The local veto and the Glasgow Empire Exhibition

It's all very well turning well-heeled districts dry, but what happens when an international event takes place in one. An event where punters, not unreasonably, expect refreshment?

That's exactly what happened in 1938 when the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow was held in a "no-licence" district. There was considerable wrangling over selling booze. Well, selling booze without an accompanying meal. There were bound to be objections to that from a totally predictable corner - the temperance movement.

"Local option in Scotland has recently been brought prominently to notice by the difficulty which has arisen in connection with the arrangements for the refreshment of the large number of visitors who, it is hoped and expected, will attend the Empire Exhibition to be held in Glasgow this year. The Exhibition is promoted by "Empire Exhibition—Scotland, 1938" an association limited by guarantee, whose financial obligations have already been guaranteed by the public to the extent of over £700,000, a figure which it is estimated will ultimately exceed one million pounds. One of the subsidiary objects for which the association is established is "to carry on as principals or as lessors the business of restaurant, cafe and refreshment room proprietors, tobacconists and licensed victuallers, purveyors and caterers for public entertainment and public exhibition and amusement generally." The Exhibition in to be held In Bellahouston Park, a public park which has  been lent by  the Corporation of Glasgow for the purpose. but the trouble is that the park is situated in that part of the Pollokshields Ward of the City of Glasgow in which a no-licence resolution is in force."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" page 14.

The exhibition was a big event that was going to bring a large amount of cash into the city. Obviously the organisers wanted to make it as attractive as possible to visitors.

I was surprised to learn of some of the exemptions included in the Act. In particular with regard to restaurants. It's clear that the Scottish Temperance Act was a piece of pure anti-pub legislation.

"As already indicated, the Licensing Court is empowered notwithstanding that a no-licence resolution is in force In an area to grant one or more certificates for an inn or hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant. But any certificate granted is deemed to include the conditions that there shall be on the certificated premises no drinking bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale and consumption of liquor, and that liquor shall be sold therein only to persons lodging in the inn or hotel or persons taking a meal in the restaurant  (Temperance (Scotland) Act.1019 s 3(1)). So far as the supply of liquor with meals is concerned, therefore,  no difficulty arises, and,  in fact, the Licensing Court has already granted eight restaurant licences to the association, this, however, in the view of those responsible for the success of the Exhibition, is not enough, and they are satisfied that in order to promote the success of the Exhibition provision should be made for the sale of liquor to persons other than persons taking a meal upon the premises — in other words, that ordinary drinking bars should be available.   In England provision for the sale of liquor in these exhibitions is often made by means of occasional licences renewed from me to time while the exhibition continues. The Temperance (Scotland) Act, does not prohibit the grant in no-licence areas of "special permissions," as they are called in Scotland, but the association doubtless felt that the method was too precarious where there is any strong opposition  to liquor being sold in the exhibition at all. The alternative of requisitioning a poll and seeking a temporary reversal of the no-licence resolution had, it is stated, but little prospect of success, as 4,000 persons resident in the district, about the number who voted for no-licence on the last occasion, had signed a petition against the provision of bar facilities in the Exhibition grounds."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" page 14.

They weren't so much "no-licence" as "no pub" districts. It was perfectly OK to have a licensed hotel or restaurant. Looks like the Act was targetting the working class, while letting the middle classes carry on much as before. This is a recurring theme in Britain. The reason clubs had more flexible licensing arrangements was that initially these were exclusively for the well off. Working mens clubs only appeared later, principally to take advantage of the licensing rules. 

As the organisers wanted to have bars, they needed to find another solution. What they had to do was a remarkable example of wasted effort and expense, all because of the prejudice of a small group. If neither a "special permission" nor a new poll were the solution, what could they do? Something incredibly complex:

"However this may be, the association organising the Exhibition decided to take advantage of the convenient procedure prescribed by the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, which enables persons who desire to obtain Parliamentary powers in regard to any matter affecting public or private interests in Scotland to present a petition to the Secretary of State for Scotland praying him to issue a Provisional Order in accordance with the terms of a draft Order submitted to him. If the draft Order is opposed, or if the Secretary of State thinks inquiry necessary, it is referred for local and public inquiry to four Commissioners selected from a Parliamentary or extra-Parliamentary panel, who report in due course to the Secretary of State recommending that the Order be issued as prayed for or with modifications or should be refuted. If they recommend that the Order be issued, the Secretary- of State makes the Order, but it has no validity until confirmed by Parliament. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Empire (Exhibition) Scotland Order, 1937, reported in its favour by three votes to one after hearing 26 witnesses on the part of the promoters, and hearing counsel on behalf of the objectors, who called no witnesses because his opposition was based upon "principle."  The discussion then shifted to the House of Commons, where Mr. T. Johnston, M.P. for West Stirling, on December 1st, 1937, moved the rejection of  the  Confirmation   Bill. The ensuing debate was reported at length in The Brewers' Journal for December on pages 616-621. and it is unnecessary perhaps to say more than that the able speeches of the objectors revealed no convincing reasons of principle or expediency for rejecting this exceptional method of dealing with an exceptional situation. Sir John Gilmour, who supported the Bill, expressed the opinion, as a former member for the constituency which includes Pollokshields, that it had voted dry mainly for the purpose of keeping a residential area free from public-houses, and pointed out that this purpose would be in no way infringed by the granting of licences in the Exhibition grounds.The Bill was passed by 159 votes to 96, and the opponents had not even the satisfaction of claiming that the result was due to English votes,  as 23 members for Scottish constituencies voted for it to 21 against. The Bill duly received the Royal Assent, and the Exhibition area is during the period of the Exhibition to be deemed to be an area within which no poll has been taken and no resolution has been carried under the provisions of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" pages 14 - 15.

Obvious really, wasn't it? All they had to do was to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint a commission to investigate the request and then pass an Act of parliament. How much time, money and effort was wasted in this process? All just because a few lunatics wanted to deprive their fellow citizens of a glass of beer.

Of course, every day in the media you still hear the whines and lies of modern anti-alcohol fanatics. Usually heavily armed with dodgy statistics, simplistic studies and shrouded in self-righteous hypocrisy.

Tuesday or Wednesday

Just one week until me and the family will be in Manchester. Hopefully a sunny and snow-free Manchester.

I'd like to meet up with a few locals for a pint or two, but there's one big question: Tuesday or Wednesday evening? Kick off will be about 19:00. Let me know which you would prefer.

I wasn't quite correct when I said there was one big question. There's another: where? I'm leaning towards Peveril of the Peak, only because it's close to where we're staying. But I'm open to other suggestions.

Arrol in court

Brewers seem to have spent quite a bit of time in court, mostly trying to get back money owed to them by publicans. Or at least money they claimed publicans owed them. We'll be looking at a couple of examples involving Archibald Arrol of Alloa. (If I'd been them I'd have gone for a triple A logo.)

This problem will be familiar to brewers today: trying to get empty casks returned.

"ACTION BY A BREWER.
ARROL V. HEYES. -Mr. Samuell was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gully for the defence. The plaintiff, Mr, Archibald Arrol, a brewer at Alloa, sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. Thomas Heyes, an ale merchant in this town, the value of a number of empty casks, which, on the part of the plaintiff, it was alleged had not been returned to him. The defendant had for some time been a customer of the plaintiff, but ultimately they ceased to have dealings with each other, and then there remained, according to the plaintiff's case, the casks which had not been returned. It was agreed between the parties to the action that the opinion of the jury should be obtained on one question, and the amount in dispute, stated on behalf of the plaintiff to be about £193, should, If a verdict were found for the plaintiff, be left to settlement by arbitration.- On the part of the defendant it was alleged that he had exercised due diligence In the collection of the empty casks from his customers, and to return them as soon as possible to the plaintiff, and that he was not, according to the custom of the trade, responsible, for their return unless he received a commission upon them.- The jury found a verdict for the defendant."
Liverpool Mercury - Friday 07 January 1870, page 3.

Once again, we're given a glimpse into the inner workings of the trade. For the debt to be £193, quite few casks must have been involved. That's a large sum for the period. But it's the bit about the custom of the trade that interests me. According to which, publicans only needed to return casks if they got a commission for them. But what is meant by commission in this sense? Does it mean he was paid a commission on every cask returned?

One thing is unusual about this case. The brewer lost. In most of the cases I've found it was the publican on the losing end.

The majority of brewer/publican cases are about payments that haven't been made. Mostly the landlord not paying for beer. This is different. It's about the money loaned to a potential publican to enable him to gain entry into the pub trade:

"ARROL & SON v. SUTHERLAND.
A joint minute was lodged to-day in the action at the instance of Archibald Arrol & Sons, wholesale wine and spirit merchants, 16 Dixon Street, Glasgow, against Angus Sutherland, Weem Hotel, and Robert Stewart, shipbuilder, Portland Place, Inverness. Decree was asked against defenders for £500, which pursuers advanced in June, 1888, to Alexander Macrae, accountant and house agent in Inverness, to enable him to take over a public-house in Inglis Street, Inverness, The money, it was stated, was advanced on the security of the defenders. The landlord refused to transfer the lease to Macrae, and the latter, it was stated, left Inverness on 3d August, and had not returned. His estate was insolvent, and in these circumstances pursuers called upon the defenders to pay the £500 for which they were liable. Sutherland denied signing the obligation. Stewart admitted his signature, but maintained that it was neither holograph nor tested, and was merely meant to show that he favoured the granting of the security which the pursuers wished. There was lodged a minute of abandonment, which was allowed on payment of the defenders' expenses."Glasgow Herald - Friday 08 November 1889, page 4.

Not the most respectable of accountants, Alexander Macrae, doing a runner and leaving his mates in the lurch when the pub deal fell through. Did Arrol ever track him down? For £500 - the equivalent of 10 years wages for a labourer - I suppose they must have tried.

I'm surprised that the guarantors got off so easily. Claiming it's not your signature is pretty lame. What does holograpgh mean in this sense? I can't imagine it means a 3D image.

The case demonstrates that the cosy arrangement between brewer and publican, with the former providing cash and the latter buying beer, didn't always work out as planned.

Brewing Stout

One for the homebrewers - men brewing Stout. There's a reason why I've brought it to your attention: because it mentions this blog. Which brings a bout a circular reference - incestuous and recursive as all good internets are.






Enjoy!

How the Scottish Temperance Act worked

Or rather didn't At least not the way the temperance fringe had hoped. Then again, they seemed to be blinded by optimism and wishful thinking to the realities of Scottish society.

The districts which voted for restrictions definitely weren't the ones the teetotallers wanted:

"Mr. Harry Earnshaw. the Secretary of the Scottish Licensed Trade Veto Defence Fund, in his able evidence before the Scottish Royal Commission furnished a useful analysis of the character of the no-licence areas. Those situated within larger burghs — wards of burghs — are of a residential type where a large proportion of electors — the wealthier classes — do not use licensed premises, and invariably keep supplies of liquor at home. The working classes of these areas have recourse to licensed premises in wards immediately adjoining their own, sometimes only across the street, "such classes being penalised to the extent of personal inconvenience." Of the remaining smaller burgh areas, which may best be described as self-contained, Mr. Earnshaw contended that none was "dry" in the true sense of the word. They are without exception immediately adjacent to "wet" areas, and the development of transport has reduced the effect of no-licence to a minimum. In some of the 13 parish areas under no-licence the state of affairs is similar to that in residential wards of burghs. The others, scattered over the country, are mainly isolated, sparsely populated, and of great extent. The effect of a no-licence resolution in such areas as these Is almost a matter of indifference, as the licensed premises which did exist invariably served only a small proportion of the electors. The accuracy of this analysis was not challenged by the witness who gave evidence on behalf of the Scottish Temperance Alliance, and it was accepted by the majority of the Royal Commission."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" pages 13 - 14.

In the towns, only posh residential areas, where no-one went to the pub anyway,  voted for restrictions. As the good burghers kept supplies of booze at home, the net effect was virtually nil. A Pyrrhic victory, indeed.

"The supporters of the Act who could not deny that it had failed to come  up to   the  expectation  of its sponsors, attributed the failure to the change of conditions which took place between its passing in 1916 and its coming into operation in 1920. That changes, vast and  revolutionary, affecting the price of liquor, the permitted hours of opening of licensed premises, the numbers and constitution of the electorate, and many other relevant matters took place in this period is as undeniable as the failure of the Act itself. But the justice of the attribution of its failure to those changes becomes very dubious when we reflect that it has operated or failed to operate in precisely the manner which was anticipated by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and other critics of the Bill in 1913. We may conclude that the defects of the Act are inherent, and that they inherent, not in its particular machinery, but in the principle of local option itself. It is significant that the proposals of the advocates of the Act for its amendment included the sweeping away of the requirement of a vote of 35 per cent, of the electorate to carry a no-licence or limiting resolution. The teetotal minority of the Royal Commission described this as "an almost impossible provision." They further objected to the proposal recommended by the majority of the Royal Commission that the requisition for a poll, which, it will be remembered, must he signed by 10 per cent, of the electorate, should be deposited at a designated public office and there signed by registered electors, identified from the registration list in the usual way. This requirement, the minority gloomily remark, would be an effective barrier to any requisition being sufficiently signed. The supporters of local option appear to realise very clearly that no reliance can be placed on the spontaneous interest of the electorate in the subject and are prepared, rather cynically, to admit that local option can be successful only where the electorate is apathetic."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" pages 13 - 14.

In reality, the Act was out of date before it even came into effect. WW I had seen to that, with its draconian regulations that envelopped the pub trade.

I'm not surprised that the teetotalers weren't keen on the provision that 35% of registered voters had to vote for licence restrictions for them to be carried. Noisy and well-organised they might have been, but the temperance campaigners weren't huge in number. I doubt they were 35% of the electorate anywhere. Which meant any licence restrictions could only come into force with the cooperation of other groups - such as the well-healed residents of nice districts, But their aims were quite different. They didn't want to kill the drink trade, just keep pubs and the riff-raff that used them out of their area.

Yes, I'm sure temperance groups would have preferred a simple majority and no quorum. Then hope that they could mobilise their support and their opponents couldn't. Very democratic. But that's the nub of their problem: there simply wasn't enough public support for temperance for it ever to have a chance of being enforced democratically.

In one way the temperance groups were in a better position electorally post-WW I. Because women had been enfranchised and they were much more likely to vote against drink than men. Or is that just a terrible assumption I'm making? Based probably on the temperance movement in the USA where women played a very prominent role.

The Scottish Temperance Bill

Back to obscure licensing legislation. Always a real crowd pleaser. Don't worry, there's still loads to come. This time it's some background on the legislation, its aims and how it worked.

Let's dive straight into the pool of joy:

"The Bill which ultimately became law as the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and introduced the principle of local option in Scotland was originally a private Member's Bill, and was adopted by the Liberal Government, doubtless with the primary object of annoying their political opponents. The Bill passed the Commons in 1912: the Lords made substantial amendments, nearly all of which were rejected by the Commons, and for that session the career of the Bill came to an end. In the following session the Bill was reintroduced in the form in which it left the Commons in 1912, with the inclusion only of some minor amendments made by the Lords and accepted by the Commons, the avowed intention being to pass the Bill, if necessary, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, under which a Bill passed by the Commons in three successive sessions and rejected by the Lords may nevertheless be presented for the Royal Assent. It became unnecessary, however, to resort to the machinery of the Parliament Act as a compromise was effected, and the House of Lords finally passed the Bill in 1913, with agreed amendments of some importance."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" page 13.

I hadn't realised that it had started life as a private Member's Bill. I'll explain what that means for the non-British audience. While most of parliament's time is taken up with government-sponsored legislation, some is set aside to consider Bills sponsored by an individual MP. Not many ever pass. The time for debate is limited and it's easy enough for opponents to talk it away without there being a vote.

It was a big deal that the Liberal government adopted it, as it gave it an infinitely better chance of becoming law. The Liberal party had close ties with nonconformist religious denominations (many of whose members were abstainers) and the temperance movement. While the opposition Conservative party was big mates with business, including brewers. Hence the "annoying their political opponents" remark. The House of Lords has a built-in Conservative majority which explains its attempts to change or block the Bill.

Lord Balfour, a Conservative politician, summed up succinctly the failings of the Act:

"In its passage through the House of Commons the Bill was represented as being demanded by a large majority of Scottish electors, but the real nature of the influences behind it was not concealed from the veteran Scottish statesman, the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who in his speech on the third reading in the House of Lords on July 31st. 1913, said: "I should be the last person to say anything harsh or bitter about those who have worked hard for this Bill. At the same time. I believe that they are in an infinitesimal minority among the people of Scotland. I pay them the tribute of saying that they are earnest and hard-working and self-denying, and that they are much in evidence in local organisations and very skilful in bringing their influence to bear. If the passing of the Bill in the form In which it passes they have their reward. In my opinion, they will find that they have won from their point of view, a useless victory. It is my belief that the voting under this Bill will prove that they have over-estimated their power and their influence, and that, although in some cases there may be a reduction, in very- few- instances, indeed, will they gain their real desire of total prohibition. I go further and say that where the change is most needed I believe it will not come under this Bill either with the rapidity or with the good effect with which it might have commit a more sensible course had been pursued. It is my humble belief that, except in some sparsely peopled areas where it is not required, prohibition as a policy will not be adopted by the people of Scotland." The striking confirmation in practice of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's prognostications of the effect of the Act in operation justify the conclusion that he was equally accurate in estimating the nature and strength of the forces behind the Bill."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" page 13.

As it turned out, Balfour predicted accurately what would happen in the post-war years. The temperance movement was wildly optimistic about the level of public support for the restriction of licences.

This describes the technicalities of how the Act operated:

"The Act of 1913 is described in the long title as "An Act to promote temperance in Scotland by conferring upon the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certificates." It provides that at Specified minimum intervals a poll may be demanded by a requisition signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, and that at the ensuing poll the electors may vote for one of three resolutions: "No change," which means that the powers and discretion of the Licencing Court shall remain unchanged; "limiting," which means that the number of certificates for the sale of excisable liquors shall be reduced by one-quarter; and "no licence," which means that no certificate for the sale of excisable liquors shall be granted except for Inns and hotels or restaurants in special cases as provided in the Act. To carry a no-licence resolution, at least 55 per cent, of the votes recorded must be in favour, and not less than 35 per cent, of the electors on the register must have voted for it. A limiting resolution is carried by a bare majority if not less than 35 per cent. of the electors are in favour, and a no-change resolution in deemed to be carried if the majority of votes are recorded in its favour, or if no other resolution is carried."
"The Brewers' Journal 1938" page 13.

Looking at the provisions, you can see why so far districts ever became dry. Requiring 35% of the registered electorate to vote in favour meant there was only a chance of success if the turnout were high. Whereas the  killjoys best hope was low a turnout where only their fanatical supporters bothered to vote.

I'll continue by looking at what the effect of the legislation was in reality.

Arrol gives evidence in a murder trial

Today we turn our attention for the first time to another of Alloa's great breweries: Archibald Arrol. Given its size and longevity, surprisingly obscure. Perhaps because in its later years it didn't operate under the Arrol name but either as the Alloa Brewery or Allied breweries.

Yet Arrol's role in the development of Scottish brewing in the 20th century was key. In particular in the development of Lager. In 1921 Allsopp's Lager plant, which was no longer in use, was transferred to Arrol's. Lager was to form an important part of both Arrol's and Calder's (for whom they brewed) business.*

We'll be getting back to that later. Especially the Lager plant, about which I've a few nice details.

Searching old newspapers can throw up some odd material. Lets' face it, what are newspapers interested in? Crime, death, war and politics. You'd be surprised how often I find beer-related material in all those categories. Though, admittedly, it's often just in passing. Many crime reports start with a few beers in the Vaults and end with a pile of mutilated corpses.

The text today is a crime report, but not quite along the lines I've just described. This is an excerpt from a report on the trial of John Webster, who was accused of poisoning his wife. The case attracted huge public attention, as is demonstrated by the reports of the trail which ran to several pages. The beer connection comes about because Webster was the landlord of a pub.

Some details of the pub trade emerged during the trial:

"Webster had by this time instructed him to look out for a public house for him. When he did this prisoner told him that if he could secure a place for £800 or £700, he (prisoner) would be able to manage £500. Soon afterwards he told him (witness) that be was negotiating for the purchase of the Newton Tavern Hotel, but that he would have to employ Messrs Congleton & Dickson, solicitors, in connection with the purchase. Witness advised him not to let this stand in the way. Up till the date of his arrest Webster, after his wife's death, conducted his business in the usual way. After arrest witness took possession of the hotel, and conducted the business for five weeks before it was sold. The place was in his possession from 4th December until 10th January, and the business during that time was flourishing and lucrative, the weekly payments being £10, £15, £17, and £41, the large increase during the last week being

THE EFFECT OF THE NEW YEAR.

It appeared to him that Webster could have done well in the Newton Tavern. Altogether, the gross receipts during that period came to £90, but any little disbursement made then was drawn from the till, and therefore had been deducted from the drawings.

Mr James Suttie, clerk in the Bank of Scotland, Dundee, was examined in regard to prisoner's bank account The account was, he said, transferred on 28th June, 1890, to the Kirriemuir Branch. Q. — What was the balance at the credit of accused on 28th Jane, 1890, when the account was transferred ? A. — The account was closed by a cheque drawn from Edinburgh, and amounting to £25 7s 1d.

By Mr ASHER — The balance carried forward at the commencement of 1889 was £144 odds, and the total at his credit by the close of the year was £1142, the deposits during the year amounting to £990 odds. Of this, £300 had been transferred from a deposit receipt In June, 1890, the balance at his credit was £25, the rest having been drawn by cheque. James Cowpar, Over Migvie, parish of Kirriemuir, said he was joint agent of the Bank of Scotland at the Kirriemuir Branch. Accused opened an account with their branch on 25th June, 1890. It was closed on the 30th January last. On 5th December last the amount at his credit was £70 11s 8d. When he came to Kirriemuir Webster carried

A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

from Mr Freeman, Bank of Scotland, Dundee, who therein stated that Webster was most respectable in character, steady in habits, and in every way an exemplary citizen, and, further, that he had been a customer at the Dundee office for the last nine years. The amount that bad passed between Webster and the Bank since he went to Kirriemuir was £618 19s 8d, including the balance of £70 11s 8d already spoken to. He never required any accommodation.

William Crockatt Dickson, solicitor, Dundee, who purchased the Newton Tavern for Webeter, was then called. He deponed that he received his instructions from Webster, who was accompanied by Mr John Robertson, of Messrs John Robertson, wine merchants, Dundee. The property, goodwill, and fittings of the place were put up for sale together, and he bought them for £1903, the upset price having been £1000. Adding interest and expenses, the total to be paid on settlement was £1913. As an interim payment to the price of the hotel, Webster gave £300 of his own money. This was on the 9th June, and on 18th July he (witness) paid the balance of the purchase price, amounting to over £1600. Of this sum £1000 was secured from a client on a bond over the property, interest being at a rate of 4.5 per cent. This left a balance of £600 to be provided, and Webster on 18th July paid him (witness) £696 14s 1d towards the settlement. The following day witness returned the balance not required, and amounting to about £70. He was aware that, in order to meet the balance of £600 odds, Webster raised £700. In addition to the interim payment, he gave £107 for the stock in the premises at the time. This was paid by himself.

By Mr ASHER - The bills for the balance were granted jointly by the Messrs Robertson and the Messrs Arrol, wine merchants and brewers. That was

A COMMON WAY

for people to get into a hotel. Brewers and wine merchants assisted people to get into hotels

Sir CHARLES , PEARSON-That is what is known as a tied shop ? A— Yes.

Wm. B. Robertson, wine merchant, Seagate Dundee, deponed that Webster approached his firm for assistance towards purchasing the hotel. He did not ask any particular sum, but they gave him £350, taking his acceptance on a bill for three months. They granted the bill on the understanding that Webster would take part of his supply from them. Before accepting Webster's bill they assured themselves that he was in a sound financial position.

Walter Arrol, of Archibald Arrol & Sons, brewers, Glasgow, had a similar story to tell. They had advanced Webster £350 on a bill of six months, receiving in security, and jointly with Messrs Robertson, a postponed bond over the hotel property, and also a life policy.

Mr HAY now for the first time during the case tried his hand at the cross-examination. In reply to his queries, witness said he was thoroughly satisfied with the result of his inquiries made into Webster's position.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 19 February 1891, page 3."

Walter Arrol was one of the partners in the brewery and quite an important figure.

My apologies for the length of the quote, but I needed to include all the financial details for it to make sense.

The excerpt explains exactly how you entered the pub trade. To be honest, £2,000 doesn't seem cheap for a modest pub in a village (remember £50 a year was a reasonable wage). I wonder how much it's worth today? Because, much to my surprise, it's still a pub. Or at least was when the Google van passed:

I knew brewers gave loans to publicans, but this is the first time I've heard of wine merchants doing the same. Notice how Webster only agreed to take part of his supplies from the wine merchant in return for the loan. It seems quite a generous arrangement. Hardly the "tied shop" that it's called.

That life insurance policy used as security played an important role in the trial. Webster had taken out a joint life insurance policy for himself and his wife. When she died, he trousered £1,000. Which was the principal reason suspicion fell upon him, his wife was dug up and her body searched for signs of poison. They did find some. Actually quite a lot of arsenic in her stomach.

There isn't room to go into all the details of the trial here. But Webster was acquitted - surprisingly so, if you read the evidence. He looked bang to rights to me.

You can find (if you have access to the British Newspaper Archive) the reports of the trial here:

Dundee Courier - Wednesday 18 February 1891, page 3.
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000269/18910218/035/0003

Dundee Courier - Thursday 19 February 1891, page 3.
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000269/18910219/045/0003

Dundee Courier - Friday 20 February 1891, page 2.
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000269/18910220/019/0002



* "Alloa Ale" by Charles MacMaster, page 16.

1909 Beer Style Guide Courage Imperial Stout recipe correction

It's been brought to my attention - thanks Edward - that the grist numbers for the 1914 Courage Imperial Stout recipe in the 1909 Beer Style Guide are wrong. I've corrected the book, but I thought that I'd publish the recipe so those who have already purchased the book can get the correction.

Here you go:

Courage - 1914 - Imperial Stout
General info: Very big beer, buckets of alcohol, very hoppy and dark as night. This was a massively scarce beer. So rare in fact that when it was produced it was only done some with a gyle with the export stout and porter consisting of less than 2% of the entire parti-gyle. Such a sad, sad day... This, in my opinion, is the best Russian Stout every made. Hands down. Remember, everything in moderation...especially moderation.
Beer Specifics			Recipe by percentages
Gravity (OG)	1.094		English pale			72.6%
Gravity (FG)	1.018		Brown malt			17.9%
ABV	10.13%		Black malt			9.5%
Apparent attenuation	80.85%
Real attenuation	66.23%
IBU	64.0		Mash	120min@153°F		0.8qt/lb
SRM	171.0			120min@67.2°C		1.67L/kg
EBC	455.5
			Boil	120 minutes
	Homebrew @ 70%				Craft @ 80%
Grist	5gal		19L		10bbl		10hl
English pale	6.69	lb	3.046	kg	736.38	lb	284.51	kg
Brown malt	1.65	lb	0.789	kg	181.09	lb	69.96	kg
Black malt	0.88	lb	0.402	kg	97.25	lb	37.57	kg
	7.95	lb	3.619	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.42	lb	0.191	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.42	lb	0.191	kg		lb	0.00	kg
	0.07	lb	0.032	kg		lb	0.00	kg
		lb	0.000	kg		lb	0.00	kg
					1014.72
Hops
Fuggle 5% 120min	3.01	oz	85.3	g	186.63	oz	4.509	kg
Hallertauer 3.3% 30min	2.11	oz	59.8	g	130.75	oz	3.159	kg
Fuggles 5% dry hop	2.32	oz	65.8	g	144.0	oz	3.479	kg
Fermentation	65°F /18.3°C
Yeast	Nottingham yeast
	WLP013 London Ale Yeast
	Wyeast 1028 London Ale
Tasting Notes: Dark blackish brown and syrupy. Madeira, rum raisins, port, black cherries, hints of treacle and cocoa. Pipe tobacco and a walnut tannic drying character. A deep and rich drying finish that lingers for ages. Words do not do this beer justice...