Brewing in the 1950’s – British barley

I’ve an idea. Let’s look at barley for a while rather than hops. Since my visit to John Innes in January, I’ve become much more interested in barley varieties.

Here’s an overview of the types of malting barley grown around the world:

“As far as barley suitable for malting is concerned, it can be stated that all the varieties grown in the British Isles are two-rowed; two-rowed barleys are also grown in Australia, Ouchak and Chile, while six-rowed varieties are grown in California, Australia, Morocco, Smyrna and Chile, as well as in some other countries. Prior to the 1939 war considerable quantities of foreign six-rowed barleys were used by British brewers, mainly from California and Chile, as well as some Chilean two-rowed. Due to the sunnier and more equable climates of these countries as compared with the British climate these barleys were more uniform in quality and this was of distinct advantage to the maltster. Further, the coarser husk of the six-rowed varieties tended to give a better filtration in the mash tun and to prevent those filtration troubles caused by the too-close packing of the undissolved parts of the malt (known to the brewer as grains'), which form the medium through which the solution containing the extractable materials is filtered off. In fact most brewers used from 30% upwards of Californian or other similar foreign malt and many brewers considered that they could not brew satisfactorily without them. However, experience dining and since the war has shown that present-day beers can be satisfactorily brewed from all British malt.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 129.

British brewers had this thing about Californian malt and got most upset when it was unobtainable during the two world wars. But the last one seems to have weaned them off it.

He’s right in saying loads of six-row barley was imported before WW II. That’s very clear from brewing records. Britain at the time produced way too little barley for its own needs. But that all changed during WW II, when there was a massive increase in barley production. As this table shows:

UK barley production and imports 1938 - 1960
Year ended Dec. 31.	Acreage.	Estimated Product Quarters (400 lbs.).	Average Price per Quarter.	Barley. Imports.	% homegrown
1938	988,000	18,080,000	10 2	19,876,000	47.63%
1939	1,013,000	17,840,000	8 10	13,740,000	56.49%
1940	1,339,000	22,080,000	18 2	9,146,000	70.71%
1941	1,475,000	22,880,000	24 0	1,277,000	94.71%
1942	1,528,000	28,920,000	45 8	0	100.00%
1943	1,786,000	32,900,000	31 5	0	100.00%
1944	1,973,000	35,040,000	26 5	0	100.00%
1945	2,215,000	42,160,000	24 5	2,037,000	95.39%
1946	2,211,000	39,260,000	24 3	2,195,000	94.71%
1947	2,060,000	32,380,000	24 0	2,257,000	93.48%
1948	2,082,000	40,540,000	26 10	15,618,000	72.19%
1949	2,060,000	42,580,000	25 10	9,223,000	82.20%
1950	1,778,000	34,220,000	27 11	15,289,000	69.12%
1951	1,908,000	38,780,000	38 10	24,270,000	61.51%
1952	2,281,000	46,680,000	32 7	22,641,000	67.34%
1953	2,226,000	50,420,000	30 1	28,702,000	63.72%
1954	2,063,000	44,880,000	25 9	18,602,000	70.70%
1955	2,295,000	58,720,000	26 0	18,554,000	75.99%
1956	2,323,000	56,000,000	25 8	16,215,000	77.55%
1957	2,622,000	59,140,000	23 2	20,168,000	74.57%
1958	2,755,000	63,400,000	22 11	26,504,000	70.52%
1959	3,057,000	80,320,000	22 7	19,939,000	80.11%
1960	3,372,000	84,820,000	21 3	14,083,000	85.76%
Source:
1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 61.

This can’t have all been barley for brewing. Slightly less beer was brewed in 1954 than 1938, while the total amount of barley both home grown and imported had grown significantly, from just under 38 million  quarters to 63.5 million.

It’s clear from this next table that only a small percentage of barley was used in brewing:

Malt use in brewing 1938 - 1959
Year	cwt. Malt	qtrs. malt	bulk barrels
1938	9,378,888	3,126,296	24,339,360
1939	9,884,803	3,294,934	25,691,217
1940	9,857,838	3,285,946	24,925,704
1941	10,988,413	3,662,804	28,170,582
1942	10,918,102	3,639,367	29,584,656
1943	10,287,322	3,429,107	29,811,321
1944	10,621,168	3,540,389	31,380,684
1945	10,435,212	3,478,404	31,990,334
1946	9,976,998	3,325,666	31,066,950
1947	9,454,253	3,151,418	30,103,180
1948	9,499,794	3,166,598	28,813,725
1949	9,087,351	3,029,117	26,744,457
1950	9,094,097	3,031,366	25,339,062
1951	9,282,152	3,094,051	24,870,564
1952	9,312,437	3,104,146	25,285,589
1953	9,085,688	3,028,563	24,789,130
1954	8,629,252	2,876,417	24,153,387
1955	8,635,522	2,878,507	24,324,623
1956	8,630,145	2,876,715	24,187,096
1957	8,872,468	2,957,489	24,839,755
1958	8,642,500	2,880,833	24,129,462
1959	8,885,364	2,961,788	25,023,044
Sources:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 62
1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54

“At the time of revision (1956) increasing quantities of Australian Cape barley (6 rowed) are coming into the country again, but even so, beer in Britain is still brewed mainly from malts made from barleys grown in Britain.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 129. 

You can see in the table that barley imports had risen from zero in the final war years to about their pre-war level by the mid-1950’s. But I don’t see foreign barley mentioned in brewing records.

Taking Whitbread as an example, in 1938 all their Ales contained malt made from Californian barley. About a third of malt in the case of Bitter and IPA, 15% for Mild. While their Porter and Stout had about 5% malt from Ouchak barley from Turkey. In 1954, when barley imports were at pre-war levels, there’s no foreign barley in any of their beers.*

After WW II British beer was being brewed mostly from British ingredients for the first time since the mid-19th century. Until the British hop industry collapsed in the 1980’s.





* Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/121, LMA/4453/D/01/121, LMA/4453/D/09/125 and LMA/4453/D/09/133.

Dutton’s of Blackburn

Here’s another brewery celebrating an anniversary back in 1950, Dutton’s of Blackburn. A brewery whose name I recall well, but whose beers I never drank.

It’s another brewery than fell under Whitbread’s spell, being bought along with their 784 pubs in 1964. * The brewery closed in 1978 but, along with most of Whitbread’s northern breweries, had phased out cask several years before.

Owned by Whitbread – it means there’s a good chance some brewing records still exist. Just checked and sure enough they do. Well one does, for 1967. More interestingly I see there’s a gravities book. If that’s what I think it is – analyses of rival breweries beers – it could be a little goldmine. I assume it would contain mostly northern beers, Dutton’s trading region.

I’m pretty sure I own a copy of the book that’s mentioned.

“Dutton's of Blackburn
In the book produced by Messrs. Dutton's Blackburn Brewery Ltd., to commemorate their century-and-a-half of business, the present chairman, Mr. Stanley W. Jamieson, aptly observes that to-day a director is no less a servant than the most junior employee. That is true to a marked degree in the brewing industry, which gives place to no other in the extent to which directors are practical men who really run the day-to-day activities of their companies. Mr. Jamieson recalls that when he first joined the Board as a young man in 1908 the company was not in a very happy position, that it had an excessive share issue and a lack of sufficient working capital. That position was put right and he dates the present era of prosperity of the company from 1916. In the years which followed, the Blackburn Brewery Company was acquired, and with five later acquisitions the business was extended not only through a large part of Lancashire, but also widely into Yorkshire, and more recently northward into Westmorland.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 46.

The pubs that Dutton’s had acquired through takeovers of their own were doubtless what attracted Whitbread. 700+ pubs would have made it a large regional concern. Just the type of business the proto-Big Six gulped down on their route to national status.

I’ve mentioned before the crisis in brewing in the years leading up to WW I. A drop in the value of pubs meant many breweries were hugely overcapitalised. A massive marking down in share capital was often the result. Ironically, given all the restrictions that it brought with it, it was WW I that turned the brewing industry around.

“Unlike some other breweries of to-day, this business is able to trace back specifically to its origin in the name by which it still remains known. The business was founded, and the brewery built on land acquired from the Vicar of Blackburn, by Thomas and William Dutton, father and son, in 1799. Although the name is preserved, it appears that the Dutton family disappeared from the record in 1871 with the death of Thomas, junior, son and grandson respectively of the two founders. In 1897 it was incorporated as Dutton & Co. (Blackburn) Ltd., and later in the same year in its present name. During its career it absorbed the Blackburn Brewery Co. already mentioned, along with its subsidiaries, Crabtree's Brewery of Clitheroe and Horsfall's Brewery of Blackburn ; to be followed in turn by John Mercer Ltd., of Adlington, the Kirkstall Brewery Co., of Leeds, and its subsidiaries the Albion Brewery and the Willow Brewery, Richard Seed & Co. Ltd., of Radcliffe, and quite recently Jonas Alexander & Son Ltd., of Kendal.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 46.

That is unusual for a brewery to have kept the same name for all its history. Before the 1890’s, when most breweries, even the largest, were still partnerships, a brewery’s name might change when the partners did.

“War years held up the projected development and the work of reconstructing and re-equipping the breweries at Blackburn and Leeds, but the company is now able to record that at the Kirkstall Brewery at Leeds the work has been accomplished and the brewery is now fully equipped with modern plant and machinery which enables an increase of output and more economical production. At Blackburn the work is in progress, refusal of permits has been a grave handicap, but a part of the former Swan brewery premises has been converted into a first-class bottling store.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 47.

The Kirkstall brewery was bought in 1936 and, ironically, survived longer than Dutton’s, only closing in 1983.**  Now there’s a brewery whose beer I did try, when Whitbread belatedly re-introduced cask in the early 1980’s.

The war placed huge restrictions on construction work. And there were more urgent uses for metals like copper in wartime. This is one of the factors that pushed breweries to sell up – knackered equipment meaning a large investment of capital was required. Many owners simply didn’t have the cash.

Let’s finish with some of Dutton’s beers from the 1950’s, taken from Whitbread’s own industrial espionage document, the Gravity Book:

Duttons Bottled Beers 1952 - 1959
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint d	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1952	Nut Brown Ale	Brown Ale	20	0.05	1029.9	1005.8	3.13	80.60%	4 + 40
1953	Nut Brown Ale	Brown Ale	18	0.06	1031	1006.1	3.23	80.32%	3 + 40
1953	Green Label Light Ale	Light Ale	18	0.06	1032	1006.8	3.27	78.75%	24 B
1953	O.B.J. Old English Ale	Old Ale	32	0.07	1060.9	1013.7	6.15	77.50%	11 + 40
1959	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	24	0.04	1035.9	1009.4	3.31	73.82%	17
1953	Special	Pale Ale	28	0.06	1045	1007.2	4.93	84.00%	28 B
1953	DPA Pale Ale	Pale Ale	24	0.06	1038.9	1005.2	4.39	86.63%	20 B
1952	Mercers Stout	Stout	26	0.06	1045.3	1014.1	4.04	68.87%	1 + 21
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

The Pale Ale and Nut Brown Ale were doubtless bottled versions of their standard Bitter and Mild.





* “The Brewing Industry a Guide to Historical Records” by Lesley Richmond and Alison Turton, 1990, page 131.
** “The Brewing Industry a Guide to Historical Records” by Lesley Richmond and Alison Turton, 1990, page 131.

Hops yesterday, today and tomorrow (part two)

We’re back with hops in the 1950’s. I thought you’d be pleased. We’ll be finishing this article today. But luckily I’ve others. Ones about new hop varieties being tried out in the 1950’s. It’s really fun stuff.

But the first the future of hops as envisaged 60 years ago.

“To summarize then, for the future, progressive growers will plant gardens with disease-free stocks, tolerant of Verticillium wilt, true to type, of New Variety hops, high cropping, high in a acids, possibly triploid, with a range of ripening times, good for machine picking and acceptable to brewers as substitutes for Fuggles or Goldings. They will grow them with high wirework, to give crops easy to pick by machine, use modern machinery for cultivation, soil systemic insecticides and low volume sprays for fungicide control, will pick by machine and dry on continuous or high-efficiency batch driers, and will finally pack into high density ballots.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 470.

Has all that come about? Pretty sure there are still lots of Goldings and Fuggles grown. And rather than growing hops taller, the recent trend has been for dwarf varieties. And, of course, the area where hops are grown has shrunk dramatically.

Now here’s the problem with growing hops – they’ve only really one use:

“USE AND MARKETING
These two are so bound up that they must be considered together. The tragedy of the hop is that it has but one application—Beer. There appears to be no other substantial use for hops (there are small outlets for bakery, and pharmaceutical purposes and for insomnia), and the vast bulk of all hops in the world is used for beer. There is no use for the stripped bine except as fertilizer, which is also the fate, with the deep-litter hen house, of surplus or low-quality unmarketable hops. It is this lack of alternative uses which has always made the hop market so very sensitive. If there is only a slight shortage, as in 1956 and 1957, world prices soar, while with heavy crops, as in 1958, prices slump. Usage is, therefore, governed partly by availability and price and partly by public taste.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, page 470.

Though if you look at British hop production and prices after 1934 they show a remarkable stability. Presumably because of the action of the Joint Brewers-Growers Committee, which fixed prices.

Throughout the first half of the 20th century there was a steady fall in average hopping rates:

Fig. 3.—Hop rates in U.S.A., United Kingdom and the World, 1902-1958.

“The graph. (Fig. 3) shows the steady downward trend in hop rates, conditioned by taxation and public taste. The United Kingdom hop rate is still well in the lead, and it seems to have steadied at around 1 lb. per brl. American rates are low and falling steadily by about 4% per annum. Fluctuations within the general trend have been caused by real shortages—as in the war—or by a desire to conserve stocks as in 1956-57. Traditionally, most brewers like to hold 6 months' stock or more - before the war some held up to 2 years! - and would reduce their hopping if there appeared any likelihood of having to use new hops before Christmas. It is probable with the present cost of money and storage we should all aim to carry lower stocks down to 2-3 months at the end of September. The hops will suffer much less deterioration of resins or oils, and any fears of rank flavour should be overcome by adjusting the hop rate to take account of the humulone content.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Vol. 65, 1959, pages 470 - 471.

British brewers had this thing about not using the season’s hops immediately. Not sure why that was. They were a funny bunch brewers. They had their own ideas about how to do stuff. Two years’ worth of hops is a lot. Understandable when the price of hops could vary so much from year to year. But that was no longer the case after 1934, when prices were fixed.

My guess is that US hopping levels continued to fall at a similar rate until very recently. Hang on, I’ve no reason to guess, as I have the numbers.

Here you go:

Hopping rate in the USA 1945 - 2012
YEAR	PRODUCTION (BARRELS)	HOPS	LBS./ US BBL.	LBS./IMP. BARREL
1945	86,604,080	37,085,950	0.43	0.60
1946	84,977,700	37,555,031	0.44	0.61
1947	87,856,902	40,506,913	0.46	0.64
1948	91,291,219	41,576,128	0.46	0.64
1949	89,735,647	39,629,621	0.44	0.61
1950	88,807,075	37,889,576	0.43	0.60
1951	88,976,226	36,231,622	0.41	0.57
1952	89,600,916	35,233,507	0.39	0.54
1953	90,433,832	34,944,509	0.39	0.54
1954	92,561,067	35,127,350	0.38	0.53
1955	89,791,154	33,736,717	0.38	0.53
1956	90,697,911	32,938,442	0.36	0.50
1957	89,881,935	31,732,968	0.35	0.49
1958	89,010,812	30,419,008	0.34	0.47
1959	90,973,768	29,642,566	0.33	0.46
1960	94,547,867	30,825,243	0.33	0.46
1961	93,496,452	29,473,204	0.32	0.45
1962	96,417,543	29,896,445	0.31	0.43
1963	97,961,421	30,343,524	0.31	0.43
1964	103,017,915	30,446,822	0.3	0.42
1965	108,015,217	31,562,258	0.29	0.40
1966	109,736,341	31,054,401	0.28	0.39
1967	116,564,350	30,744,728	0.26	0.36
1968	117,523,511	29,231,847	0.25	0.35
1969	122,657,497	28,719,722	0.23	0.32
1970	134,653,881	38,195,191	0.23	0.32
1971	134,091,661	32,135,040	0.24	0.33
1972	140,326,680	33,467,886	0.24	0.33
1973	143,013,573	34,523,123	0.24	0.33
1974	153,053,027	36,777,733	0.24	0.33
1975	157,870,017	35,532,533	0.21	0.29
1976	160,663,276	33,033,645	0.21	0.29
1977	172,228,595	34,554,633	0.20	0.28
1978	171,639,479	36,208,645	0.21	0.29
1979	183,515,187	39,453,588	0.21	0.29
1980	188,373,657	42,212,542	0.22	0.31
1981	194,542,022	43,648,980	0.22	0.31
1982	193,984,371	41,952,844	0.22	0.31
1983	195,664,107	40,534,178	0.21	0.29
1984	193,416,051	44,053,897	0.23	0.32
1985	193,794,790	41,256,105	0.21	0.29
1986	193,988,955	40,313,730	0.21	0.29
1987	196,168,815	44,500,607	0.23	0.32
1988	197,381,834	46,328,359	0.23	0.32
1989	197,480,115	42,751,104	0.22	0.31
1990	201,690,728	44,215,816	0.22	0.31
1991	203,706,789	46,098,849	0.23	0.32
1992	201,394,757	44,347,197	0.22	0.31
1993r	202,276,650	43,323,569	0.21	0.29
1994	202,803,972	43,378,074	0.21	0.29
1995	199,215,197	33,962,792	0.17	0.24
1996	201,050,049	37,997,546	0.19	0.26
1997	198,904,373	31,570,175	0.16	0.22
1998	198,130,339	25,760,469	0.13	0.18
1999	198,251,742	29,226,416	0.15	0.21
2000	199,173,709	25,688,783	0.13	0.18
2001	199,332,251	26,009,711	0.13	0.18
2002	198,089,983	27,670,437	0.14	0.19
2003	194,812,010	23,996,000	0.12	0.17
2004	198,114,650	24,429,671	0.12	0.17
2005	197,252,016	26,634,298	0.14	0.19
2006	197,696,158	37,935,414	0.19	0.27
2007	198,464,270	53,708,315	0.27	0.38
2008	196,538,396	54,977,994	0.28	0.39
2009	196,810,099	61,836,364	0.31	0.44
2010	195,143,831	90,902,672	0.47	0.65
2011	192,718,037	107,726,628	0.56	0.78
2012	195,739,089	119,240,171	0.61	0.85
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

I’d expected hopping rates to have bounced back a bit in recent years, but not by that much. Between 2006 and 2012 the rate trebled. If that trend continues there could be a real shortage of hops in a few years.

There’s still a fair bit more of this to come.

Beer, scientifically and socially considered (part five)

We’re still looking at the muck put into beer in the 1870’s.

Not just that: we’ll also be finding out why beer was so full of crap and why the British were drunkards.

The author seems to be a big fan of Allsopp. I suspect he would have been enraged by the way Watney used returned beer in the 1950’s:

“The necessity for all this doctoring has already been touched upon, but it may well explain its cause more fully. At Allsopps’ and other large Burton breweries (and no doubt in many smaller respectable country breweries) the capital embarked in the trade is large enough to admit of the beer being perfectly fermented and freed from impurities or substances likely to cause acetification ; the beautiful system employed by Messrs. Allsopp for that purpose has been described. But many brewers really sell their beer, not at the brewery, but in their own public-houses, and they have not sufficient capital (or it may be they are too anxious to make money) to give their products sufficient time become fit for consumption. The beer is sometimes drawn off from the fermenting vats into the barrels in which it is to be sent out, with the bung holes open for the escape of superfluous yeast; as little time as possible is given for it to “fine,” and it is sent out to the public-house with orders to return any that is unconsumed when it begins to turn sour. I do not pretend to be initiated into the mysteries of “brewers’ druggists' laboratories,” nor the secrets of those who employ their fraudulent compounds ; but certain it is, that carbonate of soda is used to neutralise the acidity of the spoiled beer, and various drugs and chemicals are then added to impart to it artificial flavour and counteract the alkaline taste, until, Mr. Tate remarks, it is “difficult to imagine how any persons can be found to drink such vile stuff.” But when we remember that three-fourths of the persons who do drink it are drunk already, the mystery is solved. Not only are the lower kinds of beer thus doctored, but they are often mixed with Allsopps’, Bass's, and other fine ales, so that it is in the interest of those firms not only to suppress adulteration, but to do their best to assist in providing the humbler classes with a cheap pure beverage, which it will not pay the vendors to sophisticate. So far, repressive legislation has been a dead letter; we hear now and then of the Act of Victoria 23 and 24 c. 84, being put in force to prevent the sale of grossly adulterated food, or tea; but although brewers will tell us that the Excise would punish adulteration severely, I do not recollect ever having noticed a prosecution. Public analysts may be appointed under this Act and it is to hoped that the time is not far distant when this course will be adopted, and the doctoring of what is really the staple beverage of our people may be reduced to a minimum, if not entirely prevented.”
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

Sounds like breweries were sending out beer without properly cleansing it. Did that really go on? And if it did, how common was it? The author implies breweries like Allsopp were the exception rather than the rule. Though what I’ve seen in London brewing records tells me the large brewers in the capital were finishing their fermentations properly.

Taking back beer that was going off, then doctoring up for sale again – isn’t that exactly what Watney did with all the returns they used in their bottled beer? Seems like they were continuing a long and ignoble tradition.

That’s a great explanation of why people would drink vile doctored beer: they were already drunk. Does that mean that they started off on decent beer and switched to crap after a gallon or so?

I’ve seen details of prosecutions for adulteration from earlier in the century, so prosecutions did occur. Though admittedly the prosecutions were motivated by the excise worrying about brewers and publicans dodging tax rather than poisoning their customers. I believe public analysts were eventually appointed who working wonders in cleaning up food in the last couple of decades of the 19th century.

There’s a very simple explanation for why the British were pissheads: their beer was stronger than elsewhere:

“But we have another question consider in connection with the effects of beer upon our population, and that is its real or reputed strength. For this purpose I have compiled the following table, partly from the Dictionary articles referred to, and partly from analyses made for me by chemical friends ;

	percentage of
Name of Beer	Alcohol.	Malt Extract	Carbonic Acid.	Water.
Strong Scotch Ale	8.5	10.9	0.15	80.45
Burton Ale	5.9	14.5	..	79.6
Barclay's London Porter	5.4	6	0.16	88.44
Dreher’s Vienna Beer***	4.62	..	..	..
Low Brussels Beer (Faro)	4.9	2.9	0.2	92.9
Bavarian Draught Beer	3.8	5.8	0.14	90.26
Sweet Bohemian Beer (Prague)	3.9	10.9	..	85.2
Liverpool Doctored Beer (Mr. Tate’s test)	2.2	..	..	..
Berlin White Beer	1.9	5.7	0.6	91.8
Sweet Brunswick Beer (Mum)	1.9	45	..	53.1

A glance this table and moment's reflection will show why English beer-drinkers are often drunkards, whilst Germans, who indulge in a similar beverage to the same extent, are comparatively sober. It may be safely said that the percentage of alcohol in German beer is on the average half as great as in the English, so that where an Englishman drinks a pint, a German may partake of a quart; but when we look at the character of the beer drunk by the intemperate classes in England, and compare it with that of the poorer people abroad, we may unhesitatingly assert that less injury would arise from drinking half a-gallon of German beer than from a pint of English ale. And again, when we compare the Berlin “Weissbier,” which contains 1.9 per cent. of alcohol, with the lowest Liverpool beer, which Mr. Tate found to contain only 2.2 per cent., and consider that whilst the Prussian artisan may imbibe his beverage all day long from quart tankards with impunity, an English labourer will succumb to a few glasses of the public-house trash ; what other inference can be drawn than that it is not the beer but the drugs it contains which affect the brain? I have been told that English labourers will not take kindly to German beer; it is not strong enough for them. This is quite true of the present generation ; how should it be otherwise, when their taste has been corrupted by cocculus indicus, tobacco, and salt? But unless the advocates of temperance strenuously support the introduction of mild, pure, cheap drink (for the Englishman not alone buys bad beer, but pays three or four, aye some cases five or six times as much for it as the German does for his unadulterated beverage), unless, I say, vigorous effort is made to change the taste of the next generation as it grows up, the same difficulty will still remain to be overcome by posterity.
*** For this test I am indebted, through the kindness of Dr. Frankland, to Mr. W. Valentin, of the Royal College of Chemistry. ”
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

My big question is this: is that ABW or ABV? From the Continental beers I’d guess ABW. But I have Barclay Perkins brewing records from the late 1860’s and they show their Porter as being around 5.4% ABV. What the author forgets to mention is that the Weissbier drinker of Berlin may well have been knocking back spirits along with his beer.

But the main point is certainly true: British beer was on average a good bit stronger than that brewed elsewhere.

The author’s answer to Britain’s drunkenness? Drink Mild! (Sort of.)

“Couple this experience with the fact that the Germans drink certainly as much, if not more beer than we do, and are sober, whilst we are, perhaps, the most drunken nation on the earth, and I conceive no one will dispute the proposition so often advanced by me, that claret and light Continental wines are slowly reforming our middle classes, so will it be necessary to introduce mild, pure beer as staple drink, in order to attain the same end amongst the labouring population. Until that is done, I am convinced that not all the efforts of temperance advocates (whose self-denial every one must admire and respect), neither lectures, tea-meetings, denunciation, nor repressive legislation, will avail anything beyond saving here and there a drowning wretch from the flood poisoned liquor with which our large towns are deluged ; but such change as I have suggested being accomplished, I believe that, with the spread of education, and the introduction of more rational amusements than those now offered to the humbler classes, repressive legislation will be no longer needed ; the ranks of our criminals, paupers, and lunatics will be thinned, and is to be hoped the foulest blot will in time be removed from our national escutcheon.”
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

Rational amusements. What would they be? Footie? Criminals, paupers, and lunatics – which of those groups is the most aspirational, do you think? I’d go for criminal, I reckon. Lunacy and poverty don’t look that attractive.

And with that we’re finally done. Now there’s a relief.