A Stronger Quality of Bitter Ale

AK - Bitter or Mild? This is advert from Rogers of Bristol seems very sure that it was the latter:

"THE NEW SEASON'S BREWINGS OF 

ROGERS'S

AK and AKK

ARE NOW BEING DELIVERED IN FINE CONDITION.

ROGERS'S AK BITTER ALE,
1s 2d PER GALLON,
AT THE JACOB STREET BREWERY, BRISTOL.

WJ. ROGERS begs to introduce to the notice of his Customers a stronger quality of BITTER ALE, called "AKK," at 1s 4d per Gallon, to meet the requirements of those who may prefer a more invigorating Ale than the "AK," which is a light, wholesome, palatable, tonic Beverage, alike enjoyable by the Family, the Delicate Constitution, or the Invalid, many eminent Medical Men having given it their high approval. It is peculiarly free from the "heady" quality so much complained of in Ales generally, and leaves the Consumer's palate as clean as the finest Wine.
THE JACOB STREET BREWERY. BRISTOL.
Western Daily Press - Saturday 18 January 1868, page 1.

See? AKK was a more invigorating version of AK. I take it that by "invigorating" they really mean "intoxicating". Though they also say that it isn't "heady", a word which I would also have taken to mean "strong". Who complains about Ale being too strong? Certainly not me. At least not usually.

This is the business end of the advertisement:

That's an interesting selection of beers. Mild, Bitter and Stout. Odd that there's no Porter in there. The 1860's is early for a brewery to have dropped Porter. Especially one like Rogers who got into the Porter trade early. 

Though it's the most expensive beer in the list, I doubt that the IPA was the strongest. There's a good chance that it was weaker than the XXX Ale. In the 19th century all types of Pale Ale were sold at a premium price and were more expensive than beers of a similar strength in other styles.

There you have it. AKK: a stronger qualityof Bitter Ale.

Pie Heaven

Ind Coope AKK

This has all been inspired by a label that I found. You can it there to the right. Ind Coope AKK Ale.

It's beer names like this that have left me doubting Martyn Cornell's explanation of AK standing for Ankel Koyt. If it did, then what does the extra K stand for in AKK? To me names like this confirm my explanation of AK. That the AK and the K both stand for something.

Though I'll be honest that the usual meaning of K - Keeping - on the face of it makes little sense for the type of Light Bitter that was called AK. It being one of the classic types of 19th-century Running Beers. Let me think a bit more about that one.

I've a few examples of AKK from old brewery price lists. Always alongside an AK. Interesting that. There are plenty of examples of AK without AKK, but not the other way around. I think that makes clear which came first: AK. AKK is usually one step up in price and strength from AK.

Sometimes, like at Fuller's, the strength slot one up from AK is filled by XK. Which works with my explanation of AK. A being an indication of strength, just like X. In the late 19th-century, X implies a gravity of about 1055º, A 1050º. K specifying that it's a Pale Ale rather than a Mild Ale.

Tables. I don't like to leave you without one or two. Some examples from price lists would seem appropriate.

First Ind Coope themselves:

Brewery	Place	year	beer	price per barrel (shillings)	price per gallon (pence)
Ind Coope & Co	Romford	1865	AKK	44	14.6667
Ind Coope & Co	Romford	1865	AK	46	15.3333
Source:
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Friday 03 November 1865, page 8

This one shows where AK and AKK fitted into a range of Pale Ales:

Brewery	Place	year	beer	price per barrel (shillings)	price per gallon (pence)
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	AK Bitter Ale	36	12
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	AKK Bitter Ale	42	14
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	PA Pale Ale	48	16
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	IPA India Pale Ale	54	18
Source:
Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3

And so does this one, except I've included the brewery's whole set of beers:

Brewery	Place	year	beer	price per barrel (shillings)	price per gallon (pence)
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	X Mild Ale	30	10d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	XX Mild Ale	36	1s
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	XXXX Mild Ale	48	1s 4d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	XXX Old Ale	48	1s 4d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	IPA India Pale Ale	54	1s 6d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	AK Light Dinner Ale	36	1s
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	AKK Bitter Ale	42	1s 2d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	AB Pale Ale	48	1s 4d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	A1 Strong Ale	54	1s 6d
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	XXX Extra Stout	48	1s 4d

You may have spotted something odd. And illogical. Ind Coope's AKK was weaker than its AK. Don't ask me why. It makes absolutely no sense. The more letters, the stronger the beer is the usual rule.

Eldridge Pope grists 1896 - 1897

Part two at my look at late 19th-century Eldridge Pope beers.

This is a brewery where not only did I drink their beers in the past, I still have bottles in my cellar. Of Hardy Ale, obviously. No rush to drink it as it should last pretty much indefinitely.

The answer is, yes, before you ask. I do have brewing records for Hardy Ale.  There are a couple of fascinating points about how they brewed it. But I'm saving those for later. I don't want to spoil Kristen's recipe for you.

I didn't mention this last time. I really should explain it. BAK, I'm pretty sure stands for Bottling AK. So an early Light Ale, really. That term seems to be fairly recent, Light Ale. Even between the wars they were mostly still called things like Light Dinner Ale or Light Bitter Ale. I suspect Light Ale only became the commonly accepted name for this type of beer after WW II.

The recipes are pretty much what I would expect: mostly pale malt and sugar. Note that it was the Pale Ales that contained the greatest proportion of sugar in the grist. Even though they were the more expensive beers. This is because sugar was used to keep the body light rather than to brew on the cheap.

Most of the sugar lumped together in "other sugar" for the 1896 entries is No. 2 and No. 3 invert, I'm sure. They just didn't bother specifying it exactly. Which is a bit annoying. I need to plug the recipe into brewing software, but I suspect the final XX Ale in the table will come out a dark amber.

I can guess what you're thinking: then why isn't the KK Pale Ale it was parti-gyled with dark, too. Because this is a special type of parti-gyling. There were two coppers and so two gyles. All of the first gyle was used in the KK and all of the second gyle in the XX. Which means the sugars weren't evenly distributed over the two beers. In most of the records they list which sugars went in which copper. In this one they didn't. My guess is that the No. 2 sugar went in the KK copper and the No.3 in the second.

Barnard, who was in the brewery a few years previously to the date of these records, mentions a Burton Ale. I wonder which of these beers it was? I'd go for the XXXX. That looks the right strength. If we were in London, a Burton would almost certainly have been called KK inside the brewery. But this one doesn't look right: not strong enough and called a Pale Ale.

Which reminds me. I must transcribe Bernard's description of the brewery. Maybe next time.

Eldridge Pope grists in 1896-1897
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	no. 2 sugar	no. 3 sugar	caramel	other sugar	flaked maize
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.6	4.87	76.00%	78.72%						17.02%	4.26%
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	75.56%						20.00%	4.44%
1896	BAK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	75.56%						20.00%	4.44%
1896	PA	Pale Ale	1057.6	1014.4	5.72	75.00%	80.00%						15.00%	5.00%
1896	XX	Mild	1049.0	1011.6	4.95	76.27%	80.00%						15.00%	5.00%
1896	S	Stout	1061.5	1026.9	4.58	56.31%	68.14%	7.57%	7.57%			1.58%	15.14%
1896	LTS	Stout	1051.2	1019.4	4.21	62.16%	71.76%	7.97%	7.97%			1.66%	10.63%
1897	XXX	Mild	1065.1	1018.6	6.16	71.49%	85.45%						10.91%	3.64%
1897	XX	Mild	1048.8	1013.9	4.62	71.59%	85.45%						10.91%	3.64%
1897	XXXX	Strong Ale	1074.8	1023.8	6.74	68.15%	93.55%						3.23%	3.23%
1897	KK	Pale Ale	1051.5	1014.1	4.95	72.58%	78.50%			2.80%	11.21%		1.87%	5.61%
1897	XX	Mild	1049.6	1012.5	4.91	74.86%	78.50%			2.80%	11.21%		1.87%	5.61%
Source:
Eldridge Pope brewing records

Dorchester Brewery

As I'm on a bit of an Eldridge Pope kick at the moment, I thought I'd share Barnard's description of the brewery with you.

What's brilliant is that Barnard's visit was only a few years before the 1896 breing records we've been looking at.

"The Dorchester Brewery, which is certainly the finest specimen of architecture in the district, is an imposing structure, combining the useful and the beautiful to an eminent degree. It is constructed of brick and Portland stone, and is situated close to the Dorchester station of the London and South Western Railway. Attached to the works, and facing the main road, is a fine block of buildings, containing the offices and manager's residence. Adjoining it there is a row of handsome houses, with gardens running back to the makings, in which reside the managers of the various departments in the brewery. The facade of the whole group of buildings, which extends a distance of upwards of 300 feet, is very imposing, especially when viewed from the railway station.

Before taking our readers through this splendid brewery, which is fitted up with every modern appliance and vessel known to the trade, we must briefly refer to its early history. The business of this model brewhouse was established early in the present century on the east side of the town, by the late Mr. Charles Eldridge, and was most successfully carried on by him and his successors in the business, Messrs. Tizard & Mason, until about the year 1871, when the present proprietors became possessed of it by purchase. From that date until the year 1880 the business continued to thrive and increase, under the sole and very able management of Mr. Edwin Pope, when the demand for these famous ales had become so great that the firm determined  to  erect  the  present  magnificent  structure, and  Mr. Alfred Pope decided to give up his profession, in order that he might join his brother in the active management of the business. There was not sufficient room to erect the new buildings on the site of the old brewery, hence the firm migrated to the southern side of the town, where they were fortunate in acquiring a valuable plot of five acres of ground, in close proximity to the station of the London and South Western Railway, on which to build their new brewery."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol III", by Alfred Barnard, 1890, page 130.

It certainly was a fine looking structure. As the brewery is now sadly closed, you may be thinking: "I wonder what happened to it?" I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the main buildings are still standing:

They still look pretty fine. Though it's currently being surrounded by the sort of shitty shopping-centre-come-flats development that disfigure so many British towns in the name of "regeneration".


I'll be continuing with Barnard, with descriptions both of the guts of the brewery and the beers themselves.

Eldridge Pope beers in 1896 - 1897

Many thanks to Peter Symons for passing on photographs of Eldridge Pope brewing records, the source of today's post.

I'm assembling an impressive set of brewing record photos. They're staring to cover quite a lot of Britain. It's good to have material from outside London (and Scotland), if only for comparison purposes. And I never tire of finding new AK's. Especially one that managed to hang around as long as Eldridge Pope's.

Nothing particularly odd in there. Though there are three Pale Ales with quite a small spread of gravities: 1048.5, 1051.5 and 1057.6. If you look in the table of Whitbread beers that I've included for comparison purposes, you can se that Whitbread also had three Pale Ales, but with slightly higher gravities of 1050, 1055 and 1061. I'm not sure how significant that is. It would depend on the price charged for the different beers.

One difference that is significant is in the hopping rate of the two breweries' Pale Ales. Whitbread's contain about 50% more hops.

Eldridge Pope and Whitbread both have two Milds. The former's X Ale is 10 points weaker than Whitbread's, but the stronger Milds of the two breweries are almost exactly the same strength. The hopping rate is a little lower in the Eldridge Pope beers, but not by much.

Eldridge Pope's Strong Ale, XXXX, is roughly similar in strength to Whitbread's KK, but has a much lower hopping rate. I think I'm detecting a trend here.

When comes to the Stouts, things are the other way around. The Eldridge Pope versions are more heavily hopped. Even though their strongest Stout is hardly stronger than Whibreead's Porter.

Here are their beers from 1896 - 1897 in convenient table format:

Eldridge Pope beers in 1896-1897
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermentation temp	length of fermentation (days)
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.6	4.87	76.00%	7.33	1.50	2.5	2.5	2.5	60º	71.25º	8
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	7.03	1.44	2.5	2.5	2.75	59.5º	69º	8
1896	BAK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	7.03	1.44	2.5	2.5	2.75	59.5º	69.75º	8
1896	PA	Pale Ale	1057.6	1014.4	5.72	75.00%	10.5	2.56	2.5	2.75		59.5º	70.25º	7
1896	XX	Mild	1049.0	1011.6	4.95	76.27%	4.36	0.91	2.5	2.75		60º	70.5º	7
1896	S	Stout	1061.5	1026.9	4.58	56.31%	9.43	2.50	2.5			59º	70.5º	8
1896	LTS	Stout	1051.2	1019.4	4.21	62.16%	10.37	2.23	2.5			60º	70º	8
1897	XXX	Mild	1065.1	1018.6	6.16	71.49%	6.25	1.75	2.5	2.5	2.75	60º	74.25º	9
1897	XX	Mild	1048.8	1013.9	4.62	71.59%	6.25	1.31	2.5	2.5	2.75	60º	69º	8
1897	XXXX	Strong Ale	1074.8	1023.8	6.74	68.15%	8.95	2.82	2.5	2.5	2.5	60º	74º	9
1897	KK	Pale Ale	1051.5	1014.1	4.95	72.58%	6.81	1.50	2	2.5		60º	69.5º	4
1897	XX	Mild	1049.6	1012.5	4.91	74.86%	6.23	1.33	2	2.5		60.25º	70.5º	4
Source:
Eldridge Pope brewing records

And here are Whitbread's from the same period:

Whitbread beers in 1896
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp
1896	FA	Pale Ale	1050.4	1012.0	5.08	76.20%	10.03	2.24	1.67	1.75	57.5º
1896	2PA	Pale Ale	1055.4	1016.0	5.21	71.12%	13.99	3.64	1.5	1.75	57º
1896	PA	Pale Ale	1060.9	1016.0	5.95	73.74%	15.06	4.28	1.5	1.75	57º
1896	X	Mild	1058.2	1014.0	5.84	75.93%	7.50	1.90	1.75	1.75	60º
1896	XK	Ale	1064.8	1015.0	6.59	76.86%	7.50	2.12	1.75	1.75	58º
1896	KK	Stock Ale	1078.1	1030.0	6.37	61.59%	13.28	4.51	1.75	1.75	57º
1896	KKK	Stock Ale	1087.4	1034.0	7.07	61.12%	12.88	5.12	1.75	2	57º
1896	P	Porter	1059.6	1015.0	5.89	74.81%	7.79	1.94	1.75	1.75	60º
1896	C	Porter	1059.3	1016.0	5.73	73.01%	6.81	1.85	1.5	1.75	60º
1896	CS	Stout	1066.2	1020.0	6.11	69.79%	6.81	2.06	1.5	1.75	60º
1896	SS	Stout	1085.0	1030.0	7.28	64.71%	9.53	3.98	1.75	2	57º
1896	SSS	Stout	1094.5	1034.0	8.00	64.02%	9.53	4.42	1.75	2	57º
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/062 and LMA/4453/D/09/091

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1896 Eldridge Pope AK

Sorry about the long gap between recipes. You can blame Kristen and his kids. I won't go into it any deeper, but it was 100% not my fault.

Today's recipe is a departure in some ways. For one thing, it's not taken from a record I collected myself. I (and you, too) have Peter Symons to thank for this one. He sent me a collection of Eldridge Pope logs. This is one of the earliest ones.

I don't need to remind you of my AK obsession. I find this type of Light Bitter (it's not an effing Light Mild no matter Kristen says below) fascinating. So common in the last couple of decades of the 19th century but almost completely vanished by 1939. Except at McMullen and Holes. I still find it hard to accept McMullen's role in convincing many that AK was some sort of Light Mild. It wasn't. It was a Light Bitter. Or a Mild Bitter. But not a Light Mild. Is that clear?

I was about to say that this was a little on the strong side for an AK. Then I looked up Fuller's. That was 1050º in 1897, so about exactly the same as this one. This beer is a typical strength for an AK. It's a "light" Pale Ale, as a full-strength Pale Ale was a good bit stronger, with a gravity around 1060º.

It's also a "mild" or Running Pale Ale, which would have been consumed pretty much immediately after racking. At this time beers like Bass were still brewed as Stock Pale Ales which were aged for extended periods - up to a year or more - before sale.

Eldridge Pope brewed two versions: AK and BAK, the latter being the bottled version. BAK hung around for a long time. It was still being brewed in the 1980's, though it wasn't sold as AK. The trade name was, I believe, Crystal Ale.

Here's an advert from a few years earlier which includes Crystal Ale:

Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser, Wednesday 4th February 1891, page 4.

There will be more about Eldridge Pope's other beers from 1896 later this week. With nice, neat tables of data.

One point about the recipe. One ingredient is listed as "flake". Kristen has taken it to mean flaked barley. I think it's flaked maize. Mostly because I've never seen flaked barley in a 19th century recipe.

Oh, another point. About the sugar. This record doesn't specify the type, but some others do. Based on them, I'd say that it was No. 2 invert in this beer.








It's so long since I've written this . . . . . . time to pass you over to Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version

Notes: Well well well…My apologies for the extended absence. With the brewery now fully operational, we are back in the swing of things! So, we start, with the first in a series of beers from Eldridge Pope given to us from my good buddy Peter! Thanks Peter even if I can’t understand what you say half the time! Can I get a Hill Yis!!!

To the recipe then…oh man, an AK. One of my very very very favoritist beer styles ever. I call it a Pale mild, as that seems most awesome. You can call it what you like…maybe even what would today be a Golden Bitter. Either way, its delicious.

Malt: The malt for this beer is pretty damn straight forward. English and Continental pale malt from a few various lots. A bit of some flaked barley and then a bunch of sugar...tasty tasty sugar. The idea is to choose what you really want to taste in this beer because it is very pale with nothing to hide behind. I really like Tipple if you can get it, or Optic, but this is a really good place for some Golden Promise (I like Simpsons) or some Maris…yeah, maybe a combination…50:50?

Hops: So lets rap about these hops. The most important thing for a beer this pale and simple, chose your very best ones. Its much better to have fresh over ‘perfect choice’. This beer is perfect from some Goldings of any variety. Maybe a combination of EKG or Styrian and Willamette. Now, you see we have a new technique down here. The very last entry for the Goldings. It says ‘Hop back’. Very few people actual have a hop back which basically is a container, holding hops, that you run your beer through post-boil, pre-chill. You can accomplish pretty much the same thing by using a whirlpool/steep. After knockout, add your hops at zero minutes stir…get a nice whirlpool going. If you have a pump, leave it on about 15-20min. If not, give it a good stir and leave it be for about for 25-30min. You’ll need less time for the pump because the agitation. You’ll have to experiment with your own system to get the most out of it. Its not exactly the same but its much closer doing it this way, than end of boil hops or dry hops.

Yeast: If you want to use the Eldridge Pope/Hardy’s yeast, use the WLP099 Super High Gravity. This yes is a pretty strong fermenter but you can limit it by reducing the amount you pitch and the oxygen you give by about 1/3rd. If you want another yeast, anything that gives a nice bright beer with a good note of lighter fruits. Nothing weird here.

Steamed pudding

How crazy is this? More than five year's after my mother's death, I'm still trying to please her.

If only I could have such influence.

I made my first steamed pudding on Sunday. This is it:

I think Mum would be pleased.

Five Gallons of Ale Sucked through a gas pipe

This is a novel way of stealing beer - by sucking it through a pipe. It's quite clever, in a way. Though getting caught isn't quite so smart.

"Five Gallons of Ale Sucked through a gas pipe.
—On Saturday forenoon a man named John McKenna appeared before Sheriff Arkley on a charge of stealing five gallons of ale from the brewery of Messrs. Drybrough and Company, Canongate. On the afternoon of Thursday last McKenna, along with three companions, was at the foot of Logan's Close, immediately adjoining the brewery, one of the windows of which was open, and a barrel of ale close beside it. The temptation proved too strong to be resisted ; and accordingly a piece of lead gas-pipe was introduced through the window and into the bung-hole of the barrel, the four vagabonds each in turn taking a pretty long suck. Some boys observed their movements, but the abstraction of the ale went on for some hours ere the boys thought of informing the police. They ultimately did so, however, but the thieves observed the police coming up the close, and three of them managed to make their escape, leaving McKenna, who was considerably more than half-seas-over, to the tender mercies of the law. The ale in the cask was afterwards measured, and it was found that the four had managed to extract five gallons. McKenna pleaded guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment. — Edinburgh Courant."
Hertford Mercury and Reformer - Saturday 02 May 1863, page 3.

Interesting approach to sentencing in the old days. A cooper who hit his foreman so hard that he blinded him in one eye only got 8 months. Which makes a month inside for stealing 5 gallons of beer - probably worth around 5 shillings worth - seem pretty harsh.

I'm not surprised McKenna was pissed. Five gallons amongst just people means they averaged more than a gallon each. At a time when even weak beer was 5 to 6% ABV.

Reputed Pint Bottles

This article highlights one of the nightmares of deciphering old price lists. The vagueness of the terms "pint" and "quart". Do they mean a reputed pint or an Imperial pint? Sometimes the distinction is made, but often not

I must say that I'm surprised by this case, pointed out to me by Korev in a recent comment. Even I know, almost 150 years later, that a reputed pint is way short of a proper pint. Why did the revenue inspector decide to prosecute this particular grocer? Especially when it was clear that everyone was aware that a reputed pint wasn't a full measure.

The other thing is, having lived myself in Melbourne, I know what measure they sell draught beer in there. One is something called a reputed pint. Or schooner. It's about two-thirds of a pint. Oh, the happy memories of nipping into the Canada for a quick schooner of Copper's Stout on the walk home from work. It was often 40º C. That's my excuse.

"REPUTED PINT BOTTLES.

The postponed cases in which Henry Black, grocer, at 175 Bourke-street west, and Alexander McIntosh, grocer, at 180 King-street, were summoned, under the Wines, Beer, and Spirits Sale Statute 1804, for selling bottles of liquor in bottles containing less than a pint, to wit, five-eighths of a pint, came on at the District Court yesterday, before Mr. Sturt, P.M., and Mr. Wilton, J. P. Black's case was taken first. Mr, F. Stephen prosecuting, and Mr. Gillott defending.

John Wilson deposed that he was a surveyor in the employ of the revenue inspector, Mr. Evans, and on the 10th inst., by the latter's direction, went to the defendant Black's shop, and purchased the bottle of "Guinness's stout, bottled by Burke," produced. Purchased it from the grocer's assistant.

Wm. McDonald gave evidence to the effect that he had measured the bottle produced when empty, and found it would contain barely five-eighths of a pint.

For the defence Mr. Gillott urged that there was no deceit proved, as the bottles were those universally known as pint bottles, though known by the trade and the public not to contain a pint. He also deprecated the style of doing business by the revenue inspector, who sent informers to buy these bottles, and pointed out that there was no proof of the reliability of such an informer. He called -

Hugh Miller Guthrie, customs officer, who deposed that he very frequently received through the custom-house bottles like that produced, reputed pint bottles, and sold in the trade as pints, though they did not contain a pint. Witness has been in Melbourne 23 years, and never saw a reputed pint bottle that contained-a-pint.

Cross-examined. - The duty on pints reckoned 12 to a gallon. The act said they should take them as reputed pints. About 20, or a good many, years ago they used to take them by usage as pints without any act, and afterwards they were required to measure them ; but that was put a stop to, and an act of Parliament was passed to take them as reputed pints, at 6d. per gallon. The bottle produced was a little smaller than usual. Five years ago pint bottles were not "much larger" than that produced. Quart bottles held more than a tablespoonful more than a pint. He should say they held six-eighths of a quart.

To Mr. Gillott.-Witness had measured thousands, and never found a reputed pint bottle that contained a pint. Six reputed quart bottles were reckoned to a gallon, but it would take about seven, or six and a quarter, or six and a half, to actually make up the gallon. Some brewers placed more than others did in a reputed quart bottle. There were no twelve bottles of brandy containing two gallons of brandy. The nearest was Hennessy's, and that was 2-32nds short. That mode had been in the trade ever pince Johnny Fawkner sold liquor.

To the Bench.-Witness never saw a full imperial pint or quart to come in full-sized bottles, and they used to measure every cargo that arrived. The nearest was Byass's porter.

Euler Smythers, wine and spirit merchant and grocer's licence holder, said he bad been 17 years in the trade. Burke's stout was sold as pints. The bottle produced was exactly the same as those sold as a pint in the trade. Quart bottles were about six to a gallon. Bottles like that produced had always been sold as pint bottles during the last 17 years. The public, of course, knew they were not getting a pint. It would not bo safe to import such large sizes as bottles holding a quart, on account of the loss which would result from breakage.

To Mr. STEPHEN.-Witness knew that by his grocer's licence he must not sell a less quantity than a pint. Had never measured the bottles to see what they contained. He believed that produced held about six-eighths of a pint.

- Smithson, grocer and wine and spirit merchant, in Queen-street, said he had been 18 years in the trade, and sold bottles like that produced as reputed pints. Had sold that class of ale and porter since the act came into force in 1865. Never came across a case of brandy containing two gallons.

Cross-examined. - Never compared other bottles with that produced. Did not think Guinness's pint bottle wad a whit smaller now than 10 years ago. Did not know that the importers at home had been reducing the size of the bottles in order to make a greater profit.

Isaac Sewell, of Elizabeth-street, 16 years in the trade, deposed that be had never had any complaints from the public, and he sold the bottles as reputed pints.

This was the case for the defence.

Mr. Sturt, P.M., said that the Bench considered that in complaints of this kind under a penal act, it must be a wilful evasion of the act to constitute an offence. Now in this case there was not wilful evasion of the act, and, moreover, it was selling by the pint bottle by repute, and custom, he thought, bore it out ; and the case was therefore dismissed. On the same plea, he might observe, persons might be actionable for selling a dozen quart bottles of wine, which would be for selling less than two gallons.

Mr. Stephen said ho would apply to have a case stated.

The case of McIntosh was the next, and the only difference being that the bottle in question was one of Tennent's reputed pints, Mr. Stephen said he would allow it to be dismissed with the other, and it was accordingly dismissed.

Two other cases, in which Henry Black was charged with permitting to be sold on two occasions liquor not in the quantity and manner which his grocer's licence authorised under the Act of 1804, were by consent postponed until Thursday.
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.) Tuesday 28 March 1871, page 7.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5845043

It all seems like a huge waste of time and money. Everyone except Mr. Evans, the revenue inspector, understood perfectly well that the bottels weren't an Imperial pint in size.

One thing that struck me was that the beer was being imported already bottled.I'd have expected mostt to be sent out in casks and to be bottled locally. Did they really avoid large bottles because of the risk of breakage? Sounds like a godd excuse for using under-sized bottels to me.