Busted for sugar possession

The Excise rules were very strict regarding all sorts of substances, but especially sugar. I wonder if it's still illegal to have sugar in a pub cellar?

The reason for the prohibition is simple: if you were watering beer, by adding sugar you could get the gravity back to the right level. Should the weights and measures people pay a call and sample the beer, the fraud might go undetected.

That's what I assume was going on here:

"THE MANUFACTURE OF LONDON PORTER.
Before a full bench magistrates in Dundee, John Blair, retailer of beer, Scouringburn, was charged with having in his possession 8.5 gallons of emgas in solution, the same being a preparation used as a substitute for malt, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £200. Among the witnesses examined was Henry Burge, an analyst from Somerset House, who had analysed the substance in dispute, and found that it was a chemical composition, identical with a superior kind of molasses, admtted that it would be a very suitable substance for mixing with porter shortly before tapping the casks, or shortly before bottling. It would give it a "nice brisk head and a brilliant appearance." This sugar was extensively used among dealers in London for giving a head and brilliancy to their porter. The use of it was not permitted by the Excise, and during the last two years something like 500 prosecutions had taken place in London for using sugar and water for that purpose. If the preparation had been put into a cask which had previously contained porter, and where there was a little dry yeast, that would be sufficient to start fermentation. The Court found Blair guilty of having a solution of sugar in his possession as a substitute for malt, and imposed the modified penalty of £20, or one month's imprisonment. Notice of appeal was given."
Shields Daily Gazette - Wednesday 25 July 1883, page 3.

It sounds like he was lucky to get away with just a £20 fine. Which was still a hefty amount. But £200 would have been a couple of year's wages.

The Edinburgh United Breweries Fraud Trial

I told you we'd learn what happened to the managing director and head brewer of Edinburgh United Breweries in court.

It was quite a big case, as you can see from the number of prosecution witnesses called:

"£31,000 TAX ALLEGATIONS.
71 WITNESSES TO BE CALLED FOR PROSECUTION.
It was intimated at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to-day, when William Lawrie, director and secretary, and John Archibald Clark, head brewer in the employment Edinburgh United Breweries. Ltd.. Edinburgh, appeared, that their trial on a charge defrauding the Commissioners' Customs and Excise of sums amounting to £31,291 would take place in the High Court on March 5th.

There are 71 witnesses for the prosecution. "
Nottingham Evening Post - Saturday 23 February 1935, page 4.

And it lasted more than a week, before the inevitable guilty verdicts. There's a little more detail given as to exactly how the fraud was perpetrated:

"BEER DUTY EVASION,
TWO SCOTTISH BREWERY
OFFICIALS SENTENCED.
After a trial bating eight days William Lawrie, managing director and secretary of Edinburgh United Breweries, and John Archibald Clark, head brewer, were at Edinburgh yesterday found guilty of conspiring to defraud the Customs and Excise authorities.

Lawrie was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment and Clark to 12 months' imprisonment.

An appeal on behalf of Lawrie was lodged and he was liberated on bail.

The charge alleged that the company had evaded the payment of beer duty amounting to £2,291. It was stated that the methods adopted were the abstraction of worts before the Excise officers had taken measurements and the running of secret brews upon which no duty was paid.

The Lord Justice Clerk said that having regard to the magnitude of the sum involved and the period over which the fraud was carried on he had difficulty in refraining from passing sentence of penal servitude.

On the other hand the accused were both men who had good records. Grave as the frauds were, the money did not go directly into their pockets although they might have derived indirect benefit."
Financial Times, 15th March 1935, page 13.

I’m pleased that Lawrie got the longer sentence. As managing director, he was the one ultimately responsible for the fraud. Too right he got banged up for longer than the head brewer.

Good records? I suppose they did have good records, other than the little matter of 7 years of committing fraud. It's true they didn't receive any direct benefit from the fraud. Other than not losing their jobs when EUB went bust, as it well might have without the fraud. The company's inability to meet the Excise demand for the dodged duty shows its finances weren't too healthy.

The managing director, unlike the head brewer, refused to accept the guilty verdict and apealed. Unsurprisingly, without luck:

"BREWERY DIRECTOR'S APPEAL DISMISSED
The Scottish Court Criminal Appeal at Edinburgh yesterday, dismissed the appeal Wm. Lawrie, director and secretary of the Edinburgh United Breweries, Ltd., against his conviction sentence of 21 months imprisonment on a charge of being concerned with other employes of the company in a fraud the Inland Revenue whereby the company avoided payment beer duty amounting to £31,291. Lawrie had been tried along with John Archibald Clark, head brewer of the company, who was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment."
Western Daily Press - Friday 14 June 1935, page 8.

I wonder what happened to Lawrie and Clark when they were released? Did they ever work in the industry again? I'd love to find out.

Edinburgh United Brewery officials charged with fraud

Things weren't going well at Edinburgh United Breweries. First the Customs and Excise put the company into liquidation by demanding the dodged duty immediately. Then those at the centre of the fraud were charged.

There's been a lot in the papers recently about financial scandals, like the fixing of the Libor rate. Which seems to have amounted to fraud. But those in upper management - the ones ultimately responsible for their company's behaviour - always claim to have known nothing of what was going on, blaming their subordinates. Only those well down the food chain ever end up in court. It wasn't like that in the case of the EUB duty fraud.

"£47,000 FRAUD CHARGE Against Brewery Officials
A charge of fraud involving £47,000 was brought at Edinburgh on Saturday against William Lawrie, managing director of Edinburgh United Breweries; John Archibald Clark, head brewer; David Smith, assistant brewer; and Ernest Wiles, working brewer. The indictment alleged that accused, in concert and in pursuance of a common fraudulent purpose, pretended to Customs and Excise officials that the records kept in the brewery were true and complete records for the calculations of the duty payable; that they had systematically understated the quantities of materials, and secretly carried through brews and deliberately refrained from entering references to them in the records. The period of the alleged fraud extended from October, 1926, to December, 1933, in the case of Lawrie, Clark and Wiles, and from June, 1930, to December, 1933, in the case of Smith. Bail was fixed for Lawrie in £500, Clark in £200, and Smith and Wiles in £100 each."
Hull Daily Mail - Monday 21 May 1934, page 6.

At EUB, it wasn't only the brewing staff in the dock, but the top man, the managing director, as well. Not only was he charged, but the court insisted on him being charged:

"EDINBURGH BREWERS' ALLEGED FRAUD.
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND NEW INDICTMENT
Judgment was given yesterday by the High Court at Edinburgh on the various legal objections made on Tuesday to the Crown procedure in the charge against three brewers employed by the Edinburgh United Breweries.

These are John Archibald Clark, David Smith and Alexander Wiles, and they are accused or defrauding the Customs and Excise of duty amounting to £31,29l. The indictment alleged that the accused acted in concert with William Lawrie, managing director of the firm.

The Court, consisting of Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison, Lord Anderson and Lord Murray, unanimously decided that the case should not proceed to trial on the present indictment without a charge being brought against the managing director, or intimation on behalf of the Crown that it was not proposed to bring any such charge."
Financial Times, 1st January 1935, page 8.

Even more surprisingly, the charges against the junior brewing staff were dropped, leaving only the managing director and the head brewer to stand trial:

"BEER DUTY CASE.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TWO MEN DROPPED.
In connection with a charge in the High Court at Edinburgh of defrauding the Customs and Excise of £31,291 beer duty, it is understood that the Crown has intimated to two of the three accused men, David Smith, assistant brewer of the Edinburgh United Breweries Limited, and Ernest Wiles, working brewer, that no further proceedings are to be taken against them.

It is understood that the defendants' solicitor received an intimation to this effect from the law officers."
Nottingham Evening Post - Thursday 17 January 1935, page 8.

It seems very fair to me: punish those responsible for initiating the fraud, not just the poor workers carrying out instruction.

The observant amongst you may have noticed the amount of the fraud is declining: from the initial £51,901 to £47,000 and then £31,291. Was the initial figure just a wild arse guess? Or did they trim down the claim to make the prosecution easier?

Wondering what happened to the two accused? Patience, patience. We'll be getting to that in due course.

Edinburgh United Breweries in the doodoo

I've been gathering information about this for a while: the largest duty fraud of the 20th century. When Edinburgh United Breweries finally got caught after years of secret brewings and duty dodging. It all got rather messy.

Ever since 1926 there had been furtive nocturnal brewings that hadn't been registered in the official brewing books and of which the Excise was totally unaware. The point was to dodge paying the duty, which was already a considerable proportion of the cost of brewing beer.

The whole of the brewing staff had been in on the fiddle. It eventually came to light when a disgruntled sacked employee tipped off the Excise. Their retribution was swift and terrible. They demanded £51,000 in back duty be paid immediately. EUB didn't have that much cash, so the Excise started seizing their property. The net result was that EUB had to file for bankruptcy, not having sufficient assets to carry on the business.

"EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES.
COMPANY PETITIONS FOR WINDING UP.
UNEXPECTED DEMAND FOR £51,000 DUTY.

In the First Division of the Court of Session, Edinburgh, yesterday a petition was presented on behalf of the Edinburgh United Breweries for the compulsory winding-up of the company and the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

Mr. T. M. Cooper, K.C., who appeared for the petitioners with Mr. J. L. Clyde, said the circumstances were of exceptional urgency. The petition was an the instance of the company and the whole of the directors, and one of their number in his character as a creditor. The capital of the company was roughly £100,000; it was a public company with some 500 shareholders, and the shares were quoted on the principal Stock Exchanges.

A few weeks ago allegations were made by the Excise authorities that irregularities had occurred  in the  payment of duty on beer brewed at the brewery, and the company's books had been seized.

On Tuesday without previous warning, the Excise authorities presented to the company a demand for over £51,000 as duty, coupling their demand with a request for instant payment.

The company being unable to comply, the Excise authorities proceeded to distrain upon the company's goods, with the result that the company's activities had been paralysed. In that situation the company had had no opportunity and no time to investigate the validity or the quantum of the claim. The directors had come to the conclusion that immediate action should be taken for the protection of the interests on the one hand of the shareholders, and on the other hand of the other creditors of the company.


BOOKS TAKEN AWAY.
BOARD UNINFORMED.

It was alleged in the petition that the directors were unaware and prior to the allegation in January, 1934, had no knowledge of any irregularity affecting the payment or non-payment of duty. The books and records had been out of their possession from that date to this. If the £51,000 of duty were due so far as it was possible to say, the company was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of the Companies Acts.

Apart from that, their Lordships would appreciate that questions of importance might arise, but he was not in a position to say whether they would or not is to the preference to the Execise Authorities And the effect of the distress on the other creditors. The whole question had been thrown upon the company at a few hours' notice.

Lord Morison asked if the Excise had any special powers under their warrant.

Mr. Cooper read the section of the Revenue Act to the effect that the collector by warrant might empower any person to distrain.

Lord Sands: Is there any other section under which the Revenue is the sole judge?

Mr. Cooper Nor that I am aware of. The situation is this — that in pursuance of a claim the existence of the quantum of which has never been ascertained, the Excise authorities are at this moment engaged in liquidating a public company at their own hands.


CLAIM DATING BACK TO 1926.

Lord Blackburn; Does the claim run back for a period of years?

Mr, Cooper: Back to 1926. My motion is that your Lordships should pronounce the first order in the petition and simultaneously make the appointment of a provisional liquidator. I understand that the collector of Excise intimated that he was acting under instructions when he took this strong action yesterday. I think it would he desirable, that an independent person with the authority of the Court behind him should be in a position to possess himself of the assets, which at the present moment are being taken out of the brewery. Your Lordships have ample power and a duty to consider the interests of others than the Commissioners of Excise. There are other creditors and the shareholders. The alternative to the motion I am making just now would be the destruction of the company and possibly the seizure of the whole liquid assets.

The Lord President: We had better have the Lord Advocate here. I see I great difficulty in appointing a liquidator who cannot get the stocks and  who even cannot get access to the books.

Mr. Cooper: A good deal of mischief has been done. Seizures were made yesterday, and with such rigour that they have even extended to a car belonging to the wife of one of the directors.

Lord Sands: It might not be to their interests to sell this place as a break-up.


AUTHORITIES' POWERS.
COUNSEL'S SURPRISE.

Mr, Cooper: The extent of the powers possessed by the Excise authorities surprises me. Your Lordships will appreciate that if the Excise authorities have a preference for £51,000, then the liquidation would not affect that, and I do not think the Lord Advocate would he prejudiced by this appointment. I am anxious to avoid the inevitable and irretrievable loss. If someone in an independent position is not at once appointed it may be that an independent person could negotiate when the directors could not.

Lord Morison: Is it clear that the liquidator will supersede this officer who is in possession ?

Mr. Cooper: I do not know whether he would, but be certainly would be in a position to talk to the authorities in London. It does seem to me if nothing is done that the company will be irretrievably damaged.

The Lord President, alter consulting with the other Judges, said they would make an order giving intimation of the petition to the Lord Advocate, Either he or the Solicitor-General was in Edinburgh, and, in view of the exceptional character of the situation, it would be no more than reasonable if the Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General were to appear in that Court after lunch.

The Solicitor-General, who appeared after the internal, said that, according to his information, there had been fraudulent evasion of duty since 1926, and he was entitled to take any steps which the statute gave to enforce payment.

After counsel had given details of an arrangement suggested for carrying on the business, the Lord President inquired if that included handing back the books.

The Solicitor-General replied that he could give no undertaking, as the books were required for other proceedings.

Counsel for the company said he was there to defeat the Solicitor-General's attempt to secure an illegal preference over the other creditors.

The Solicitor-General denied that he was seeking such preference.

The Court ordered that the petition should he advertised, and appointed a provisional liquidator.

The Solicitor-General subsequently appeared before Lord Fleming and obtained an "ex parte" order for payment of duties amounting to £51,901.

Lard Fleming said he expressed no opinion as to whether the Crown was entitled to enforce the decree or what would be the effect if they did so."
Financial Times, 22nd February 1934, page 9.

There's a lot to digest there. But there's a technical point that's puzzling me. It's to do with gyle numbers.

As the dodgy brews weren't in the brewing books, they wouldn't have a proper gyle number. Usually the gyle number would be marked on the cask, so that if there were any problems, it could be traced back in the brewing records. I wonder which gyle number they put on the casks of the secret brews?

How many barrels had they brewed secretly? It's easy to work out a rough estimate. The Excise wanted £51,901 in unpaid duty. In 1926 to 1934 the rate of duty was 80/- or 114/- per standard barrel. Because beer was by then well under standard barrel strength, it averaged about 60/- per bulk barrel. So about three quid. Or approximately 17,300 barrels. The fraud went on for 8 years, which means they brewed about 2,000 barrels a year secretly.

Had the directors really known nothing about the dodgy goings on? Would they end up in the dock? We'll find out the answer to those and many other questions in future instalments.

A grand waste of time

Petty bureaucrats. Everyone loves them. This is a great example of paying way too much attention to tiny details.

"Charge Against an Ilkeston Brewer.—
At Ilkeston Petty Sessions yesterday, before the Mayor (Ald. F. Sudbury) and Mr. J. Orchard, Fredk. Lebeter, landlord of the Gladstone Inn, Ilkeston was summoned by Mr. Fox, supervisor of excise' for making a false entry in his brewing book od the 27th February, by stating that the quantity of sugar he intended using in the was 7 lb., when the quantity used was actually 11 lb.—-Mr. A. E. Hopkins was for the defence, and made an application for an adjournment, on the ground that he had not had sufficient time to secure the services of a public analyst on defendant's behalf. He had written to the Board of Inland Revenue asking them to consent to an adjournment, but they had declined to do so. The Bench decided to go on with the case. Mr. Hopkins then raised a technical objection to the Bench trying the case, contending that they had uo jurisdiction in such a case.—After a long legal argument, the Bench disallowed Mr. Hopkins's objection, informing him that he had his remedy in an appeal.—William Thomas Hay, an officer of Inland Revenue, said the book produced was delivered to defendant by witness last September. On the 28th February last he went to defendant's premises to gauge and take samples of the grains and of the sugar used. He also took samples of the malt the same morning, and in the evening he took samples of the worts collected. He identified the samples produced as those taken by him. He forwarded them to Somerset House the same evening.—Cross-examined : He had not previously taken samples from defendant's premises. He did not tell defendant he was going to take samples. He took the malt first, and took it home before he sealed it up. He told defendant what he was going to do with it. He went to defendant's at 12 o'clock, but found defendant had already mixed the sugar with the wort. He told him he should not keep more sugar in the house than he required for a brewing, unless he kept it in a separate room. Defendant fetched him a sample of the sugar. The addition of 4 lb. of sugar would defraud the Revenue of a fraction over 5d. He knew defendant's relative (George Knighton), who was also in the brewing trade, but he had not received quite such good results as defendant from tbe same quantity of malt and sugar.—James Cameron, analyst at the laboratory, Somerset House, said he had had 25 years' experience. He received the samples produced on the 3rd March, all securely sealed. Witness then gave the result of his analysis of the samples, which tended to show that more sugar had been used than the quantity stated.—This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr. Hopkins, for the defence, pointed out that defendant had produced similar results from subsequent brewings since the date ot the alleged offence, and it was unreasonable to suppose that he would go on repeating the offence, when he was fully aware that the authorities were paying special attention to him. Defendant was in the habit of sending for 7 lb. of sugar from a particular shop every week, and when the witness Hay wished for a sample of sugar defendant had to send his boy to the shop for a single pound, as he had none in the house.—George Lebeter, son of defendant, said his father sent him to the Star Tea Company for a pound of sugar on the 28th February. He brought the sugar, and his father gave it to Mr. Hay.—George D. Knighton said he was a brewer, and was brother-in law to defendant. Witness gave the result of his own brewings, showing that he had produced proportionate results to defendant. The Excise had taken samples from his brewing as often as twice in three weeks, and he had invited the excise officers to remain during the whole of tbe brewing.—Alfred White, manager to the Star Tea Company at Ilkeston, said he was in the habit of selling defendant sugar for brewing in quantities of 7 lb. If an odd pound was sent for it might be of a different quality to the 7 lb. Defendant in the first instance bought 1 cwt. of sugar at the latter end of last year.—The Bench, after consulting together, said there was so much doubt in the case that they had decided to dismiss the charge."
Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 30 May 1890, page 3.
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000321/18900530/029/0003

Let's get this straight. The defendant was accused of having used 11 lbs of sugar instaed of 7 lbs in a brew. "The addition of 4 lb. of sugar would defraud the Revenue of a fraction over 5d." That's about 2p in modern money. Or, to put better into context, a pint of beer cost 2d a pint in the 1890's. So Mr. Lebeter had (allegedly) cheated the revenue out of two and a hlf pints of beer. A real master criminal.

You have to wonder whether the excise man had it in for the brewinmg relatives Lebeter and Knighton. He seems to have put a great deal of effort into trying to catch them out. And he still didn't find any real proof. They just guessed for analysis of the wiort that he might have used more sugar. Given the tiny amount he's supposed to have used too much, it's quite possible that he just got a particularly good extract.

The whole circus of a trial must have cost considerably more than 5d. And the case was thrown out for lack of evidence. What a total waste of time and money.

Entrapment 19th century style

Time to return to Food and Sanitation. This time for a story of cruel entrapment

"DISGRACEFUL INLAND REVENUE DODGERY.

At the Handsworth Police-court, on February 9th, George Lester, a grocer and wine and spirit dealer, 75, Hamstead-road, was summoned at the instance of the Inland Revenue Authorities for selling one dozen bottles of ale on December 19th without having a licence. Mr. J. W. Clulow defended. Thomas Nisbett, an Excise officer, stated that on the date named he called at the defendant's shop, and after purchasing several articles of grocery which he asked to be sent to his house, he asked to be supplied with one dozen bottles of beer. The defendant replied that he

did not hold a beer licence, but to accommodate his customer he would buy the ale and send it with the groceries. Witness paid the bill which was made out, including the beer among the other items. Defendant subsequently had the groceries and beer delivered at Nisbett's house. The Bench were of opinion that a technical offence had been committed, and that a sale had taken place. Under the circumstances ithey were bound to convict, but they considered that the course taken to secure a conviction by Nisbett reflected no credit upon him, and little upon the Revenue Department. Mr. Lester had certainly been entrapped. For an Excise officer to go to the shop and, after being told by the defendant that he did not hold a beer licence, to insist upon him making a sale was not at aR honourable. The Bench imposed the merely nominal fine of 6d. and costs. Mr. Wright, the supervisor of Inland Revenue, wished to make some remarks with respect to the reflections cast upon the Revenue Department, but Mr. Clulow objected, and the magistrates declined to hear him.

We hope some Member of Parliament will raise this and recent other scandals in the House of Commons by necessary questions to the responsible minister. We confess we would rather see the Inland Revenue suppressing the sale of maddening potato or Indian corn spirit as whisky, or chemical "swipes" as beer, than laying such traps upon honest men's good nature, or bringing vexatious prosecutions like the following :

At Heywood, on February 14th, Mr. J. Birch, chemist, York street, was summoned for selling extract of malt and cod-liver oil, which it was alleged was liable to stamp duty. Mr. Squires, from Somerset House, prosecuted. The defendant was fined.

It would be more creditable to the Department were its chemists to learn snuff analysis, lard analysis, or butter analysis; and the responsible officials who advised Mr. Gladstone to abolish the malt tax that permitted the brewer to make his chemical "swipes" out of road sweepings if he likes, to retire, disgraced and degraded as they are, from injuring their country as public officials, than to put up jobs of this nature upon those who are taxed to support their ignorant existences."
"Food & sanitation, Volume 4", 1894, page 57.

I'm glad that the court sided with the defendent.

I wonder if excise men still get up to this sort of underhand trickery?

Free Mash Tun Act

A highly significant piece of legislation was adopted in 1880: the so-called Free Mash Tun Act. It introduced a new method of taxing beer and removed restrictions on ingredients.

The 1830 Beer Act had repealed all excise duty on beer. Instead, the raw materials needed to brew beer were taxed instead. In 1880 the malt and hop tax were replaced with excise duty on beer, based on the original gravity of the wort. This duty was payable at the end of the month.

As soon as the wort had run into the fermenting tun, it was checked by an Excise Officer to determine its volume and gravity. This was the basis on which beer duty was calculated. An allowance of 6% was made by the Excise for losses during fermentation. At the end of each month a calculation was made to convert the total amount of beer brewed into its equivalent in standard barrels. Should the yield have been fewer than 4 standard barrels per quarter, then the duty was levied on the materials used, rather than the number of standard barrels produced. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 528-529.)

For Excise purposes, a quarter of malt was deemed to be 336 pounds. The following amounts of other fermentables were considered by the Excise to be the equivalent of a quarter of malt:

cane sugar 224 lbs
glucose or invert sugar 256 lbs
flaked maize or rice 256 lbs
No. 1 syrup 272 lbs
No. 2 syrup 328 lbs
(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 529.)

Breweries were now able to use a whole range of adjuncts, such as maize, rice and unmalted barley. This was the final nail in the coffin for private brewers, whose last advantage over commercial brewers had been the ability to use whatever ingredients they chose. As duty was paid on the wort, there was a big financial; disincentive to age beer for long periods. The tax already having been paid, it meant huge amounts of capital were tied up in maturing beer. Fashion had already been moving away from the "aged" taste in beer (derived from the action of brettanomyces). The decline in production of vatted Stock Ales and Stouts was further accelerated by this change in the law.

Not all drinkers were so keen on brewers being given a free rein to use what they liked in their beer. In 1886 an organisation called The Pure Movement was Formed in Kent to campaign for restrictions on the ingredients used in brewing. Originally based in in the Southeast, the group expanded its activities to cover the whole of the country at the end of the year. "As a general principle, the average Briton believes in malt and hops as a sheet anchor of the Constitution, and a million scientific statements to the contrary would not convince him that good beer can be brewed in any but an orthodox way." (Source: DNW June 10th 1886.)

A Pure Beer Bill was introduced to parliament in 1886. It would have compelled wholesalers and retailers of beer that contained anything other than malted barley and hops to display a prominent sign saying what else was in it. Sounds fair enough to me, and way ahead of its time. Of course, it didn't pass and never became law. (Source: News of the World, May 23rd 1886.)

Beer production fell between 1900 and 1910, partly in response to a tax increase in 1901 to help fund the Boer War. It began to rise again from 1911 until the outbreak of WW I. Average gravity fell by about 2º between 1900 and 1914. That would turn out to be insignificant compared to the massive changes in beer strengths wrought by the two world wars.

The end of adulteration (but not watering)

Someone asked the other day about how long watering and adulteration continued to be practised. I think I've found the answer.

Increased control by local authorities had finally put an end to poisonous adulteration.

"Beer adulteration had also practically ceased to exist by 1880, except for innocuous dilution. Fables continued to circulate, particularly at temperance meetings, about the poisonous ingredients allegedly used by brewers - a speaker in 1883 made the unsupported statement that 245,000 cwt of 'chemicals' were annually used in British breweries, and a few years later a book purporting to be a serious study of drinks and drinking habits stated that bitternesss in beer was produced by strychnine, absinthe, and nux vomica, and intoxication by belladonna, opium, henbane, and picric acid. In fact, cocculus indicus was last reported in 1864 and grains of paradise in 1878, and only rarely after this were old adulterations such as 'heading', capsicum, and liquorice discovered by public analysts as isolated curiosities. Narcotics disappeared from beer with the vigilance of local habits: by the closing decades of the century people no longer wanted to be stupefied and had turned away from porter and 'hard beer' towards lighter, less alcoholic varieties. Dilution remained the outstanding problem, and a seemingly intractable one: as late as 1900 one in five samples was watered, and a great many of these salted in order to restore lost flavour and, no doubt, increase thirst."
"Plenty and want: a social history of food in England from 1815 to the present day" by John Burnett, 3rd edition, 1989, pages 234 - 235.

Though stopping the watering of beer was more problematic:

"In many areas the newly appointed Public Analysts began to examine random samples and prosecute offfenders: in 1873 the PA for North Staffordshire found twenty-six out of eighty-nine random samples of beer adulterated, six with poisonous cocculus indicus. When the Inland Revenue Act 1880 restored the duty on beer, the Excise Department became more active in testing for adulteration by publicans, and in effect a concordat developed by which the Excise concentrated on dilution and the Public Analysts on other additions. . . the proportion of samples reported by Public Analysts as adulterated was comparatively small - 9.3 per cent in 1877 but falling quickly to between 2 per cent and 5 per cent up to 1914, though with occasional high variations (1892 16.8 per cent, 1900 8.8 per cent). The results of the Excise test for added water were very different, however - 78 per cent in 1880, 29 per cent in 1890 and still 15 per cent at the end of the century: the persistent rumours in late Victorian England that the workers' beer was watered had real foundation."
"Liquid pleasures: a social history of drinks in modern Britain", by John Burnett, published by
Routledge, 1999, ISBN 0415131812, page 123.

There you have it. Adulteration with poisons was a thing of the past by 1880. Watering survived much longer. At the risk of offending any publicans reading this, does watering still go on? Or is British beer already watery enough?