Let's Brew Wednesday - 1966 Boddington Best Mild

Now here’s a big change: another Mild has appeared. Which is slightly odd. My guess would be that it happened in the middle of the 1950s.

The recipe is near identical to XX. There’s just a little more pale malt, a little less caramel and no black malt in Best Mild. Unsurprisingly, it’s a paler beer.

I can remember Boddington Mild not really being dark, but half dark. Though, compared to their pale Bitter, it did appear dark. Now I can see what’s happened. They brewed a Dark Mild then when they introduced a Best Mild made it pale. Which was usually the way it worked: Ordinary Mild dark, Best Mild pale. Then at some point, probably in the 1970s, Boddington dropped their Ordinary Mild. 

1966 Boddington Best Mild
pale malt	5.25 lb	71.33%
crystal malt 80 L	0.75 lb	10.19%
enzymic malt	0.25 lb	3.40%
malt extract	0.33 lb	4.48%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	10.19%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.03 lb	0.41%
Fuggles 120 min	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 min	0.75 oz
OG	1033.5
FG	1003.5
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	89.55%
IBU	22
SRM	13
Mash at	147º F
Sparge at	162º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

The above is an excerpt from my overly detailed look at post-war UK brewing, Austerity!

https://www.lulu.com/shop/ronald-pattinson/austerity/paperback/product-1mkrq4zg.html

Boddington grists in 1971

We're back with Boddington beers in the early 1970s. And what were these beers conjured up from? Well, let’s take a look.

Just the two base malts, pale and lager. The latter appearing in the two Pale Ales. Which were both very pale in colour. Pretty obvious what the reason for its use was. The most popular other malt was wheat. At least I think it might be malt. The brewing record isn’t really clear. I assume it’s there for head retention.

Enzymic malt? I’m not sure what the point was of that. But loads of brewers threw some into their mash tuns.

Crystal malt is in the three darker Ales, the two Milds and the Strong Ale. For body and some colour, I would guess. Note that there’s none in either of the Pale Ales.

With its use of brown and chocolate malt, the Stout is reminiscent of those of Whitbread. An odd coincidence, that. Given what happened later. 

Boddington grists in 1971
Beer	Style	pale malt	brown malt	choc. Malt	crystal malt	lager malt	wheat malt	enzymic malt
XX	Mild	64.59%			13.60%		3.40%	2.55%
BM	Mild	65.24%			13.73%		3.43%	2.58%
Light Ale	Pale Ale	61.13%				16.09%	3.22%	3.22%
IP	IPA	63.48%				15.11%	3.02%	3.02%
SA	Strong Ale	68.57%			14.44%		3.61%	2.71%
WSS	Stout	65.96%	7.61%	7.61%
Source:
Boddington brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/134.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1940 Boddington CC

There’s only been a little shaved off the strength of Boddington’s Strong Ale, CC, since the outbreak of war.

Don’t ask me what CC stands for. Or means. Absolutely no fucking idea. None. But dead cool to find a recipe for a Manchester-style Strong Ale.

There’s only been a minimal reduction in the gravity – 1.5º. But this was brewed very early in the year, on 4th January. Having said that, as late as October the gravity remained 1055º

Just as with XX, the flaked maize has been replaced by flaked rice. Though, in contrast to the Mild, the proportion of adjunct has been significantly reduced, roughly halved. The slack being taken up by the base pale malt. There’s also been a significant reduction in the sugar content.

Most, though not quite all, of the hops were English from the 1939 crop. The dry hops were a combination of more English from 1939 and Styrian from 1938. The latter having been kept in a cold store.

1940 Boddington CC
pale malt	8.50 lb	69.19%
crystal malt 60 L	1.50 lb	12.21%
flaked rice	1.50 lb	12.21%
malt extract	0.33 lb	2.69%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.33 lb	2.69%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.125 lb	1.02%
Cluster 170 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 170 mins	3.50 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	4.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1055
FG	1014
ABV	5.42
Apparent attenuation	74.55%
IBU	97
SRM	18
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	162º F
Boil time	170 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

This recipe is from my recently-released Blitzkrieg!, the definitive book on brewing during WW II.

Get your copy now!

The second volume contains the recipes. But not just that. There are also overviews of some of the breweries covered, showing their beers at the start and the end of the conflict.

Buy one now and be the envy of your friends!

 

 

Let's Brew - 1941 Lees Bitter

If you like WW II recipes you're going to be in for a treat over the coming weeks. As I've got my book, Blitzkrieg!, on the topic to push. Come on you bastards. I deserve some reward for the five years of work I put into it.

Just like with Mild, there had been a gravity reduction in Lees Bitter. Though compared to post-war standards, it’s still a decently strong beer.

Again, there haven’t been any changes to the elements of the grist, but the relative proportions have shifted. There’s been an even bigger reduction in the percentage of sugar, from around 15% to 5%. Surely simply because sugar was being diverted for other food uses.

The hops were all relatively fresh, from the 1939 and 1940 harvests. All were English, obviously. 

1941 Lees Bitter
pale malt	9.25 lb	95.21%
black malt	0.01 lb	0.10%
glucose	0.13 lb	1.29%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.33 lb	3.40%
Fuggles 90 mins	1.25 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1043
FG	1009
ABV	4.50
Apparent attenuation	79.07%
IBU	29
SRM	5
Mash at	149º F
After underlet	151º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

This recipe is one of 553 in my recently-released BlitzKrieg!, the definitive book on brewing during WW II.

Get your copy now!

The second volume contains the recipes. But not just that. There are also overviews of some of the breweries covered, showing their beers at the start and the end of the conflict.

Buy one now and be the envy of your friends!

 

Northwestern Bitter in 1971

Where next with Bitter? I know - let's stay in the North. Just flipping over the Pennines to the Northwest.

When I started my, still unfinished, drinking career back in the 1970s, Manchester was renowned for its cheap beer. Something which might have been related to the survival of many regional and small breweries.

So let's start with the prices. Which average out to 12.4p per pint. Exactly the same in the Northeast. Which sounds pretty good. Except that the average OG is 1.6º lower. Though a higher degree of attenuation leaves the average ABV only a little lower.

Which segues nicely into a look at value for money. From what we've already learnt, it should be expected that in terms of OG, this set scores worse than the Northeast. And that in terms of ABV, it's roughly similar.

Once again, the Carlisle State Brewery is the cheapest pint and the best value at 10.5p for a beer of 1036º. You just can't beat nationalised breweries for price. I like that both the cask and keg version of the beer are included. It demonstrates just what bad value most keg beers were. 2p more per pint in this case. For a beer which probably tasted worse. Though it's still better value than three of the other beers in the  set.

Crappiest value is another keg beer, Greenall's Festival Keg. Again, the cask version is also in the table. This time a full 4p per pint more expensive. One of the reasons I was never tempted by keg beers as a youngster was the terrible value they represented.

Not that many in this bunch that I drank. Threlfalls and Duttons were still brewing when I started drinking. But I completely ignored them as they produced no cask beer. In common with all Whitbread's northern breweries, other than Castle Eden. Note that the two versions of Trophy are clearly different beers.

I drank Wilsons and Greenalls. Not sure if I had their Bitters, as I mostly stuck to Mild. The same is true of Tetley Walker. Drank in their pubs a few times, but almost certainly only drank the Mild. Boddies Bitter I definitely tried. As you can see a very dry and surprisingly strong beer, given its modest gravity. 

Northwestern Bitter in 1971
Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (p)	º gravity per p	% ABV per p	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
Whitbread (Duttons)	Trophy	12	2.92	0.28	1035.1	1009	3.38	74.36%
Whitbread (Threllfalls)	Trophy	13	2.58	0.28	1033.6	1005.8	3.62	82.89%
Carlisle State Brewery	Bitter	10.5	3.46	0.35	1036.3	1008.2	3.65	77.41%
Carlisle State Brewery	Keg Bitter	12.5	2.93	0.27	1036.6	1010.2	3.42	72.13%
Wilson	Bitter	12.5	2.86	0.29	1035.8	1007.5	3.68	79.05%
Tetley Walker	Bitter	12.5	2.86	0.29	1035.8	1007.5	3.68	79.05%
Greenall Whitley	Bitter	11.5	3.13	0.33	1036	1007	3.77	80.56%
Greenall Whitley	Festival Keg	15.5	2.37	0.24	1036.8	1007.6	3.79	79.35%
Boddington	Bitter	12	2.99	0.33	1035.9	1005.1	4.01	85.79%
Average		12.4	2.90	0.30	1035.8	1007.5	3.67	78.95%
Source:
Sunday Mirror - Sunday 21 March 1971, page 25.

Watering beer in 1959 (part six)

I should be in Pohang when you read this. Hopefully, with a beer in my hand and some spicy food in front of me.

We're almost all the way through these prosecutions. And here we are with a fresh excuse.

“NO PROOF"
WRIGHT MOSS, of the Artillery Arms, Lower Chatham-street, Manchester, pleaded not guilty, and his counsel, Mr G Spafford, submitted that the prosecution had not shown that the sample from the premses and the sample from the brewery were taken from the same brew.

Moss was fined £15 with five guineas costs.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 32.

It wasn't from the same brew. That probably didn't fly for a simple reason: breweries produced beers to the same gravity every time. They didn't just swap around the gravity for no reason.

The excuse given in the final case is even weirder.

JOSEPH DETHICK, of the Black Mare Inn, Cannel-street, Ancoats, who pleaded guilty, was said to have had samples taken in November and March, and on each occasion the dilution was 4.4 per cent.

He told the Stipendiary that because of the hot weather and the little demand for bitter it quickly became cloudy and to “refine" it, he had introduced some lemonade.

The Stipendiary: But when your customers ask for beer you must not give beer and lemonade.

Dethick pointed out the premises were in a clearance area and were losing £5 per week.

He was fined £1 on the first summons and £5 on the second.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 32.

How on earth would lemonade fine cloudy beer? Only if it was mixed with finings. But in that case, why not just dissolve the finings in beer? And wouldn't lemonade alter the flavour? Though, admittedly, the degree of watering was quite small. Which may explain why the fines were so much smaller than for the other cases. Also Dethick talks about "hot weather". But the samples were taken in March and November. Not exactly months where you expect tropical weather in Manchester.

It's interesting that this pub was in a clearance area, presumably meaning that most of the surrounding houses had been demolished. Which wouldn't have been great for trade.

Northwestern Bitters in 1978

We're flipping over to the other side of the Pennines for a look at Bitters in the Northwest. Which I define as everything West of the Pennines from Cheshire to Scotland. Arbitrary, but simple. Oh, and a bit of North Wales, as I had just the one entry from Wales.

I didn't say much about the Daily Mirror scores last time. The last set averaged 9.1 out of 12. Not too bad, given that a 9 qualifies as "good". This is their scale:

The highest mark given is 12—for perfection; 11— excellent; 10 —very good; 9—good; 8—pretty good: 7—acceptable; 6—fair; 5— poor; 4—very poor; 3—bad; 2—very bad; 1—appalling; 0—undrinkable.
Sunday Mirror - Sunday 17 September 1978, page 22. 

The Northeast average was brought down by quite a few beers scoring an 8 and one, Newcastle Amber, just a 6. While this set has an average score of 9.3, with four 8s the lowest scores. Oddly enough, those two were from well-respected brewers Hydes and Lees. I'm amazed that Wilsons, which I never cared for, scored higher.

Most of the other numbers are pretty similar. The average price is 0.4p per pint cheaper. That's not surprising, as Manchester was known for its cheap beer. Average OG, ABV and attenuation are all a fraction higher, but not by much.

Best vale were Higsons and Oldham, who both sold their 4% plus Bitters for just 26p.

One last point: note how few of the beers have names. Most are simply called Bitter or Best Bitter. How easy that made life. No need to enquire what the hell type of beer "Reflective View" is. 

Fascinating to see Pollard included. Which was one of the earliest new breweries founded in the wake of CAMRA. The Theakston brewery in Carlisle was the old state brewery.

Northwestern Bitters in 1978
Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (p)	º gravity per p	% ABV per p	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	Flavour
Mitchells	Extra Special Draught Bitter				1045	1009.5	4.62	78.89%	10	Good, strong taste, full bodied.
Robinson	Best Bitter				1042	1009	4.29	78.57%	10	Excellent all-rounder.
Greenall Whitley (Wem)	Festival				1040.2	1006.05	4.45	84.95%	9	Clean bright keg. Pleasant.
Hartleys	Bitter	30	1.30	0.12	1039.1	1010.2	3.75	73.91%	10	Real nutty flavour. Excellent.
Higsons	Bitter	26	1.49	0.17	1038.7	1005.7	4.30	85.27%	9	Lovely, distinct bitter flavour.
Oldham Brewery	O.B. Bitter	26	1.45	0.15	1037.7	1006.9	4.01	81.70%	11	Superb creamy beer. Beautiful and rich.
Wilsons	Great Northern Bitter	29	1.30	0.13	1037.6	1007.7	3.89	79.52%	9	A delight from the wood as per this sample.
Theakston (Carlisle)	Best Bitter	32	1.17	0.12	1037.5	1007.6	3.89	79.73%	10	Nice fruity flavour.
Hydes	Best Bitter	27	1.37	0.14	1037.1	1008.2	3.75	77.90%	8	Sharp, tangy taste.
Greenall Whitley	Bitter	27	1.36	0.14	1036.8	1007.4	3.82	79.89%	10	Good head. Good taste. Nice.
Lees	Lees Bitter	28	1.31	0.16	1036.7	1003.15	4.38	91.42%	8	A qood malty flavour.
Boddington	Bitter	31	1.15	0.11	1035.7	1008.3	3.56	76.75%	8	A real “bitter" drinker’s tipple.
Pollard	John Barleycorn	30	1.19	0.13	1035.6	1006.1	3.84	82.87%	8	A new boy. Malty. Promising.
Matthew Brown	Best Bitter	28	1.25	0.13	1035.1	1006.7	3.69	80.91%	9	Nice, malty, meaty beer.
Jennings	Bitter	28	1.25	0.13	1035	1007.4	3.58	78.86%	11	Creamy, lovely ale.
Yates & Kackson	Bitter	29	1.20	0.13	1034.7	1006.2	3.71	82.13%	10	Good taste. Dry and hoppy.
Burtonwood	Bitter	29	1.20	0.13	1034.7	1005.2	3.84	85.01%	10	Excellent creamy drink.
Thwaites	Mature Bitter	29	1.20	0.12	1034.7	1007.1	3.58	79.54%	9	Hoppy, full bodied flavour
Border	Best Bitter	30	1.14	0.11	1034.1	1008.7	3.29	74.49%	9	Good flavoured creamy topped beer.
Average		28.7	1.27	0.13	1037.3	1007.2	3.91	80.65%	9.3
Source:
Sunday Mirror - Sunday 17 September 1978, pages 22 - 23.

 

Watering beer in 1959 (part five)

While I'm swanning around in South Korea, you're going to have to make do with more watery tales. Do you realise how much effort it is posting every day? Yes, I know. It's my own stupid fault for insisting om doing it.

You'll notice some recurring themes in the excuses preoferred by landlords. This combines two: I was ill, there were workmen around.

"I DON'T KNOW"
JOSEPH DAINTY, of the Egerton Arms, Oldham, was fined £15 after admitting that on November 27 beer was diluted to the extent of 6.6 per cent.

In a letter Dainty said he was ill in bed at the time and workmen were on tne premises. He was unable to explain how the dilution occurred.

After admitting a dilution of beer to the extent of 13.6 per cent on November 26. William Hodgkinson, was also fined £15.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, pages 21 and 32.

At least the beer wasn't too crazily diluted in this case.

The next chap also came up with two favourites: cleaning the pumps and workemen.

WILLIAM HODGKINSON, of the White Swan, Manchester Road. Hollinwood, wrote saying water might have got into the barrels while he was cleaning the pumps.

 n the case of JOHN EVANS, of the Corporation Inn, Tipping-Street, Ardwick, where the Customs alleged a dilution of 8 per cent. Mr. L Owens, defending said Evans had been landlord at the house for 10 years.

It was a “local” house and he was dependent on local people day after day, but there had never been any complaint against him or the quality of drink.

The Stipendiary said it was surprising customers had not complained.

Mr. Owens said that during the fortnight before the sample alterations were taking piace and the cellars were wide open to the public.

The Stipendiary pointed out that workmen could get water into the cellar, but they could not get beer out. Evans, still the tenant of the house, was fined £15.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 32.

Having the cellars wide open to the public seems weird to me. There would have been crates of beer stored there. If the cellar was open anyone could have wandered in and nicked some. This is far more likely than workmen randomly adding water to a cask.

And he finishes off with the classic, well, no-one complained so it must have been OK. 

Given that everyone was fined £15, no matter what the extent of dilution, you may as well have watered like crazy and squeezed out the maximum profit.

Watering beer in 1959 (part four)

More watery tales from Manchester. 

One thing that surprises me about these cases is how long they took to get to court. The samples were acquired in November 1958, but were only tried in October 1959. Very nearly a year's delay. I wonder why that was?

A couple of publicans came up with this excuse.

HILDA BOWMAN, of the Stag’s Head Hotel, Oldham, gave evidence in her case.

Mr. Hill said a sample of beer taken at Mrs. Bowman’s premises showed a dilution of 9.2 per cent.

She went into the witness-box and said that in her opinion, the dilution had come about during the pump-cleaning process, water having accidentally returned to the barrel. She was fined £15.

A similar explanation for the dilution was given in a letter from Jackson. The prosecution alleged the dilution 15.6 per cent. He was fined £15.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 21.

More than three gallons of water had made its way into the cask. How on earth could that much water get back into the barrel "accidentally"? In fact, I don't understand how water could make its way from the beer engine down through the pipe and into a cask. I could imagine water could be left ion the line after cleaning, but not get into a barrel in the cellar.

In the second case there an even larger amount of water: something 5.5 gallons. Totally preposterous that so much water could have slipped in during cleaning.

The next case was even more egregious.

'NO INTERFERENCE’
There were two summonses against Weaver. The first alleged that the dilution of one sample was 17.5 per cent, the second a dilution of 26.9 per cent.

Fining Weaver £15 in each case — a total of £30 — the magistrate said he had written to say he had not interfered with the beer and had no knowledge of anyone doing so.

Weaver added that he had left the trade.

Mr. Turner said: "Having regard to the enormous quantity of added water in this particular case he could not help feeling there had been some lack of supervision on the part of the licensee, although he may not have been responsible for me adulteration.”
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 21.

I make that 6.3 and 10 gallons of water added. So much, that surely it must have been noticeable? If only because no-one would be getting pissed. Some of these landlords really were taking the piss.

Watering beer in 1959 (part three)

From the same court session there were multiple prosecutions for watering.

The next landlord admitted that dilution had taken place. Though, of course, he has no idea how it had occurred.

JOSEPH STARKEY, of the Royal Brew Vaults Charles-street, Manchester. admitted the offence.

Mr. Hill said when a sample was taken at the Royal Brew Vaults, Charles-street. Manchester, on November 21 it was found that the gravity was 31.2 per cent. It was 34.3 per cent when sent from the brewery.

It meant the beer was dilated to the extent of 2.1 gallons every 36-gallon barrel showing a dilution of 5.8 per cent.

Mr. J. S. Oakes, defending, said Starkey was the tenant and was dependent upon the profits.

“WIFE ILL"
If he had actively diluted the beer his profits would ultimately have gone down because the house would get the reputation of having “horrible beer.”

Mr. Oakes said Starkey was at the house for three years and left because his wife was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

It was not suggested this had a direct bearing on the reason for the dilution, but being so preoccupied with his wife’s illness Starkey’s supervision might not have been the same.

Mr. Oakes said Starkey had four assistants who had direct access. If an assistant added two gallons of water to the beer the cost of the extra pints could go into their pockets without anyone realising.

ANY WAY?
The magistrate: Is there any way water can get into the beer without a deliberate attempt?

Mr Oakes: It nas been kept a very great secret if there is.

Starkey, he said, was now a waiter at the Royal George, Knutsford.

Starkey was fined £15.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 21.

Perhaps the reason he pleaded guilty was that he was no longer a landlord and wasn't so worried about damaging his reputation. As for being known for “horrible beer”, given that watering seems to have been rife, his beer was more likely to have stood out if it hadn't been diluted.

It looks as if this was the same brewery and the same beer as in the other case, because the real gravity, 1034.3º, is the same. Again, I calculate the quantity of water to be higher - 3.25 gallons, slightly more than in the first case. Which would mean at extra £1.56 per barrel. I make the dilution 9.04%, not the 5.8% quoted.

The only way this could have worked would have been if Mr. Starkey's "assistant" had watered the beer and then taken the equivalent amount of money out of the till. Quite complicated, but not impossible.

Obviously, there was no way water could "accidentally" get into a cask. Though there were landlords who claimed this. As we'll see next time.

Watering beer in 1959 (part two)

We're going to start looking at the individual culprits in this large watering case. It seems it wasn't just Customs officials who had identified the wrongdoers.

Mr W S Hill, prosecuting for the Customs and Excise, told the magistrate (Mr F. Bancroft Turner): “The brewers are Particularly concerned by these proceedings. There are four breweries.

“They are concerned as a result of the investigations which were conducted during ten days in November of last year.”

Mr. Hill said since the investigations the breweries had tightened up their systems.

"A considerable number of cases apart from these to-day will come before this court either as a result of offences alleged to have been discovered by breweries themselves or by Customs officers." he added.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 1.

It makes sense that brewers wouldn't be keen on their landlords watering their beer. Their reputation was likely to be damaged to no profit of their own. It's a shame that the article didn't name the breweries involved.

Let's get on with the first case.

JOHN LINDLEY, of the Wagon and Horses Hotel, Sale was summoned for an offence at the Gorton Brook Hotel, Gorton.

He was defended by Mr Kenneth Burke.

“GRAVITY DOWN”
Mr. Hill said that Mr. Ward, a Customs officer, took a sample of beer at Lindley's premises. It was found to have an original gravity of 31.3 degrees.

A sample from the brewer showed an original gravity of 34.3. Of 36 gallons in a barre! it was established that there had been a dilution of 2.3 gallons.

Mr Hill said that It was an absolute offence on the part of any licensee to have possession of diluted beer, although he might not be personally responsible for the dilution and if it had been done by someone else.

"In this particular type of case there is no fraud on the revenue, but on the public because the brewer pays the duty before the beer leaves his premises." said Mr Hill.

In this case the dilution represented 20 pints. "This means that a publican puts in his pocket money represented by 20 pints." said Mr Hill.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, pages 1 and 21.

Not sure how they came to that figure of 2.3 gallons or 20 pints. By my calculations, you'd need to add 3.1 gallons to reduce the gravity from 1034.3º to 1031.3º. Which is close on 25 pints. With a pint averaging 6p in 1959*, that's £1.50 extra per barrel that the landlord was pocketing.

To modern ears, that might not sound like a lot of money. But remember that's per barrel. For a pub getting through ten barrels a week, that would add up to £750 over a year. Enough to buy a terraced house. Remember these numbers when we get to Mr. Lindley's fine.

So what was his defence? Another boy did it.

SOMEONE ELSE?
Mr. Kenneth Burke (defending) said: ‘Not necessarily the pubiican, but someone eise." Mr Hill said he agreed with that and he would qualify his remarks.

The magistrate asked: “Is there any possibility of this dilution taking place before it gets to the public houses?”

Mr. Hill said the beer was put in casks at the original gravity and then delivered to licensed premises. "We have evidence in every case that the beer was not tampered with before being delivered to licensed premises.”

Mr Hill said the total dilution in Lindley's case was 6.3.

Mr. Burke, defending, said Lindley had been a licensee for 3.5 years. He had been licensee of three premises under the same brewery and. said Mr. Burke, it was uncommon in such a case for the Licensee to lay the blame elsewhere.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 21.

In the days of tied houses, supply lines were very short. The brewery loaded the beer onto its own drays and delivered it directly to the pub. The only people who could have diluted the beer on its journey were the draymen. Who were usually too drunk to perform any such complicated act.

Do who could the phantom waterer have been?

“HE WAS ILL"
The excise officer visited the premises an November 20. Lindley was confined to bed from November 8 until November 29 suffering from pleurisy and pneumonia and he had doctor's notes which said he was incapable of work.

Mr. Burke said: “During that Period he was not personally responsible for the stocks of beer."

Lindley had employed a man in his bar during that time and he believed the man did something to the beer.

Mr Burke added: "The breweries are particularly concerned with their duties to the public and their own business interests and when a man commits such an offence he is in danger of losing his livelihood and home."

“WATER"
Mr. Burke added: “Lindley had no control over what was taking place.” Asked by the magistrate when the tested barrel came into operation. Lindley said it was on Nov. 17.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, pages 1 and 21.

OK, Mr. Lindley was ill and an unnamed man had fiddled with his beer.

Just because Mr. Lindley was ill in bed doesn't mean that he didn't request his substitute to water the beer in the usual way. If he hadn't, it was likely the customers would notice the beer was different and wonder what Mr. Lindley had been up to. All this was irrelevant, as merely having diluted beer in his possession was an offence, whether he or someone else had watered it.

Let's see what the magistrate decided.

Mr Burke — This is a serious matter for Lindley.

Magistrate — It is a serious matter all round. It means 1-14th of a glass is unnecessary water.

Answering the magistrate. Mr. Burke said the licensee could not check the gravity of his beer because he did not know the gravity when it left the brewery.

The stipendiary magistrate said: “It is difficult to know what penalty to impose because the licensee does guarantee the quality of wares and the reputation of the brewery is entirely in his hands, and so is the public.

FIXED £15
“There is no suggestion that the licensee was in any way personally responsible for the adulteration: in fact everything points the other way.”

Lindley was fined £15 and ordered to pay £5 5s costs.
Manchester Evening News - Friday 23 October 1959, page 21.

Despite the magistrate being convinced Mr. Lindley wasn't directly responsible, he was still fined. Fair enough, as he had committed an offence. Whether he was aware of the watering or not.

I said to pay attention to the fine. Just £15 and £5 5s costs. As we saw earlier, the level of dilution quoted a pub shifting ten barrels a week would have earned that in less than a fortnight. A fine at that level was hardly much of a disincentive to watering. Which is probably why the practice was so widespread.



* Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2003, p. 44.