Truman Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

The end is almost in sight, somewhere just over the horizon. We've now got as far as Truman.

It's a brewery that has a special place in my heart. Because I drank their beer, I know one of their former brewers and they were the last big independent brewery in London.

It seems as if they weren't doing that badly in the 1920's, unlike some of their local rivals. The number of takeovers of largish breweries tells you times were tough. But Truman was making healthy profits:

"Truman, Hanbury, Buxton and Co., Ltd., report a profit for the year ended March 31st of £268,617; available, with £20,000 brought forward, £288,617. Debenture interest requires £47,320; Preference dividend £20,000; interim dividend on the Ordinary shares, £42,525; final dividend not transpired."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 309.

A brewery couldn't stand still back then. With the number of pub licences falling annually, breweries needed to take action to keep up their pub numbers and hence sales. Which is why most were always in the market for pubs:

"The following paragraphs are taken from this month's "Brewers' Journal':-

Messrs. Jude, Hanbury and Co.. Ltd., have purchased about 100 licensed properties belonging to Messrs. Ash's East Kent Brewery Co., Ltd., as well as the brewery itself. Messrs. Jude recently sold 22 licensed houses in Chatham to Messrs Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co., Ltd. London. - Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton and Co.. Ltd., have taken over 17 of the licensed houses in the Folkestone district belonging to Messrs. Ash's East Kent Brewery Co., Ltd."
Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald - Saturday 25 August 1923, page 6.

Onward with Truman's Burton. Which looks, in terms of specs, as if it's been designed to be perfectly average.

Truman Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1007	1052.6	6.02	87.45%	cloudy	v fair	2
1922	KK	1014	1052.1	4.93	72.94%	bright v dark	fair	1
1922	KK	1012	1050.1	5.01	76.85%	bright	fair	1
1922	KK	1014	1052.8	5.07	73.86%		rather bitter	-1
1923	KK	1012	1056	5.73	78.57%	fairly bright, very dark	good	2
1923	KK	1016	1053.1	4.86	70.62%	brilliant	v fair	2
1923	KK	1018	1054.5	4.73	66.97%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1011	1052.4	5.34	78.24%	fairly bright	poor	-1
1923	KK	1016	1053.4	4.86	70.22%	not bright	good	2
1924	KK	1014	1053.4	5.13	73.97%	bright	fair	1
1924	KK	1018	1054.5	4.75	67.34%	bright	v fair	2
Average		1014	1053.17	5.13	74.28%			1.09
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Oh dear. Lots more trouble with clarity. Were the blokes at Whitbread fussy or was brightness really a big problem in London? Only five from eleven were properly clear.

You've probably noticed that the Burtons are scoring better than the Milds. Only three brewers managed an average of 1 or over for their Milds. Truman is our fifth so far with that score from the Burtons. Just two negative scores, both a -1. And a whole string of positive scores, giving an average of 1.09.

I'm definitely switching from Mild to Burton when I retire to the 1920's.

How Barclay Perkins bought Style & Winch

The difficult times of the 1920's prompted many brewery takeovers. With many companies making minimal profits, some owners took little persuading to sell up. Buyers were firms looking to increase their number of tied houses and hence sales and market share.

Barclay Perkins belonged to the latter group. One of the breweries they snapped up was Style & Winch in Maidstone, Kent.

"Latest Brewery Combine. — It is now officially announced that Barclay Perkins & Company have made an offer for the shares of Style & Winch as follows:— 13s 9d cash and three Barclay Perkins shares for two Style & Winch shares. The new shares will rank for dividend as from January 1, 1929.
Dundee Courier - Tuesday 19 February 1929, page 2.

But in hard financial times, where did they find the money? Easy - they went to the Stock Exchange. They cleverly turned a disadvantage into an advantage. One if the problems of the brewing industry, especially after the rush to build tied estates at the end of the 19th century, was the large amount of capital tied up in property. A brewery with 1,000 pubs had millions of pounds just in their freeholds.

How to turn all the dead money into something useful? Use it as security for a loan. Which is exactly what Barclay Perkins did:

"Brewery Debenture.
The brewery trade can offer many sound opportunities for well-secured investment. The capital of brewery companies is largely locked up in properties which form good tangible security. Barclay Perkins & Co., Ltd., for instance, have outstanding £344,990 of an issue of £500,000 of Five Per Cent. Mortgage Debenture stock, which, in addition to being a floating charge, is specifically secured on certain freehold properties.

The stock stands to yield about 5.5 per cent., interest being payable on January 1 and July 1. It is down for redemption in 1977 at 102, but there is the option to redeem in or after 1937. Provision is also made for cumulative sinking fund at 0.5 per cent. to operate by purchase at or under par or at drawings at par.

Those who manage to secure an investment such as this are not usually willing to let it go, and when stock does come on the market it is worth snapping up.

The Latest Issue.
A better opportunity of obtaining a secured interest in Barclay Perkins & Co. is through the Five and a Half Per Cent. Mortgage Debenture stock, which was only issued in March last. This stock was not fully paid until the middle of April, and there is more likelihood that it has not yet reached permanent holders.

An amount of £500,000 was offered for sale, the money being required mainly to finance the purchase a controlling interest in Style & Winch. The security behind the stock is a first charge on freeholds, valued at £500,595 and £252,561 of leaseholds.

Redemption must be made by 1965, but may begin at 1940 at premium varying with the actual date. Interest is payable on April 1 and October 1, so that, although the last business was at 98, the price of issue, the inclusion of approximately three months' interest makes a purchase at the present price the better bargain."
Dundee Courier - Thursday 26 December 1929, page 2.

Here's Style & Winch's brewery from the air in 1921:

As you can see, it was a decent size.

After takeover, most purchased breweries were quickly shut down. In the majority of cases the buyer had no interest in the brewery, just the pubs it owned. That wasn't the case with Style & Winch. Not only did it remain open, it outlived Barclay Perkins Park Street brewery by a few years, finally closing in 1971*.

Barclay Perkins probably couldn't have supplied Style & Winch's pubs themselves because they were so many of them - 600**. I'm not sure how many houses Barclay Perkins had. A register of sales by pubs has 298 listed in 1921***. They must have owned many more than that.

You know what might be fun? Taking a look at the beers of Style & Winch. I'm sure I've got a few details somewhere.





* "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 319.
** "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 318.
*** Document ACC/2305/1/517 held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Meux Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923

We're half way down the hill, about. Or is it half way up? Whatever, we're stuck in the middle of my review of London-brewed Burton Ales in the 1920's.

1921 was a big year for Meux. That's when they left their cramped site on Tottenham Court Road and moved brewing to the former Thorne Brothers Brewery in Nine Elms, Wandsworth*. Consequently all the beers we'll be looking at were brewed there.

How well were Meux doing financially? Not that badly, though it seems they had endured some challenges.

"Meux's Brewery Co.. Ltd.
The annual general meeting was held on the 6th inst. in London, Mr. William Harris presiding.

The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report, said in the course of his speech: When I saw you last year I said I was hopeful that the accounts for the year 1922 would show as good a result as those for the year 1921. I am glad to say that my hope has been realised. Our profits, including rents, interest and other revenue, for the year 1920 were £83,704: for 1921 they were £70,887; and for 1922 they were £83,969. The general trade of the country during the year has improved a little, but the large number of unemployed and the crushing taxation on beer are very unfavourable factors. I said last year that by their crushing taxation on beer the Government were gradually killing the trade in that article, and that, while in 1914 brewers paid duty on 36,000,000 standard barrels of beer, I doubted whether in 1922 they would pay duty on more than 22,000,000. That happens to be the exact number of barrels on which duty was paid last year. This year I doubt if it will reach 20,000,000.

Dealing with the balance-sheet, our interests in freehold, leasehold and other properties show a large reduction, being now £1,027,233. against £1,400,430 in 1921. This reduction, of course,  is due to the fact  that the Tottenham Court Road property is no longer included in this item, and to the depreciation of leaseholds. The expenditure on the new brewery at Nine Elms now stands at £40,927, against £423,383 at December 31st, 1921. We had some expenditure during the year, but we have, I think, now finished.

I dare say you have noticed that some of the intelligent London newspapers have started a discussion about beer, its price, its quality, and the profiteering that brewers are supposed to be indulging in. Their idea seems to be that brewers' profits are such that they could easily reduce the price of beer by 1d. per pint without any reduction in taxation. A penny a pint is 24s. a barrel. There were some 22,000,000 standard barrels of beer brewed in the kingdom last year. This would amount to over £26,000,000, of more than double the profit which I estimate was made in the year by all the brewers of the entire kingdom from the brewing of beer. As for the quality of the beer, our friends seem to forget that brewing is a highly competitive industry, and the brewer who lessens the gravity of his beer will very soon find that he has lessened the volume of his business and the amount of his profits. As for the charge of profiteering, I have made up the profits each year of this brewery from 1891 to 1922 inclusive. Our profits in those 32 years from the brewing of beer, and from rents, interest, and other revenue, applicable to the payment of interest and dividends, have amounted to 5.15 per cent, on the capital employed.

[The Chairman here dealt with the subject of Prohibition, his remarks on which are reported elsewhere in this issue.]

Meux's Nine Elms Brewery in 1896

Returning to our own affairs, if you approve and adopt the report and accounts we submit to-day, the whole of the arrears of Preference dividend will be extinguished, which will mark the end of an epoch in our affairs. . . . Our huge debt of £360,000 has been funded and no longer threatens our very existence. We have to-day the newest, and, I venture to hope  the most efficient and the most economical brewery in London. Our houses to-day are in an admirable state; we have over £300,000 in the bank, and, although we stand in no need of if, our credit is good and stands high.

The report and accounts were unanimously adopted.

Mr. Percival Wolton then proposed " That the directors be paid, in addition to their fees for the year 1923, such a sum as after providing for taxation will leave them each the sum of one thousand guineas." He said:- Within a day or so, the balance of arrears of interest on our preference shares will have been entirely paid off; that will be a great satisfaction to all of us, and also, no doubt, to the directors. At one time the interest was in arrear for the long period of fourteen years. I think our directors are deserving of this proposed bonus; they have sold the site of the old brewery for the handsome sum of £400,000. I think you will agree that that was a very good price to have obtained. Also, instead of an old brewery, we now have a new brewery which is thoroughly up to date, and which cost rather more than the price the old site was sold for, and yet the company has a large amount of cash in hand. I understand that the bulk of the ordinary shares are held by Admiral Sir Hedworth Meux and Lord Tweedmouth. I may mention that both these gentlemen are aware that I am proposing this resolution to-day, and that they are in complete agreement with my proposal.

Mr. T. R. Ronald seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.
"The Brewers' Journal, 1923", pages 131 - 132.

Remember me telling you about how much money brewers had tied up in property? Here's proof. Meux had over £1 million in property, but were only making a profit of £70,000 - £80,000 a year. That's a rubbish return on investment.

It looks like Meux was another brewery that experienced difficulties in the first decade of the 20th century. If they had been in arrears for 14 years, that would place the start of their troubles in 1909 - the year of the People's Budget. Exactly when things went tits up for Hoare.

I'm not surprised that they got a got price for the old brewery. It had a great location (for anything other than a brewery) close to the junction of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street:

Meux Brewery in 1896

Though they'd spent all that £400,000 - and more - on their shiny new brewery in Nine Elms. Sounds to me like they would have been screwed without the windfall from the old brewery site. On those meagre profits, how could they have ever financed a new brewery?

Right, that's enough financial bollocks. Let's at least look at some beer. Even if we aren't going to get to drink any.

A low FG and high degree of attenuation leave Meux's Burton with one of the highest ABVs. But what about the flavour?

Meux Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1007	1058.4	6.68	87.33%	cloudy	good	2
1922	KK	1013	1054.8	5.49	77.01%	almost bright	only fair	0
1922	KK	1010	1052.8	5.54	80.49%	bright	v fair	2
1922	KK	1008	1050.9	5.55	83.50%	bright	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1053.8	5.74	81.78%	v hazy	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1054.6	5.87	82.42%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1010	1052.1	5.54	81.57%	hazy	only fair	0
1923	KK	1010	1051.3	5.41	80.90%	fairly bright	poor palate	-1
1923	KK	1010	1051.1	5.34	80.23%	bright	v fair	2
Average		1010	1053.31	5.69	81.69%			1.11
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Again fewer than 50% - four out of nine - of the samples were bright. Honestly, hazy or cloudy pints seem to have been commoner than clear ones. But it comes through on flavour, with just one negative score and six positive ones. Giving a very healthy average score of 1.11.

That's quite a turnaround from their Mild, which placed 13th out of 17 with an average of -0.57. The advice is obvious: stay away from Mild in Meux pubs and stick to Burton.




* "The Brewing Industry: A Guide to Historical Records", edited by Lesley Richmond, Alison Turton, 1990, page 233.

Why the price of beer fell by a penny a pint

in 1923. You may have noticed, in my endless series on Mild in the 1920's, that the price of beer fell. But why was it a penny a pint on all beer?

The government wanted to reduce the retail price of beer, but went a funny way about doing it. They gave brewers a 20 shilling per barrel rebate. But it was a flat rebate, no matter what the gravity of the beer. While the tax was charged per standard barrel, that is pro rata pre 36 gallons of 1055 gravity (a standard barrel).

So the discount was on bulk barrels, while the tax was on a standard barrel. Which meant the lower the gravity, the greater, proportionally, the rebate.

"Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Ltd.
The annual general meeting was held at Burton-on-Trent. Colonel John Gretton, M.P., presiding.

In moving the adoption of the report (vide last issue), the Chairman expressed the hope that the shareholders would consider that the result of the year's trading had been satisfactory in all the circumstances. They had had one difficulty to face in the violent fluctuation of foreign exchanges, and items under that heading were included in the administration expenses in the profit and loss account.

It would be within the recollection of them all that in the Budget of this rear provision was made for a reduction in the price of beer of a penny per pint retail, which was equal to 24s. a barrel of thirty six gallons. The reduction in price was not accompanied by a reduction in the taxation of beer. The Government gave a rebate - of 20s. a barrel to the brewer on condition that the price to the public was reduced by a penny per pint, and the brewer, therefore, was required, in order that the retailer might not suffer any loss, to sell his beer at 24s. a barrel less to the retail trade, while he received from the Government only 20s. rebate. That rebate was not a reduction  in taxation. There was another unsatisfactory feature about that to which he thought he should call their attention. The rebate was a flat rate of 20s. per barrel. Whatever might be the quality or strength of the beer at the -  standard gravity — 1055 — on which the tax was levied, the rebate was 20s.; but it was the same if the standard gravity should be only 1030 — 20s. was given back by the Government. It was the same on the strong ales or beers of the higher gravity.

The effect of that was a premium given upon the liquid contents of the barrel — in effect, a premium upon the  water in the weak beers. It was easily worked out. The chairman proceeded to give instances. On 1055 deg. standard the Government, he said, gave 20s. rebate; on 1044 they gave 20s, which was 4s. more than the reduction if worked on the standard of 1055, and was therefore given on the liquid contents, or water, in the barrel. At 1033 the reduction was 20s. a barrel, which, on the standard barrel, would be 12s., but the Government gave 20s. on a barrel of that strength; therefore, it gave back 8s. more than the reduction upon the liquid contents of the barrel — that was to say, water. He thought the public ought to know that; they ought to know that the right way in which to fix the taxation of beer was to make an all-round reduction in taxation, as on former occasions.

He moved the final dividend of 8 per cent., making 11 per cent, for the year, free of tax.

Mr. Gerard Clay seconded tho resolution, and it was carried unanimously.

Colonel John Gretton, M.P., Mr. P. W. Ratcliff, and Mr. Claude N. Burt, the retiring directors, were re-elected."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 473.

 In effect, the government was still trying to impose price controls on beer. They wanted to drop the price of every type of beer by 1d per pint. But were only prepared to pay 20 shillings of the 24 shillings per barrel that would cost. They expected brewers to cough up the other 4 bob a barrel.

It took me a while to get my head around what Colonel Gretton meant with those numbers. It's easiest to explain with a table:

gravity	old tax	minus rebate	tax at 80s per standard barrel
1099	180	160	144
1088	160	140	128
1077	140	120	112
1055	100	80	80
1044	80	60	64
1033	60	40	48

You can see that, had the tax per standard barrel been dropped to 80 shillings, beers with a gravity below 1055 would have paid more tax than with the 20 shillings per barrel rebate. Beers over 1055 were even more disadvantaged.

Why would this be of concern to Bass? Simple - they tended to brew higher gravity beer than most breweries. Their flagship product, Pale Ale, was about standard 1055 gravity at a time when average OG for all beer brewed in the UK was about 10 points lower.

Bass beers 1921 - 1922
Year	Beer	Style	package	FG	OG	ABV	App. Attenuation
1921	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	bottled		1055.2
1921	Export Stout	Stout	bottled	1025.2	1079.5	7.06	68.30%
1921	Export Stout	Stout	bottled	1036	1093.5	7.45	61.50%
1921	No. 1	Barley Wine	bottled	1032	1094	8.06	65.96%
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	bottled		1055
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	bottled		1055.1
1922	Imperial Stout	Stout	bottled	1032.3	1092.7	7.85	65.16%
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	bottled	1010.9	1055.1	5.76	80.22%
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	bottled	1011	1054.73	5.70	79.90%
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive

It would have been very much in Bass's interest to have had the duty reduced to 80s. per barrel rather than have a flat-rate rebate.

Boston and New York City this week

Just a few days until my first events in the USA. I thought I'd remind you of a couple of them.

I kick off in Boston on Saturday :

Saturday 8th March Boston Pretty Things event
The Independent
75 Union Square,
Somerville       
http://www.theindo.com
16:00
Your chance to drink Pretty Things' version of 1955 Whitbread Double Brown. It's truly pathetic how excited I am about trying that beer.


Sunday 9th March
Jimmy's No. 43   
43 E. 7th St.,
New York, NY 10003.
16:00 - 21:00 Industry Night, whatever that means. A mob of drunken brewers, perhaps?


Monday 10th March NYC Event
Brouwerij Lane   
78 Greenpoint Ave,
NY 11222,
Brooklyn.
http://brouwerijlane.com/
19:00
There will be some talking from me, the coherence of which will depend on how much I've enjoyed my day in New York.

Come along and see me yak, buy my book and witness my legendary thirst close up.

Mann Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

I'm sure you're anticipating which breweries will come up in that series. That is, if there's still anyone there. This is turning into an endurance test.

I've a good random newspaper article for you. One that demonstrates the problems brewers had with pub licences.

"Sir Travers Humphreys applied for the transfer of the licence of the Plough Inn, Tye Common, to new premises on the main road at Hutton. The old Plough was at present on what was more or less bye-road. The owners, Messrs. Mann, Crossman, and Paulin had purchased a site not far away on the main road, close to Ellis Farm. The application was made on business lines, the owners hoping to do more trade in the new house. They offered to surrender another licence, that of the Maltster's Arms, Ingrave, if the application was granted. The licensee of the Plough was Mrs. Cole, who would also be the licensee of the new house. - The Chairman: What are the poor devils at Tye Common going to do if you take away their "pub"?  —Sir Travers: The consumers in Tye Common are so few that it is thought they will not miss the old Plough, and the new premises will not be very far away. Sir Travers added that if the Bench thought fit, the owners would erect larger premises than those as at present planned. - The Chairman said the Bench considered the premises should be larger. They would grant the application, subject to fresh plans being submitted and approved at the adjourned Licensing Session. Supt. Wood said he would like to see the premises placed a little further back than planned to prevent a congestion of traffic upon the road in the event of the draw-in being fully occupied."
Chelmsford Chronicle - Friday 04 February 1927, page 8.

This is typical of the hoops a brewery had to jump through to be able to build a new pub. You'll note that not only did they have to transfer the licence from the old Plough, they also had to surrender another licence. Brewers wanted to build pubs in new housing estates had ti turn in two or three existing licences - usually in inner-city areas where there were lots of small pubs - to get one new licence. It's all to do with the licensing authorities obsession of there being too many pubs and wanting to close as many as possible.

The new Plough still exists. Built well back from the road as Supt. Wood had wanted:

Mann scored impressively for the Mild, finishing top with a score of 1.33. Will their Strong Ale do as well?

In terms of specs, it's dead typical. Well, maybe the ABV is a touch higher than average. You must have noticed by now how similar all these Burtons are to each other.

Mann Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1010	1048.5	5.01	79.38%	fairly bright	good	2
1922	KK	1010	1050.8	5.28	79.72%	not bright	fair clean palate	1
1922	KK	1010	1050.5	5.28	80.20%	bright	good	2
1922	KK	1013	1057	5.73	77.19%	bright	not good too sweet	-1
1923	KK	1013	1058.7	5.93	77.51%	bright	v good	3
1923	KK	1012	1055.6	5.67	78.24%	bright	good	2
1923	KK	1011	1054.5	5.67	79.82%	hazy	good	2
1923	KK	1010	1051.7	5.41	80.27%	grey	good	2
1923	KK	1012	1054.2	5.47	77.49%	fairly bright	full fairly good	1
1923	KK	1014	1055	5.33	74.55%	brilliant	fair	1
1924	KK	1011	1054.3	5.60	79.19%	fairly bright	fair	1
1924	KK	1013	1055.5	5.50	76.22%	brilliant	too sweet	-1
Average		1012	1053.86	5.49	78.31%			1.25
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

It says something about the general level of clarity when I consider six out of twelve bright to be pretty good. The only two negative scores are for being too sweet. That's not really that bad at all. Five two and one three is pretty impressive. Not quite as good an average score as their Mild, but 1.25 is pretty damn good.

So far Mann's pubs are looking your best bet.

Someone else

Skype id ronald.pattinson is not me

delete anything you get from there.

Andrew is well pissed off that someone has stolen his logo.

Ernest Charles Charrington's will

Ernest Charles Charrington continued to cause trouble, even after his death.

Becdause there was a strange clause in his will. One that partially disinherited his daughter if she married someone he didn't like. Could it have been directed against one person in particular - Harrison? It wouldn't surprise me.

"BREWER'S WILL PROVISO.
PENALTY FOR DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE WITHOUT CONSENT.
Mr. Ernest Charles Charrington, South Kensington, a member of the well known brewing family, of the Mile End Brewery and Burton-on-Trent, who died on August 18th. aged 61, left an estate of the gross value of £126,200.

He directed that "every I.O.U. or other acknowledgment for any and every loan or advance by me to any person or persons without security shall be destroyed, and he released and forgave any such sums and any interest, thereon.

Probate was granted to his son and the Public Trustee, and after various bequests he left one-third of the residue of his property for his daughter Eileen, but he directed that this one-third should be reduced to one-tenth if she should have married during his lifetime against his wishes, without having applied to him personally for his consent."
Nottingham Evening Post - Saturday 20 October 1928, page 8.

That thing about I.O.U.'s makes it sound like he'd made lots of dodgy loans to unreliable mates. No wonder his wife didn't trust him with money.

They've got his age wrong. Based on the age given for him during the dovorce proceedings he was 51 not 61. Not a great age for someone comfortably off. Then again, he wasa raging alcoholic. Funny lot the Charringtons. Another member of the family became a fanatical teetotallerand used his wealth in the campaign against drink. The twat.

£126,200 was a very decent amount back in the 1920's. Assuming she didn't marry the wrong bloke (or just waited until her dad was dead before marrying), £40,000 would have kept her in comfort for life. I wonder if her father told her about the clause in his will? My guess would be yes, because the purpose seems to be to have some control over her choice of spouse.

Lion Brewery Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923

The Lion Brewery, if you remember, was the impressive country house-like pile on the bank of the Thames in Lambeth. With a giant lion on top of it. It's a real shame it was demolished and replaced by the Royal Festival Hall, a pile 1950's shit.

Lion Brewery in 1896

Once again the chairman used the annual general meeting to make political utterances. Unsurprisingly, about the level of taxation and the price of beer.

"Meetings.
Lion Brewery Company, Limited.
The annual general meeting was held in London on the 21st ult., Mr. Percy Gates, M.P. (chairman) presiding. The Chairman, moving the adoption of the report stated that the year 1922 had not been a good one for trade. The weather, with the exception of a few weeks in May and the early part of June, had been cold and wet, and not conducive to the consumption of beer; employment had been nose too good—in fact, the figures in November showed that a considerable percentage of the population was unemployed; and the price of beer to the consumer had in the circumstances been almost prohibitive. In 1914 the number of bulk barrels sold to the public was 37,558,767; in 1920 the number was 34,504,000; in  1921, 30,178,000, and in 1922, 26,545,000, and the Lion Brewery had shared in the universal reduction in trade. The Trade was still subject to the hop control, with the methods of which there was much dissatisfaction, and he could not see why brewers who had always taken their allocation of English hops should not have delivered to them the American hops which they had bought and paid for under contracts. He also urged that better arrangements should be made for the earlier delivery of the English crop. They were only now seeing the 1922 English crop, so that in consequence the hops were six months old before they reached the brewery.

He also referred to the anomaly of the hours in London. After pointing out that the amount of the debenture debt unredeemed was the small figure of £72,495, that the deposits and trade creditors were less than last year by £46,105, that the reserve account had been increased by £30,000, and the cash and investments by £44,978, the Chairman said that the gross profit on trading was much the same as in tho previous year, but that the rentals received were less by £5,097; that, on the other hand, the expenses were less by £5,764. and the interest payable by £2,696, so that the directors recommended the same dividends as were declared last year. It was impossible to forecast the future; that owing to unemployment, reduction of wages, and the continued high price of beer, trade continued to decline, and that it was more than possible that the estimate made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of a trade of 20,000,000 standard barrels for the year ending March 31, 1923, would not be realised ; that this was a very serious matter for the revenue of the country, and also for the agricultural districts, whose prosperity was bound up with the brewing industry. For whereas in the year 1914 52.5 millions of bushels of malt were sold, in the year 1922 the figure had dropped to 39.25 millions of bushels.

Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1922 reduced the income tax of the comparatively well-to-do by 1s. in the pound, he left untouched the income tax of the poorer classes, viz., the price of a pint of beer, and there was now an overwhelming case for such a reduction in duty as would admit of the reduction to the consumer of 2d. per pint. This would mean a reduction in duty of 50s, per standard barrel, and it was calculated that such a reduction would result in an immediate increase in consumption, which would reduce considerably the net cost to the Exchequer. A reduction of duty which would result in a reduction to the consumer of 1d. per pint would be quite inadequate, and would probably not result in increased consumption.

The report was adopted."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 190.

Dropping the tax for the rich while leaving the tax on the poor the same? Sounds very much like the current British government.

Not sure what  "the anomaly of the hours in London" is on about,. Obviously something about pub opening times in London. For the life of me, I can't think what anomaly there was in them

A reduction of 50 shillings per standard barrel would have been a cut of 50% in the tax, which was at 100 shillings. That never happened. Though there was a reduction of sorts that allowed the price to drop by 1d per pint.

Moving on to Lion's Burton, I'll remind you that their Mild came seventh, with an average score of 0.4. The specs of their Burton are very standard in terms of gravity, attenuation and ABV. But what about flavour and clarity? Lets take a look:

Lion Brewery Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score
1922	KK	1011	1056.7	6.00	81.13%	cloudy	fair	1
1922	KK	1012	1054.3	5.47	77.35%	not bright	thin	-1
1922	KK	1014	1052.6	5.07	74.14%	v dark	good	2
1922	KK	1014	1053.1	5.13	74.39%	bright	fair	1
1923	KK	1014	1054.1	5.27	74.86%	rather hazy	good	2
1923	KK	1013	1054.6	5.47	76.92%	bright (pale)	v fair	2
1923	KK	1012	1054.4	5.47	77.21%	hazy	only fair	0
1923	KK	1012	1051.7	5.14	76.40%	not bright	v poor	-2
1923	KK	1013	1052.1	5.14	75.82%	very dark indeed	v fair	2
Average		1013	1053.73	5.35	76.47%			0.78
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

The clarity is again poor. Only two of nine samples are listed as bright. I'd really like to know what was going on here. Was it just poor cellarmanship? Did the brewers not fine their beers? With only two negative and six positive scores, Lion Burton does quite well in terms of flavour. And four of the positive scores are twos. Leaving an average score of 0.78.

Looks like your chances of getting a decent pint of Burton in a Lion Brewery pub look pretty good.