Drunkenness in Russia

That got your attention. It is genuinely the headline of the article below. Though it would more accurately have read "No Drunkenness in Russia". Those clickbait headlines from a century ago.

It's really an overview of boozing restrictions in the middle of WW I.

"DRUNKENNESS IN RUSSIA
Is Punished With a Fine of £15.
Belligerents, Neutrals, and the Drink Problem.
(Special the Courier.)
The historian of the future whose concern with the great war is chiefly its contemporary social life will find some of its most wonderful phenomena centred round the drink problem. Practically all the belligerents and not few neutrals have been obliged deal directly with the subject. Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia, and Turkey have not, it is true, been called upon to restrict the consumption of alcoholic liquors, but the reasons are obvious.

Italy, like most wine-drinking countries, is essentially an abstemious nation. Only in the seaport towns, where mixed nationalities are congregated is drunkenness known. In his own country the typical Italian is too frugal to indulge in alcoholic excesses. The Turk is, theoretically, debarred from indulging in strong drink, but religion sits but 1 lightly on the ruling caste. They are essentially materialistic in outlook, and have acquired most of the Western vices. The average Turk, however, is a good Moslem, observant of the requirements of his religion, and strictly avoids the juice of the grape.

Serbs and Their Brandy.
The Serbian, travellers tell the truth, is somewhat fond of his national beverage, Slivovitsa. This is a brandy made from plums, and extremely potent in its action, but the wonderful constitution and open-air life of the Serb neutralises any possible effect it might have on his system. The countries which have dealt directly with the drink question are Great Britain, France, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. Great Britain's solution of the problem common property. Its success is doubtful, although, owing to the different habits of the southern portion of the island, it appears to have been slightly more successful there than in Scotland.

France has confined her attentions to dealing with absinthe, which even in the piping times of peace was more the drink of decadents than a beverage of the people. The French, bon vivants though they be, are not given to excesses, although readers of some of the realist school in French fiction might think otherwise.

Russia a Sober Nation.
In the search for drastic legislation restricting the consumption of alcohol must go to Russia. Now, there any matter on which one can dogmatise it is that the Russian peasant — and Russia is essentially a country of peasants — was a drunkard. His brother of the towns was little better. Yet now Russia, of all the belligerents, is perhaps the most sober nation.

No sooner did the order for mobilisation go forth in Russia than all wine shops, beer saloons, and Government "vodka" shops were closed, and the sale of all intoxicants absolutely prohibited, except in first-class restaurants and hotels. This order, with certain modifications, remains in force. In passing it is interesting to note that a bottle of whisky which could be procured in Dundee for somewhere in the neighbourhood of four shillings is costing in from twenty-five to thirty shillings. Like our own country, Russia is not exempt from evasions of the law. The next step of the Russian Government was to prohibit the sale of vodka and spirits until the end of the war. One month later, in October, 1914, local municipal and provincial administrative bodies were empowered topetition for prohibition of the sale of all strong intoxicants within the district in question, equivalent reductions of license duty being returned to license-holders. This power has been largely availed of by local authorities, but it is a mistake to assume, as is frequently done by temperance writers, that Russia is now a prohibitionist country. The consumption of light alcoholic drinks is permissible under severe restrictions. Beer and drinks of an equivalent strength are still procurable.

Heavy Fines.
The conspicuous feature about the Russian control of the licensed trade is the savage nature of its fines against the orders of the governing authorities. An intoxicated person is liable to a fine of, in British money, £15. The publican who supplies the liquor is liable to a fine of £450, and his conviction entails the loss of his license. That the new restrictions have resulted in a vast beneficial social upheaval all recent travellers to Russia, especially men such as John Foster Fraser, who knew the country intimately prior these changes, are agreed.

In Denmark there is absolute prohibition of the sale of spirits to soldiers in certain police districts. In more limited extent this prohibition is extended to civilians. The Government of the country has also prohibited the use of home-grown cereals for the distillation of spirits, but has sanctioned the importation of foreign corn and maize for the purppse. Apparently brewing beer in Denmark has not been greatly restricted since our trade returns continue to show fairly constant importations of Danish beer.

In Norway soon war broke out the use of grain and potatoes for distillation was forbidden, but in deference to the desires of farmers this restriction was withdrawn in September. 1914. The supply for distillation was reduced by one-half. Local veto very largely obtains in Norway, but in places where this was not in force the sale of whole bottles of spirits was permitted between 10 a.m. and noon for four days each week. Later a general sale of spirits was allowed on the four open days, and ultimately, except where there existed local veto, sales of spirits were allowed from 8 a.m. to midnight. It should be remembered, however, that the same time Norway raised her tariff on alcoholic liquor very considerably, although proportionately not so high as this country.

Sweden Suspends Sale.
Sweden, on the outbreak of war, required no new law to deal with the emergency. In common with other neutral nations in the belligerent zone she partially mobilised. Swedish law provides that in the event of mobilisation the provincial Governor in nearly every province except Stockholm has power to suspend the sale of spirits. This power was freely exercised. Sweden, too, had only six months before initiated the new "Stockholm system" for controlling the liquor trade. This system, which is merely a logical extension of the "Gothenburg system," has effected marvellous reforms in the brief period that has been in force, and promises to be fruitful of much reform in the future.

In Switzerland the preparation of distilled spirit from potatoes and cereals during the 1914-15 season was forbidden; the sale of potable spirit was forbidden, except for the preparation of medicines and for certain specially authorised uses. The use of methylated spirits as potable spirit was also prohibited. The Liquor Control Board in this country might take a leaf out of Switzerland in this respect.

Last (may she ever be there!) comes Germany. At first restrictions on drinking were imposed. Then the scarcity of raw material necessitated a limitation of the output of breweries and distilleries. Later it was made an offence to supply ardent spirits to soldiers, and in March, 1915 steps were taken to regulate the prices of alcoholic drinks. Characteristically in fixing the limitation of output and sale the Germans exempted certain breweries and distilleries. The ruling caste are largely interested in these, and, the Kaiser owns at least one brewery, whose wares he is reputed to be quite keen on pushing.

Strangely enough few questions have the power to raise passion as readily as the interference of the State with the drink traffic. The average citizen feels that Government interference in such matter is the rankest injustice. Surely it augurs well for the success of our just cause that Great Britain and her Allies have accepted in such good part the restrictions on their private habits which those in authority have found it necessary to impose."
Dundee Courier - Friday 21 January 1916, page 4.

What a wonderful cobination of racial stereotyping and temperance logic. Though you have to love the comparison of the price of a bottle of whisky in Dundee and St. Petersburg.  Good on the journalist for squeezing in the local angle.

I love this bit aboutthe effect of slivovice on Serbs: "the wonderful constitution and open-air life of the Serb neutralises any possible effect it might have on his system." Probably no coincidence that the Serbs were allies of the UK.

When was Brettanomyces discovererd?

Trawling through the Journal of the Institute of brewing, I stumbled upon a little article about Brettanomyces by R. B. Gilliland. It was a revelation.

I'd accepted that it was Claussen, working at the Carlsberg laboratory, who first discovered Brettanomyces in 1903.It turns out that's not the whole truth:

"Occurrence of Brettanomyces.—The earliest reference to Brettanomyces, or secondary yeasts, was in a patent for the use of these organisms for the preparation of English beers which was taken out by Claussen in 1903. In a paper to the Institute of Brewing in 1904, Claussen described the importance of Brettanomyces for secondary fermentation and the production of the characteristic flavour of English stock beers. Claussen did not give a detailed description of these organisms, which he included in the genus Torula. Shortly after this, Seyffert of the Kalinkin Brewery in St. Petersberg announced that he had isolated a "Torula" in 1889 from English beer which produced the typical "English" taste in lager beer, and which was similar in other respects to Claussen's Brettanomyces. In 1899 J. W. Tullo, in the Chemist's Laboratory, Arthur Guinness Son & Co. Ltd., Dublin, had already isolated two types of "secondary yeast" from Irish stout, and in an unpublished report described the characteristics of these yeasts and their importance in secondary fermentation. At this time the "secondary yeasts" were important constituents of the flora of all stock beers, and in particular of those beers, designed for the export trade, which under went long maturation in the brewery. These export beers depended indeed on the "secondary yeasts," not only for their characteristic flavour but also for the production of condition in bottle by means of their ability to ferment higher polysaccharides which the "primary yeast" could not ferment."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 67, Issue 3, May-June 1961, page 257.

Claussen may have been the first to publish about Brattanomyces, but he wasn't the first to find it.

On the face of it, a brewery in St. Petersberg seems an even more unlikely place to come across Brettanomyces than in Denmark. But, if you think about it, there is some sense to it. In the late 19th century, about the only beer being imported into Russia was strong Stout. Stuff that would have been aged and gained its distinctive flavour from a Brettanomyces secondary conditioning. Someone trying to replicate such a beer might well go looking for the secondary conditioing yeast.

As for Guinness, well, they're exactly the sort of brewery you would expect to have discovered Brattanomyces. In the 1890's Guinness still vatted a decent quantity of beer. Foreign Extra Stout was mostly a vatted beer, but a proportion of aged beer was also blended into Extra Stout and Porter. While in Britain this sort of long maturation was only used for the strongest beers, it was a vital part of all Guinness's products.

Why didn't Seyffert or Tullo publish? In the former case, it was most likely a commercial decision. If you'd cracked the way of turning any old Lager into aged Stout, you'd quite likely want to keep it to yourself. There was potentially lots of money to be earned from that knowledge. Perhaps there was the same consideration at Guinness.

That also might explain why Claussen did publish. Secondary conditioning wasn't really part of Carlsberg's business.

Oak and WW II

Britain's brewing industry ceased self-sufficiency long before the 20th century. I've already catalogued the dependence on imported hops and barley. But the raw materials for brewing weren't the only vital imports. Large quantities of oak were needed for barrels. And where did that come from?

Before I answer that question, I want to bang one of my favourite drums again. The one about whether British barrels were lined or not. It's a funny one, because finding definitive evidence has been remarkably difficult. If you think about it, it's not surprising that brewing texts make no mention of lining barrels. Why discuss something you don't do? The rare times the topic does crop up, it's in relation to continental practices. The evidence against lining is mostly indirect. Like how to treat new barrels to stop them adding a woody taste to the beer inside them. I've more such evidence below.

Britain's own native oak, while eminently suitable for barrels, had been used up long before WW II. If you've been paying attention to the discussion of the Burton brewers Baltic trade, you'll remember that it was often on a barter basis. In return for beer they took barrel staves. Memel oak it was usually called. Which, as the region in question has changed nationality a few times in the last couple of hundred years, is a more accurate designation than Poland or Russia. (I mentioned Memel to my son Andrew this morning while waiting for the bus. "That's the north of East Prussia isn't it?" Clever boy.)

In 1940, I can't imagine any oak was being shipped across the Baltic to Britain. It wasn't a new problem. The same difficulty arose during WW I. And during the Napoleonic Wars, in the period when Russia was allied with France.

American Oak.

One of the biggest problems facing brewers at the present time is that concerning cask timber. After Russian and Polish oak American oak is the material to which one's attention naturally turns in these times, and many brewers must be much concerned at the prospect of having to use a material so well known to communicate undesirable woody and other flavours to British ales, particularly those of pale ale type. English oak is stated to be devoid of these defects, but it is doubtful if sufficient of this material is likely to be available to alleviate the cask timber problem to any marked extent. It is to American oak, therefore, that one must look for relief, and the question immediately arises: How can this timber be treated in order to make it suitable for use with British top fermentation beers ?

It may as well be stated at once that there is no simple answer to this all-important question. The whole matter was gone into very thoroughly after the last war, and no very satisfactory conclusions were reached as to the cause and cure of the strong flavour communicated to beer by the use of casks of American oak. The problem turned out to be much more difficult and complex than was expected, so it is felt that a brief summary of the work carried out by Professors Groom and Schryoer may assist brewers to understand the nature of the problem.

The objectionable "woody" taint may be due to—

1. The use of the wrong species of oak ("American white oak" is a very broad term and many different species or types of oak may find inclusion in this collective name).

2. The felling of the right species of oak at the wrong season of the year.

3. The use of heartwood of an appropriate species which is either too old, or (what is more likely) too young.

The differences between the suitability of the various species included in the term "American white oak" for beer-cask making appear to be due, "not to any specific extractive which imparts a deleterious flavour to the beer, but rather to fundamental differences in the chemical and physical properties of the timbers themselves."

It was further found that the ability to impart the objectionable flavour was not produced by the method of cutting the staves, nor by the presence of sapwood, or by the presence of micro-organisms in the wood. The last point was gone into with special care, for the heartwood  of which the staves were made was found to contain large quantities of starch, which might have been expected to promote growth of moulds and bacteria. This was a feasible hypothesis, particularly since micro-organisms of these types are capable of producing curious "mouldy" or "musty" odours and flavours, not greatly dissimilar from the "taint" of American oak. It was found, however, that this hypothesis was incorrect, the "taint" being inherent in the timber itself and not due to microbiological action.
"The Brewers' Journal 1940" page 496. (Published June 19th, 1940.)

I think it's pretty clear that beer was coming into direct contact with the wood of the barrel. Otherwise how could the oak "communicate undesirable woody and other flavours"? What I don't quite grasp is why this problem should be so particularly acute with British type top-fermenting beers. Unless, of course, it's just because everyone else did line their barrels.

How did they overcome these problems with American oak? You'll have to wait for part two of the article. Or rather for me to transcribe part two. It was published almost three-quarters of a century ago.

Russian Duties on Beer

You must remember earlier discussions of Russian import duties and how they messed up the trade of Burton brewers. The duty being only on Ale, London brewers like Barclay Perkins were still able to ship their Porter to Russia. I'm now started to wonder if that was really true. Because in the text below, the Russian import duty is on both Ale and Porter.

"§§. 79 and 80. Spirits, Wine, and Malt Liquors.—The question of the Russian duties on spirits and wine will no doubt be brought forward by the Chambers of Commerce of wine growing countries.

Porter and ale are articles in which Great Britain is considerably interested. It being the policy of the Imperial Government to promote the use of malt liquors in order to diminish the present deadly recourse in Russia to raw spirits, the object would be greatly furthered by the admission of British porter and ale at a small fiscal duty, equal to, or very little above, the excise levied from Russian brewers. The brewing of malt has been so much improved in Russia that some of the ales of St. Petersburgh and Moscow will bear comparison with those of Great Britain and Germany in regard to quality, while in reference to price they are produced so cheaply as to fear no competition from abroad. The demand for Russian beer would not be lessened by a greater importation of British pale ale and porter, which, on the contrary, would give fashion to the consumption of malt liquors. A considerable revenue would also be obtained by the reduction of the present disproportionate duty, which is 264 copecks per pood on porter and ale in casks, but which M. Kolesoff proposes to increase to 265 copecks per pood.

A reduction to 1 rouble per pood would increase the consumption, and, on a bulky article, would at the same time help to fill up the steamers that come to fetch Russian produce. The Commission will surely take into consideration that the present duty is nearly 25 times higher than the excise levied on beer.

The wholesale price of English malt liquor in casks is as follows :—

	per Ton	Value	Weight
	£	roubles	poods
Porter, best Barclay's	16	100*	70
Stout, Barclay's	18 to 19	113 to 120	70
Ale, Bass	20 to 21	125 to 130	70
Ale, Cobb's	18	118	70

The rate proposed by M. Kolesoff on porter and ale in casks would, therefore, fall as follows:—

	Value	Duty	Ad valorum
	roubles	roubles	per cent.
Porter, best	100	185	185
Stout, average	115	185	161
Ale, Bass	127	185	156
Ale, Cobb's	118	185	164

The duty on bottled porter and ale (22 copecks per bottle) is more especially objectionable, as it is not only a luxury, but in many oases a useful medicine, and yet M. Kolesoff proposes to increase the duty to 25 copecks (9.5d. per bottle). The great expense of sending bottled beer to Russia is alone sufficient protection, without an import duty equal to more than 200 per cent, ad valorem in the case of small bottles, and to about 100 per cent, in that of the larger sizes. A duty of 5 copecks per bottle would be amply sufficient for fiscal purposes on full-sized bottles or imperial pints, and half that rate on half- imperial pints.

It is a great defect in the present Tariff that the size of the bottles on which the duty is leviable is not specified. The wholesale price of an imperial pint of porter or ale is about 6d. (20 copecks, at the exchange of 2s. 8d. and 16 copecks at that of 3s. 2d.), while Messrs. Eliseyeff and other dealers sell a smaller quart bottle at 1 rouble, and a half bottle at 55 copecks to 60 copecks.

Importers of "comestibles" invariably take unreasonable advantage of high duties.

* At the Exchange of 38d. A ton contains 4 hogsheads, of about 270 ordinary bottles each. A hogshead weighs about 17 poods.
"Accounts and papers 1868 - 1869 of the House of Commons, vol. 26, Commercial Reports received at the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Consuls during the year 1868", 1869, pages 10 to 11."

It's heartening to learn how concerned the British authorities were about the health of Russian citizens. And the need to keep them away from vodka by having them drink British beer. Very noble-spirited of them. And surely totally disconnected from the earning potential of beer exports.

As you can see, the Russian duty was the same for all types of beer. Burton brewers clearly hadn't completely abandonned the Russian market, as Bass's name crops up in the tables. I wonder which of their Ales they mean? Burton Ale of Pale Ale. It is, unfortunately, impossible to tell from the limited information. It was a pretty burdensome duty: more than the value of the beer. No wonder it discouraged brewers.

If the law didn't specify the size of the bottle, I'm surprised they didn't start using half gallon ones. It seems the logical approach.

It makes you realise why British brewers exported most to parts of the Empire. No dependency of fickle foreign governments who could ruin your trade at the stroke of a pen.

Pale Ale in 19th century Latvia

Many thanks to Atis for this one. An advertisement for Le Coq and Barclay Perkins "Porter Imperial". And Bass and Allsopp Pale Ale:

It comes from the Rigasche Rundschau of 22nd December, 1899.

I'm very pleased with this for a variety of reasons. First, because it's the only advert I've seen for Barclay Perkins Imperial Stout. They may call it Imperial Porter here, but the brewery considered it a Stout.

You remember having read an earlier post about Allsopp's loss of their Russian trade after an increase in import duty on Ale that didn't apply to Porter. here's evidence that Allsopp did disappear completely from the Russian market.

Barclay Perkins and Le Coq had the Russian Porter trade pretty much sewn up between them. But I wonder what the volume of the trade was. Barclay Perkins didn't brew a great deal of Russian Stout. I'm not sure they even brewed it every year. In 1859 they made 24 brews of Imperial Stout, of about 450 barrels each. So 10,000 to 11,000 barrels. That's out of a total production of 425,000 barrels.

It's odd that Bass and Allsopp are listed as London breweries. Hadn't anyone heard of Burton in Russia? I thought they made the town famous with their pale Ale. Obviously not in Russia.

Improved Burton Ale

When in 1822  Allsopp's Russian trade was scuppered by increased customs duties, he didn't just sit back and mope. No indeedy. He went looking for new markets. How did he do that? With advertising.

"In spite of grave doubts, and much serious dissuasion among people who pretended to think that it was not legitimate and respectable for a wholesale house to adopt such means of giving publicity to their wares, the following "circular" was somewhat unwillingly, but under the pressure of circumstances, issued by Wilson and Allsopp:—

"RUSSIAN TARIFF.

"In consequence of the sudden prohibitory measures adopted by the Russian Government, affecting various exports from Great Britain,

"Wilson and Allsopp, of Burton-upon-Trent, will directly offer to the public a quantity of rich pale and fine-flavoured Ale, of uncommon strength, brewed expressly for that market, at the reduced price of 2s. 6d. per gallon, at Burton (from whence there is a water conveyance to every part of the kingdom), in casks of about forty gallons each.

"The casks will be charged twenty-one shillings each; they are new, and of the first workmanship.

"It is too well known to need comment that the Ale from this Brewery has stood pre-eminent and unrivalled in the Baltic market for the last forty years; and, without affecting to presume on the unvaried preference shown to their Ale, they do not hesitate to express their full confidence that a trial will secure general approbation. Orders addressed to them at Burton-on-Trent will be promptly attended to.

"N.B.—Noblemen and gentlemen have an opportunity of supplying themselves with this superior Ale for bottling, which, from the above circumstance, may not again occur.

"Burton-upon-Trent, March 16, 1822."

The effect of this circular was the introduction of Burton Ale to the London and English market. Hitherto its use had been confined to the few favourite haunts and London resorts of the Staffordshire people; or to such commercial men and travellers as had relished and enjoyed this ancient and much-loved beverage in its native locality. Dr. Shaw, in his "History of Staffordshire," mentions the " Peacock" in Gray's Inn Lane as one of these. But immediately after the issue of this circular, "Burton Ale houses" sprang up. Few of the present generation of Londoners but must remember their first "nip of Burton" at "Offley's," or at the Burton Ale House in the court, opposite Bow church, in Cheapside. The superior quality of the ale brewed by Wilson and Allsopp, which had been hitherto chiefly confined to the Baltic market, soon rendered it a favourite beverage; but those who admired its flavour and its purity, and wished to drink more of it, found it too heady, too sweet, and too glutinous, if not too strong. Indeed it was so rich and luscious, that if a little were spilled on a table the glass would stick to it. Old Mr. Offley, in pointing out this circumstance to Mr. Thomas Allsopp, remarked, "Why this strong ale of yours must have honey in it!" It was this that led to the wise "discovery" by Dr. Booth, in 1830, who declared that he "could not make Burton ale without honey, resin, and plaster of Paris!" that learned doctor having tried to do so with Thames, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth and Alloa water, and gone through all the Scotch thin and weak styles of brewing, without once thinking of trying the Burton water wherewith to make Burton Ale!"
"Burton and its bitter beer" by John Stevenson Bushnan, pages 96 - 98.

Not respectable for a wholesale firm to advertise? What funny ideas they had in the 19th century.  Though their copy-writing skills could have done with a little tuning: "without affecting to presume on the unvaried preference shown to their Ale, they do not hesitate to express their full confidence that a trial will secure general approbation." Not exactly punchy, is it?

It's odd now to think that, in this pre-railway age, the London market was almost as foreign and inaccessible as the Russian one. The popularity of Burton Ale is prrof that it wasn't Pale Ale that first brough Burton beery renown. It was a much older and stronger type of Ale.

Ah, Dr. Booth. He was the first to accuse Burton brewers of throwing all sorts of muck into their beer. He wouldn't be the last.

As for Burton Ale itself, it was "too heady, too sweet, and too glutinous, if not too strong". So the puinters didn't mind it being 10% ABV, but would have preferred something less treacly. Fussy bastards. But, dynamic entrpeneur that he was, Allsopp paid attention to his customers' feedback:

"This observation on the strength and sweetness of the Burton ale, as rendering it unfit for the ordinary purposes of an every-day beverage, and a closer examination of the ales in general consumption, their average nastiness, their staleness, and their almost universal impurity, consequent on the many disgusting processes of fining, and the want of long traditional knowledge and skill in their manufacture—at last brought Mr. Allsopp to the resolution of making one grand experiment towards the improvement of this old English beverage; so that, combining a less degree of sweetness with a larger admixture of the finest hop, it might preserve the essential qualities of ale, and yet, with all the fine aroma and flavour of the ancient Saxon beverage, attain to that neutral taste, in strength and quality, the possession of which had enabled the porter brewed by the great London houses to displace ales in general metropolitan consumption for nearly half a century.

In the October season of 1822 Mr. Allsopp brewed the first specimen of the improved Burton ale now so universally drank and admired; but though it came out from the tuns more bitter and less sickly, yet, from some difficulties in the new mode of manufacture, this first brewing, when drawn by the houses at Liverpool to whom it was first sold, was not thoroughly successful. A doubt arose whether it would not be necessary to take back the whole, entailing another and a second very heavy loss upon the firm, at a time when it was still struggling under the effects of the sudden blow from the total stoppage of the Russian trade. This danger, however, was happily averted by a visit paid to the Liverpool houses in person by Mr. Allsopp, who induced his customers to continue drawing the ale, and so to give it time to mend itself, relying on the well-known property of the Burton ales to fine themselves, and to ripen and improve by the natural action of the water. A promise to receive back all that was damaged or unsaleable effected this important purpose; and, on the never-failing faith of the firm of Wilson and Allsopp, the Liverpool houses continued to draw the ale with so advantageous a result, that ultimately none was returned. The experience thus attained was, however, of the highest importance to the still grander experiment which was about to be made."
"Burton and its bitter beer" by John Stevenson Bushnan, pages 98 - 99.

What was Allsopp's solution? Throw in more hops. Sounds very modern. It also seems to have worked.

Just in case you're getting confused, this improved Ale still wasn't Pale Ale. Just a hopped-up version of the super-strong Burton Ale. The stuff eventually acquired the name Barley Wine. But not for another few decades.

Bottling Bass and Guinness in 1869

Thanks to Martyn Cornell for this text. When he's not angrying up the blood of übergeeks, he often passes on material.

I know some of you have been intrigued by the way beer was bottled in the 19th century. In particular, how much of it was performed by third parties. This explains that a little.

My apologies about the format. It's from the time before the invention of paragraphs.

GREAT CELLARS OF BEER AND GREAT BEER SELLERS.

The popularity of British beer is so generalised and well-founded, and the quantity of the national beverage consumed and exported so enormous, that some details in reference to the mode of distributing it may not be  without interest. Few who thoroughly appreciate good  beer (and what Englishman at home or abroad does not?) have any idea of the nature and variety of the various processes through which it has to pass after it leaves the brewery in Burton-upon-Treat, Dublin, or elsewhere, and before it finds its way to the dinner-table. We all know that "Bass" and "Guinness" are to be had everywhere at a moment's notice; but to produce the veritable Double X and the inimitable Pale Ale or "Burton" in perfection requires vast resources, elaborate machinery, and a thorough knowledge of the whole art and mystery of dealing with the beverage after it has left the manufactory of the wholesale dealer and is deposited in the warehouse of the beer merchant. For many years the consumption of bottled beer has been so considerable that persons of large capital have undertaken its exclusive sale. The brewer, whether in Staffordshire or in Dublin, delivers the manufactured article free to the wholesale dealer in the metropolis. Of the latter class there are several who may be regarded as the great constituents of the brewer. Messrs. M. B. Faster and Sons, of Brook-street, Grosvenor-square. are the largest distributors of beer in the world. They have a railway warehouse at Agar Town, at which the beer is received in the first instance direct from the waggons of the Midland Company. Their cellars and stores are in the Marylebone-road and in Westmoreland-street. At the former place casks intended for bottling are chiefly stored, and here are carried on by machinery the washing and corking of the bottles. The superficial area devoted to storing, bottling, and packing is about 30,000 square feet, or nearly an acre and a half. The ale and beer are stored in casks (chiefly hogsheads) on the basement, and here each brewing is daily watched until it arrives at the condition desirable for bottling. The temperature of the cellar ranges from 55 deg. to 62 deg., at which standard it was maintained during the intense heat of last summer. The ale remains in cask for a period of several months, after which it is bottled. Ale intended for a warm climate is kept longer in wood than that destined for home consumption. The January brewing, for instance, is not bottled until the following October; but should it be required for export to the tropics, it is kept in cask for a full twelvemonth or even more. The pale ale exported to Paris and other continental capitals is of the same description as that bottled for home use. The ale when bottled is corked by machinery, wired by boys, and then packed in tiers one above another, with boards between each, until a stack is formed containing 1,000 dozen. The bottles are placed on end, and neither sawdust nor straw is used. In this condition they remain for two or four months, as the case may be, during which time they are carefully watched and tested until the beverage arrives at the bright, creamy, and effervescent state suitable for consumption. The strong sweet ale known as "Burton No. 1" is exported chiefly to Russia and other cold climates, but the "pale ale" may be said to go everywhere. Enormous quantities of the latter are exported to India, where it commands a much higher price than can be obtained for it here, and costs the consumer from 12s. to 15s. per dozen. The bottled ale is sent in iron-bound packing-cases holding three dozen each, and is prepared for export with as much care as if it were wine of the rarest vintage. The corks are grown and cut in Catalonia, and the bottles (save in cases where "champagnes" are used) are manufactured in Sunderland. They are washed by steam-power, each machine washing and rinsing six bottles at a time. Each bottle is subjected to two operations. The first, by means of a revolving brush working in water impregnated with a cleansing material, removes every impurity, after which the bottle is shifted to another revolving brush supplied with pure spring water, which in a second or two makes the inside as bright and clean as when first blown ; a further movement of the hand places the bottle in a crate or drainer, where it remains until fit for the bottler. The water for the washing-machine is supplied from an artesian well, and no two bottles can be washed in the same water. The washing-machines, with their jets and revolving brushes, are kept in motion by a steam-engine. The regularity and celerity with which the various operations of washing, bottling, wiring, packing, and storing are carried on are astonishing, and a million or two of bottles are filled and moved about, and. eventually distributed to all parts of the globe, without a single hitch in the machinery. Ale and stout are not, however, treated in a similar manner when first bottled. The latter, when bottled, is laid on its side and packed away in enormous bins holding about 1,000 dozen each. Here it remains until the beverage is sufficiently matured, after which it is stored like ale. The time at which extra stout ripens in bottle depends upon the particular character of the "brewing," and upon the state of the weather. Of course, in so large an establishment as that of Messrs. Foster and Sons (where they deal at one time with 680 miles of bottles, the contents of some 12,000 hogsheads of beer and ale), considerable loss must arise from "breakages." There are accidents in cleaning, in tilting, in corking, in wiring, in draining, in stacking, in moving, and in packing. Many bottles also "fly" after they have been tiered away or binned, and Messrs. Foster and Sons estimate the average breakages from all causes at 70 dozen per day. The proportion of "empties" broken is, however, greatly in excess of full bottles that burst when put away. Some idea of the magnitude of the beer trade of the metropolis may be gathered from the fact that it is not an unusual circumstance for Bass and Co. to receive from the single firm of Foster and Sons an order for ale to the value of from £50,000 to £70,000. They are the largest customers of Messrs. Bass and Co., as also of Messrs. Guinness and Co., and their label is to be found in every place where beer is drunk, in either hemisphere."The Morning Post", 15h February 1869.

It's clear that large-scale bottling was already mechanised and demanded specialist equipment. "For many years the consumption of bottled beer has been so considerable that persons of large capital have undertaken its exclusive sale." Sounds like some enterprising souls with a bit of dosh saw a market for bottled beer  untapped by brewers. Brewers like Bass and Guinness - whose businesses boomed in the mid-19th century - may have preferred to concentrate on brewing. Especially as bottling seemed to require both large amounts of capital and space.

There are some wonderful details about bottling practice. I knew beers like Pale Ale were aged in the cask before bottling, but I hadn't realised for how long. The article says Pale Ale for domestic consumption was aged 9 months (January to October). I assume the longer maturation time for beer exported to the tropics was to get it as highly attenuated as possible. Funnily enough, I have details of how much the gravity of Pale Ale fell during this secondary conditioning. But I'm saving that for another day. Another two to four months storage after bottling would mean bottled Bass Pale Ale was something like a year old by the time it got into anyone's glass.


It's intriguing that Stout - in this case it seems to be from Guinness - was matured in the bottle rather than in the cask. I wonder why that was?

Also intriguing is the change to exporting beer already bottled. Earlier in the century beer sent to India and been sent in casks and bottled on arrival.

And finally . . . . see how it says precisely what Burton is: Bass No. 1. I already knew that, but I'm so insecure that I love confirmation. Strong, sweet and destined for Russia.

Allsopp and St. Petersburg (part two)

I'd too much about Allsopp (or rather their predecessors) and their trade with Russia. So here's part two.

"The vast increase and importance of the trade with Russia is also noted by Messrs. Allsopp in the same letter as follows:—"With respect to the Quantity of Ale likely to go to St. Petersburg, it wd. be very considerable could the orders be compleated, but from various causes that is impossible. The other Ports have made great demands upon us this year, so that, though a great deal of Ale will be brew'd from this time to the 5th of April, yet we hope and believe Petersburg cannot be overcharged. Our orders for that place exceed 600 Hogsheads."

Here follows a letter from Mr. Benjamin Wilson, addressed to a St. Petersburg house, Oct. 23, 1775, quoted literally and in full, since it distinctly states the method in which the foreign trade was conducted.

"To Mr. John Daniel Newman and Co., Petersbg.
" Gentlemen,—We reed, in Course your much-esteemed Favor, dated the 28th July, and Contents noted. We confess ourselves concerned that some little Difficulty attending ye first Interpretation of yr. Letter has protracted in some degree the Dispatch of our Reply, and in consequence subjected us to the probable imputation of Inattention wch. we ever wish and shall endeavour to stand exempt from; but as that Inconvenience is in some Measure removed, any future letter we may have ye Pleasure to receive, we can be informed of with the greater Facility. To people who have the Credit of their own Manufacture and ye inseparable Interest of their Friends at Heart, we cannot but feel an accumulated Satisfaction at every additional Instance of our Ale proving fine and distinguishing itself, wch. in Justice to its Character we have ye happiness to say our Friends have universally confirmed. To ye several Queries of yr. Letter, we beg leave to acquaint you that tho' many merchants in St. Petersburg are supplied with Burton Ale from our House, yet there are many that we are not immediately connected with, their orders being principally transmitted thro' ye Houses of Hull and London, which may be called their Representatives, and from whom we receive the greatest share of our orders; but, as a foreign Connexion wd. be equally acceptable when satisfactorily established, we shd. consider it with equal Attention and Respect. The Price of Ale last Year at Burton, from ye extravagant Price of Grain, sold for 17d. per Gallon: what may be ye price for ye present Season is as yet undetermined, the value of wch. is generally regulated by the Average Cost of Grain, wch. so early in ye Season wd. be premature to say.

"You desire to know at what price we can undertake to ship you the Ale pr. Gallon, free on Board, which is a mode we are never accustomed to observe, as our Friends always pay us for ye ale 17d. at Burton, and defray the Consequent Expenses of Fret, and Shippg. themselves ; and as we ourselves wish to reap no Benefit therefrom, take this opportunity of subjoining for yr. own Satisfaction an acct. of the Fret, to Hull, and other Expenses, by way of specimen, on thirty Hhds. of Ale shipped the last Season, which, with very little or no Variation, may be proportioned for a larger or lesser qty.

Our Casks of 80 gall. Size we charge 22s. each; of 40 gall. 11s.,-both peculiar to Petersbg. Markett, and which being made of ye best Materials our Friends do chearfully agree to. Tho' ye price of Ale cannot be decisively fixed from ye Principle of wishing to charge you neither more nor less than ye common Price for Ale of Equal Quality, yet we doubt not you wd. readily consent to be put upon ye same Footing with those of our choicest Customers; and, to convince you that we wish to consider all with the same Degree of Advantage, do refer you to the House of Messrs. Coole and Watson, Mr. Seebeck, Mr. Jas. Jackson's, and others, for ye Faith of our assurance, who we doubt wd. give you ye needful Satisfaction on that Head. We need not observe that for ye Value of any Transaction of this Nature we are always guaranteed in a Foreign Connexion either upon Amsterdam or London, in some indubitable House, to be paid any Time in ye Months of June, July, or August, as is convenient fr. our friend, and that, if these Proposals shd. meet yr. Approbation, we shd. be glad to cultivate yr. correspondence, who are with ye greatest Sincerity and Respect, gent., yr. mo. obet. servts.,
"B. Wilson & Co."

"Noted breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. I" by Alfred Barnard, 1889, pages 123 - 125.

What a wonderful insight into the workings of 18th-century trade. I love the polite way the writer tells the customer he'll have to pay his own transport costs. 17d a gallon seems a pretty reasonable price for beer with an OG of 1100.

It's significant that the price of the beer depended on the grain price and, indirectly, the quality of the barley harvest. This is when beer was still brewed from local grain. In the 19th century, improved transport and large-scale agriculture in the USA and other regions reduced the dependency of brewers on supplies of British barley. Brewers would have been unable to produce the amount of beer they did in the second half of the 19th century without grain imports. Britain itself simply could not produce enough barley. As was demonstrated during WW I and WW II. During the Napoleonic Wars it was tax on malt, not a shortage of it, that caused brewers problems.

Those casks are weird sizes. I've never come across 40 and 80 barrel-sized ones before. As the letter says, these were specifically for the Russian market. I wonder why they were that size? Maybe it matched some Russian measure.