Whitbread Stout OG 1816 - 1880

Someone did request this. A long-term chart of Whitbread Stout gravity. So it's not my fault, OK. Though I had already constructed the chart before they asked. 

Let's crack on with the pretty chart, then.

The gravity kicks off pretty low. That's a result of the Napoleonic Wars and the high taxation required to pay for them. The gravity then rises in reaction to a reduction in the malt tax. Then falls again when the malt tax was increased in 1819.

In 1830 there's another rise. I assume prompted by the abolition of excise duty on beer.

The fall in 1854 is when  the malt tax was increased to pay for the Crimean War. I had wondered about why there was a fall in gravity in the early 1860s, as there was no increase in the malt tax then. But there was the introduction of a much higher charge for brewing licences, which was a shilling per quarter (336 lbs) of malt.

1880, of course, is when the malt tax was abolished, and the system of taxation based on OG was introduced.

Not quite sure what happened in 1846 and 1875. But, in general, all the troughs correspond to tax increases and the peaks to tax reductions.

War, tax and technology

Porter and Stout were transformed in these decades. And the catalysts for this change were taxation and technology. The former necessitating change and the latter enabling it.

For much of the time the UK was at war. Mostly with France, though they were happy fight anyone else who fancied a scrap. Wars cost money and one of the easiest sources of it was taxing alcohol.

There were hikes in the malt tax in 1780, 1791, 1802 and 1806. It took around two bushels of malt to brew a barrel of Porter, which after 1806 would have incurred a tax of 9s 11.5d. Or just a half penny short of the other tax of ten shillings a barrel of strong beer. Add in 3d or so for the hop tax and you have a total of a bit over twenty shillings. Not far short of half the wholesale price.

For Stouts, which required more bushels of malt, that would be providing more than 50% total tax. Making reduced the quantity of malt needed an obvious way to save money. Not just fewer materials to pay for, also less tax.

All this was happening just as the hydrometer was coming into use. Providing brewers with lots of information about the yield from different types of malt. They soon realised replacing some of the brown malt with pale would reduce the quantity of malt required to brew a beer.

Another technological development, the thermometer, gave brewers unprecedented control over the mashing process. Combined with the hydrometer, it also enabled honing of the procedure for maximum efficiency.

The third new piece of technology, the attemperator, allowed brewing all year round, without the need for a summer break. Allowing brewers to make much better use of their equipment and not having it lie idle for part of the year.

Taxes on and price of beer 1779 - 1816
Year	Tax/bush.malt	tax/lb. Hops	tax/brl strong	tax/brl small	tax/brl table	Price barrel porter	Price quart porter
1779	9.25d	1d + 5%	8s	1s 4d	2s	30s	3.5d
1780	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	2s	30s	3.5d
1782	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	3s
1786	1s 4.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	30s	3.5d
1791	1s 7.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	30s	3.5d
1801	1s 4.25d	2.5d	8s	1s 4d		40s	4.5d
1802	2s. 5d	2.5d	10s		2s	35s	4d
1806	4s 5.75d	2d	10s		2s	45s	5d
1816	2s. 5d	2d	10s		2s	40s	4.5d
Sources:
The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830 by Peter Mathias page 546.
A History of English Ale and Beer by H.A. Monckton, pages 203 and 204.

Variety or Uniformity?

Beer wasn't just in short supply in WW II. It was also short on variety.

The main reason for the reduction in choice was beer zoning, the system by which brewers had their distant pubs supplied by other breweries. Which is some areas had the effect of introducing a local monopoly.

"Variety or Uniformity
Apart from questions of war damage, the zoning arrangements, following upon the large degree of voluntary exchange of houses previously undertaken by breweries in the interest of transport economy, have resulted in a great many people finding themselves unable to obtain their accustomed brew. Doubtless most breweries will resume the supply of their own licensed premises and their other customers with their own beers as soon as may be. Although the considerations of petrol and tyre shortage make it imperative that long journeys should be avoided wherever possible in war time, it is not in normal circumstances an uneconomic proposition for a brewery to supply its beer over a wide area, and there is every reason to suppose that breweries will wish to do so as soon as it is practicable. From the point of view of the public it is right that there should be this resumption of free choice. In ordinary circumstances the public expects, and has the right to expect, to be able to choose between several alternatives, and the public is quick to detect, or imagine, it detects, subtle differences between the products of different breweries."
The Brewing Trade Review, September 1943, page 268.

Of course, after the war the biggest threat to diversity and choice was the brewers themselves. The mergers and takeovers of the 1950s and 1960s created many local monopolies of near monopolies. Like Watney in Norwich, for example. The tied house system made reduction in choice pretty inevitable.

Shortage of materials had led brewers to prune the range of beers they brewed, eliminating stronger or less popular beers.

"It would be desirable, too, that the range of beers from a given brewery should be fully resumed when the arbitrary restrictions made necessary at present by the shortage of materials are removed. How far this will be possible must depend a great deal upon the policy of the Government after the war in the matter of the beer duty. In 1939 the average beer paid a duty of a trifle over 2d. per pint; the average! beer of to-day—an appreciably lighter product—pays more than 7d. per pint. It is questionable how far, while the present heavy beer duty is in force, the public could afford to return to the qualities of beer which it consumed before the war. Immediately after the last war the duty was increased, not reduced; In 1914 it stood at 7s. 9d. per standard1 barrel; when the war ended it stood at 50s., which was increased in 1919 to 70s. and in 1920 to 100s. Not until 1923 was there a reduction of 20s. on the bulk barrel. When it is remembered that the present duty on a standard barrel is 281s. 10.5d., however, one realises that there may be very little in common between the problem of the beer duty after the last war and that which will have to be faced when this war ends. One is led by the frequent references to the subject to believe that the prosperity of the people generally will be tackled more successfully in the days to come than it was 25 years ago, and this may well go far towards counterbalancing a beer duty disproportionately high in comparison with the general level of the cost of living, whether that comparison is with 1939 or 1914."
The Brewing Trade Review, September 1943, page 268.

The author was pretty astute to point out that beer duty continued to rise after the end of WW I. Because something similar happened after WW II.

UK tax on beer 1943 - 1949
Year	Tax/Std. Brl	tax pint	Total Tax £
1943	281s 10.5d	5.96d	209,584,343
1944	286s 5.5d	7.20d	263,170,703
1945	286s 5.5d	7.42d	278,876,870
1946	286s 5.5d	7.54d	295,305,369
1947	286s 5.5d	7.13d	250,350,829
1948	325s 5d	7.24d	264,112,043
1949	364s 4.5d	9.10d	294,678,035
Source:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, pages 50 & 80.

Though the rate of tax was remarkably stable between 1944 and 1947.

Just as with the WW I, there was never a return to pre-war strengths. And brewers never reinstated all their beers.

For example, Shepherd Neame brewed 8 beers pre-war, but only six after it, dropping a strong Pale Ale and one of their Stouts. It was even more extreme at Fullers, where half of their eight pre-war beers disappeared for good.

How to tackle tax increases

I always wondered a couple of things about Australian beer when I lived there. Why was it stronger than beer in the UK and why did they use such weird glass sizes.

This aricle in the excellent Time Gents blog explains it.

It's all to do with price inelasticity and tax increases. And it forms an interesting contrast with what occurred in the UK.

In the 20th century, brewers struggled with small tax increases. Mostly beacuse of the limitations of the currency. The cheapest beer only cost 2d per pint and the smallest coin was a farthing (a quarter penny).  What did you do if a tax increase raised the price by 12.5% (as happened in 1901)? If you raised the price of Mild from 2d to 2.25d, what price would you sell a half pint for?

The brewers found a simple solution: they just dropped the OG enough so the beer could still retail for the same price. Which also caused less unrest amongst drinkers, as the price of their pint remained the same. Quite inportant pre-WW I, when the price of beer had been constant for 40 or 50 years. And, initially, drinkers probably wouldn't notice the difference in strength.

Australian brewing struggled with the same challenges when the tax on beer was increased. Drinkers didn't want to pay more for their beer, and there were limits on the currency.

But a different approach was taken. Mostly because it was the publicans, rather than the brewers, who were calling the shots. Rather than increase the price, they reduced the glass size. As only Imperial Pints and half pints were controlled measures, new glasses, such as the schooner, were introduced.

When introduced in 1932, a New South Wales schooner was 18 fluid ounces, just a little smaller than an Imperial pint. By 1945 it was down to just 13 fluid ounces.

So while UK drinkers got the same quantity of weaker beer, Australians got less beer, but at the same price.

2d per pint extra for high gravity beer

One of the unique features of tax rises in the first half of the 20th century is that they usually amounted to an increase in 1d per pint, retail.

At least that's what was usually claimed. But, as the tax was related to the gravity of the beer, the situation was, in reality, more complicated. The 1d was based on average strength beer. Obviously the increase would be greater for a beer of greater strength.

"TWOPENCE A PINT EXTRA ON HIGHER GRAVITY
As a result of the new Budget tax, higher gravity beers will be increased 2d. a pint, and not 1d. per pint as had been generally understood.

At a meeting of Derby and District Bottlers' Association yesterday the chairman said that it was very necessary to make it clear to the public that the new tax was on a gravity basis and that gravity beers are affected to a much greater degree than 1d. a pint.

The meeting fixed prices as under for Guinness Extra Stout, Bass Pale Ale, Worthington I.P.A., and Younger's No. 3 Scotch Ale delivered for home consumption as from Monday next: Bass, Worthington and Younger's, 12s. 6d. per doz. pints, 6s. 6d. per doz. half pints, 5s. per doz. nips. Guinness E.S., 11s. 4d., 6s. 2d., and 4s. 10d. respectively.

Gravity of beer depends on the amount of alcohol, hops, malt, and barley contained. A higher gravity beer is essentially a brewed beer with a higher percentage of these ingredients than the cheaper and chemically treated kind. In most cases brewers use "X's" to indicate the strength of their ales and stouts, and those that will go up by only 1d. pint are, generally speaking, those denoted by one X." "
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 27 April 1940, page 3.

I understand the basic principle. But were the beers mentioned really so strong that the tax increase was 2d per pint? Why don't we take a look?

The increase in April 1940 was from 104 shillings per standard barrel to 135 shillings. A standard barrel being 36 Imperial gallons at 1055º. Luckily, I know the gravity of all four beers mentioned. They were all well above average strength, but nothing like double as strong.

Looking at the table below, you'll see that the increase in tax for an average strength beer was about 1d per pint. For the four higher-gravity beers, it's more like 1.25d.

Effect of April 1940 tax increase
Beer	Tax in shillings	OG	tax per barrel (shillings)	tax per pint (d.)
Average OG beer	104	1041	77.53	3.23
Average OG beer	135	1041	100.64	4.19
Bass Pale Ale	104	1056	105.89	4.41
Bass Pale Ale	135	1056	137.45	5.73
Guinness Extra Stout	104	1054	102.11	4.25
Guinness Extra Stout	135	1054	132.55	5.52
Worthington IPA	104	1055	104.00	4.33
Worthington IPA	135	1055	135.00	5.63
Younger's No. 3	104	1052	98.33	4.10
Younger's No. 3	135	1052	127.64	5.32
Sources:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, pages 50 & 80.
Truman Gravity Book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/252.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/76.

Looks like the bottlers were taking the piss.

Given that the four beers were of very similar gravities, I wonder why Guinness Extra Stout was cheaper? What do the beers have in common? They were all nationally available.

War with the French

Porter wasn’t a static thing, it continued to develop during the 1700s. Moving away from its origins as a 100% brown malt beer.

Towards the end of the 18th century, almost constant war with the French left the British government in need of cash. And they turned to their favourite source of revenue: alcohol. At the time, beer was taxed in three ways: on the malt, on the hops and on the finished beer itself.

A combination of increased taxation on malt to pay for the wars with France and the introduction of new technology, in the form of the hydrometer, transformed Porter grists. Brewers realised that, though cheaper, the poorer yield from brown malt actually made it more expensive to use than pale malt. The base malt changed from brown to pale, with brown retained just for flavour and colour.

It’s likely that this is when brown malt stopped being diastatic. With a majority of the malt pale, there was no need for the brown malt to retain any diastatic power. At a time when it was also required to provide more colour and flavour than previously.

At this point London brewers still used ingredients from the immediate area: malt from Hertfordshire or Sussex and hops from Kent. This would change radically in just a couple of decades as the UK’s population and thirst for beer outstripped the productive capacity of agriculture.

The increased taxation had a couple of effects on Porter. The first was the move away from a 100% brown malt beer to one brewed from a base of pale malt. But it retained a high percentage of brown malt.

The second change was a reduction in OG. Dropping from 1075º in the 1770s to around 1055º by the first years of the 19th century. This was as a direct result of increased taxation, which encouraged brewers to lower strength to cut costs.

Taxes on beer 1779 - 1815
Year	Tax/bush.malt	tax/lb. Hops	tax/brl strong	tax/brl small	tax/brl table	Price quart porter
1779	9.25d	1d + 5%	8s	1s 4d	2s	3.5d
1780	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	2s	3.5d
1783	1s 4.25d	1d + 15%	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1786	1s 4.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1791	1s 7.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1801	1s 4.25d	2.5d	8s	1s 4d	3s	4.5d
1802	2s. 5d	2.5d	10s		2s	4d
1804	4s 5.75d	2.5d	10s		2s	6d
1815	2s. 5d	2d	10s		2s
Sources:
The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830 Peter Mathias, p.369
A History of English Ale and Beer, H.A. Monckton, p.204

Porter before black malt
Year	Brewer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	amber malt
1804	Barclay Perkins	1055.4	1015.5	5.28	72.02%	6.83	2.00	42.59%	47.43%	9.98%
1807	Whitbread	1052.6	1015.5	4.91	70.53%	13.06	3.60	66.32%	16.84%	16.84%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/002.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number ACC/2305/1/525.

You'll find more information that you'll ever need to know about Porter in my excellent book on the subject:

Penalised for owning tied houses

We're looking again at the 1909 Budget and the impact it was likely to have on specifically the pub trade.But not the whole of the pub trade because of the different way licensing worked in the different parts of the UK.

When younger I used to wonder why almost all the pubs were tied in England, but not in Scotland. It turns out that it was all to do with the way licences were issued.

In England and Wales, the 1869 Licensing Act not only made it extremely difficult to obtain new licenses, it also made it much easier for the authorities to revoke licences. With temperance twats sitting as licensing magistrates in many areas, it's no wonder that there was an aggressive campaign to reduce the number of licences.

In Scotland and Ireland, things worked differently.

"His [Mr. Herbert Samuel, MP] estimate of the proportion of the total consumption of beer, as taking place in on-licensed houses, viz., two thirds of the total, itself illustrates how unequally the burden of new taxation is distributed.

About £2,800,000 annually is to be extracted from the English and Welsh brewers as a penalty for owning or supplying "tied houses."

Does any one doubt that if the conditions under which the Irish and Scotch publicans have carried on their business had been the same as they are here, they would not also have sold their licensed houses as they have in England?

In England a licensed house is a valuable monopoly, requiring capital and possessing a substantial saleable value.

In Ireland, owing to the ease with which licences have been granted, the monopoly has no comparison with that in England, and the capital required and the saleable value are correspondingly small.

In Scotland the licence is personal to the publican, and does not attach to his premises."

The English publican, therefore, has had most to fear from the organised hostility of the teetotal party, which is largely responsible for the tied-house system in this country, and it is not surprising that the old-fashioned English publican has long ago sold out his business."
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, page 415.

Because the number of licences in England was limited and likely to decrease rather than increase, it greatly boosted the value of pubs. Mostly because it prompted a rush to buy tied houses in the 1880s and 1890s, a move financed by the capital raised when breweries coverted to public companies.

As the breweries owned most of the pubs in England, it was up to them to pay the licence fee. Meaning quite a big extra expense. It also reduced the value of pubs, which was a big problem for businesses where that's exactly where most of their  capital was tied up. In the remaining few years before the start of WW Imany breweries had to mark down the nominal value of their shares to reflect this reduction in capital.

Things have certainly changed in Ireland when it comes to the granting of new licences, which is as good as impossible today.

London gets screwed

Nowadays we're used to London being treated better than the rest of the UK. (Transport is a great example.) It's one of the reasons the country is in such a mess. But on the eve of WW I, it was London feeling disadvataged by new licence duties.

The 1909 Budget caused massive political unrest. Which ultimately led to reform of the House of Lords, when it was voted down by that house.  The Liberal government's proposals, conceived by chancellor David Lloyd George were quite progressive, introducing the first bits of the welfare state. Things like old age pensions. But they needed to be pais for.

One of the areas wher enew revenue was to be raised was from the drinks industry. But this time it wasn't to come from an increase in the tax on beer. Instead, licences were to be the source. Specifically brewing licences and pub licences.

"London and High Licences.
The National Trade Defence Association have issued a statement pointing out the eifect of the proposed licence duties in the administrative County of London, an area in which the Chancellor admits that the gross annual values on which the duties are to be paid approximate to the real values. The following figures are quoted, drawn from “Licensed Premises, 1909,” Return No. 1,255, May 7th, 1909, issued by the London County Council:—

FUTURE DUTIES.
Public-houses (4,742), gross annual value	£1,576,266
Take, according to the Finance Bill, 50 per gross annual value per cent. of this value	£788,133
Beerhouses (1,715), gross annual value	£145,593
Take, according to the Finance Bill, one-third of this value	£48,531
Total Future Duties	£836,664

PRESENT DUTIES.
Public-houses (4,742) at an average gross annual value of £332 would pay an average licence duty of £40	£189,680
Beerhouses (1,715): (537 at £4 and 1,178 at £3 10s.)	£6,271
Total Present Duties	£195,931
Therefore the future duties will exceed the present duties by	£640,713

Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, pages 413 - 414.

The average licence fee of a London fully-licensed was going to rise from £40 a year to £166.20 - a more than fourfold increase.  To put that into perspective, a pint of Mild cost 2d in the public bar. Assuming a generous 1d per pint profit for the publican, that's around 40,000 pints that would need to be sold just to pay for the licence. Or slightly more than 2.5 barrels per week.

The result of the new rules would leave London paying a disproportionate amount of the increase. Why? Because the new licence rate was based on the rateable value of the pub and those values were much higher in London than elsewhere.  Partly becasuse in London the rateable value was close to the rent which could be realistically obtained for the premises. While in most of the country the rateable value was a nominal sum.

Which meant London publicans got doubly screwed. Once, because property prices were high in London and again because the rateable values were high.

"The population in the administrative County of London is one-tenth of that of the United Kingdom.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (the statement proceeds) in his Budget statement said that he expected to get an additional £2,600,000 from his new licence duties and his new brewers“ licences. Deducting £630,000 for brewers' licences and for duties to be levied on licensed premises other than public-houses and beerhouses, we have £2,000,000 as the additional amount to be obtained from the public-houses and the beerhouses of the United Kingdom. One-tenth of this sum is £230,000; instead of that, the administrative County of London will be called upon to pay £640,000. In the year ending March 31st, 1908, the yield of the licence duties was £2,222,359, from which must deducted the receipts for duties levied on licensed premises other than public-houses and beerhouses, and out of the total so reduced the administrative County of London paid £195,951, or approximately one-tenth of the whole.

The result may be summarised as follows:— London will pay a sum at least four times as large as the licence duties at the present time, and more than three times as large as the just share of the increased duties which should fall on London, measured either by population or by its share of the licence duties paid hitherto, and this in a district where the price of beer charged by the brewer is exceptionally low. These figures reveal such a startling inequality in the treatment of London that it is impossible to think that it can be left unredressed."
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, pages 413 - 414.

I found this statement of note "the price of beer charged by the brewer is exceptionally low". That's not something that could be said of London nowadays.

Less Beer Being Drunk

There was always one thing that happened ehwn Britain was engaged in a serious war: the tax on beer was increased. WW II was no exception.

While in 1941 the talk was all about a shortage of beer, a big tax increase in spring 1942 saw worries turn to falling beer consumption.

"LESS BEER BEING DRUNK
Customers Seek Out Cheaper Bars
LESS beer was drunk in many areas last week - the first in which the new Budget prices were in force.

Many people are drinking less and many are drinking mild ale instead higher-gravity beer.

Other customers are still drinking their usual number of pints, but have changed to cheaper bars, to cut the cost.

The proposal by South London licensed victuallers hat there should standard strength draught beers — ale, bitter and burton — sold at standard prices, has not yet reached the stage of serious discussion by the trade.

Publicans agree that confusion exists owing to the variation in prices at different licensed houses and because some brewers have produced stronger beer than others.

Many brewers and licensees think that standard beer would not be popular with customers, because Government beer in the last war was not well received."
The People - Sunday 26 April 1942, page 3.

I was confuseed initially by the bit about cheaper bars, thinking that it meant cheaper pubs. What it really means is punters swapping the lounge bar for the public bar. Not changing pubs, but the room inside the same pub. I always drank in the public bar, myself. No point throwing away 2p per pint just to have a carpet on the floor.

The tax increase in 1942 was pretty steep: from 165s per standard barrel (36 gallons at 1055º) to 240s 7.5d. That's not far short of a 50% increase. Understandably, it had a big impact on the retail price of beer. For example, a typical Mild of 1030-1032º increased in price from 8d per pint to 10d. That's an overnight increase of 25%. No wonder some drinkers either cut down or economised in some other way.

In peacetime such a big increase would have considerably reduced beer consumption. But high wartime wages and the absence of much to spend money on, demand for beer remained strong. As is demonstrated by the fact that beer consumption continued to increase.

UK beer production 1938 - 1945 (bulk barrels)
year	bulk barrels
1938	24,339,360
1939	25,691,217
1940	24,925,704
1941	28,170,582
1942	29,584,656
1943	29,811,321
1944	31,380,684
1945	31,990,334
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 62.

Those figues are for the year ending March 31st, so the period covered by thee tax increase is in the 1943 entry. There is an increase in beer output, but a very small one, only around 227,000 barrels.

In WW I, there were standard strengths and prices towards the end of the war when price controls were introduced. Price controls that basically fixed beer strengths for the whole interwar period.

Booze revenue 1937 - 1952

More numbers. What fun.

It’s no surprise that the money raised from alcohol increased during the war. That’s the way UK governments always financed wars. Alcohol is an easy choice since demand is fairly elastic. The table below shows just how much of that came from beer. And how the percentage raised from beer rose from 60% in 1937 to 80% in 1945 and 1946.

Between 1939 and 1947, the revenue from spirits only just more than doubled. While that from beer quadrupled.

You might have expected the income from imported beer to have totally evaporated at the height of the war. There’s a simple reason it didn’t: Guinness. Which continued to export – with some small interruptions you’ll read about later – large quantities of beer to the UK.

There’s an impressive surge in imported wine revenue after 1947. Way higher than the pre-war level.

Please ponder the numbers. As I can't be arsed to explain everything. Stare long enough and they'll make some sort of sense. Or you'll fall into a zombie-like state. That's me most evenings. Get home, staring then zombieing.

UK Excise and customs revenue from alcoholic drink (£ millions)
	Beer			Wine			Spirits
Year	UK	Imports	total	UK	Imports	total	UK	Imports	total	Duty Receipts in Total
1937	57.3	5.4	62.7	0.5	5.1	5.6	31.4	4.8	36.2	104.5
1938	61.2	4.5	65.7	0.5	5.0	5.5	31.1	4.8	35.9	107.1
1939	62.4	3.2	65.6	0.5	4.8	5.3	30.9	4.7	35.6	106.5
1940	75.2	3.6	78.8	0.9	5.7	6.6	34.5	6.2	40.7	126.1
1941	133.5	5.6	139.1	1.6	7.8	9.4	33.9	11.6	45.5	194.0
1942	157.3	7.3	164.6	1.1	3.8	4.9	31.0	15.7	46.7	216.2
1943	209.6	8.0	217.6	1.7	2.4	4.1	49.4	18.2	67.6	289.3
1944	263.2	6.4	269.6	2.1	2.3	4.4	59.6	17.2	76.8	350.8
1945	278.9	8.9	287.8	2.0	2.5	4.5	50.1	13.5	63.6	355.9
1946	295.3	10.8	306.1	2.2	5.0	7.2	51.2	16.9	68.1	381.4
1947	250.4	9.4	259.8	2.2	10.8	13.0	51.6	24.9	76.5	349.3
1948	264.1	9.9	274.0	3.4	15.6	19.0	40.7	42.7	83.4	376.4
1949	294.7	12.6	307.3	3.8	15.7	19.5	46.7	44.1	90.8	417.6
1950	263.1	13.7	276.8	2.8	16.1	18.9	58.7	39.6	98.3	394.0
1951	249.1	13.0	262.1	3.2	18.1	21.3	75.8	38.7	114.5	397.9
1952	248.2	12.7	260.9	3.3	17.5	20.8	67.1	29.9	97.0	378.7
Source:
"Drink in Great Britain 1900-1979" by GP Williams and GT Brake, 1980, Edsdall London, page 380.

Why beer was so expensive in 1961

Ever since WW I, the UK has highly taxed beer. A shocking percentage of the price of a pint was made up of tax. How much exactly? Let's take a look at an example.

Clarke's was a small brewery in Stockport, taken over and closed by Boddingtons in the early 1960s. One of their brewing books survives. It handily includes costs. This is for their Bitter:

Here are those details in handy table form:

Costs of Clarke 1/5 BB per brew (71.25 barrels)
	£	s	d	%
Materials	110	18	11	15.95%
tax	584	14	5	84.05%
total	695	13	4
Source:
Clarke brewing record held at Manchester Central Library, document number M693/405/137.

The tax was more than five times the material costs. With such a high percentage of the cost of producing beer fixed in the form of tax, it didn't leave breweries much leeway to compete on price. Except in one way: by getting as much untaxed beer as possible.

A brewery could achieve that two ways. The first was to minimise losses during brewing. Tax was calculated on the volume and OG of wort as it went into the fermenter. There was an allowance of 6% for losses during brewing. A large, efficient brewery could reduce losses to quite a bit less than that. In the example above, 74.64 barrels were brewed and 71.25 were racked, which is a loss of 4.5%. Which means they paid no tax on just over one barrel.

The second way was dogier. That was to reuse stuff which had paid no tax. Such as returned beer, for which brewers received the tax back. Watney were particularly keen on this, using 15% "reprocessed beer" in most of their products.

Here's a breakdown of the costs per pint:

Costs of Clarke 1/5 BB per pint
	d	%
Materials	1.30	7.63%
Tax	6.84	40.23%
Total cost	8.14	47.86%
Retail price	17

40% of the retail price was tax. That's a pretty hefty chunk. Brewers were resentful of the fact that the governemnt earned considerably more per pint than they did themselves.