Let's Brew Wednesday - 1948 Portsmouth and Brighton United Breweries Pompey Royal

Bit of a long title this time. As you can see from the label, the brewery themselves branded it just United.

First a word of thanks. This recipes isn't based on a record that I excavated with my own bare hands from the archives. Someone else did the mining work this time. David at Quaffer. This is turning out to be an easy day for me, because he's also written about the history of Pompey Royal. I'm feeling all superfluous.

Looking at the label, you'll notice that the brewery described this beer as a Golden Ale. What a modern term. One I'd have associated with just the last 20 years. But, as I've often told you before, there's very little that's genuinely new in the beer world.

Don't expect me to come up with any specific style for this. Strong Ale will do for me. Nice and vague.

The modern version of Pompey Royal doesn't have much in common with this. More a strongish Pale Ale. It's also moved around several breweries of the former Whitbread group over the years.

1948 is an odd date to introduce a strong beer. Average gravity was it its nadir in 1947 and 1948, under 1033º. While it crept back up a little, but got stuck at 1037º in 1951 and stayed there until 1993. The late 1940's were a pretty grim time in Britain. Shortages, rationing, smashed up cities and the camaraderie of the war years fading. I'm glad I didn't grow up then.

I've put the sexiest numbers from the period into a little table for you:

British beer 1946 - 1947
UK	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950
Production (bulk barrels)	32,650,200	29,261,398	30,408,634	26,990,144	26,513,997
Exports (bulk barrels)	187,418	109,680	205,098	254,147	221,210
Exports (standard barrels)	150,099	85,660	179,120	226,215
Imports (bulk barrels)	929,028	860,161	863,855	875,548	1,018,603
Average OG	1034.72	1032.59	1032.66	1033.43	1033.88
Net excise receipts (pounds)	295,305,369	250,350,829	264,112,043	294,678,035	263,088,673
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, pages 50 and  57.

In case you're wondering about the beer imports, that's pretty much all Guinness from the Irish Republic. Bugger all from anywhere else.






Like I said, most of my work has been done for me today.  That's me done. I think I can see Kristen just coming around the corner  . . . . . yes, there he is . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Notes: This one has been around since the forties but has changed quite a bit. This version is much higher in everything than the current one brewed by Oakleaf. They used the same pale malt from two different lots so feel free to use a single malt or two. Maris otter and golden promise would work lovely here. You’ll also notice the malt extract. They used a mix of EDME and Fiona diastatic malt extracts they added to the mash tun to help the mash along. For us, we don’t need the enzymes but I would suggest something amber in color. You can completely replace it with more malt if you’d like. Shouldn’t make a difference at the low levels you see. The hops were pretty much all Kentish Goldings, all very fresh, with a butte loade going into the dry hop.

My hols

Just back from Germany. Eleven days of drinking that liquidy stuff with the foam on top. And that alcoholly thing going on. Beer, that's the word.

A series of posts, recounting in tedious detail every last beer and impulse schnapps a poured into my poor tormented body, were planned. I even took notes.

But there's been a technical hitch. I hadn't screwed on the top of that bottle of impulse Obstler I grabbed in Salzburg station before getting on the train to Munich. I noticed the stain when I put my bag on the seat in Weisses Brauhaus. Then the smell. The heart-wrenching smell of spilled alcohol. I sobbed quietly through two beers.

Giving me an eau de pisshead air wasn't the only downside of my top-attachment laxity.

I'm an old-fasioned sort of chav. I wear spats, drink laudanum and have an aspidistra in my front window. Before every expedition into the Urwald of Lager, I prepare a printed guide. All the information -  pub adresses, maps, bus timetable - in one place. The spaces inbetween I use for notes. None of this ticky-tacky digital shit for me.

I wouldn't put valuable information on a phone or tablet. Especially not when I'm hanging around in pubs. Too likely to get lost, broken, stolen, drenched in beer. Good old-fashioned paper is far safer. What can happen to that? No-one's going to nick it. And it can't get broken.

Not unless you drench it in schnapps.

I'll be working from memory. Poor fallible, distorted, fading memory.

Another brewery fire

I'm starting to believe that just about every brewery has been ravaged by fire at some point. And that's despite many of them having their own fire brigade.

Of course, there are lots of hot things in a brewery, fires, steam. Then there's the malt dust, which can explode in the right circumstances (that's what happened at Barclay Perkins). Not to mention maltings. They seem to have been a major cause of fires.

A fire at Maclay's Thistle Brewery was particularly dangerous, given its position in the narrow streets of the town centre. And its proximity to George Younger's Candlerigg's Brewery.

"ALARMING AND DESTRUCTIVE FIRE. THISTLE BREWERY
BURNED DOWN. ESTIMATED DAMAGES £30,000
The most alarming and destructive fire which has taken place in Alloa since Springfield Mills were burned to the ground some 14 years ago occurred early on Sunday morning. During the previous evening a disagreeable smell was felt in various parts of the town but although the circumstance was remarked upon by more than one Mill Street merchant and by the Constable on duty in the central part of the burgh, as there were no evidences of smoke coming from any particular direction nothing more was thought of the matter. Shortly after midnight a messenger from the East Vennel called at the Police Office and informed the Constable in charge that fire had broken out in the Thistle Brewery. No time was lost in summoning the Brigade and getting ready the two steamer fire engines. When Fire-Master Mackie and his men arrived it was discovered that the seat of the outbreak was the mash-house, a two-storey building situated immediately to the rear of the firm's large counting-house, closely adjoining the tun room and hop store, and in the very heart of valuable property - the back premises of several Mill Street merchants being on the north side, and buildings connected with Messrs Younger's Brewery and Messrs Paton's factory being on the south and west sides. The flames had secured a firm hold of the mash-house, and at an early stage it was feared that a very extensive area would be involved. Fortunately, there was no wind to accelerate the outbreak, but in spite of that the flames shot up high into the air, and with continuous showers of sparks the district was lit up for miles around. Two sets of bore pipes from Messrs Paton's factory and one set from Messrs Youngers' brewery were brought into operation from the south side of the burning building, while the seven sets of hose attached to the two steamers were worked from the north side. Not withstanding the strenuous exertions of the Brigade to confine the fire to the seat of the outbreak, the flames spread to the adjoining three-storey building, which comprised tun room, coolers, maltings, hop store, engine room and boiler house. The firemen were, however, successful in preventing them from reaching the properties on the north and west sides, which included the oil store of Mr A Cairns, ironmonger, as well as the buildings on the south side, and the other work's departments in the brewery yard. It was fully two hours before the firemen mastered the flames, and by this time the mash-house and the adjoining three-storey building were completely wrecked, and all the valuable plant. machinery and engines destroyed. The damage caused is estimated between £20,000 and £30,000. There is no question that but for the strenuous exertions of the firemen in preventing the flames from extending beyond the fire area the result would have been very much more disastrous. In this connection mention ought to be made of the invaluable assistance rendered by the fire brigades of Messrs Paton and Messrs Younger under the direction of Mr W T Proctor (one of the partners of Kilncraigs) and Mr W G Storrier (Manager of Messrs Younger) respectively. Although the outbreak occurred at an early hour in the  morning hundreds of people flocked lo the scene, and the Police Force, under Chief Constable Johnston, had no little difficulty in keeping back the crowds. Mr Fraser (the proprietor of the Brewery) was telephoned for, and arrived by motor car from Dunfermline when the fire was at its height. It was not known definitely how the outbreak occurred. Throughout Sunday the firemen poured water on the smouldering ruins and from morning till evening an almost continuous stream of people visited the scene of the disastrous conflagration."
The Alloa Advertiser, 16th July 1910, page 2.

There's a great Dutch word for people who flock to look at disasters: ramptoeristen ("disaster tourists"). I guess nothing draws the crowds like a tragedy. It's as true now as it was then.

This time the fire broke out in the mash room. I'd love to know exactly how, because it's not the biggest fire hazard in brewery. Though if it was really the brew house then it would have contained the coppers as well. They are a much more likely source of a fire.

It's no surprise that people from George Younger's brewery should have helped fight the fire. It was right next door. Self interest, really. And naturally there would be plenty of water in a brewery.

£20,000 to £30,000 seems a reasonable estimate for the damage, considering the brewery was totally destroyed. When Maclay became a limited company in 1897 the brewery buildings and fixed plant were valued at £13,000 and the moveable plant at £7,000.

You can tell that we're entering the modern era, with the owner being alerted by telephone and arriving by car. 

Another technical one. Just ignore this.

Technical post. Nothing to see here.

What is a glass of beer?

It sounds a very philosophical question. Whereas in fact it's far more prosaic. About short measures, really. A recurring theme in British pub life.

I was quite surprised at the first sentence in this article. I'd thought that draught beer could only be sold in a third, half or pint or quart measure.

"What is a Glass of Beer?
"It is the custom to go into a public-house and ask for 'a glass' of beer or bitter, and, in that case, the publican entitled to serve what he likes and charge what he likes, but the point at issue is this, that if anyone asks for a set quantity, they must have it, and it must be in a stamped glass."

This was the explanation by Mr. Albert Edward Waller, Inspector of Weights and Measures, when he appeared to prosecute at Oundle Petty Sessions, last month, against Walter Dixon, publican, of Harringworth, who was summoned for selling, by his servant, or agent, Elizabeth Dixon, intoxicating liquor of less measure than was purported to be sold.

Mr. Waller said that on Tuesday, April 17th, he went into the public-house, and Mrs. Dixon came into the bar. He asked for two half-pints of bitter. He poured the drinks into some half-pint measures that were there, and pointed out to Mrs. Dixon how much short they were. The glasses actually held 8 oz., whereas a half-pint was 10 oz., so that, in serving a quart, there would be five of those glasses required instead of four.

Mrs. Dixon said : "I am sorry if I made an error, but I was unaware that it was an error at the time."

The Chairman (Mr. G. H. Capron): There is no doubt that an offence has been committed. You did not serve half-pints when you were asked in properly marked glasses. At the same time, we do not think you had any intention to defraud."

A fine of 5s, was imposed.
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 343.

I bet they loved those Weights and Measures inspectors calling by, trying to catch them out. Do you think that he was just in that pub by chance, or that he had been tipped off? I bet someone had told him they served short halves.

Getting back to the glass of beer, I know that pubs served beer in that highly indeterminate measure in WW I. And that there were five to a quart, around 8 fluid ounces per glass. I'd assumed it was one of those weird WW I practices. Now I can see it did exist in peacetime, too.

Now I think about it, the title is incorrect. It should be What is a Half-pint of Beer?

Soldiers drinking

Jesskidden very kindly sent me some photos culled from the US Brewers' Association Year Book for 1915. Photos of soldiers - British and German - drinking beer.

It's all a bit odd because they bear no relationship to any of the articles in the book. I suppose they were making some sort of anti-prohibition point.

Here's one:

I was able to pick up a few things from the picture. First off, I can see "AFX" written on one of the barrels facing the camera. I think I can guess what that stands for: Armed Forces X. Or Mild specially brewed for the military. The casks side on to the camera look like barrels, the ones facing the camera kilderkins.

Then there's the beer itself. Despite being in a tiny glass it looks pitch black. My guess is that it's Porter or Stout. As we've already learned, there was a long tradition of Porter following the British army around the world. And though it wasn't as popular as it had been in the 19th century, there was still plenty of Porter drunk in London.

On a non beer-related matter, the soldier on the left looks like he's got goggles pushed up on his hat. Motor cyclist, perhaps?

Making summer beer drinking safe

This seems very appropriate as I'm in Germany drinking in beer gardens right now.

I'd often wondered why many German steins and glasses had those little tin hats. All about stimulating local industry:

"MAKING SUMMER BEER-DRINKING SAFE.
A novel health edict has recently been issued in Germany. The Bavarian Ministry of Public Health has announced that open beer tankards (steins) are not hygienic for use during the summer in open air, dust-swept beer-gardens, and that they should be exchanged for containers with solid tin-covers. This appeal, which has been made to stimulate the long-established tin-manufacturing industry in Bavaria, is meeting with a ready response."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 340.

I assumed the lids were there to stop wasps of shit falling off trees getting into your beer. Seems I was wrong.

Illegal liquor sales in the House of Commons

This is a weird one. About the bars in the House of Commons.

One of the most annoying aspects about the very limited hours British pubs opened until recently was the situatiopn in the House of Commons. Where the bars stayed open well into the early hours. One rule for MP's and another for the rest of us. Irritating to say the least, bastards who could get a drink anytime themselves voting to limt when we could drink. I'll say it again: bastards.

But take a look at this. Those in charge of the House of Commons bar were up before the, er, bar for selling booze without a licence.

"In the King's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief-Justice, Mr. Justice Humphreys and Mr. Justice MaCNAGHTEN, on the 7th inst., the Court granted to Mr. Alan Patrick Herbert, of Hammersmith Terrace, W., a rule nisi for an order in the nature of mandamus under Section 5 of Jervis' Act, calling on Sir Rollo Graham Campbell, the Chief Magistrate, 15 members of the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons, and Mr. Robert John Bradley, manager of the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons, to show cause why the Chief Magistrate should not hear and determine the matter of two applications for summonses by Mr. Herbert against the other respondents.

Mr. Monkton read an affidavit by Mr. Herbert, who deposed that on May 17th, 1934, counsel on his behalf applied to Mr. Fry, at Bow Street, for process against the members of the Kitchen Committee and Mr. Bradley on two informations alleging contraventions of Section 65 (1) of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, by the unlawful sale by retail of intoxicating liquor at a refreshent room at the House of Commons on April 10th, 1934. One of the alleged unlawful sales was to Mr. Herbert himself, and the other to Mr. Victor Cazalet, M.P. On that occasion Mr. Fry said that the Chief Magistrate would like to deal with the matter himself. The application was accordingly renewed before the Chief Magistrate on May 22nd, when he intimated that, on the authority of Williamson v. Norris, he would have been prepared to grant summonses against the Kitchen Committee but for a further difficulty which he felt. That difficulty was stated by the Chief Magistrate in these words: —

Assuming for the purpose of this application that an offence may have been committed, are members of the House of Commons carrying out duties entrusted to them by the House, under the control of the House, in a way long practised and approved by the House, within the precincts of the House, amenable in this matter to the jurisdiction of this Court? Are they not protected by the privileges of the House and amenable only to the House of which they are members?

At the conclusion of counsel's argument the Chief Magistrate said that he was not satisfied that he had jurisdiction to grant the process applied for, but the matter could be raised by mandamus."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 343.

I love the Chief Magistrate's argument: the normal laws of the land don't apply to MP's in the House of Commons. Basically that they got to try and judge themselves.

Though it sounds like entrapment. Mr Herbert grassed himself up to the authorities. It appears he only bought a drink so he could get the bar into trouble. What's the word for someone like that? I know: bastard.

Decoction recreation

Just recreated this cover an hour or two ago.

In the Spital beer garden in Regensburg. Top place. If you've not been, well, what can I say? You poor bastard.

Silent flows the Danube. Which is more than I can say for the beer. I slurp. Especially when the weather is hot and the Dunkles cool.

An underrated beer destination, Regensburg.

The Dunkles was suicidal at Kneitinger this evening. The first half litre went down in two gulps. The second in not many more. I savoured the third. Must have been four long draughts before it was gone.  

I'll be back later to watch the footie.

Aitchison beers 1843 - 1859

Advertisements can tell you a lot. That's why I actively search them out. Not with too much success when it comes to Scottish breweries. Except in the case of Aitchison, where I found a nice set of ads from the middle of the 19th century.

Irritatingly, many of the adverts don't specify the bottle size. That's why I've put "quart?" in the table. My guess would be that they are reputed quarts. A reputed quart is two thirds of an Imperial quart, or 757.7 ml. The ones marked "pint" and "quart" look like Imperial measures. At least when I compare the price of the same beer on draught.

So they're a bit easier to see at a glance, I've put them into a table. There are five main types of beer on offer: Table Ale, Edinburgh Ale, Strong Ale, Draught Ale and Mild Ale. But on closer observation it becomes clear that the same beers are being described by different names.

Let's start with everyone's favourite nowadays, India Pale Ale. Though it isn't always called that in the adverts. It also appears as India Ale, Pale India Beer, Pale Export India Beer and Pale India Ale. Couldn't they make their mind up what to call it? It's a great demonstration of just how inconsistent British breweries were in their naming conventions.

Interesting that Aitchison were already brewing IPA in 1840. That's pretty early. But we've already learned that Scottish brewers were quick to jump on the Pale Ale train. Though Aitchison's prices were lower than those of Allsopp. In 1845 a dozen quarts of Allsopp's IPA cost 4s 6d. I guess the big Burton brewers could get away with charging more.

Handy that the 1840 advert has a description of Aitchison's IPA: "Highly hopped and attenuated India Ale." Just for the last few brainwashed style nazis out there who still believe that Scottish beer only ever had a few hops waved at it. The description pretty much sums up the characteristics of early IPA: heavily hopped and highly attenuated.

Next we come to Table Ale. Slightly odd choice of name there. Usually it was called Table Beer, especially if it was heavily hopped, as was often the case. Being low gravity it often needed a good dose of hops to stop it spoiling too quickly. We know this one was heavily hopped because the advert says so "highly Hopped, an excellent Stomachic". The price is surprisingly high: the same as the India Ale.

The Scots seem to have had a name for Table Beer. It's not a type of beer that you would normally expect to get shipped very far. Yet Scottish breweries were selling it as far away as London.

Now Edinburgh Ale. Or perhaps I should just say Ale, because the names Edinburgh, Scotch and Mild Ale seem to be used interchangeably. With some additionally being called Strong Ale. Then there's Pale Edinburgh Ale as well. My guess is that these would have been Shilling Ales within the brewery. Or Guinea Ales. You can see that in 1845 advert that guinea designations are used for what were described as Mild Ales.

Scottish Ales, even the very strong ones, were usually sold young. Which made them technically Mild Ales. Though as you can see, often the terms Edinburgh Ale or Scotch Ale were preferred. Confusing, isn't it? It's taken me years to get my head around it.

Now I just happen to have details of William Younger's beers from 1847. Assuming that Aitchison's would have been roughly similar, we can get some idea of their strength. Five guineas is 105/-, seven guineas 147/-. Younger's 100/- had an OG of 1090º and their 140/- an OG of 1112º. So pretty damn strong.

I assume Draught Ale is another beer of this type. But it's impossible to be sure. The naming is just too vague.

So we can see the main products of Aitchison: IPA and strong Mild Ales. Very typically Scottish.

Aitchison beers 1843 - 1859
year	beer	price per barrel (shillings)	price per gallon (pence)	price per doz bottles	size	source
1840	Edinburgh Table Ale, highly Hopped, an excellent Stomachic			3s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 17 April 1840. page 1.
1840	Edinburgh Ale, strongest and best made			8s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 17 April 1840. page 1.
1840	Draught Ale,	72	24			Newcastle Courant - Friday 17 April 1840. page 1.
1840	Strong Edinburgh Ale			6s	quart?	Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1840	Superior Ale			4s 6d	quart?	Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1840	High hopped Table Ale			3s	quart?	Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1840	Highly hopped and attenuated India Ale			3s	quart?	Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1840	Best Draught Ale	72	24			Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1840	Best Draught Porter	48	16			Northern Liberator - Saturday 12 December 1840, page 8.
1842	Edinburgh Ale			4s	quart	Morning Post (London) - Monday 04 April 1842, page 1.
1842	Edinburgh Ale			6s	quart	Morning Post (London) - Monday 04 April 1842, page 1.
1842	Edinburgh Ale			8s	quart	Morning Post (London) - Monday 04 April 1842, page 1.
1842	Pale India Beer			4s	quart	Morning Post (London) - Monday 04 April 1842, page 1.
1842	draught Pale India Beer	48	16			Morning Post (London) - Monday 04 April 1842, page 1.
1843	Splendid Edinburgh Ale, Strongest			6s	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 06 May 1843, page 2.
1843	Fine Pale Edinburgh Ale			4s 6d	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 06 May 1843, page 2.
1843	India Pale Ale, much esteemed			3s	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 06 May 1843, page 2.
1843	Superior India Pale Ale			3s	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 05 August 1843, page 1.
1843	Splendid Ale			4s 6d	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 05 August 1843, page 1.
1843	Strongest Ale			6s	quart?	Newcastle Journal - Saturday 05 August 1843, page 1.
1843	Prime Strong Ale (Old Bottle 1)			6s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 22 December 1843, page 1.
1843	Prime Strong Ale (Old Bottle 1)			4s 6d	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 22 December 1843, page 1.
1843	Pale India Ale			3s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 22 December 1843, page 1.
1843	Prime Draught Ale	72	24			Newcastle Courant - Friday 22 December 1843, page 1.
1844	Edinburgh Ale			3s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 10 May 1844, page 1.
1844	Edinburgh Ale			4s 6d	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 10 May 1844, page 1.
1844	Edinburgh Ale			6s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 10 May 1844, page 1.
1845	Pale Export India Beer			3s	quart	Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1845	Mild Ale (5 guineas a hogshead)			4s 6d	quart	Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1845	Mild Ale (7 guineas a hogshead)			6s	quart	Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1845	Mild Ale (5 guineas a hogshead)	70	23.33			Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1845	Mild Ale (7 guineas a hogshead)	98	32.67			Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1845	Draught Ale	72	24			Newcastle Courant - Friday 09 May 1845, page 1.
1846	Pale Export India Beer			3s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 19 June 1846, page 1.
1846	Rich Flavoured Edinburgh Ale			4s 6d	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 19 June 1846, page 1.
1846	Strongest and Best Edinburgh Ale			6s	quart?	Newcastle Courant - Friday 19 June 1846, page 1.
1846	Draught Ale	72	24			Newcastle Courant - Friday 19 June 1846, page 1.
1848	Edinburgh Ale			3s 6d	pint	Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday 25 November 1848, page 1.
1848	Edinburgh Ale			6s	quart	Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday 25 November 1848, page 1.
1848	Pale India Ale			3s 6d	pint	Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday 25 November 1848, page 1.
1848	Pale India Ale			6s	quart	Hampshire Advertiser - Saturday 25 November 1848, page 1.
1859	Pale Ale	54	18			Newcastle Courant - Friday 29 July 1859, page 1.
1859	Six Guinea Ale	84	28			Newcastle Courant - Friday 29 July 1859, page 1.
1859	Draught Scotch Ale	56	18.67			Newcastle Courant - Friday 29 July 1859, page 1.

Last chance for Pattison's

Many creditors weren't happy when the liquidators said the negotiations with the syndicate had failed and began preparing to sell off Pattison's assets. They went to court to try to force a meeting of creditors which would decide whether to proceed with the sale to the syndicate. The liquidators were opposed, arguing more money would be realised by breaking up the company than by selling it as a going concern.

But it wasn't quite as simple as that. The stumbling block was the British Linen Bank. They wanted their money. In full and in cash.

"(Before Lord Stormonth Darling)
Pattisons' Affairs.
Lord Stormonth Darling heard counsel on the note presented by William Higgins, junior, Belfast, and others, creditors of Pattisons Limited to the extent of £130,000, asking the Court to convene a meeting of the creditors of the company in order to ascertain their wishes in reference to the scheme for the realisation of the company's assets to a London syndicate. The petitioner further asked that the liquidators should be directed to continue the business of the company for a sufficient further period to enable the report of the creditors' meeting to be submitted the the Court, and the business to be handed ever to the syndicate, if that should be decided upon, as a going concern. The answers of the liquidator to the note were also before his Lordship. In their answers the liquidators opposed the prayer of the note, and stated that if the scheme were adopted the assets would realise £377,000 while if it were not adopted the estimated realisation would amount to £381,000.

. . . . .

Lord Stormonth Darling said he understood the Solicitor-General to say that the syndicate were still willing to carry out the agreement as finally submitted by them even although that should involve some change in favour of the bank.

Solicitor-General replied that that was his interpretation, and that was the feeling upon which the creditors whom he represented had proceeded. The sum of £345,000 mentioned in the answers was arranged on the footing that it would give creditors 13s 4d in the £1, plus the expenses of the liquitation, it having been agreed that the debt of the creditors could not come up to £500,000. The meeting of creditors who empowered the presentation of this note represented £256,000. He noticed in the answers that it was said they represented less than £120,000, but he held in his hand a detailed list giving the names of those present and the amounts they represented, and totalling up to £256,000. That was a very substantial nurmber of creditors, and there were no creditors appearing against him in this matter. He summarised the position thus. Negotiations had gone on for several months that the dispute between the liquidators and the syndicate was narrowed to one point, and then all at once the business was stopped and the whole thing thrown over. On 13th May the travellers got notice that their services were dispensed with from that day. This was a business which to a very large extent depended upon travellers, and, of course, the syndicate would never dream of buying the business if when they came in they were to find that the travellers were scattered and that their services bad been secured by other competitors. With regard to the question of security, he pointed out that the liquidators had got exactly what was asked - a letter that the Ocean Corporation were likely to come under an obligation. It was not suggested that the Ocean Corporation was not an excellent and indisputably sound corporation for the amount, and the guarantee had gone as far as they were asked. The security was "given such adequate security for the due payment of the remaining instalments as the liquidators may with the sanction of the Court, require." And there was a very good security in: addition. that the new company was not to get delivery of the assets until the instalment was paid and adequate security in terms of that got. He asked, did the other side object to the creditors being convened? Having got no answer to that, he assumed that the liquidators were objecting to creditors to the extent of £250,000 being authorised to meet and consider that matter. He asked his Lordship to authorise that meeting of creditors, men representing £250,000, that they, might consider what was to be done about their money.

. . . .

After lunch, Mr Camzpbell. Q.C., replied on behalf of the liquidators. His clients, he said, had no desire whatever to obstruct any scheme of arrangement which they could conscientiously recommend to the creditors and to the Court. On the contrary, they had all along frankly expressed their view that this was a case in which it was most desirable, in the interests of everybody, that a scheme should be carried through, and so frank had the liquidators been upon the subject that the creditors took alarm that their interests might suffer. His Lordship might remember that the Supervision Order in this case contained a very unusual clause, a clause which was adjusted by the Court with the view to protecting the interests of the creditors against any over-zeal on the part of the liquidators in the direction of a scheme of rearrangement. Actually they found that in answer to the very last note in which the liquidators asked leave to carry on the business, Mr Brickmann, one of the present petitioners, averred that the business Of Pattisons Limited was at present being carried on by the liquidators at a loss. That was quite true. The liquidators, who had a great deal more thorough knowledge of the pros and cons of the business, and with a desire to facilitate and carry out a scheme, were unable to tell the Court that any workable scheme had been adjusted, and they were satisfied that to grant the prayer of the petition would be most injurious to the great majorit of the creditors. There was a point which was material, although the Solicitor-General did not seem to think it was. The liquidators thought it their duty, in the last paragraph of their answers, to make a statement as to information they had received in connection with underwriting, and the Solicitor-General said it was correct. There was nothing improper or wrong in their entering into an underwriting contract, but, obviously, if it were true that one of the creditors entered into such contracts it gave him an interest in the scheme entirely different from his pure interest as a creditor, because he had entered into a speculatiom - a perfcetly legitimate one - in the floating of the new company. The scheme was defective in two or more points. For their £100,000 of debt the British Linen Company had a heritable security over certain of the works, and the suggestion of the scheme of arrangement was that the bank should be asked to take Debentures in the new company which was to be floated instead of their security, and that they were to take Debentures for a less amount than the amount of their security. He had a letter, dated 28th May, from the manager of the bank, in which the manager said the position of matters seemed to be that the bank at present hold a bond for £100,000 over the brewery and warehouse, two most valuable properties, and they were asked to give that up in exchange for £91,600 of the Debenture stock in the proposed new company, about which they had no information. How the £91,600 was arrived at he did not know. If that was the proposition, the manager said, the bank had no hesitation in declining it. The consent of the bank ws necessary to any effective step being carried through, and the bank had also a very large vote as an unsecured creditor. The propounders of this scheme had been warned that the bank would not consent and that arrangements must be made to carry the bank with them. The liquidators had no interest in the matter except that they would not, and could not, consent to any scheme which was defective in that main and essential point. If the liquidators could have foreseen the course of the negotiations they would never have consented to this unfortunate delay, but would have realised in the month of March. Their experience showed that they could not, and ought not, in the discharge of their duty rely upon the promises of the syndicate. If the Solicitor-General would undertake within a specific time, say a week, to approach the bank and to settle this difficulty with them, the scheme might go on. The liquidators here had very considerable difficulty in obtaining the judicial deposit, and yet the Solicitor-General, on behalf of the syndicate, whom he did not represent, told them that whatever cash was required would he readily forthcoming.

. . . .

The Solicitor-General replied that he was not able to enter into the details of the scheme, but he would like to say that the British Linen Company Bank was not entitled to say that they would not agree, and there was an end of the matter. The law was that the bank could be compelled to agree with the majority of the creditors. Besides, the bank would be amenable to public influence, and if the meeting of creditors held a certan opinion, the bank in its own interest would be willing to consider that opinion. The procedure at the meeting of creditors might be that the sense of the meeting would he gathered, and a small representative committee appointed to meet the bank on the one hand and confer with the syndicate on the other. That would occupy a few days. They did not wish to cut out the liquidators, but as they said the negotiations were at an end, the creditors came in and asked to be allowed to see what they could do. His clients were so anxious about the matter that they would endeavour to carry out the negotiations within a fortnight. Lord Stornmonth Darling said he would consider the matter, and give judgment to-morrow (Saturday) morning."
Glasgow Herald - Saturday 20 May 1899, page 13.

It was the prospect of the staff - in particular the travellers (salesmen) - being laid off that meant the creidtors had to act quickly. Once they were gone, breaking up the company and selling the assets was inevitable.

Actually, it all came down to the British Linen Bank. They were in the best position of all the creditors. Though they were owed £100,000, they had the brewery and warehouse - which were worth more - as security. They were certain of getting their money when the assets were sold. Unlike the unscured creditors, who would have to make do with what was left after the bank had taken its share.

You can understand why the bank might not have been too impressed at the thought of only getting £91,600. And not in cash, but in debentures in the new company. But compared to the other poor creditors, that was still a good deal. Unsecured creditors were only being offered 13s 4d in the pound (66%) of their debts.

It's clear that the British Linen Bank had a lot of influence over the liquidators. I'm not sure why. They appear to have acted in the bank's interest rather than that of the creditor's as a whole. But, as recent events in the banking world have demonstrated again, you can't trust bastard banks.

What happened next? There was one more appearance of the creditors in the court. We'll learn about that next.

Robert Deuchar beers 1929 - 1959

All those dusty financial reports are making my throat dry. Time to give it some relief in the form of beer. Sadly not actual beer, just numbers about beer. It's close enough for me.

Newcastle brewer Robert Deuchar, you will recall, bought Pattison's Duddingston Brewery at a knock-down price. They seem to have got the best deal of anyone out of the Pattison's bankruptcy. They got themselves a shiny new brewery to brew Scotch Ales for their pubs in the northeast. Let's take a look at what they brewed.

A lot of Pale Ales, it looks like. All the pre-war beers in the table are Pale Ales. pretty low-gravity Pale Ales. All are under 1040º. I know I've warned you about this before, but it bears repeating: don't assume that those 60/- Ales have any connection with modern Scottish 60/-. These were all clearly indicated as Pale Ales. The colours also show that they weren't dark like today's 60/-.

1038º was pretty weak for a London Pale Ale before WW II. Especially a draught Pale Ale. Standard Bitter was in the mid 1040's and Best Bitter over 1050º. The only beers with a similar gravity to Deuchar's were cheap bottled Pale Ales like Barclay Perkins XLK or Whitbread's Family Ale, which were both in the 1036-1038º range.

See anything unusual about the post-WW II beers? With the exception of one Pale Ale from the dark days of 1949 austerity (when Britain was most definitely in black and white) all are over 1040º. Normally you would expect the earlier beers to be stronger. There's a reason for that. The 1950's Pale Ales are of a different type: Export. It does appear that in the 1950's it was beginning to take on its modern form. Though today's Exports are a little lower in gravity, in the range 1042-1045º.

The Hampden Red Ale is an odd one. My guess would be that it's the Export with extra caramel to give it a darker colour. I'm trying to think if I've seen another Scottish beer described as a Red Ale. I don't believe I have. But I'm sure that won't stop some style Nazi making up guidelines and a fake history for it.

Finally there are a couple of Scottish-style Sweet Stouts. I didn't need the hint in the name to see that they were Sweet Stouts. The low attenuation gives that away. Though they aren't the most extreme in that respect. Plenty of Scottish Stouts had below 50% apparent attenuation.

Robert Deuchar beers 1929 - 1959
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1929	60/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1010	1038.5	No. 4 1.5 glass paler than our standard.	3.76	75.32%
1929	60/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1010	1038.5	No.6 1 glass paler than our standard.	3.76	75.32%
1931	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	6d	half pint	bottled		1009	1034	26	3.24	73.53%
1936	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	5d	pint	bottled		1006	1028.5	7 – 8	2.92	78.95%
1938	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1038.3	13	3.80	76.47%
1939	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1037.5		3.77	77.33%
1939	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008	1031.5	8	3.11	76.19%
1949	PA 60/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008	1030		2.85	73.33%
1955	Export Ale	Pale Ale	1/3d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1015	1049.5	23	4.48	69.90%
1956	Hampden Red Ale	Ale	1/3d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1016	1048.5	55	4.23	67.42%
1956	Edinburgh Sweet Stout	Stout	1/3d	half pint	bottled	0.04	1017	1042.9	300	3.37	60.84%
1956	Export Ale	Pale Ale	1/3d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1014	1047.6	23	4.37	70.80%
1959	Edinburgh Sweet Stout	Stout	14d	halfpint	bottled		1020	1043.5	275	3.06	54.71%
1959	Edinburgh Export	Pale Ale	16d	halfpint	bottled	0.04	1015	1048.3	23	4.33	69.15%
Sources:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002