T & J Bernard Pale Ales 1906 - 1958

Looking around breweries doesn't half give me a thirst. So let's break off from our stroll around Bernard's old brewery and take a look at what they were making: beer.

Funny how when people have looked for differences between English and Scottish brewing they've missed the real points of interest and having wandered off down the path of ignorance into fantasy land. Because the genuine differences are much more fascinating.

Take styles. No, I'm not going to start droning on here about putative Scottish styles. No, my perspective is quite different. Observing how Scotland, like Ireland, was out of phase with developments in beer styles. We all know that Scotland embraced Lager earlier. I'm seeing growing evidence that Scotland also switched it allegiance from (Mild) Ale to Pale Ale much more quickly.

Take a look at the interwar period. What were Scottish brewers making? Loads of Pale Ales and IPAs, a bit of Strong Ale and the odd Stout. No Mild in sight. While in England Mild was still the mainstay of the vast majority of breweries.

That explains why I've a whole stack of Pale Ale analyses for Bernard and not much else. Barnard, you'll note, specifically mentions the production Pale Ale at Bernard. It looks like they were one of the Scottish breweries that jumped on the Pale Ale bandwagon the first time it passed by.

I suppose you'll want to see the table now. I don't like to disappoint:

T & J Bernard Pale Ales 1906 - 1958
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Attenuation
1924	90/- IPA	IPA		pint	bottled		1013	1041		3.62	68.29%
1928	90/- India PA	IPA		pint	bottled		1005	1039	no. 11	4.43	87.18%
1929	India Pale Ale 90/- (carbonated)	IPA		pint	bottled		1009	1039.5	No 11	3.96	77.22%
1929	90/- India Pale Ale (carbonated)	IPA		pint	bottled		1009.8	1040	No. 13	3.93	75.63%
1929	90/- India Pale Ale	IPA		pint	bottled		1009	1040	58	4.03	77.50%
1933	India Pale Ale	IPA		pint	bottled		1009.5	1038.5		3.76	75.32%
1949	90/- India Pale Ale	IPA		pint	bottled		1006.5	1029.5		2.98	77.97%
1958	India Pale Ale	IPA	21d	16 oz	can	0.04	1008.9	1030.6	50	2.71	70.92%
1906	54/- PA	Pale Ale		pint	draught			1051.5	12
1906	54/- PA	Pale Ale		pint	draught			1050.2	12
1921	PA 60/-	Pale Ale		pint	draught		1011	1039.2		3.65	71.94%
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	7d	pint	draught		1009.6	1039.2	40	3.84	75.49%
1922	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1005.4	1042.5	27	4.85	87.31%
1923	Carbonated Beer	Pale Ale	4d	half pint	bottled		1012.4	1037.6	45	3.26	67.02%
1923	PA	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1005	1039		4.43	87.18%
1924	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	4d	half pint	bottled		1013.2	1040.2	35	3.49	67.16%
1924	60/-	Pale Ale		pint			1014	1040	42	3.36	65.00%
1925	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	4d	half pint	bottled		1010	1038	39	3.63	73.68%
1926	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1040	40	4.03	77.50%
1926	PA	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1041	30	4.16	78.05%
1927	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007	1040		4.29	82.50%
1927	90/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1011	1040	40	3.76	72.50%
1928	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	4d	half pint	bottled		1010	1039		3.76	74.36%
1928	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1005	1050	18	5.89	90.00%
1929	Crown Brand Export (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1005.3	1049	No. 00	5.72	89.29%
1929	90/- (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008.5	1038.5	No. 10	3.90	77.92%
1930	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	draught		1012	1040	31	3.63	70.00%
1933	90/-	Pale Ale		pint	draught		1005	1039		4.43	87.18%
1933	Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1006	1051		5.89	88.24%
1934	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	draught		1011.3	1041		3.86	72.56%
1939	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1006	1037.8	9 – 10	4.13	84.11%
1940	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008.3	1037.8		3.83	78.15%
1941	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1037.5		3.70	76.00%
1947	80/- Ale	Pale Ale	16d	pint	bottled		1006.5	1034		3.57	80.88%
1947	80/- Ale	Pale Ale	16d	pint	bottled		1006	1033		3.51	81.82%
1947	80/- Ale	Pale Ale	16d	pint	bottled		1006	1034		3.64	82.35%
1947	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1003.5	1031		3.58	88.71%
1949	Special Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1041.5		4.22	78.31%
1949	PA 60/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007	1031.5		3.18	77.78%
1949	Special Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007	1041		4.43	82.93%
1958	Export Beer	Pale Ale	26d	16 oz	can	0.05	1010.1	1043.1	100	4.12	76.57%
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002
Document WY/6/1/1/14 of the William Younger archive held at the Scottish Brewing Archive.
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

What do I need to tell you about that lot? First, look at the different way 90/- was used between the wars. It's not a Strong Ale but a relatively low-gravity, bottle IPA. About 1040º before the war, under 1030º just after it. Shouldn't an IPA be stronger than its Pale Ale? Only if you're living in style-Nazi land. In Britain, especially in London and Scotland, it was often the other way around. And no, those brewers weren't willfully deceiving the public. Just adhering to a different set of conventions and consumer expectations.

You'll notice other points that conflict with modern usage. Like those 80/- Ales from 1947 with gravities around 1034º. The BJCP defines the gravity range as 1040º – 1054º. Yet more consumer fraud by those bastard brewers. Or perhaps a sign that definitions - at least those in drinkers' and brewers' minds - are ephemeral.

You'll see that same with 60/-. All the pre-war examples are way over the upper limit of 1035º imposed by the style definers. Though at least it as actually the type of beer they describe, a Pale Ale. Unlike modern 60/- which is Dark Mild.

The only beers that fit into modern styles are the last few. Those Special Exports squeeze in at the bottom of the modern idea of a Scottish Export. Probably more by coincidence than anything else.

America here I am

Yes, I'm here in Boston. And the odd beer has featured. But a couple of very special ones. Namely, X Ale and X Ale.

Tasting them wasn't like a dream come true. It was a dream come true. I've been waiting, tongue polishing my shoes, to try it since that first day I dropped by the London Metropolitan Archives. Barclay Perkins X Ale.

Pretty Things have brewed two versions of X Ale. Based on the 1838 and 1945 versions. Words can't convey the pathetically puerile excitement I felt when pouring out the first glass. As I've said many times before, I'm pretty sad when it comes to stuff like this.

I wasn't afraid of disappointment. Dann knows what he's doing. I was certain the beers would taste good. And they did. A history lesson in a glass. Or two glasses, as comparing the two was the whole point.

Oddest was the launch. Watching Americans slurp down a 2.9% ABV Mild. I was pleasantly surprised at how popular the weaker of the two was. Maybe session beers will take off here.

T & J Bernard's Old Edinburgh Brewery (part two)

Continuing our stroll around Bernard's old brewery, we get to see the brewing equipment. Which is what we're most interested in, I'm sure. Picturesque ancient stone buildings are nice enough, but I'm more interested in mash tuns.We'll be seeing them first.

I'd love to show you pictures of what the brewery looked like inside. Unfortunately Barnard didn't supply any. Damn. The best I can do are the offices. With what I believe is the jail looming over them in the background

"After this we passed along a passage and ascended a few steps, when we found ourselves on a gallery overlooking the picturesque courtyard before referred to, on which we walked round to the large malt stores on the other side. They occupy a building about 120 feet long, four storeys high, and are contiguous to the feeding hopper connected with the mill.   This latter contains a pair of steel rollers for crushing the malt, which (falling into a receptacle below) is elevated to the mash-tun hopper in the roof of the next building, whither we followed it.  Passing through a doorway we ascended a stair to the top floor of a building whose walls on one side are formed by the solid rock on which it abuts.   This is the mashing room, the floor of which—resting partly on iron columns and partly on a ledge of the rock—is covered by three mash-tuns, two of which are constructed of copper,with gun-metal draining plates, are served by Steel's mashing machines, and hold together eighty-three quarters. Here also we observed two large hot water tanks, heated by exhaust steam from the engine, and a cylindrical heater filled with tubes, of a peculiar construction, for sparging purposes."Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890, pages 109 - 110.

Judging by that description, the whole rear wall and part of the floor were cut from the bedrock. I can see some advantages in having the brewery partly built into the natural rock. It must have helped keep the brewery at a nice even temperature, year round.

By this time who didn't have a Steel's masher? Maybe the odd country pub brewery. A few more details on that cylindrical heater for sparging would have been useful. I could try guessing, but my imagination is notably poor. I'll leave that to you.

I'll do my traditional brewhouse maths now. 83 quarter mash tun capacity, at four barrels per quarter makes 332 barrels per day. Multiply that by 300 and you get almost 100,000 barrels. They didn't brew anything like that amount. especially not at the old brewery. I happen to know that in 1890 the two breweries combined produced 46,970 barrels (that comes from the prospectus when the company went public in 1895). Shows how far out my calculations can be.

Next are the coppers and coolers:

"Descending a few steps we came to the copper stage, another ancient room of large dimensions, in which are placed three coppers—one with a dome cover, the other two without—holding together about 300 barrels. One of these vessels is used for porter brewing, for which this firm has a local repute, the others for pale ale. The hop-back room is underneath, and contains a copper hop drainer with gun-metal draining plates, holding forty barrels. At a lower elevation we observed two open coolers of the ordinary type, holding ninety barrels, wherein the wort is cooled by central circulating fans; and on a platform above a refrigerator of a peculiar type. This unique cooler (invented by the firm) consists of a cast-iron frame or box 90 feet long  by 4 feet wide, and contains 150 tubes the entire length of the frame, made of pure block tin, and the total measurement of the tubes is 13,500 feet.

The beer is forced in at one end of the pipes by a powerful gun-metal three-throw pump, and cold water introduced at the other end of the box; consequently the beer goes off at about the same heat as the water comes in, and the water goes off at about the same temperature as the beer comes in. This refrigerator cools sixty barrels per hour, in summer weather, down to 55° or 56°; and in the pipes through which the beer is pumped from the hop-back are numerous fine strainers, to free the wort from every particle of sediment."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890, pages 110 - 111.

It would be tempting to assume that the Porter copper was the domed one. That's certainly the type most London brewers used. And I know from other accounts that many Pale Ale brewers preferred open coppers. Perhaps that is how they were used, but, as the text isn't specific, that's just speculation.  I'm surprised that they were brewing enough Porter (I assume the word is being used generically here to cover both Porter and Stout) for it to be worthwhile having special equipment. It had never been that popular in Scotland and had lost found by the 1890's.

The size of the coppers and coolers tallies with a maximum batch size of around 300 barrels. As there would be two at least worts run off, boiled and cooled separately, this kit only needed to be about half the batch size.

The cooling set up is typical for the late Victorian period: open coolers to start off, then a refrigerator to finish the job. 55° or 56° seems to have been a typical pitching temperature for Scottish beers at this time.


That's enough excitement for now. You'll have to wait to learn about the tuns and flatteners.

England vs Scotland, part 3e: early 1850's Imperial Mild Ale

Does this series seem never ending? I thought so. Don't despair. I'm finishing up with Mild this time. At least for the early 1850's.

Imperial Mild. There's a name to conjure with (maybe turn it into a rabbit or something). The name has been used by others, but I'd like to set its definition in stone so future generations will be able to cherish it. A bit like other style guidelines. Didn't the head prophet at the BJCP bring down stone tablets of beer style definitions down from Mount Sinai? Though obviously there were more than 10. Must have been a real struggle carrying 100-odd lumps of stone.

My definition of Imperial Mild - get your chisel ready - is this: Mils ale with a gravity over 1100º. Do you think I'm being too specific? At least you don't have to do much carving.

Why am I being so jovial? Have to find something top write about. You'll see what I mean when you look at the table:

England vs Scotland early 1850's Mild >1100º
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fer-ment-ation temp	length of fer-ment-ation (days)
19th Oct	1850	Truman	XXX Ale	1102.8				12	5.59				58
5th Oct	1850	Truman	XXX Ale	1102.8				12	6.24				59
18th Feb	1851	Truman	XXX Ale	1105.8				10	5.19				58
4th Sep	1850	Truman	XXX Ale	1108				14	8.14				59
19th Aug	1850	Truman	XXX Ale	1108	1029.1	10.44	73.08%	14	8.48				59	77	10
Average				1105.5	1029.1	10.44	73.08%	12.40	6.73				58.6	77.0	10.0
1st Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1100	1040	7.94	60.00%	6.00	3.00	1.25	1.5		55	68	8
10th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1101	1040	8.07	60.40%	6.95	3.52	1.25	1.33		58	69	8
5th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1101	1041	7.94	59.41%	5.00	2.47	1.33	1.25		55	69	9
16th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1102	1039	8.33	61.76%	8.26	4.75	1.25			56	70	8
19th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1102	1033	9.13	67.65%	8.70	5.56	1.25			55	67	7
13th Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1103	1040	8.33	61.17%	10.00	5.50	1.25			54	68	9
23rd Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1103	1040	8.33	61.17%	7.81	4.03	1	1.08		59	70	8
27th Jul	1852	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1103	1040	8.33	61.17%	7.14	3.85	1.08	1.17		59	69	8
7th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1039	8.60	62.50%	5.24	2.86	1.5	1.25		56	69	9
15th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1040	8.47	61.54%	5.00	2.65	1.25	1.25		56	68	9
25th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1040	8.47	61.54%	5.00	2.79	1.25	1.25		58	68	9
6th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1040	8.47	61.54%	5.00	2.65	1.33	1.25		56	69	10
17th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1042	8.20	59.62%	5.00	2.53	1.25	1.5		55	68	9
27th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1042	8.20	59.62%	5.00	2.62	1.25	1.75		55	68	10
24th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1041	8.33	60.58%	5.00	2.56	1.25	1		56	68	9
25th Mar	1852	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1104	1042	8.20	59.62%	5.00	2.50	1.17	1.08		55	68	10
25th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	120/-	1104	1046	7.67	55.77%	9.00	6.25	1.5			54	68	8
31st Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1105	1042	8.33	60.00%	5.00	2.59	1.25	1.5		54	69	10
4th Dec	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1105	1042	8.33	60.00%	5.66	2.82	1.25			55	69	9
26th Apr	1853	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1105	1039	8.73	62.86%	9.09	6.15	1.25			55	70	7
24th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1106	1045	8.07	57.55%	5.00	2.95	1.25	1.33		56	69	8
12th Nov	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1106	1041	8.60	61.32%	5.00	2.58	1.25	1.25		56	69	8
26th Feb	1852	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1106	1042	8.47	60.38%	4.49	2.38	1.17	1		55	68	11
8th Oct	1851	Younger, Wm.	100/-	1108	1041	8.86	62.04%	5.24	2.89	1.33	1.17		55	69	9
Average				1103.8	1040.7	8.35	60.26%	6.19	3.44	1.26	1.27		55.8	68.6	8.8
difference				-1.6	11.6	-2.09	-2.24%	-6.21	-3.29	1.26	1.27		-2.9	-8.4	-1.3
Sources:
William Younger brewing record document number WY/6/1/2/5 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Truman brewing record document number B/THB/C/132 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

See what I mean? So many details are missing from the London beers that there's not much to compare. I'll limit myself to those items where there's enough information to work with.

Hopping rates. Now isn't this confusing. Younger's are on average much lower, which isn't what we saw in the other classes of Mild. And the spread amongst the Younger's beers is enormous: from 2.38 to 6.25 lbs per barrel. I can make no sense out of them. A couple are hopped in a way similar to the London beers, others at a much, much lower rate. For once, I don't know what to say.

Fermentation temperatures. We've only got enough data for pitching temperature. I love this. Lovely and clear, all the data nicely clumped together. I'm oozing confidence as I say: in the early 1850's Younger's Imperial Mild Ales were pitched on average about 3º F cooler than equivalent London beers.

Bit disappointing that. Not really anything much to say.

Arrol's annual report 1916

I'm not going to pretend this is a rare treat. You're not that thick. Yet this dry as bones that have lain a thousand years in the Sahara business report does have some meat. Tasty WW I meat

This annual report was issued in 1916, the end of a difficult year for British brewers. Probably just as well they didn't realise things would only be getting worse for the next couple of years.

Archibald Arrol and Sons, Ltd.

The annual meeting was held on the 15th ult. at Glasgow. Mr. Lee Hudson (chairman) presiding. The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report (vide last issue). said it was a matter of congratulation, considering the increased beer taxes, increased selling prices, and the restriction of hours, that the position of the company had again improved to the extent of £9,400, an improvement of £688 over the previous year. They had expended £6,556 on the brewery buildings and other properties of the company, and had written off £18,632 for the proportion of leases, depreciation for properties sold, and compensation moneys received. That item stood at £462,778. as against £474,954 last year. Moveable plant, lees depreciation, had decreased £1,093, but stock-in-trade had increased £4,155. The book debts and loan had increased £1,220, cash and balance on hand £2,880, and bills under discount and guarantees had decreased £4,017, making a net decrease in assets of £9,031. On the other hand, the liabilities had been considerably decreased. Mortgages and bonds on properties had decreased £14,120, interest thereon £213, sundry creditors had increased £1,731, debenture interest accrued had decreased £281, bank overdraft had decreased £1,530, and contingent liabilities £4,017, making a net decrease in liabilities of £18,431, which, deducting the decrease in assets of £9,031, showed an improvement in the financial position of the company of £9,400. Profit and loss account showed a gross profit of £41,123, as against £36,763 last year, an improvement of £4,360. The net balance carried to the balance-sheet was £24,456, as against £25,931 last year, and after payment of interest on debenture stock, mortgages, and bonds there was left a net profit of £9,400, as against £8,711 last year. The net profit must, of course, be carried to the reduction of the suspense account, and Would reduce that account to £170,689.
"Brewers' Journal 1916", pages 26 - 27.

Reading reports like this bring home to me just how little I understand of the working of capitalism. Is it good or bad? They made more money that the previous year, so it must be good, mustn't it? Though, given the way prices had risen, that might not be as impressive as it sounds. £9,400 isn't sound a great deal of profit for what was a substantial brewery, one of the largest in Alloa. Especially if you recall that the net profit in the first years after flotation was over £20,000.

What exactly was the suspense account? Presumably not a murder tale. Obviously something important, as it gobbled up all the profit. At £9,000 a year, it would take a couple of decades to pay off the full amount. It doesn't sound like anyone was making much money from the business.

Arrol's became a limited company in 1895, with a share capital of £250,000. When that was increased to £400,000 in 1899, Arrol's became the fifth largest Scottish brewery in terms of capital. Though the capital was reduced to £305,000 in 1909. Let's have a think. My knowledge of capitalism does extend as far as recognising a proper return on capital: 5%. So around £15,000 profit is what they should have been aiming for.

"They had expended £6,390 in alterations and repairs, against £4,963 last year. That considerable increase was due to the fact that while installing the new plant at the brewery, it was found necessary to spend large sums under that head, which had all been charged to revenue. They had also made a large provision for bad debts—£3,959, as against £651 last year. That increased provision had been made owing to the effect of the increased prices and enormous restrictions imposed by the Government. Some customers had been unable to meet their liabilities in full, and large sums had had to be written off some of the Scottish loan accounts. During the four years which have elapsed since the revaluation of the properties in 1911 mortgages and bonds on the properties had been reduced by £28,626 and the contingent liabilities by £40,030, a total reduction of £68,657. Against this the sundry creditors had increased by £10,132, leaving a net decrease in liabilities of £58,514. In the four years the position of the company had been considerably strengthened by the policy of the board. The new plant at the brewery was now practically all installed, and was working satisfactorily. And the company was now the possessor of one of the best-equipped and most up-to-date breweries in Scotland. The new plant had not been working long enough to give actual figures in comparison with other years, but there was not the slightest doubt that a considerable amount of economy would be effected. The general scheme of driving all the machinery by electric power was most economical. Appreciable economies were effected by the new plant, which ought to improve further the position of the company at the end of the current year. The trade, however, was faced with a serious rise in the cost of materials. In these days it was impossible to form any reliable forecast of the future.

The report was adopted, and Mr. Deuchar was re-elected a director."
"Brewers' Journal 1916", page 27.

So the war increased bad debts. I suppose that sort of makes sense, given how prices rose. I assume "Scottish loan accounts" refers to the money lent to publicans to get their trade.

One thing really shocked me in this section. That they were installing new plant during the war. That certainly didn't happen in WW II. There weren't sufficient materials for that sort of frivolous activity. Over on the continent, in Belgium, it was even worse. There the occupying Germans confiscated copper brewing equipment. I'm equally surprised at the investment because of the financial situation of the company.

The use of electrical power intrigues me. Aitken's new brewery, completed in 1900, had an electrical generator but also retained steam-powered machinery. Clearly technology had moved on in the 15 intervening years. I suspect Arrol's was one of the first British breweries to make the switch to electricity.

There's a sure sign that their fancy new brewery wasn't running at capacity. In 1921 John J. Calder, who was a director of Arrol's, closed his own Shore Brewery and had all his Calder beers brewed at Arrol's.

One final tiny point: names. See how a Mr. Deuchar was a director of Arrol's. There's a good Scottish brewer's name. There were a couple of different Deuchar breweries. Almost as bad as the Youngers.

T & J Bernard's Old Edinburgh Brewery

It's been a while since we last walked side-by-side with Alfred Barnard through a long-vanished brewery. Time to put that right as we follow him inside T & J Bernard's old Edinburgh Brewery.

Barnard's selection of Scottish breweries is a little odd. Two of the biggest and most important - Tennent and William McEwan - don't appear. While some less significant ones do. Maybe they wouldn't let him in Tennent and McEwan. Who knows.

Like many Edinburgh brewers, T & J Bernard outgrew their cramped inner-city site and had to built new premises on the edge of town. Their old brewery sounds particularly picturesque:

"The old mansion and houses which now comprise the brewhouse, malt stores, and fermenting rooms, are erected around an oblong open court, from the upper floors and galleries of which the inmates in olden times could almost shake hands with each other. It is hard to conjecture what these buildings were originally used for, as some of them date back to the 15th century. One of the newest bears a tablet taken out of the old building which it displaced, on which is deeply cut a heart, initials, and the figures 1679, of which the following is a copy.

Some parts of the houses at the back are built into recesses cut out of the solid rock upon which is built the Calton Gaol, which overshadows the buildings upwards of 100 feet above the roofs.

Whatever may have been the uses for which they were intended, the position and extent of these antique structures made them easily convertible into a brewery, and many thousands of barrels of ale have been delivered from its portals to the cellars of the nobles and their retainers, who, until the beginning of this century, thronged the neighbourhood of Holyrood and Canongate. It was in the year 1840 that the old "Edinburgh Brewery" was acquired by the father of the present proprietors, and since that time it has undergone considerable additions and improvements, to meet the rapid extension of the business. During the last two or three years Bernard's Edinburgh Ale has been in such great demand that the firm found it absolutely necessary to build this year the other and larger brewery at Gorgie to which reference has already been made."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 3", Alfred Barnard, 1890, page 109 -110.

It took me a while, but I've managed to work out which brewery was Bernard's. It's not as easy as it might sound, the area was littered with them. There were two at the foot of Calton Hill. From the descriptions later in Barnard's text I've been able to positively identify it. Here you go:

You can see that the brewery was built right into the slope of the hill.

What's left now? Not a trace. There are no longer any buildings at the foot of the hill. Just a road, railway line and some scrappy looking bits of ground. It's incredible how little remains of the breweries which used to crowd this part of Edinburgh.

Arrol flourishing?

Spin. There's nothing new about it. Companies have always tried to show themselves in a favourable light. Though there's a fine line between clever spin and outright deception.

I've been keeping a close track of the statements made by Arrol about the state and progress of their business. And I've started noting inconsistencies. Did plans change or were they deliberately misleading investors?

Here's how their 1900 annual meeting was reported:

"The fifth annual general meeting of the Ordinary shareholders of Archibald Arrol & Sons (Limited) was held yesterday within the head office, Dixon Street, Glasgow-Mr Wm. Auchincloss Arrol, chairman, presiding. The report showed that notwithstanding the advance in the beer and spirit duties, the profits showed an increase of nearly £4000 over those of last year. The profits for the year were £37,270, and after providing for depreciation, direction, and management there remained £31,426. Debenture interest absorbed £9000 and Preference shares dividend £11,125, leaving £11,300 for payment of 10 per cent. per annum on Ordinary shares. The report also stated that a further issue of £75,000 in Preference shares was made in August, 1899, the proceeds of which were applied to paying off certain mortgages, acquiring additional properties, and increasing working capital. The issue was largely over-applied for. The Chairman, in moving the adoption of the report, said the company at the close of the fiscal year in May last had been in existence five years, and during that time it had flourished, having made constant and regular progress. For the first financial year the trading account showed £26,295 profit, and at the close of last year, 31st May, the fifth year, the profit on the trading account amounted to £40,569. Therefore during the period of the five years that the company had been in existence the profit on the trading account had increased £14,274. When the company came into existence they secured 40 licensed houses in and around Newcastle; now they held 80. When the company was promoted in 1895 they were interested in 32 houses in the rest of the United Kingdom; now they were interested in 135. The first year's trading, so far as the brewery at Alloa was concerned - taking that as a basis, and to show the progress of the company - has been one of steady improvement, last year's trade compared with the first year showing an increase of 66 per cent. Mr John Meikle seconded the adoption of the report, which was unanimously adopted. The Chairman then formally moved that a dividend of 10 per cent. per annum,, being 5 per cent. in addition to the 5 per cent. interim dividend already paid to the Ordinary shareholders, be declared, the dividends to be paid on 1st September which was seconded and carried unanimously. Mr William A. Arrol was re-elected chairman, and Mr David W. Kidston, C.A., auditor.
Glasgow Herald - Thursday 23 August 1900, page 8.

That's typical for drinks companies: start off with a complaint about tax. How rosy was the financial picture in reality? Let's look at those figures more closely.

Profits were up almost £4000 - hurray! But hang on. That new preference share issue meant an extra £4,125 in dividends every year. Gobbling up more than the increase in profit.

I'm having trouble comparing the figures for annual profit, because they keep using a different basis. But one thing is for sure: using the trading profit figures makes them look best. The nett profit had only increased from £23,585 to £31,426. Or about 33%. While over the same period the trade of the Alloa brewery had increased 66%. So the profits weren't increasing anything like as fast as turnover.

Those pub numbers don't tally, either. The prospectus for the new preference share issue claimed they had 86 freehold and 150 others. Here the numbers are 80 and 135 respectively.

Odd that they say part of the new preference share money had been spent on "acquiring additional properties". When before issuing the shares they had specifically said that they wouldn't use any of the money for "brick and lime".

Flourishing seems rather an exaggeration. Especially when compared with the results of other brewing companies. And remembering that the 1890's were some of the most profitable years ever for British brewing. How did Arrol fare when times got harder? I'll be answering that soon.

America there I go again

Boston to be precise. Next week I'll be over there for a beer launch. The launch of two beers, very different from each other, but with the same name. Confusing?

After years of trying, I've finally persuaded someone, namely Pretty Things, into brewing a 1940's Mild. From Barclay Perkins, too. I feel such a winner. So it doesn't get lonely, sitting there on the bar all by itself, they're brewing another, older version. One from the 1830's. Though they bear the same name, the two have little in common. Other than both being beer, of course. Colour, strength, ingredients, brewing techniques. All very different.

There is a reason behind releasing them together. It's my idea, actually. The original concept, when I started trying to persuade brewers to make old recipes, was always to release pairs of beers. Contextualisation is the name of the game (and I want to play the game with you - junk telly, does it ever leave our heads?). By either having a pair of related beers from the same year, or the same beer from different years, they're given added depth.

That's why De Molen first brewed a brace of Whitbread beers. Porter and Stout from 1914. The object was simple: demonstrate the relationship between Porter and Stout in Edwardian London. It certainly worked for me.

Pretty Things release X Ale and X Ale next week Wednesday (14th March). The launch (16:00 - 20:00) will be in

The Publick House
1648 Beacon St.
Brookline, MA 02445

If it's anything like earlier launches, it will be loads of fun. I'll be dressing up in line with the 1945 theme. The beer is from February 1945, so my Stalin costume is totally appropriate. I've been practising the icy glare to get the characterisation spot on. The moustache is already grown (certainly good for attracting attention on the tram!).

Come down and say "I never thought I'd ever buy Stalin a beer" as you push a glass into my hand. Though drinking it would be out of character, Stalin being a vodka man. Damn..

You can discover more about the beers and the launch over at Pretty Things.

Scotland - a little fiddling

Just thought I'd let you know that I've slightly changed the cover of Scotland! Tidying, that's all.

Lexie prefers the old cover. Ungrateful bastard. I wish I hadn't bothered asking him. "I like red." Really great detailed critique there, Lexie.

I won't say more. My throat is too sore. Too much screaming at the kids to be quiet. That's why my ears are ringing as well. And my knuckles are bl... - no, I won't go into that.

What do I usually say at this point? I remember. . . .

Buy Scotland! now! Before it becomes independent.

Arrol raises more cash (part two)

We've seen how the directors of Arrol sought and received permission to issue more preference shares. 15,000 in all, if they saw fit. But what really happened?

New preference shares were issued, but not the full 15,000. Only half that: 7,500. The details of the issue are fascinating because they let us peek inside Arrol's books. How well had the company been doing since flotation? Had they been raking in the dosh like McEwan? Let's take a look.

"The Subscription List will open on TUESDAY, the 1st day of August, 1899, and will close on or before THURSDAY, the 3rd day of August, 1899, for Town and Country.

No portion of this issue has been or will be underwritten.

ARCHIBALD ARROL AND SONS, LIMITED,
London, Glasgow. Newcastle-on-Tyne and Alloa.

Registered under the Companies' Acts, 1862 to 1890.

Present Issued Share and Debenture Capital.

10,000 Ordinary Shares of £10 each	£100,000
15,000 5.5 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares of £10 each	150,000
	£250,000
4.5 per cent. First Mortgage Debenture Stock	200,000
	£450,000

New issue of 7,500 5.5 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares of £10 each at par, being one-half of the additional Capital duly authorised in January 1899, payable as follows :-

£1 0 0 per share on Application.
£3 0 0 ... per share on Allotment
£3 0 0 ... per share on 2nd day of October, 1899
£3 0 0 ... per share on 1st day of November, 1899.
£10 0 0

The dividend on the Preference Shares will be paid half-yearly, on the 1st day of April and the 1st day of October in each year, as on the existing Preference Shares. The first payment will be made on the 1st April, 1900, and will be for the amount of dividend accrued from the dates of payment of the several instalments. All the Preference Shares rank, both for Capital and Dividend, in priority to the Ordinary Shares.

PROSPECTUS.
THE Company, which was formed to acquire the old-established and well-known business of Archibald Arrol and Sons, Brewers was registered in June 1895,and there were incorporated therewith the businesses of Mr John Meikle and Mr William Turnbull, Newcastle upon-Tyne. The progress and prospects of the business are highly satisfactory. Irrespective of the trade of the Public-houses managed by the Company, which has been largely developed, the output at Alloa and Newcastle has greatly increased.

This progress is shown by the subjoined statement of Nett Profits taken from the Company's Audited Accounts for the past four years. The amount of £28,890 6s 2d for the year 1899 is arrived at after debiting £2,032 10s for interest on Loans, which it is intended to pay off out of the proceeds of the present issue, and may therefore be fully reckoned at £30,972 16s 2d : -

Year ending 31st May, 1896 .. £23,585 9 11
Year ending 31st May, 1897 ... 24,790 6 0
Year ending 31st May, 1898 ... 28,619 5 0
Year ending 31st May, 1899 ... 28,890 6 2

At its incorporation the Company held 40 freehold and leasehold licensed properties, and was interested in other 32 licensed houses - in all 72 houses. On 31st May, 1899 it held 86 freehold and leasehold licensed properties and was interested in other 150, giving a total of 236 which draw their supplies from the Company's Breweries at Alloa and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

The Property and Assets of the Company stood in the Balance Sheet of 31st May, 1899, at	£633,244 19 7
After deducting Debenture Stock, Loans on Properties, and other Creditors	357,093 4 0
	£276,151 16 7
To which add the proceeds of the present issue	75,000 0 0
Making a total of	£351,151 15 7

to cover the £225,000 Preference Share Capital including the present issue. The issue of 15,000 additional Preference Shares of £10 each, to rank in all respects pari passu with the original issue of Preference Shares, was duly authorised in January last, and the Directors now offer for subscription 7,500 5.5 per cent. Cumulative Preference Shares of £10 each at par. The remaining 7,500 Shares are held in reserve for future issue as required.

It is intended to a apply the proceeds of this issue in the further development of the business and in paying off certain existing Mortgages amounting to £48,000 or thereabouts.

The Nett Profit for the year ending 31st May, 1893, as above, was	£30,972 16 2
The Interest and Dividend on the already existing issue of Debenture Stock and Preference Shares absorb per annum	17,250 0 0
Leaving	£13,722 16 2

while the dividend on the present issue only requires £4,125 a year, and it should be stated that the very satisfactory profits for 1899 were earned although the Company did not have the benefit, of a full year's trading profits from the additional houses acquired during that year.

The existing Debenture stock and Preference Shares of the Company are officially quoted on the Stock Exchange, and application will, in due course, be made for a quotation of the present issue."
Western Times - Tuesday 01 August 1899, page 1.

I didn't bother including the duller parts of the prospectus, where the directors, bankers, solicitors, etc.are listed. One thing is worth noting about that list: who isn't on it. Mr. Smyrke's association with the company appears to have ended. Was that by any chance connected with the court case with Mr. Key?

Notice something odd about the company asset's? They'd declined since the launch four years earlier, when they had stood at £416,276 19 6. The £75,000 raised from this share issue only got the net assets back to that level. Where had the money gone? Probably buying pubs.

The company appears to have had rather a lot of debt. In addition to the £200,000 debenture stock, there was another £157,000 of debt. I'm not surprised that they wanted to pay off some of their debt.

The profit carrot held out in the first prospectus (based on Arrol supplying Scotch Ales to the English tied estate) was £38,912. It proves to have been illusory. In none of the years after flotation did the company make more than £29,000. Remember that the number of pubs controlled by the company had trebled. And that the majority of the profit seemed to have been generated by the pub estate. So why weren't the profits higher?

This second issue doesn't look like such a good deal for the directors. The £4,125 in dividends that would be paid out each year for the new preference shares would eat up about a third of their profit. Sounds to me like they were desperate for more cash. Had they bought too many pubs at too high a price?

It looks as if Arrol's gamble on tied houses hadn't paid off, at least in the short term.

Quiz solution

I'm quite surprised that no-one really got this. I wasn't after anything complicated.

Take a look again:

What does it tell us? The proportion of Bitter to Mild that Boddington's brewed. To be very specific, the proportion of Bitter to Mild in November 1985. Though there was no way for you to have known the date.

1031º is the Mild. And 1034º the Bitter. All the other entries are, as Barm said, primings. Upon which tax obviously had to be paid. The column on the right gives the quantities in standard hectolitres (a hectolitre of beer at 1055º - that's why the numbers aren't just the number of litres divided by 100, Gary).

I'm slightly surprised at how little Mild they brewed. According to Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 17, 6.4% of beer sold in the UK in 1985 was Mild.So they were above the national average. But that includes the large swathes of the South where Mild was already a rarity. I would have expected more like 20% Mild.

Here are the numbers in tidy table form:

	litres	barrels	%
mild	256,889	1,570	9.04%
bitter	2,586,227	15,803	90.96%
total	2,843,116	17,373	100.00%
Source:
Boddingtons brewing records held at the Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester.

The previous page also gives totals for materials used. Which I can use to calculate average hopping rates. So that's what I've done:

barrels brewed	18,694
malt	2,258
hops	13,020
hops lbs/barrel	0.70
hops lbs/qtr	5.77
Source:
Boddingtons brewing records held at the Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester.

In case you're wondering, the difference in barrelage is due to losses during the brewing process. The number in the first table is excise barrels, in the second barrels brewed.

Did Boddingtons only brew two beers? In this period, yes. They aren't the most exciting brewing records I've seen.