I was shocked to find that I had lots of numbers missing from my giant production spreadsheet. I've spent the last week filling some of those holes. And have come up with a lovely new table. All fresh and shiny. here it is:
UK Beer production 1850 - 1922 | |||||||
England and Wales | Scotland | Ireland | total UK | ||||
barrels | % | barrels | % | barrels | % | ||
1850 | 14,420,069 | 93.16% | 476,000 | 3.08% | 582,500 | 3.76% | 15,478,569 |
1857 | 16,326,773 | 90.78% | 616,000 | 3.43% | 1,042,000 | 5.79% | 17,984,773 |
1860 | 18,384,096 | 90.38% | 816,000 | 4.01% | 1,140,000 | 5.60% | 20,340,096 |
1863 | 18,005,908 | 89.66% | 893,000 | 4.45% | 1,182,500 | 5.89% | 20,081,408 |
1864 | 19,106,461 | 89.45% | 986,000 | 4.62% | 1,268,000 | 5.94% | 21,360,461 |
1865 | 20,061,389 | 88.98% | 1,111,000 | 4.93% | 1,374,500 | 6.10% | 22,546,889 |
1866 | 22,634,100 | 89.15% | 1,254,000 | 4.94% | 1,500,500 | 5.91% | 25,388,600 |
1871 | 23,588,104 | 89.24% | 1,227,000 | 4.64% | 1,616,656 | 6.12% | 26,431,760 |
1875 | 27,927,381 | 90.05% | 1,179,000 | 3.80% | 1,908,000 | 6.15% | 31,014,381 |
1880 | 27,616,649 | 89.83% | 1,143,000 | 3.72% | 1,983,000 | 6.45% | 30,742,649 |
1881 | 24,425,861 | 89.30% | 1,037,000 | 3.79% | 1,889,500 | 6.91% | 27,352,361 |
1885 | 24,603,993 | 87.91% | 1,237,000 | 4.42% | 2,145,500 | 7.67% | 27,986,493 |
1890 | 26,794,315 | 86.97% | 1,666,000 | 5.41% | 2,348,000 | 7.62% | 30,808,315 |
1895 | 30,110,787 | 87.52% | 1,758,000 | 5.11% | 2,535,500 | 7.37% | 34,404,287 |
1900 | 32,146,769 | 86.64% | 2,289,048 | 6.17% | 2,669,225 | 7.19% | 37,105,042 |
1905 | 30,594,189 | 86.39% | 2,021,374 | 5.71% | 2,799,960 | 7.91% | 35,415,523 |
1910 | 29,284,045 | 85.38% | 1,956,659 | 5.70% | 3,059,210 | 8.92% | 34,299,914 |
1914 | 31,737,384 | 84.50% | 2,288,981 | 6.09% | 3,532,902 | 9.41% | 37,558,767 |
1915 | 29,310,783 | 84.31% | 2,042,477 | 5.87% | 3,412,520 | 9.82% | 34,765,780 |
1916 | 26,914,428 | 83.82% | 1,917,148 | 5.97% | 3,279,032 | 10.21% | 32,110,608 |
1917 | 25,497,825 | 84.53% | 1,816,003 | 6.02% | 2,850,170 | 9.45% | 30,163,988 |
1918 | 16,340,250 | 85.62% | 1,141,114 | 5.98% | 1,603,679 | 8.40% | 19,085,043 |
1919 | 20,133,048 | 86.54% | 1,325,439 | 5.70% | 1,806,096 | 7.76% | 23,264,533 |
1920 | 29,891,845 | 85.29% | 2,186,604 | 6.24% | 2,969,498 | 8.47% | 35,047,947 |
1921 | 28,927,178 | 83.84% | 2,096,080 | 6.07% | 3,481,312 | 10.09% | 34,504,570 |
1922 | 25,486,663 | 84.45% | 1,770,175 | 5.87% | 2,939,893 | 9.74% | 30,178,731 |
Sources: | |||||||
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 110 | |||||||
“A History of the Brewing Industry in Scotland” by IanDonnachie, 1998, pages 147-148. | |||||||
Statistics of British commerce by Braithwaite Poole, 1852, page 6. | |||||||
“Bericht über der Welt_Ausstellung zu Paris im Jahre 1867, volume 7”, 1868, page 119. | |||||||
Ireland Industrial and Agricultural, 1902, page 492 | |||||||
The Dynamics of the international brewing industry since 1800 by Richard George Wilson, Terence Richard Gourvish, 1998, pages 121 - 122, estimated from malt used |
Before you say "But how does that compare to population, here's a table showing just that:
UK Population 1841 - 1911 | |||||||
England and Wales | Scotland | Ireland | total | ||||
population | % UK Pop | population | % UK Pop | population | % UK Pop | ||
1841 | 17,435,700 | 61.76% | 2,618,000 | 9.27% | 8,177,700 | 28.97% | 28,231,400 |
1851 | 17,932,400 | 65.51% | 2,889,000 | 10.55% | 6,554,000 | 23.94% | 27,375,400 |
1861 | 20,063,000 | 69.44% | 3,063,000 | 10.60% | 5,768,300 | 19.96% | 28,894,300 |
1871 | 22,715,000 | 72.15% | 3,362,000 | 10.68% | 5,405,600 | 17.17% | 31,482,600 |
1881 | 25,974,300 | 74.46% | 3,734,000 | 10.70% | 5,174,900 | 14.83% | 34,883,200 |
1891 | 29,001,400 | 76.82% | 4,046,000 | 10.72% | 4,704,800 | 12.46% | 37,752,200 |
1901 | 32,527,800 | 78.46% | 4,472,100 | 10.79% | 4,458,700 | 10.75% | 41,458,600 |
1911 | 36,072,500 | 79.76% | 4,760,900 | 10.53% | 4,390,200 | 9.71% | 45,223,600 |
Source: | |||||||
http://www.populstat.info/ |
Beer production increased in Ireland and Scotland in the second half of the 19th century. Both in absolute amount brewed and percentage of UK beer production.
Let's look at Scotland first. It had about 10% of the UK population throughout the period under analysis.But it's beer production was always well below 10% of the UK total. The best it could manage was 6.24%.
Ireland is more complicated. The percentage of the UK population living in Ireland dropped from almost 30% to around 10% between 1841 and 1911. Perversely, beer production increased, despite the falling population, more quickly than in Scotland. Eventually beer production reached about the same percentage as the population. Meaning that, per head, Ireland was producing as much beer as England and Wales.
here's another table, showing beer production per head of population:
Beer output per head of population 1850 - 1910 | |||||||||
England and Wales | Scotland | Ireland | |||||||
beer production | population | barrels per head | beer production | population | barrels per head | beer production | population | barrels per head | |
1850 | 14,420,069 | 17,932,400 | 0.80 | 476,000 | 2,889,000 | 0.16 | 582,500 | 6,554,000 | 0.09 |
1860 | 18,384,096 | 20,063,000 | 0.92 | 816,000 | 3,063,000 | 0.27 | 1,140,000 | 5,768,300 | 0.20 |
1871 | 23,588,104 | 22,715,000 | 1.04 | 1,227,000 | 3,362,000 | 0.36 | 1,616,656 | 5,405,600 | 0.30 |
1881 | 24,425,861 | 25,974,300 | 0.94 | 1,037,000 | 3,734,000 | 0.28 | 1,889,500 | 5,174,900 | 0.37 |
1890 | 26,794,315 | 29,001,400 | 0.92 | 1,666,000 | 4,046,000 | 0.41 | 2,348,000 | 4,704,800 | 0.50 |
1900 | 32,146,769 | 32,527,800 | 0.99 | 2,289,048 | 4,472,100 | 0.51 | 2,669,225 | 4,458,700 | 0.60 |
1910 | 29,284,045 | 36,072,500 | 0.81 | 1,956,659 | 4,760,900 | 0.41 | 3,059,210 | 4,390,200 | 0.70 |
I think that shows more clearly how Scotland still lagged behind England while Ireland was closing in fast.
Of course, Ireland's success in upping beer production was almost entirely due to the efforst of one firm: Guinness. By the end of the 19th century it wasn't only the largest brewery in the UK, but the largest in the whole world. Quite an achievement.
"Perversely, beer production increased, despite the falling population, more quickly than in Scotland."
ReplyDeleteA fair part of this was not just down to the growth of Guinness, but the fact that, after the devastation of the famine, the former barter economy that had largely ruled in much of the west of Ireland was replaced among those who were left by the same sort of money economy in existence elsewhere, which meant more people had actual cash to buy beer with. In fact this increase in purchasing power seems to have been part of what helped Guinness grow: the St James Gate boys look to have been far quicker off the mark penetrating the new West of Ireland market than their rivals, both in Dublin and elsewhere.