Amber

I thought I knew a thing or two about 19th century beer types. Then I come across one I've not heard of before. Amber.

This passage explains something about what Amber was like. What it doesn't say is who brewed it.

[Mr. J. J. Homer giving evidence, wine and spirit merchant, publican and committee member of the Licensed Victuallers' protection Society of London and of the Incorporated Society of Licensed Victuallers.

"4014. Are there not people in the trade supplied by brewers who cannot get a living without diluting or adulterating the beer, at the price at which they advertise to sell it ?—My impression is, that there are houses which do not dilute the beer at all; they sell it genuine as they receive it from the brewery, and there are others who have an inferior article, which they draw with the beer, and thus escape the penalties to which they otherwise would be exposed for diluting their beer.

4015. Are they exposed to any penalty for diluting the beer, distinguishing diluting from adulterating ?—I think they are.

4016. A publican has stated before this Committee, that they cannot sell beer at at 3d. a pot at the price which they pay to the brewer?—He is not a good tradesman, or he would not say so.

4017. How does the fact stand ?—If the people will have beer at 3d. a pot now, it must be manifest that it cannot be a good article ; if the publican pays 3d., he never can sell that beer at the same price, and live ; they have, therefore, an inferior article, which is bought very much lower, and which they draw with the porter.

4018. Is that inferior article some of the New River water?— It is an article called amber, bought at a low price, and mixed with the porter.

4019. Do you deny the practice of diluting the beer in order to be able to sell it cheap?—I do ; by far the greater portion of the houses sell the beer as they receive it from the large brewers, without adulteration at all. If a man sells beer at 3.5 d. or 4 d. a pot he sells it, I believe, as genuine as he receives it. In some places they are now selling beer at 3d. a pot. I do not think they draw the beer as they receive it from Hanbury's or any other of the large houses, but they have from the small brewers an inferior article, which they draw with that beer. Instead of paying 36 s. a barrel for it they would not pay more than 20 s., and that is how they realize a profit: but it is a very inferior article.

4020. As far as you know the trade, the publicans are under no such terms with the brewer who supplies them, as necessitates their resorting to this practice of either adulterating with water or inferior beer ?—No.

4021. Mr. Gregson.] Some persons sell Hanbury's entire, you think?—No doubt, when they sell the beer full priced.

4022. Are there many parties who do that ?—I think since the last rise of price some parties who used to sell threepenny beer before, have gone up a halfpenny, and, therefore, they give the public a good article.

4023. Selling the pure beer ?—Yes.

4024. Lord D. Stuart.] Is that inferior article, which is called "Amber," sold as amber ?—I never had it, I do not know what it is ; I never tasted it; it is a very dark beer, and resembles, in its colour, porter as much as possible; at least so I am told.

4025. Mr. Gregson.] It is called beer?—The little brewers send it in as beer ; what it is made of I do not know.

4026. Chairman.'] It is the case also with spirits, that some houses sell them lower than they could do profitably if they were genuine?—Some people dilute gin more than others.

4027. Should you say that these things occur more in brewers' houses than others?—I think not.

4028. Mr. Gregson.] Do those houses which sell the beer pure get more custom, and are they better conducted houses ? — I think so; I think both are well conducted houses. There is a large amount of competition in the beer trade, particularly amongst seme gin-shopkeepers and other publicans; the people will have a cheap beer, and they do not care whether it is inferior or not; the publican says, " I must keep two sorts of beer, I must keep iburpenny beer and threepenny beer."

4020. Chairman.] You do not think that the Beer Act, and the consequent competition in the trade, has improved the quality of the article; the public do not get cheaper and better beer in consequence ?—I do not think they do; although some say so.

4030. Do the beersellers profess to sell beer cheaper than the publicans ?—I think not.

4031. Mr. Gregson.] I presume, by the aid of the taps which are to be seen in a public-house, any quantity can be sold ?—Yes ; I was at Sheff1eld two or three years ago, and I saw 2.5d. beer marked up; I suppose that was to suit some customers.

4032. Chairman.] You cannot inform the Committee what ingredients are put in besides this peculiar stuff, which is called amber ?—I do not think there is any inducement to do anything else ; some years ago there were a great many Excise informations laid against publicans for adulteration ; so I am told; and the publicans said, " As the people will have very cheap beer, and will not give our price for it, we cannot sell the same sort;" and that gave rise to this amber.

4033. Mr. Gregson.] Is the amber a universal ingredient?—I imagine so; I am not speaking from my own knowledge, but only of what I have been told ; I am speaking from hearsay, that is all.

4034. Has the amber been analysed?—I have not the least idea; I know nothing about it; it has been described to me.

4035. Chairman.] Has there been any information laid for selling amber?— No. A good tradesman, for instance, who has found that it will suit the palate of the people, their taste, and so on, would have this amber.

4036. Lord D. Stuart.] It is not sold openly as amber?—It is mixed with the beer ; so much is drawn of one and so much of the other. I believe they have an arrangement to draw both from one tap.

4037. Do you mean that a man who goes into a public-house and asks for one beverage gets another in place of it, while he thinks he is drinking beer? — If a man wants threepenny beer, I do not think he gets it genuine as it is sent from Hanbury's, or other large brewers. I think half a pint of genuine beer is worth a pint of threepenny.

4036. Mr. Gregson.] Of course the customer names his price, and the publican gives him quality accordingly?—Yes. When the last rise took place, consequent on the increase of the malt duty the people said, " We will not drink any beer; we will make them reduce the price of beer." The result was, that some of the publicans in very low localities, for instance, in the New Cut, there is one class selling at 3.5d. in the upper part of the New Cut, and in the lower part of the New Cut they are selling it at 3d. The beer which is sold at 3.5d. I have no doubt would be sold just as it came from the brewery at Hanbury's or Barclay's; whilst at 3d. men could not live if they did not mix amber with it.

4039. Lord D. Stuart.] Do not they advertise to sell amber; is there not at some houses "Fine ale and amber" written up?—I have never observed it.

4040. If they sell it as amber, and do not profess it to be anything but what it is, it is no fraud ?—None at all.

4041. Mr. Gregson.] Is this amber sold at houses belonging to the great brewers ?—I dare say it is in some cases.

4042. Chairman.] Have they not an interest in keeping up the character of their beer ?—Yes.

4043. Mr. Gregson.] Do they allow amber to be sold ?—A man may have borrowed £2,000, £3,000, £1,000, or £500 to go into the house; if he says, " Well, I cannot sell my beer at 3.5d., the people will not buy it, and my trade is going away, I must have threepenny beer;" the brewers say, " We do not like to supply you, because we know you cannot sell it genuine, therefore you will get our house a bad name." He then obtains some article from some other brewers who do not sell good beer; I know one case myself in which Hanbury's did interfere at the east end of the town ; they said, "You cannot afford to sell our beer at 3d. per pot."

4044. Chairman.] Was that man one of their tenants?—He was not a tenant of theirs, but the man was under some pecuniary obligation ; they advised him to sell the beer at 3.5d.; he did f1rst raise bis beer from 3d. to 3.5d. when the rise in beer took place, and because his trade fell off he reduced it to 3d. ; the publicans in the neighbourhood complained of the breach of faith on his part in reducing the price, and as I understand Mr. Hanbury interfered in the matter, and said, "You must sell a good article, and sell the beer as it comes from the brewery, and that will give you a fair living profit and keep up the reputation of our article," and the man raised it up to 3.5d. in consequence of their representation. He might, however, have sa1d, "I have resolved not again to rise the price of my porter; true it is I owe you money, but 'Reid's' or any other brewer, will lend me enough to pay off your loan."

4045. To pay off Hanbury's ?—Yes.

4046. Would Reid's allow him to sell their beer at 3d. ?— I do not know.

4047. The brewers have an interest in the men selling a large draught of beer, does he sell more when he is adulterating and charging a low price ?—I do not suppose he sells more of their beer.

4048. Does not the goodwill of the house sell for more, if he can prove that so much is sold ?—No ; they calculate the amount of profits.

4049. Do the brewers look after their tenants to see whether they sell their beer diluted or adulterated ?—1 believe they are exceedingly anxious that they should sell the beer genuine. They were, in reference to the late movement) anxious that all their customers should supply beer at a pr1ce at which they could get a living profit, and sell it genuine, namely, 3.5d. and 4d. per pot.

4050. Are you alluding to the tax recently on made?—Yes.

4051. They were anxious that the publicans who took their beer should raise the price, in order that they might sell a genuine article ?—Yes.

4052. You say that has been done generally throughout the town ?—I should say very generally; there are a few exceptions ; if they raise the price to 3.5d. they can make a very fair profit indeed.

4053. Is it not more than the tax?—Yes; but the public get a better quality, which they did not before, through this amber being used.

4054. Mr. Gregson.] I see beer is still advertised at some of the houses at 3d. Is all the 3d. beer adulterated with this amber?—1 should not like to go so far as to say that.

4055. Is that your impression?—Yes; because it is charged 36s. a barrel; a man cannot sell it for the same price, and live, and pay his expenses."

"The Sessional Papers of the House of Lords in the session 1854; Reports from Select Committees of the House of Commons, and Evidence; Public Houses" "Minutes of Evidence Taken by the Select Committee on Public Houses, etc." pages 230 - 233.

Let's see what we've been told about Amber:

- it cost 20 shillings a barrel rather than the 36 shillings Porter cost
- it was very dark in colour, similar to pOrter
- it was mixed with Porter to make a beer that could be sold at 3d. per quart
- it wasn't sold straight, only mixed with Porter
- it was pulled through the same tap as the Porter so customers couldn't see it being mixed

Based on that price of 20 shillings a barrel, I calculate that Amber had an OG of about 1031º (that's based on Porter being about 1055º). Mix it 50-50 with Porter and you get something at 1043º.

Mixing Strong Beer and Table Beer (and selling it as Strong Beer) had been one of the favourite dodges of publicans. A easy way of increasing the profit on a barrel of beer. And avoiding tax. Which was why it had been illegal. After 1830, when the tax on beer was abolished, it no longer mattered to the Excise if beers of different strengths were mixed. The tax had been paid on the malt and hops. So, while it might have been misleading to mix Amber and Porter, it wasn't the serious offence it would have been 30 years earlier.

Wouldn't it be great if we had some analyses of the Porter sold in pubs in the 1850's? Hang on, I do:

Let's start with Porter at the brewery or brewery tap:

Porter analyses from the 1850's
	OG	FG	ABW	ABV	app. attenuation
From brewery
Reid No. 1	1051.40	1014.00	3.94	4.95	72.76%
Reid No. 2	1055.80	1013.00	4.51	5.66	76.70%
Truman No. 1	1052.30	1015.00	3.93	4.93	71.32%
Truman No. 2	1053.70	1014.00	4.18	5.25	73.93%
From taps
Druce (Chelsea)	1043.00	1009.00	3.58	4.50	79.07%
Meux	1058.60	1017.00	4.38	5.50	70.99%
Reid	1049.50	1014.00	3.74	4.70	71.72%
Combe	1042.10	1011.00	3.27	4.11	73.87%
Truman	1055.50	1018.00	3.95	4.96	67.57%
Barclay Perkins		1013.00
Whitbread	1035.00	1012.00	2.42	3.04	65.71%
Source:
"Food and its adulterations" by Arthur Hill Hassall, 1855, pages 632-633
Note:
ABV, OG and apparent attenuation my calculation

Then the same beers as sold in pubs:

Porter analyses from the 1850's
	OG	FG	ABW	ABV	app. attenuation
From publicans
H. Weston, 242 High Holborn	1050.40	1014.00	3.83	4.82	72.22%
Hospital porter	1049.70	1012.00	3.97	4.99	75.86%
G. Goddard, 22 Berwick Street, Soho	1047.10	1015.00	3.38	4.25	68.15%
Messrs. Coates & Co., 25 Whitechapel High street	1046.30	1018.00	2.98	3.74	61.12%
Mr. Scarfe, 100 Berwick Street, Soho	1045.60	1016.00	3.12	3.92	64.91%
J.H. Hutchinson, 19 Little Pulteney street, Golden square	1044.50	1017.00	2.90	3.64	61.80%
H. Brand, 77 Leman street, Whitechapel	1042.40	1014.00	2.99	3.76	66.98%
H. Rennell, 16 High road, Knightsbridge	1042.10	1014.00	2.96	3.72	66.75%
T. Sulway, 7 Little Newport street, Soho	1041.90	1014.00	2.94	3.69	66.59%
J. Brown, Whitechapel High street	1040.70	1015.00	2.71	3.40	63.14%
W. Hancock, 1 Whitechapel High street	1040.00	1013.00	2.84	3.57	67.50%
J. Cotton, 5 Edgeware road	1039.50	1012.00	2.90	3.64	69.62%
J. Bishop, 48 Gerrard street, Soho	1039.30	1016.00	2.45	3.08	59.29%
H. Hubbard, Holborn hill	1038.90	1009.00	3.15	3.96	76.86%
R. Skipper, 3 Cable street, Wellclose square	1038.80	1009.00	3.14	3.94	76.80%
H. Ridler, 9 Brewer street, Golden square	1035.45	1010.00	2.68	3.37	71.79%
Messrs. Young & Co., 13 Hemming's row	1035.35	1010.00	2.67	3.35	71.71%
J. Medworth, 167 Oxford street	1034.95	1017.00	1.89	2.37	51.36%
H. Lloyd, 28 High row, Knightsbridge	1034.30	1012.00	2.35	2.95	65.01%
T. Bell, 25 Cable street, Wellclose square	1031.20	1014.00	1.81	2.28	55.13%
Source:
"Food and its adulterations" by Arthur Hill Hassall, 1855, pages 632-633
Note:
ABV, OG and apparent attenuation my calculation

Of the 20 pub samples, 11 are in the range 1038º to 1045º, suggesting they were about 50% Amber and 50% Porter. Four samples are in the range 1034º to 1036º, suggesting a 75-25 split in favour of Amber. The weakest sample looks like it could be 100% Amber. Only the two strongest samples look like they could be free of Amber or water.

Let's look at the financial aspect. If a pub mixed Amber and Porter 50-50, they'd effectively be paying 28 shillings a barrel. Or 2.33d. per quart. Selling the mixture at 3d. a quart would give the publican a decent profit. No wonder they did it, really. If no-one wants to pay a realistic price, what else can a publican do?

Is there any evidence in the brewing records of Amber? Not underthat name. But remember, the name is misleading. The beer was very dark. In 1850, Barclay Perkins brewed something called Table. It had a grist of pale and black malt and an OG of 1039º. Sounds a likely candidate for Amber.

Can beer be too cheap? I think this proves it can.

Bolton in 1854

Funny the way you stumble across things you aren't looking for. I came across this when scouring government papers for statistics. It's about Bolton's pub scene in the 1850's.

Before we start, an important observation. The man being interviewed, Mr. Cunliffe, was a temperance campaigner. Which is fair enough, as he doesn't sound like someone you'd like to share a pint with.

"2414. Sir G. Grey,] Are informations more frequent in Bolton against the keepers of public-houses than against the keepers of beerhouses ?—About the average. I have a return of the number of convictions of public-houses and beerhouses.

2415. Does it show how often the same person has been convicted ?—It does not show that; in that respect it is defective.

2416. You are not able to inform the Committee whether the cases of second and third convictions are frequent in Bolton ?—I think not; I think they rarely come in the same year; it is allowed to pass over, and they are allowed to begin anew the following year.

2417. The recommendation which you gave just now would apply to any conviction subsequent to the first conviction ?—Yes.

2418. Chairman.] You have no doubt that the offences are more frequent than the convictions would show ?—No doubt.

2419. Sir G. Grey.] What is the number of public-houses in Bolton?—One hundred and eighteen.

2420. How many beerhouses are there ?—Two hundred and eight.

2421. What number of convictions were there last year?—Convicted in penalty and costs, 11 public-houses and 30 beerhouses; convicted in costs only, five public-houses and 18 beerhouses.

2422. Chairman.] Was any licence taken away ?—No.

2423. Sir G. Grey.] Is there an efflcient police force in Bolton ?—Yes.

2424. What is the number of the police ?—About 30.

2425. Is that a sufficient force to exercise a vigilant superintendence over the public-houses and beerhouses ?—Yes.

2426. What is their motive for informing against these public-houses; are they directed to watch them, to go into them, and give evidence against them ?—They are directed to watch them; frequently the offences are so glaring and notorious that they cannot overlook them.

2427. What are the offences chiefly; Sunday trading?—Chiefly for selling at unlawful hours on Sunday.

2428. You do not doubt that that is done to a considerable extent?—No.

2429. Sir G. Grey.] What is the population of Bolton?—About 64,000.

2430. What is the number of persons who were convicted of drunkenness out of that population last year?—Eight hundred and fifty-eight.

2431. Chairman.] Do you know whether those cases of drunkenness are of people incapable of taking care of themselves ?—They are divided into two classes: the Return gives, "Persons drunk and incapable, males, 312, females, 81; persons drunk and disorderly, males, 376, females, 89." The two make a total of 858 ; but I apprehend there is a class of offences called " assaults," which is really often drunkenness.

2432. It is not classed as such ?—It is not classed as such. If a person gets drunk, and commits a violent assault, he is brought up for an assault, and the drunkenness is merged in the assault.

2433. You do not get an idea of what is the whole conviction for drunkenness from those returns?—By no means from the return of persons convicted of being drunk and incapable, and persons drunk and disorderly. There are hundreds who are really drunk and staggering along; but if they will pass at all peaceably on, they are suffered to go.

2434. You have come to some conclusion generally, have you not, with respect to the effect of this drunkenness upon the habits of the people as to their moral conduct and general demeanor?—Yes.

2435. Do you consider it is the root of all the demoralisation which exists ?— I think it is the great curse of the working classes especially, and the great incubus which keeps them in debasement and wretchedness.

2436. You think if. chiefly arises from the facility to get spirituous liquors w hich is presented to them ?—It largely arises from the easy way they can get drink, and the proximity to temptation.

2437. Do you believe, if the temptation were out of their way, they would be less gross, and their habits would generally improve ?—I have no doubt that drunkenness would decrease 50 per cent.

2438. Do you know many instances in which people have given up drinking; where you have seen their habits totally change?—Great numbers; a most decided change.

2439. Have you any doubt that at the present time numbers would get intoxicated, not in a public-house?—There are a few; there are some "hush-shops" in Bolton, but not nearly so many as in other towns.

2440. Should you apprehend a great increase of those houses, supposing the public-houses were closed on Sunday ?—I have no doubt there would be some increase.

2441. How would you reach those houses ?—I would do all the law could for reaching them, for selling a wrong article.

2442. You think the inspection is not sufficiently vigilant now ?—It is not sufficiently vigilant; a conviction is too difficult.

2443. Would your remedy be to appoint a person whose distinct duty it should be to watch those houses, and inform against them when they are erring ?— I have no distinct opinion upon that subject; it must rest with the police authorities, or with the corporation; but I think that the conviction should be of the easiest kind possible.

2444. If you were to close these public-houses on Sunday, would it not require some person whose duty it should be specially to discover whether persons were selling spirits in other houses ?—I have no doubt that the lessened duties of the police consequent upon the closing of the public-houses on Sunday would leave them more at liberty to do this.

2445. You have no doubt that the habits of a vast number of people in Bolton are those of drunkenness ?—None whatever; I divide drunkenness into voluntary and involuntary ; voluntary drunkenness I attach to those who are deliberate and settled drunkards, and who will have drink if they can get it.

2446. You do not suppose, do you, that by merely closing the public-houses on Sunday you would really reform those persons ?—No.

2447. "What would be the case with those persons if the public-houses were closed on Sunday; they would get drink ?—There would be some clandestine drinking ; the law would be evaded, as all laws more or less are.

2448. You do not consider it would be a complete cure?—No; it is not a complete cure that we expect, but a very great abatement; and that is the whole that we can expect the Government can do.

2449. Have you any further suggestions to make with respect to restricting the licences to those houses ?—I think with regard to the Beer Act, if I might be allowed to refer to it, that the Beer Act itselt has been an immense curse to the country, and ought to be gradually repealed.

2450. Do you think that the people drink more beer than spirits ?—In Lancashire they do; but the Beer Act has multiplied the temptations, and brought them nearer to the people.

2451. Do confirmed drunkards drink chiefly spirits, or beer?—They vary; you cannot classify them; some of them are inveterate spirit drinkers, and others drink nothing but beer.

2452. The greatest temptations are in those houses where they stand and drink, and go out again immediately ?—The greatest temptation is in those houses where the beer is cheapest.

2453. Chiefly the spirit vaults ?—No ; we consider that they sell cheap beer where they stand to drink at about 4 d. per quart, and as low as 3 d. per quart.

2454. That is very weak beer, is it not ?—I suppose it is strong for mischief, although it is weak for anything good.

2455. If they drink plenty of it, it would have the same effect as strong beer : —Perhaps the alcoholic power is not so much derived from the presence of malt as from the presence of other sugary matters which they put in, such as treacle and so on, which will produce alcohol by fermentation."


. . . . . . .



"2475- Sir G. Grey.] This paper, which contains a copy of the memorial which you have stated was signed by 2,000 ratepayers, praying that no additional licences might be granted, was printed at Ipswich ; how do you account for that ? — It was a copy of our memorial; we generally print the proceedings of the licensing-day ; we have opposed it the last eight years.

2476. Why is it printed at Ipswich and not at Bolton ?—Mr. Alexander, at Ipswich, prints temperance tracts, and seeing some good in that, he adopted it.

2477. Chairman.] Do the public-houses at Bolton belong to respectable people in the town ?— Generally.

2478. They would not go with you in closing them ?—I do not suppose they would venture their character upon opposition.

2479. -Are they brewers and distillers ?—Not generally.

2480. Sir G. Grey.] How many public-houses, if any, have been licensed by the magistrates since this memorial was presented in August 1848?—Only one to a railway station, for the last eight years ; there have been no licences granted since that memorial was adopted.

2481. Are the magistrates acting in accordance with the prayer of that petition ?—For the last eight years they have done so.

2482. Chairman.] Do you know what the increase of beerhouses has been since that time ?—They have fluctuated from 180 up to 210 and 213 ; they change hands very much."



. . . . . . . . .



2506. Chairman.] Have you any statement of the number of persons found in public-houses in Bolton, on the Sunday evening?—Yes, in 12 public-houses there were 231 persons present, and in 12 beerhouses 195 persons present; that was on the 4th of June 1854, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'clock p.m. (The statement was delivered in).

2507. I understood you to be of opinion that the Beer Act should not be repealed immediately, but only by some gradual process ?—By a gradual process.

2508. Have you ever presented to this House a petition to that effect ?— Numbers have been presented with that view, this is a copy of one of the petitions. (The same was delivered in.)

2509. Mr. Gregson.] You have stated that at Bolton the beer was all consumed by tippling at public-houses, and not by families at their meals ?—Principally so.

"The Sessional Papers of the House of Lords in the session 1854; Reports from Select Committees ogf the Hous of Commons, and Evidence; Public Houses" "Minutes of Evidence Taken by the Select Committee on Public Houses, etc." pages 132 - 136.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=FB9cAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR13&dq=Parliamentary+Paper+beer&hl=en&ei=KtoeTsXiJpDpOfDcqZkD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=beer&f=false

What a bastard, eh? Quite happy to deprive the working classes of their only bit of fun. The theme of saving the working class from themselves isn't new in Britain. It's the common thread linking this text from the 1850's, 1930's Bolton and the modern British media, with their obsession about chavs and binge drinking.

The whole point of this discussion is that the local magistrates had no control over beer house licences. Beer house licences were issued directly by the Excise and were granted pretty much automatically, as long as a few basic conditions were fulfilled. Fully-licensed public houses, on the other hand, were at the mercy of the magistrates. In some towns, temperance campaigners got themselves onto licensing committees and refused to grant any new licences. This may have been the case in Bolton.

Mr. Cunliffe told us that in 1854 there were118 fully-licensed pubs and 208 beerhouses. By 1869 it was 123 pubs (the prayers of Mr. Cunliffe and his chums must have stopped working) and 329 beerhouses.

The situation changed in 1869, when the law was changed to allow magistrates to refuse beer house licences. The number of beerhouses immediately went into decline. In Bolton, that meant the immediate closure of 69 beerhouses. They were gradually whittled away over the succeeding decades and by 1935 there were only 169 left. Fully-licensed pubs fared much better, and there were still 102 in 1935.

Limited drinking hours on Sunday clearly weren't popular. Serving outside hours on Sunday was the commonest offence of publicans. I can understand why. You work like crzay all week, then the one day you have off the pubs are shut most of the time. Enough to drive anyone to crime.

What an odd expression, "tippling at public-houses". It makes drinking in a pub sound like some seedy activity. Which I guess was the idea.

Celebrate!

The GBBF means something to me.

I was at its first incarnation, in Covent Garden in 1975*. I worked as a volunteer at Ally Pally, slept on the stage, built scaffolding, drank lambik for the first time, met some wonderful people.

It's a cumbersome, crowded, noisy event with too few seats, inadequate toilets and an arbitrary selection of beers. Imperfect. But a celebration. A celebration of beer.

Hundreds of beers from all over the world. Prices are lower than most pubs. Huge numbers of the general public. Organised and staffed by volunteers (which is why the prices are so low). US cask beers** you never see in Europe.

Yeah, rubbish festival.

Don't whinge about what it isn't. Celebrate the GBBF for what it is.





* With Martin Young. The second time I visited London.
** US brewers seem to have no problem sending cask to the GBBF.

James Eadie, Cross Street Brewery (part one)

Now that I've been through all of Burton's Premier League breweries, it's time to move on to the Championship. Or is it League One?

In the second half of the 19th century, Burton was packed with breweries. There were the big names: Bass, Allsopp, Salt, Ind Coope and Truman. Names that are still have resonance. Many of the smaller breweries have slipped beneath the waves of consciousness. Eadie belongs to the latter group.

I'd never heard of Eadie. Too small and too long gone. Gobbled up by Bass in the 1930's, few reminders of its existence remain. Once again, I have to thank Barnard for documenting the brewery. What would we do without him?

James Eadie was a Scot who moved to England in 1842, working first as a tea dealer and then as a maltster. He sold malt to brewers in Burton and saw first-hand the upsurge in Pale Ale brewing. As the existing breweries could barely keep up with demand, he saw a business opportunity. He leased land on Cross Street and built himself a brewery. I'll let Barnard continue the tale:

"After building his brewery, Mr. Eadie set himself in earnest to acquire the necessary skill to direct the brewing operations. This was obtained by the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and the devotion of many years in overcoming the difficulties that cropped up whilst perfecting himself in the art of brewing. This anxiety, labour, and  study resulted in his ales attaining a very high degree of excellence, and in obtaining for him the establishment of a great business and a handsome competence. When the brewery was started in 1854, besides Mr. Eadie, only two men were employed, and in those days all the work was done by hand, even to the grinding the malt and pumping the water. Twelve barrels were brewed at a time, and the total number turned out the first year was but 250 barrels, which was increased to 680 barrels the second year—about half the quantity now brewed every week."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, pages 220 - 221.

That tells us the size of Eadie's brewery. It brewed around 70,000 barrels a year. Very modest compared to the million barrels that streamed annually from Bass.

Barnard didn't limit himself to looking around breweries and maltings. He was more than willing to schmooze with brewery owners in their country houses. Like Eadie's Barrow Hall. His estate had a rather famous resident:

"Mr. G. Turner, the landscape painter, is a tenant on the estate, and lives in a quaint old-fashioned house situated in a most sequestered spot, near the Trent, which here presents a fine broad sheet of water with a swift current."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, page 227.

Barrow Hall no longer exists, having been demolished in 1956.

But enough of frivolities like art. Let's get back to our main interest: brewing. Starting with the mash tun.

"Descending two long flights of stairs, we entered the mashing stage, a magnificent floor, measuring 60 feet square, and the very model of a mash room. It is well-lighted, of enormous  height, and the walls are lined throughout with white glazed bricks. The floor is concreted, as is also the sub-floor under the mash tuns ; this latter place has been constructed so as to enable the men to get at the bottom of the tuns and the Archimedean screw, that carries the grains therefrom into the yard. On the mashing stage are to be seen two forty-quarter mash tuns, constructed of English oak, enclosed with level covers, which are divided in the centre, and raised up by counter-balance chain and weights, like two great flaps, enabling the mash-men to see the condition of the goods, as often as required. These tuns are 14.5 feet in diameter, and each contains draining plates and rakes, constructed of gun-metal.

We should here remark, that there are certain peculiar and novel details of machinery in this brewery, which should not be passed unnoticed by the observant brewer or visitor, in going through the place; notably, the mill rollers, grain screws and mashing machines. These last, which command the tuns, are self-acting, and consist simply of a large copper barrel connected with the hoppers, so that, when the slide is withdrawn and the hot water is turned on, both grist and water flow simultaneously into the tuns. The hoppers, by which the mashing machines are fed with the crushed malt, are constructed of galvanised wrought-iron, and hold sufficient for each brewing. The ordinary method of emptying the tuns, after the mashing operations are over, is for the men to get inside the vessels and throw out the grain on to the floor by wooden shovels, but this plan has been abolished here. The tuns are provided with an opening at the bottom, fitted with covers so that they can be readily closed, connected with the screw before referred to, which conducts the grain to a point where they can be loaded up into trucks, for conveyance away. There is no underback in this brewery (that vessel seems to be fast disappearing in the modern breweries), the wort running by gravitation direct into the coppers, which are placed at a lower elevation in the next building."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, pages 227 - 229.

Two forty-quarter mash tuns. At four barrels to a quarter of malt, that's enough to brew 320 barrels. Brewing once a day, 6 days a week, that's a capacity of about 100,000 barrels. Or slightly more than actually brewed.

I'd wondered what that device with a copper barrel was that mixed allowed the grain and water to enter the mash tun at the same time. I think you can see it in the picture. The thing that looks like a hopper. There seems to be a water pipe joining it just above the tun. It sounds like the same idea as a Steel's masher, though more primitive. Surely the screw of a Steel's masher would be much more effective at mixing grain and water, wouldn't it?


Were underbacks really going out of fashion? Most of the breweries I've been around still have them.

The workers must have been pleased when they didn't have to climb into the mash tun and shovel any more. Having done 5 minutes shovelling spent malt at Devil's Backbone recently, I know what hard work it is. Forty quarters is a a lot of grain. It would weigh about 6 tons, when dry.

That's all I can be arsed with today. You'll have to wait for the coppers, cooling and fermentation. Hopefully you won't go crazy with anticipation.

A Meux publican speaks (in 1854)

We're returning to those dusty old government reports. I can't help myself. If you want to hear first-hand about any part of the brewing and pub trade in the 19th century, then Select Committee reports are your man.

In this excerpt a London publican explains how he adulterates his drinks and  - more importantly - why. The year of the hearing,1854, is very significant. It's the year Britain declared was on Russia. True to tradition, the government immediately increased the tax on beer.

At this time beer was not taxed directly, but malt and hops were. The malt tax increased from 2s 7d + 5% per bushel to 4s. per bushel. You needed about 2 bushels of malt to brew a barrel of beer. I make that an increase just under 31d per barrel, or 2s 7d. A barrel contained 36 gallons, making the increases just short of a penny a gallon.


John Caldwell, the publican giving evidence, ran a dance hall and pub in Dean Street, Soho.

"1692. To whom do the houses chiefly belong in your neighbourhood?— Messrs. Meux.

1693. Are Messrs. Meux your brewers?—Yes.

1694. Did they let you the house ?—They let it to me for my sister.

1695. Are you bound to take your beer of Meux and Co. ?—Yes.

1696. The house is taken of Messrs. Meux, is it not?—He holds the lease.

1697. Did you get the licence from the same bench of magistrates?—The licence is transferred to my sister.

1698. Do you consider that you took it of Messrs. Meux?—Yes.

1699. What was the name of the agent or servant of Messrs. Meux who was in there before you ?—A person named Godfrey, a publican.

1700. The house belongs to Messrs. Meux?—Yes; the licence passes from one to another; they hold the lease, and the privilege of serving the beer.

1701. Do you know why Godfrey left the house ?—Yes ; he was a man very badly off, and not doing much business.

1702. Had he been put into the house by Messrs. Meux?—Yes; he took another little public-house, and since then he died. I rose the beer trade a great deal; he was taking £20 a month, and I rose it to nearly £40 a month.

. . . . . . .

1706. Are you a tenant-at-will of Messrs. Meux ?—Yes; they can turn me out at any minute.

1707. If you were to sell any other beer than Meux's ?—I could not.

1708. Sir G. Grey.] Is that by written agreement ?—Yes.

1709. Chairman.] How do you manage about spirits?—Messrs. Meux do not meddle with the spirits or the ales; some brewers have ales as well as beer.

1710. Do you pay so much for the beer to the brewers ?—Yes.

1711. Do you ascertain the quality before you serve it to your customers?— We take it as it comes in, at so much a gallon.

1712. Have you raised it lately ?—Yes.

1313. Is that an arrangement which the brewers have made ?—It is a mutual understanding between the other publicans. The brewers have raised it a farthing a pot, and the publicans round the neighbourhood have raised it a halfpenny a pot.

1714. The brewers did not raise the beer upon the pot?—They rose it so much a barrel ; 3s. or 4s. a barrel.

1715. That would be a farthing a quart?—Yes.

1716. If the brewers charge you a farthing a quart more, where is the propriety of your charging the consumers of the beer a halfpenny a pot more ?—It is on account of the half pints. The charge of a halfpenny a pot extra puts it in the publicans hands to give a better article. They never could serve the article as they have it from the brewer with any profit.

1717. Sir G. Grey.] Do you mean to say that since you have charged a halfpenny a pot extra you have sold better beer ?—I know that I have. I cannot speak as to others.

1718. The brewers charge you a farthing a pot increase for the beer which you sell; have they supplied you with better beer than they did before ?—I cannot say that they have.

1719. Then how are you able to supply better beer now than you did formerly ?—I do not dash it so much.

1720. What do you mean by dashing it?—Pumping the New River into it.

1721. Mr. Lowe.] You could not live by selling the beer at 3d. a pot ?—No ; I am paying 1 s. a gallon for the beer, and I cannot sell it at 3d. a pot and get a living.

1722. Sir G. Grey.] Does the additional charge of one farthing a pot enable you to dash it less ?—Yes.

1723. Do you find that your customers consume more in quantity ?—They do not consume more, that I am aware of. I find a great many people changing their trade now.

1724. Do you mean that people come to your house rather than to others ?— They come to me to ask the price.

1725. In order to see where they can get the beer cheapest and best? —Yes.

1726. Do you dash the beer with nothing but the New River?—No.

1727. Do you put no other admixture into the beer at all ?—No, nothing else.

1728. Chairman.] You do not know that there are such things as salt and sugar used in beer?—I have heard of such things, but I do not use them.

1729. And something to give it bulk and flavour?—There are such things in the trade, I know.

1730. Is there not a little copperas used, to give it a head ?—I never use any such thing.

1731. Sir G. Grey.] Is that called dashing too ?—I do not know.

1732. Mr. Brown.] How long will beer keep without souring, if you dash it ? —I do not know.

1733. If you were to dash it to-day, would it be good to-morrow?—I do not know.

1734. Is the dashing done at the time that you serve it?—No; I never use any mixture.

1735. Chairman.] Do you dash the beer when it first comes from the brewer, or is it done as you serve it to your customers ? — It is done when it is fined down.

1736. Do you dash it just before you begin drawing it off?—When we find one puncheon is getting down, we fine another.

1737. And then you tap the New River ?—Yes.

1738. Sir G. Grey] What proportion of New River water do you dash the beer with ?—If I have a particular beer, and I pay 1s. a gallon, and I have to sell it out at 3d. a pot, I can get nothing by it, but if I put a pail of liquor into it, I must get that amount of profit.

1739. You now sell the beer at 3.5d. a pot?—Yes, over the bar; and 4d. I sell as good beer as you can get in the neighbourhood.

1740. Chairman.] You say that there is a certain amount which the consumers require to drink ?—Yes.

1741. Would they not prefer good beer to this necessary mixture that takes place, of New River water ?—Yes; there is what I should call five per cent. of water put in the beer.

1742. Supposing that the brewers could afford to let you have beer at a rate to enable you to live by selling it, would there not be necessarily a much greater consumption of malt ?—I do not know much about the public-house trade. I have been in this house about three years. I know that one brewer supplies one house, and one another, and that most publicans have a system of doing something to their beer.

1743. There is a difference in price for the same quantity of the same article ; some charge 3d. and some charge 4d. ?—Yes.

1744. Have you the least doubt that every publican who sells beer at 3d. a pot, dashes it in some way, to enable him to sell it at 3d. ?—They cannot sell it at 3d. a pot genuine from the brewer's.

1745. Is it genuine at 4d. a pot ?—I should say so.

1746. Are there any publicans in your neighbourhood who sell beer at 4 d. a pot?—Yes.

1747. Is it as good as you sell now at 3.5d. ?—I sell mine at 4d. over the bar.

1748. You used to sell it at 3d. ?—Yes. I rose it to 4d. when the change in price took place. I said, "I will have no dashing at all; I will sell the article genuine, and I will have a good price." .

1749. If you had risen the beer only a halfpenny a pot, could you have dispensed with the dashing?—No.

1750. You have advanced it a penny ?—Yes.

1751. Then it must be an extraordinary good article?—It is genuine as it comes from the brewery. I serve the pure liquor; and when I sold at 3d. I did not.

1752. Are you aware whether there is anything done to the beer before you get it, dashing or anything else ?—No, I believe it is drawn from the bulk.

1753- Do the brewers let you know the strength and quality of the beer before you have it?—No, I do not know anything of the process.

1754. Do you know at all how the publicans deal with the brewers when they are not quite dependent; do not they require to know the strength of the beer they take ?— I believe so ; a free house is supplied a little lower.

175.5. If the publicans knew precisely at what strength the brewers supplied the beer, it would be easy to tell what was wanted in the beer?—No doubt.

1756. Have you ever had customers come back and say that they have tested the beer, and found that something had been done to it ?—No.

1757. Sir G. Grey.] You said that there was an arrangement between you and the brewers that you should sell only their beer; is there any agreement which prohibits you from dashing it beyond a certain amount?—No.

1758. The brewer supplies the beer, and leaves the publican to mix anything with it that he likes ?—Yes; but it is to the publican's advantage to sell the best article that he can without doing anything to it.

1759. Is there anything in the agreement between the brewer and the publican, to restrict the publican from mixing beer with any other materials ? —No.

1760. Chairman.] The brewer has a great interest in the publican selling a good article, in order to show a good trade whenever he transfers the license?— He transfers the profit to his own pocket.

1761. Has not the brewer a great interest in showing a good trade whenever he transfers the license to a person coming into the house ?—Yes.

1762. That is shown by the quantity sold ?—Yes.

1763. By the number of barrels which the publican has been in the habit of consuming ?—Yes.

1764. And that of course depends upon whether the beer is sold genuine or dashed ?—Yes.

1765. Mr. Broum.] What is the process of fining down?—We put three or four quarts of finings into the barrel when it comes in ; I believe it is isinglass. There is a preparation which you see soaking in the brewhouses; I do not know what the article is; it is sent in a small nine-gallon cask to us, and we put two or three quarts into the beer just before we want it.

1766. Sir G. Gray.] Do you dash the spir1ts as well as the beer ?—Yes, we are obliged to do so ; we pay 12s. a gallon for gin, and we cannot sell it for 10 s. 8 d. a gallon without doing something.

1767. Chairman.] You have a distiller as well as a brewer?—Yes.

1768. The distiller has nothing to do with the house?—Nothing at all.

1769. You have an arrangement with him to supply spirits, and the prices will not admit of your selling a genuine article ?—No ; because gin is raised ; you are obliged to give 12s. a gallon, and you cannot sell it for 10s. 8d. genuine.

1770. Do you resort to the New River in the case of gin ?—I am obliged to do so; to sell it at 4d. a quartern we must do it.

1771. Mr. Brown.] In your particular case have you anything like a gin palace?—People can have anything they like over the bar.

1772. Sir G. Grey.] Is it a public-house that you occupy, or is it what is called a gin palace ?—No, it is not a gin palace.

1773. Chairman.] Is there anything mixed with the gin besides the New River ?—Sugar; we have it unsweetened, and we sweeten it; I do not know what other people do, but I do nothing else."
"The Sessional Papers of the House of Lords in the session 1854; Reports from Select Committees of the House of Commons, and Evidence; Public Houses" "Minutes of Evidence Taken by the Select Committee on Public Houses, etc." pages 95 - 97.

It should come as no surprise that the pub was tied to Meux. Their brewery was only just around the corner on the corner of Tottenham Court Road. As you can see from this map.

I'm fascinated by the details of the relationship between brewer and tenant. It seems to have changed over the years. In the 20th century most brewers tied their tenants for not just beer, but spirits, too. And, in some cases, all soft drinks and crisps and probably even the toilet paper.

Here we learn: "Messrs. Meux do not meddle with the spirits or the ales; some brewers have ales as well as beer." Without understanding the terminology of the day, this wouldn't make sense. By "beer" he means Porter and Stout. This answers a question that had been troubling me. When a pub was tied to a Porter brewery that brewed no Ales, did it just sell Porter? Clearly the answer is no: they bought Ale from another brewer.

As I mentioned at the start, the raw material cots for a barrel had increased by 31d. Or 0.21d.per quart. Pretty much exactly the same amount as the increase in wholesale price. Raising the retail price by a halfpenny doesn't seem odd at all. The retail price always increases by more than the wholesale price. What is shocking, is that the halfpenny increase still left publicans unable to make a profit, unless they watered their beer.

Let's take a look at the mathematics of that. A barrel of beer cost 36s wholesale. And some pubs were selling it for 3d. retail. That's a whopping 0% markup. Clearly no room for profit there. Even selling at 3.5d., there's only 6s profit per barrel. It's no wonder watering beer was endemic.

Dashing. It sounds so, er, dashing. Certainly better than watering or diluting. Mr. Caldwell's evidence on the subject is contradictory. First he says that he sells beer for 3.5d. per pot and only adds "a little" water. Later he says he doesn't water at all and charges 4d. Which is true?

It's clear that the brewers were well aware of the dodgy practices of their landlords. You'd have to be pretty thick not to realise something was going on when they were retailing beer at the wholesale price. Equally clearly the brewers, as long as they were selling beer, couldn't give a toss what happened to it once it passed through their gates.

It's nice to learn exactly when watering occurred: when the beer was fined. No real shock there. The barrel would have to be opened to add the finings. May as well take advantage to throw in some extra water as well.

Seems like your chances of getting pure gin were even smaller. Based on the amounts quoted, a quartern is a quarter pint. Which retailed at 4d. but actually cost the landlord 4.5d. Again, it doesn't take a genius to see that wasn't possible without adulteration.

A fascinating insight in the murky world of  Victorian pubs, don't you think?

Brewing Porter the Irish way (part one)

More Mr. Morewood and his impractically-titled book. It's a pretty good book, if poorly organised. Containing such gems as this description of Porter brewing in Ireland.

It starts with a general description:

"In the brewing of porter, the first mash should be heated in the copper to 150°, in the proportion of two barrels to each quarter of malt, which ought to be a mixture of best pale and brown malt, and should be kept mashing for about three-quarters of an hour, while the liquor should remain on the goods for an hour. The tap of the mash-tun is then opened to let off the liquor as quickly as possible, and the tap should be left open till the next liquor is brought into the tun that the goods may drain. In the mean time, the second liquor has been heating, and may, in from two to three hours, have acquired the heat of 160° ; the quantity being one barrel to a quarter of malt. Mash this, for half or three quarters of an hour; let it stand for one hour, and then let it be run off in the course of half an hour more. At about five and one-half hours from the beginning, the third mash should be made at 180°, the quantity being one barrel to the quarter; mash this for half an hour, let it stand an hour and tap as before.

A fourth liquor is seldom mashed, but if it be, it may be cold or blood warm, as it is of no use but to make the sour-beer for finings ; and it is of little consequence how it is done. Some brewers use it for the first liquor of the next brewing ; but this, perhaps, is not a good plan, as it may taint the whole brewing.

These worts are to be boiled with from twelve to fourteen pounds of hops to the quarter of malt, if the liquor is intended for keeping eight or twelve months; but, in the ordinary run of porter not intended for keeping, five pounds may be sufficient. The first worts should be boiled one hour, the second two, and the third four hours.

The worts are now to be cooled down as expeditiously as the weather will permit, to about 60°, if the medium heat of the atmosphere be about 60°. If it be more or less, allowance must be made. All the three worts are to be brought together into the gyle-tun, and about five pints of yeast to the quarter of malt put in, and due time allowed for fermentation and cleansing. The criterion for cleansing is the attenuation, and one great point in porter making is, that of separating the barm completely from the liquor. The proportion of colouring is arbitrary, as it greatly depends on the colour of the malt. Formerly it was the practice to employ Socotorine aloes, in the proportion of half an ounce to a barrel, in the second worts; and to give a retentive head, as much salt of steel as would lie on a half-crown piece was added with the finings to a barrel. Quassia, in the proportion of a pound to about twenty barrels, was used as a substitute for the aloes, and copperas for the salt of steel, but these ingredients being noxious and unwholesome, have been discontinued.

As the colour of porter is chiefly to be attributed to the quantity of brown or roasted malt used, care is taken to infuse such a quantity of that material as will produce the degree of colour required, and fining is effected by isinglass dissolved in stale beer, till it becomes of a glutinous consistence, a pint of which is the usual allowance for a barrel, but sometimes more is necessary.

A good colouring article is procured by moistening a quantity of brown sugar with water, spreading it in a frying-pan to about an inch deep, placed on a fire, and stirred until it is ignited; when it is burned sufficiently, the flame is extinguished, and water is added to the residuum till it has the consistency of molasses, and it is then mixed with the worts in the copper in such quantity as the depth of colour requires."
"A philosophical and statistical history of the inventions and customs of Ancient and Modern Nations in the Manufacture and Use of Intoxicating Liquors" by Samuel Morewood, 1838, pages 628 - 629.

That's quite a detailed description of the mashing process. Here's it in tabular form:

	water temp	time mashed	time stood	barrels water per quarter
Mash 1	150º F	45	60	2
mash 2	160º F	45	60	1
mash 3	180º F	30	60	1
total				4

Three or four mashes was usual practice in the early 19th century. Except for in Scotland, where they already started sparging. The process gradually spread to England in the middle of the century.


Can you guess what's coming now? Yes, it's contextualisation time. Let's look at how that compares with the mashing methods of London Porter breweries:

Barclay Perkins TT 1832
	water temp	barrels water per quarter
Mash 1	158º F	2.5
mash 2	178º F	1.5
mash 3	150º F	1.66
total		5.66
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record document ACC/2305/1/549 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Reid Reg (Porter) 1841
	water temp	barrels water per quarter
Mash 1	146º F	2.5
mash 2	157º F	1.75
mash 3	153º F	1.83
total		6.08
Source:
Reid brewing record document 789/268 held at the Westminster CityArchives

Truman Runner 1845
	water temp	barrels water per quarter
Mash 1	162º F	1.875
mash 2	168º F	0.875
mash 3	167º F	1.33
mash 4	166º F	2
total		6.08
Source:
Truman brewing record document B/THB/C/36 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Two differences are evident. Firstly, London brewers used relatively more water - around 6 barrels per quarter of malt compared to just 4 in the Irish method. Secondly, the second mash had the highest strike heat in London, whereas in Ireland it was the third mash hat was hottest. Though you can see that there was considerable variation in temperatures between the London brewers.

Morewood is usefully specific about hopping rates. Let's see how those compare to London:

Hopping rates (lbs per quarter)
	Running	Keeping
Irish Porter	5	14
1834 Whitbread P	12.5	14.64
1834 Barclay Perkins TT	12
1830 Truman Runner	14	20.5
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record document LMA/4453/D/09/027 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Truman brewing record document B/THB/C/31 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Barclay Perkins brewing record document ACC/2305/1/549 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

The rate given for Irish Running Porter looks very low. London brewers never went below 10 lbs per quarter. The Irish Keeping Porter figure is much more in line with London.

Next boil times. I've less London data for this as some of the older logs don't give any details of the boil. This is what I do have:

Boiling times
	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
Irish Porter	1	2	4
1834 Whitbread K	1	1.5	3	4
1834 Whitbread P	1	2	3
1834 Reid Reg	1.5	1.5	4.5
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record document LMA/4453/D/09/027 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Reid brewing record document 789/268 held at the Westminster CityArchives

No great differences there. The worts are progressively boiled for longer as they get weaker. The final wort being boiled for ages in both London and Irelan.

Pitching temperatures I do have plenty of data on:

Pitching temperatures
Irish Porter	60º
1830 Truman Runner	64º
1831 Truman Keeping	64º
1834 Whitbread K	64º
1834 Whitbread P	64º
1834 Barclay Perkins TT	68º
Sources:
Truman brewing record document B/THB/C/31 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Whitbread brewing record document LMA/4453/D/09/027 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Barclay Perkins brewing record document ACC/2305/1/549 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

The London brewers pitched at a higher temperature than that Morewood gives for Ireland. But London brewers were notorious for fermenting their Porter warm.

Finally there are all the chemicals which, thankfully, he says were no longer used. Well, not by the larger brewers. As we've recently seen, there were London brewers prosecuted for the use of salt of steel and quassia. Though in all cases they were pretty small. None of the large London Porter brewers was ever prosecuted for this type of offence.

The colouring he describes is essentia bina. Which was surely illegal in both England and Ireland in 1838. It was, briefly, legal in the 1810's but in 1816, like all forms of sugar, its use in brewing was prohibited.

Still another part to go. Where Morewood describes the Guinness brewery.