, Robert	100.5	0.0	0.0
Pearson & Co.	831.8	496.0	424.5
Petty, Henry	0.0	0.0	156.3
Palmer, John	280.3	178.0	79.3
Pointer, Richard	300.8	220.0	19.3
Payne & Co., now J. Staines & Co.	0.0	48.3	118.8
Pointer, Richard, now Edward Nicholson	0.0	0.0	6.8
Raven, Nathaniel, now William Stones	82.0	4.5	72.3
Ritchie, Robert, now William Prior	2,542.5	2,094.5	2,201.0
Raven, Nathaniel	0.0	142.0	0.0
Smith & Co.	102.3	543.3	201.0
Smith, Thomas	308.3	339.3	381.0
Stones, William	0.0	0.0	1.3
Swaine & Co.	1,232.0	1,172.3	968.8
Sandell & Co.	2,212.5	2,199.5	2,234.5
Satchell & Co.	1,408.0	1,433.0	1,252.3
Stoneham, Thomas	157.8	214.0	272.8
Starkey & Co.	15,324.0	23,078.5	12,538.3
Stretton & Co.	27,074.0	26,122.5	25,050.8
Slater & Co.	1,712.0	1,429.3	895.3
Smith, Edward	1,729.8	1,451.0	950.3
Simpson, William	1,169.8	1,386.5	1,518.0
Taylor, John V.	51,294.0	50,533.3	42,980.5
Tickell, Joseph and Samuel	22,089.5	21,185.8	17,088.0
Thorp & Co.	5,433.8	5,816.3	3,750.3
Whiffing, Crotchrode	7,267.3	6,779.0	6,839.8
Webb, William	1,243.8	587.3	477.3
Whitbread & Co.	161,618.3	168,855.0	151,888.0
Wyatt, Henry	22,146.8	18,497.5	18,119.8
Webb & Co., now George Ball & Co.	7,965.3	8,796.0	7,148.3
Wright, Philip	1,504.3	1,239.3	799.0
Whitmore, Felix	3,338.5	3,650.5	4,023.0
Wallis, John	22.5	83.5	17.3
Wood, Jo.	3,638.3	3,917.8	4,066.8
White, William	0.0	61.0	0.0
my calc. total	1,768,468.8	1,710,750.0	1,531,295.8
total in source	1,767,472.8	1,710,770.8	1,532,352.3
Meux & Co., Henry, brewed duty-free per 55 Geo. III, c.189		14,606.5
total	1,768,468.8	1,725,356.5	1,531,295.8
Strong Ale brewed in England and Wales	6,150,543	5,982,379	5,236,048
% brewed in London.	28.75%	28.84%	29.25%
Sources:
"Accounts and Papers: Revenue; Public Debt; Coin; The Bank; Trade, session 27 January - 10 June 1818.", 1818.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=FS9bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=beer+barrels+intitle:ACCOUNTS+intitle:AND+intitle:PAPERS&hl=en&ei=8rANTorjGc7pOeybgawL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=beer&f=false
"Accounts and Papers: Miscellaneous, session 23 January to 11 July 1821", 1821, page 269.

You'll see that there was a large variation in the size of breweries. At the top end of the scale Barclay Perkins were knocking out more than 300,000 barrels a year. At the other end, there were brewers only brewing a handful of barrels. Almost 30% of the beer brewed in England and Wales came from London. I wonder what the percentage is now? Probably less than 1%.

To make the structure more obvious, I've made another table based on brewery size:

London breweries by size in 1815
size	combined output	number of breweries	% of total output
<100 barrels	582.75	15	0.03%
100 - 1,000 barrels	10,135.3	26	0.57%
1,000 - 5,000 barrels	55,649.5	27	3.15%
5,000 - 10,000 barrels	48,824.8	7	2.76%
10,000 - 50,000 barrels	302,267.0	14	17.09%
50,000 - 100,000 barrels	180,296.3	3	10.20%
>100,000	1,170,713.3	7	66.20%
total	1,768,468.75	99	100.00%
Source:
"Accounts and Papers: Revenue; Public Debt; Coin; The Bank; Trade, session 27 January - 10 June 1818.", 1818.

The ten largest breweries were responsible for almost three-quarters of London's beer production. 21 medium-sized breweries took care of another 20%. The small fry only accounted for 5% of the total.

Most of those in the smallest output categories would have been publican brewers. Or around 41. In 1827, London had 33 pub breweries (Source: Accounts and Papers: relating to Assessed Taxes; Stamps: Rates of Duties; Customs and Excise; Beer, Hops, and Malt; Spirits; the Distilleries, session 21 November 1826 - 2 July 1827., 1827. pages 134 - 135). By 1849, it was down to just one (Source: "Statistics of British commerce" by Braithwaite Poole, 1852, page 4.) That's a clear indication of how brewing was concentrated in commercial breweries much earlier in London than elsewhere. In 1827 there were just fewer than 23,000 publican brewers in the whole of England and Wales.


One small further point. The figures are for Strong Beer. The stuff that was taxed at ten bob per barrel. Based on figures from about a decade later, there were about 200,000 barrels of Table Beer brewed in London as well. Though a lot of that probably got mixed with Strong Beer by unscrupulous publicans. The analyses made by Frederick Accum of samples of London beer taken from breweries and pubs, showed that the latter were about 15% weaker. Or about the same strength as you would expect if they had been cut 50-50 with Table Beer.

ADULTERATION OF STRONG BEER WITH SMALL BEER.

Another fraud frequently committed, both by brewers and publicans, (as is evident from the Excise Report,) is the practice of adulterating strong beer with small beer.—This fraud is prohibited by law; since both the revenue and the public suffer by it*. "The duty upon strong beer is ten shillings a barrel; and upon table beer it is two shillings. The revenue suffers, because a larger quantity of beer is sold as strong beer; that is, at a price exceeding the price of table beer, without the strong beer duty being paid. In the next place, the brewer suffers, because the retailer gets table or mild beer, and retails it as strong beer." The following are the words of the Act, prohibiting the brewers mixing table beer with strong beer:

"If any common brewer shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer, or strong worts with table beer or table worts, or with water in any guile or fermenting tun after the declaration of the quantity of such guile shall have been made; or if he shall at any time mix or suffer to be mixed strong beer or strong worts with table beer worts or with water, in any vat, cask, tub, measures or utensil, not being an entered guile or fermented tun, be shall forfeit £200**."

With respect to the persons who commit this offence, Mr. Carr***, the Solicitor of the Excise, observes, that "they are generally brewers who carry on the double trade of brewing both strong and table beer. It is almost impossible to prevent them from mixing one with the other; and frauds of very great extent have been detected, and the parties punished for that offence. One brewer at Plymouth evaded duties to the amount of £32,000; and other brewers, who brew party guiles of beer carrying on the two trades of ale and table beer brewers, where the trade is a victualling brewer, which is different from the common brewer,he being a person who sells only wholesale; the victualling" brewer being a brewer and also a seller by retail.

"In the neighbourhood of London," Mr. Carr continues," more particularly, I speak from having had great experience, from the informations and evidence which I have received, that the retailers carry on a most extensive fraud upon the public, in purchasing stale table beer, or the bottoms of casks. There are a class of men who go about and sell such beer at table-beer price to public victuallers, who mix it in their cellars. If they receive beer from their brewers which is mild, they purchase stale beer; and if they receive stale beer, they purchase common table beer for that purpose; and many of the prosecutions are against retailers for that offence."

* See Mr. Marr's evidence in the Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 32.
** 12 George III, c. 38, section 18.
*** See Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 32.
"A treatise on adulterations of food, second edition" by Friedrich Accum, 1820, pages 185 - 189.

Would you like to know which of the brewers in the table were busted? Course you do:

1813 August 3. Cratcherode Whiffing, Limehouse
Grains of Paradise    44 lbs
Quassia    10 lbs
Liquorice    10 lbs
Ginger    80 lbs
Caraway Seeds    40 lbs
Orange Powder    4 lbs
Penalty £200

1815, Feb 15 Mantell and Cook, Castle street, Bloomsbury square
Proof of mixing strong with table beer, and using colouring and other things
Compromised for £300


1817, July 30 Luke Lyons, Shadwell
Capsicum    1lb
Liquorice Root Powder    2 lbs
Coriander Seed    2 lbs
Copperas    1 lb
Orange Powder    8 lbs
Spanish Liquorice    0.5 lb
Beer Colouring    24 galls.
Not tried. (7th May, 1818.)
"A treatise on adulterations of food, first edition" by Friedrich Accum, 1820, pages 186 - 189.

Victorians and their crazy names., eh? Cratcherode Whiffing - sounds like a Dickens character. His was the only brewery of any size that was prosecuted. The other two look like publican brewers from their size.

The Revival of Brewing In Ireland

I've not worn out my Ireland theme yet. Not by a long way. I'll be annoying you with stuff like this most of the summer.

We've now moved on to the 19th century and the resurgence of Irish brewing.

"The Revival of Brewing In Ireland,

The decline at the beginning of the nineteenth century in the amount of malt upon which duty was paid in Ireland of which mention has been made above, was, no doubt, partly due to the increase in the rate of the duty levied on malt. This duty, which averaged about 2s. per bushel in the ten years immediately following the repeal of the beer tax in 1795. after several fluctuations became settled at 2s. 7d., and the decrease in the amount of malt upon which duty was paid without doubt was due in part to the decrease in lawful distillation, and the increase in illicit distillation which followed upon the sharp increases in taxation to which spirits became subject after 1795, but still it is hard to account for the remarkable decrease in the amount of malt upon which duty was paid. However, as already mentioned, it seems quite certain that the decrease was not due to any decline in the production of beer. Brewing revived in Ireland after the repeal of the beer duty, and porter brewing is said to have received a marked stimulus at the beginning of the nineteenth century from the introduction of the use of roasted malt as a colouring and flavouring material, though it was not until 1850-60 that porter became the really popular drink in Ireland and that the Irish trade became mainly a porter trade. Newenham, in his "View of Ireland," published in 1809, stated that according to official estimates the beer made in Ireland in 1808 exceeded 751,000 barrels or nearly double what the Right Hon. John Foster stated in the speech, already mentioned, to be the annual production about 1790. Newenham attributes the decline in the amount of malt charged with duty to the illicit malting carried on with the collusion of the revenue officers, and declares that the amount of beer brewed in Ireland in 1808 was really far greater than the 751,000 barrels stated "It is obvious to everyone, he wrote, "that the number of breweries in Ireland has been augmented since the year 1792; that the additional ones are on a much more extensive scale than the former ones, and that the proprietors resort to every expedient (the writer hopes with increased success) to induce the people to prefer their liquor to whiskey." In the province of Munster he states that there was an almost universal preference given to malt liquors over spirits, "and the porter brewers of the city of Cork alone almost vie in extent with some of the principal ones in London."


The Rise of the Export Trade.

That the brewing industry was rapidly expanding in Ireland early in the nineteenth century, despite the enormous decrease in the amount of malt which is returned as having paid duty, is shown also by the figures relating to the export and import of beer. We have already seen
that the importation of beer from England averaged over 100,000 barrels a year about 1790, but the importation of beer declined, and Ireland soon began to export beer to England. The first year when the exports of beer exceeded the imports was 1814, when the figures were:—imports from England, 215 barrels; imports from Scotland, 24 barrels; exports to England, 424 barrels; exports to Scotland, 46 barrels.

In 1823 the exports of Irish beer first exceeded the 1,000 barrels mark, and in 1828 Ireland exported 8,035 barrels to England, 48 to Scotland, and 3,180 to foreign countries, whilst the imports from England were but 505 barrels. Most of the beer exported from Ireland has always been shipped from the port of Dublin, and in 1861 the quantity thus exported to Great Britain was 170,384 hogsheads; the exports increased in 1871 to 281,301, in 1881 to 338,690, and in 1891 to 460,985 hogsheads. During the last decade there were considerable fluctuations, the total falling in 1898 to 368,628 hogsheads, but the last few years has witnessed a revival in the export trade, and in 1901 the quantity exported was 459,864 hogsheads.

The temperance movement headed by Father Mathew of course affected the production of beer, though to a less extent than it affected the production of whiskey. The amount of malt upon which duty was paid in Ireland during the decade 1838-47 was 30 per cent, less than the corresponding amount for the previous decade, and the famine years and the subsequent emigration had their effects upon the brewing trade, and numerous breweries were obliged to close. Shortly after the middle of the century, however, the brewing industry began again to expand, and the heavy increases made in the spirit duty, especially in 1858, when the English and Irish rates were equalised, and the rate fixed at 8s. per gallon, treble what it was in Ireland five years previously, tended to increase the use of beer. The amount of beer brewed in Ireland in 1856 was estimated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at 926,000 barrels, and in ten years this amount had increased over 50 per cent.

The growth of the brewing industry and the regularity of the increase in Ireland in the last forty years is clearly shown by the following figures:—

Year.	Number of Barrels Brewed In the United Kingdom.	In Ireland.
1861*	19,534,460	1,437,713
1871**	26,431,760	1,516,656
1882@	27,687,572	2,044,331
1891@	31,927,303	2,555,273
1901@	36,394,565	3,149,142

* Estimated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from the amount of licence duty charged
** Estimated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from the amount of materials used.
@ Calculated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from the amount of beer duty paid.

"Ireland Industrial and Agricultural", 1902, pages 456 - 458.

Such a goldmine, this article on brewing in "Ireland Industrial and Agricultural". It's taught me loads.

Porter only became popular in Ireland in the middle of the 19th century. That's exactly when its popularity began to fade in England. Odd, then, that during this period in decline in demand, Irish breweries, most notably Guinness, had so much success selling Porter in England. It seems illogical. Or is it? As brewing Proter and Stout became less attractive to English brewers trying to keep up with the demand for Mild Ale, buying in Guinness to plug the bottled Stout hole probably made sense. And, of course, Guinness was a heavily-advertised, national brand.

I'm not sure I understand how using roasted malt for colour gave Porter production such a boost. I suppose, because it reduced the need for brown malt and allowed more cheaper (in terms of extract) pale malt to be used, it dropped the raw material costs for brewing Porter.

That's quite a turnaround in the movement of beer between England and Ireland. From importing 100,000 barrels of English beer in 1790 to exporting 255,576 barrels (170,384 hogsheads) in 1861. Most of that beer was Guinness. Not just Guinness, but specifically Guinness Extra Stout. As this table demonstrates:

Guinness sales 1840 - 1900
	Extra Stout			Porter			total
Year	Britain	Ireland	total	Britain	Ireland	total	Britain	Ireland	total
1840	42,209	25,021	67,230	0	12,573	12,573	42,209	37,594	79,803
1850	44,410	26,979	71,389	1,848	26,873	28,721	46,258	53,852	100,110
1860	82,690	52,594	135,284	925	62,299	63,224	83,615	114,893	198,508
1870	178,556	93,854	272,410	3,752	145,912	149,664	182,308	239,766	422,074
1880	207,695	201,348	409,043	2,208	435,127	437,335	209,903	636,475	846,378
1890	352,109	261,359	613,468	1,257	686,491	687,748	353,366	947,850	1,301,216
1900	458,630	437,613	896,243	961	795,346	796,307	459,591	1,232,959	1,692,550
Source:
"A Bottle of Guinness please" by David Hughes, pages 276-278

This table shows how Guinness came to totally dominate the Irish brewing industry in the final decades of the 19th century:

Irish Beer output 1840 - 1890
	total	Guinness	% Guinness
1840	639,500	79,803	12.48%
1850	582,500	100,110	17.19%
1860	1,213,307	198,508	16.36%
1870	1,701,500	422,074	24.81%
1880	2,066,269	915,064	44.29%
1890	2,460,645	1,388,283	56.42%
1900	2,669,225	1,786,098	66.91%
Sources:
"A Bottle of Guinness please" by David Hughes, pages 276-278
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 110
The Dynamics of the international brewing industry since 1800 by Richard George Wilson, Terence Richard Gourvish, 1998, pages 121 - 122, estimated from malt used

Whiskey is a recurring theme. There seems to be a see-saw relationship between whiskey and beer in Ireland. Every time taxation or regulation increased on distilling, the brewing industry profitted. I've never heard of Father Matthew's temperance movement. But I imagine it was similar to those in England and Scotland in the same period.

BS brewing

I'm lucky. Very lucky,. Every now and then I get to act out my brewing fantasies in a real brewery, in the company of real brewers. In February I had the chance of a day at Fullers again, brewing the second beer of the Past Masters Series, BS. Or as it's called on the label Double Stout.

The day didn't start well. The tube was buggered at Southwark and I had to walk to Waterloo. Great. The unscheduled stroll put me behind schedule.

At least it wasn't raining this time. I've been soaked a few times walking from the tube station. I sense the brewery before I see it: noise and the enticing aroma of malt mashing.

I go straight into the tasting panel with the brewers. A bit intimidating, but an interesting process.We try several samples from different batches of a couple of different beers.

We taste cask, canned, kegged and bottled London Pride. Porter. One was bitterer (35 IBU) than usual because it was parti-gyled with Golden Pride. I wouldn't have noticed.

The tasting ends with a very special comparison of cask beers. Mostly not Fullers. It's not often you get the chance to try several brewers' take on the same type of beer side by side. I'll name no names, but there were some surprisingly disappointing beers. Baby sick, that's all I'll say. One tasted just like it.

In the brewing office I get a chance to look at the brewing book. The BS log for the new brew. Derek shows me an envelope that was being used as a bookmark in the log. It was addressed to a Mr. S.... He said the surname was the same as a brewer he had known in his days at Truman. He'd been from a brewing family so it could have been his grandfather to whom the letter was addressed.


Next to be tasted is No. 3 invert sugar. There's dark fruit, dates, caramel, raisins. It's as dark as I'd expected. But more flavourful. Why has brewing sugar gone out of fashion? "It's not sexy," Derek says. It is to me.


John Keeling arrives and asks what the next Past Masters should be. I say "OBE" straight away. AK would have been first, but it wouldn't work as a bottled beer. Brendan can remember brewing OBE before it was discontinued in 1969. Replaced by Winter Ale, which was so popular it became a year-round brew. Winter Ale was sort of seasonal-specific so they had to come with a new name. They went for Extra Special Bitter. Maybe a 1930's recipe. Or one for a significant date. Like England's World Cup victory in 1966. But they didn't brew that day. It was a Saturday.

I remember it well. We were at our caravan in Mablethorpe. We'd no TV. I'd only seen a couple of England's group matches. The rest had been on the radio.

We were still radio-limited in Mablethorpe when the game kicked off. Germany scored. England equalised. Dad decided we should drive home to catch the end of the game. England took the lead on the way. We were just in time to watch the nerve-wracking last ten minutes. It didn't surprise me when Germany equalised form a late free kick. Inevitable.

A brew from a week before would be a great pick. One that would have been in the pubs the day the game was played.

Watneys. They had a special World Cup beer. I've seen a label. I wonder if it was any good? What am I thinking? It's bound to have been crap.

In the brewhouse, I get to make the mouse click that kicks everything off. It's ludicrously exciting.

Lunch is in the Mawson Arms with Derek Prentice. He tells me more fascinating stuff about brewing at Trumans. I really should be recording him.

Brendan takes the temperature manually with the stick. It looks a bit low. But it took forever to wipe all the grains off. They still look at the consistency of the mash and judge it by eye. You can see grains of a few different shades.  We taste some grains: pretty bitter and quite roasty.

We taste the first wort. Much less bitter than just the grains. But we'd tasted them right at the start of conversion.

I watch the sugar being pumped up through what the computer calls "honey". It's sugar syrup, but because it arrives late, it hadn't warmed enough to flow quickly. They use a jacket to warm the plastic sugar containers. It takes longer than usual to charge.

John Keeling takes me up on the roof. Copper 1 of LP is boiling and there is a wonderful smell. I explain that I remember it from my youth in Newark. "The BS will smell great, if it's anything like the Porter. Like coffee."

I sit in the control room, watching the copper slowly charge. 300 hl is the aim.Then it's my turn to work again. I start adding hops before all sugar in. The gravity is a bit low - 1064 instead of 1071. But not all sugar is in. The aim is 1075, post-boil.

Putting the hops in. It's sad (in both senses) and worrying how much that pleases me. Some tiny, tiny, physical contribution to a beer that hopefully thousands will enjoy. Maybe taking pleasure in that isn't so crazy. However small a part I played.

I walk back to the tube, BS is boiling. Fumes of coffee and hops wrap around me like a warm, comforting cloak. Happy, happy, joy, joy. That's how I feel. Happiness so profound that mere words can't do it justice.

I'm drinking a Past Masters XX right now. The bitterness. I put that in.

Philadelphia Flyer

War and Peace! (again, again)

Now even better, using the worlds best quality toilet paper*.



*It's not meant seriously, it might not be printed on toilet paper. These books are printed in the U.S.A and for anyone outside Europe we recommend that War! and Peace are bought separately.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1840 Truman Export Stout

I really should rename this feature Let's Brew Thursday. Much more accurate.

Our series of export beers continues, this time with another Export Stout. Truman's brewed quite a range of Porters and Stouts in the 19th century. In 1840, there were three: Running Stout, Double Stout and Export Stout. Unusually it wasn't strength that differentiated them. The gravities were very similar: 1080.1 (Running), 1081.2 (Export), 1083.1 Double. Not much between them there. The grists, however, did diffeer considerably.

What would you expect in a Porter/Stout of this period? Pale malt, brown malt, black malt and optionally amber malt. Truman's Stouts all contained the first three. Just in quite different proportions. As you can see:

Truman Stouts in 1840
beer	pale	brown	black	lbs hops/barrel
Running Stout	90.50%	7.60%	1.90%	5.18
Export Stout	70.42%	26.62%	2.96%	8.61
Double Stout	73.73%	23.89%	2.39%	6.42
Source:
Document B/THB/C/41 held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Unsurprisingly, the Export Stout is the most heavily hopped. Over 8 pounds a barrel. That's a lot. More than an IPA of the time. Makes you think.

Before anyone mentions it, I have noticed the difference between my grist for the Export Stout and Kristen's below. Truman's appear to have only employed brewers with terrible handwriting. It's a recurring theme in their brewing records, spanning a century and a half. The log upon which this recipe is based has some funny squiggles for the name of one malt. I think it's "Br" for brown malt. But it could be "A" for amber malt. See what you think. It's the third row:

I had been going to say that I had no idea where Truman sent their Stout. Then I did a quick search and found this:

South Australian Register, Thursday 28 June 1855.

Australia, then, was one of the destinations. No wonder they hopped it like crazy if it was going all that way.






That's me done for now.  . . . . . . over to Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

There isn’t really a whole lot to say about this beer. We’ve done some exporty porters and stouts before so none of this is really new. 4 base malts and 100% one hop. The only thing that I would caution on is the use of this much brown malt. If you haven’t used it before, make sure you let it have a good rest as there are a lot of dextrins in brown malt than can mess up your final OG unless you rest it long enough.

Ingredients
 

Grist – Like the majority of the porters and stouts of the era, this one really focuses on the brown malt. This beer is much more ‘brown’ than black. It is very dark but comes off very different and less ‘espresso’ than later editions. This beer I used 100% Crisp ingredients as I had some certificates I had to use up. The Crisp pale malt was apparently Fanfare. I’ve used it previously and found it to be very nice and close to Maris Otter…maybe a bit more ‘malt’ to it. All of these worked very well together as one would expect from the same malster. However, anything brown or amber you can get, do your best.

Hops –  Just got 5lb of some nice 2010 Fuggles. 5.4%. Smell absolutely fresh. I used these 100% in this beer. If not, I’d go with some Willamette or even Goldings. I’m not really a huge fan of citrus and brown malt. It does work though. Just something that bugs me about it. This is one that really focuses on the freshness of the hops. The oldest hop was probably just about a year old in this one and the rest were only about a month old. Go for freshness over type if you have to choose.

Yeast – I was lazy. I had a fresh yeast cake of the Fullers yeast so I decided to do that. The plans for using the Australian yeast cake will have to wait until this next week sometime. Any yeast you like that does a good job of drying out would be prudent. This beer will finish high no matter what so be mindful.

Processes

Advanced Mash – There was a short underlet but the single infusion worked pretty much exactly like the multi-infusion. Really, nothing special.

Calling professional brewers

Oi, professional brewers! I want to ask you something.

I'm trying to get some idea of how many recipes featured in this blog or in my books have been brewed professionally.If you've brewed one (or more) could you let me know? I've no ulterior motive. Just being nosy, really.

American London Lager in London

Dreams do come true. I don't want the dreams to stop.

Last time in the US, I had a brew day in Virginia. I won't say I brewed. Professionals were in control of all the technical bits. I threw in a few hops and shovelled out some malt.

Barclay Perkins Dark Lager was the beer brewed. British Lager; the brewery on Park Street. Two obsessions bundled into one laundry basket. While brewing, Jason Oliver, the brewer at Devil's Backbone joked about sending a firkin to the GBBF. A 1930's London Lager, brewed in the USA, cask-conditioned at the GBBF. What a great idea.

A dream, too. Sipping a Barclay Perkins beer in London. Looks like a dream that's coming true. Jason is going to send a firkin.

I've just one fear: that it'll all be gone before I get there. Did I mention that I'll be at the GBBF this year? No? I'll be at the GBBF this year. Thursday and Friday. Trying to flog some books on Tim Webb's stall. Drinking the odd beer, too, of course.


Come along and buy some books. You can buy some beer, too, if you want.

Guinness XX Porter in 1861

Remember that analysis of Drogheda Ale? The same book also had one of Guinness XX Porter. I thought you might be interested in seeing that as well.

One point before we start. Which Guinness product were they analysing? In the 19th century Guinness had three main products: Porter, Extra Stout and Foreign Extra Stout. Though the names used weren't always those. Before 1896 Porter was called Single Stout and Extra Stout was called Double Stout. Foreign Extra Stout was also known as Foreign Export Double Stout and West Indies Porter at different dates. Guinness weren't very consistent in their use of the designations Porter and Stout, using both words at different times to describe all three products.

Funnily enough, a name I haven't seen mentioned until now is Guinness XX Porter. Though when I did a bit of digging on the web, the name popped up in various 19th century adverts and texts. Luckily, I've been able to work out the OG of the beer they anaylsed and it's clear which of the Guinness products it is: Porter. I've other analyses for Guinness Porter and Extra Stout from the 1890's. The Porter was 1063º, the Extra Stout 1073º.

"On the Composition of Dublin Porter.

By George W. Jackson, B. A., and William J. Wonfor, Students in the Laboratory of the Museum of Irish Industry.

[Read on Monday Evening, December 17, I860.]

A Want has often been felt by medical men, and others, in Dublin, interested in the composition of such substances, of a reliable and complete analysis of Irish porter; for although the composition of the principal English and foreign beers has been determined by different chemists, no such investigation had hitherto been undertaken in Dublin. At the suggestion of Professor Galloway, Mr. Jackson undertook the analysis of Guinness's XX porter; but at an early stage of the proceedings being obliged by ill health to forego the completion of the research, the task devolved on me to finish it; and we have much pleasure in laying before the Royal Dublin Society the results of our joint investigation. The sample of porter which we employed was obtained from Mr. Edward Burke, of Middle Abbey-street, agent to the Messrs. Guinness; and the analysis was performed in the laboratory of the Museum of Irish Industry, under the direction of Mr. Galloway."
"The Journal of the Royal Dublin society, Volume 3", 1862, page 163.

Amazing, isn't it, that no-one had bothered to analyse beers in Ireland.

Here's the table they produced. With a few extra bits I've worked out, such as ABW, ABV, OG and apparent attenuation.

"The following are the amounts of the various constituents in 1000 parts by measure of the Porter:—

Guinness XX Porter 1861
	I	II	Mean
Total amount of fixed organic matter	67.566	66.426	66.996
Total amount of fixed inorganic matter	4.166	4.27	4.218
	71.732	70.696	71.214
Proof spirit*	89.6	92	90.8
ABW	4.41	4.53	4.47
ABV	5.60	5.75	5.68
Acetic acid	3.6	3.6	3.6
Grape Sugar	1.72	1.72	1.72
Albumen	8.272	7.5	7.886
Extractive matter	57.574	57.206	57.39
Silica	0.29	0.29	0.29
Phosphate of Magnesia	0.851	0.851	0.851
Lime	0.085	0.085	0.085
Phosphoric acid	0.69	0.703	0.697
Chloride of sodium	0.448	0.449	0.448
Sulphuric acid	0.277	0.274	0.276
Potash	1.5327	1.5	1.513
Soda	0.082	0.083	0.082
	71.816	70.661	71.238
FG	1019.565	1019.2	1019.383
OG	1062.1	1062.8	1062.45
apparent attenuation	68.49%	69.43%	68.96%
Source:
"The Journal of the Royal Dublin society, Volume 3", 1862, page 169
* Proof spirit has a sp. gr. of 0.9198 at 60º Fahr. and contains 49.25 per cent, by weight of real alcohol.

First thing that jumps out at me is the attenuation: less than 70%. That's much lower than modern Guinness Extra Stout, where it's 85%. But, as I've pointed out before, very dry and highly-attenuated Guinness is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating from just the 1950's. With an acetic acid content of 0.36%, Guinness's XX porter must have been quite a tart beer. Analyses of Guinness Porter and Stout from 1870 also show quite high levels of acetic acid: 0.24%, 0.20% and 0.26%. In another sample from 1888 the acidity was as high as 0.52%.

How did Guinness Porter compare with the London version? Time for another table, I think. here are the details of four London-brewed Porters from the same period:

Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1862	Barclay Perkins	TT	Porter	1055.1	1017.5	4.98	68.25%	15.29	3.79
1861	Whitbread	P	Porter	1053.5	1015.8	4.98	70.47%	10.37	2.63
1860	Truman	Runner	Porter	1057.6	1013.9	5.79	75.96%	8.2	2.36
1858	Courage	Porter	Porter	1055.12				12.00	2.86
Source:
Brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

The London Porters all had a lower OG, averaging around 1055º, compared to the 1062º of Guinness Porter. In terms of attenuation, there wasn't a huge amount of difference. With the exception of Truman's Runner, all were a shade under 70%.

Here's the slightly bizarre conclusion of the scientists:

"Without expressing any opinion as to the medicinal virtues of the porter we examined, we may, perhaps, be permitted to draw attention to the facts which our analysis reveals, that it contains a large quantity of heat and flesh-producing matter, as well as the necessary inorganic constituents required in the formation of bone and flesh.

As we were obliged to limit ourselves to one sample of porter, as it would have required more time than we could give to have examined samples of porter from all the different manufactories, we selected Guinness's as the type of all the rest."
"The Journal of the Royal Dublin society, Volume 3", 1862, page 170.

Anyone an idea as to what "heat and flesh-producing matter" might be? I haven't the foggiest. It's the weird sort of thing 19th century scientists had a habit of saying. I think they just made most of it up.

Lazy bastards, that's all I can say. If only they'd been able to drag themselves away from their laudanum, they might have found the time to analyse all the different types of Dublin Porter. Now that would have been interesting. But no, dilettantes that they were, they only bothered with Guinness.

Franconia June 2011

Random stuff from my hols. No Hirschgarten, unfortunately.