Charrrington concentrates on London

Charrington had brewed in Burton since the 1870's, but in 1925 decided to close the operation down, presumably on cist grounds.

Several London brewers had acquired breweries in Burton in the second half of the 19th century: Truman, Charrington and Mann. Presumably as well as the water, they were keen to have some of Burton's glamour rub off on them. I'm not sure any of these three breweries ever made much financial sense.

So in the difficult times after WW I, it's not surprising Charrington decided to concentrate of London, where presumably the bulk of their business was.

It wasn't just the brewery they sold. They disposed of their licensed premises, too.

"BURTON BREWERY'S REMOVAL TO LONDON.
It is stated by a Burton correspondent that the business connected with the Burton brewery of Messrs. Charrington and Co., Mile End, is to be removed to London, the intention of the firm being to concentrate on the Metropolis. Some 150 employees are involved in the transfer. In February 86 of the company's licenced houses, scattered over the Midlands, are to be put up to auction. The Abbey Brewery, so called from its contiguity to Burton Abbey, whose abbots made the local product famous, was established by Messrs. Charrington and Co. in 1871.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Friday 11 December 1925, page 5.

It sounds like all the employees were made redundant:

"BURTON BREWERY TO CLOSE DOWN.
Messrs. Charrington and Co., brewers, announced yesterday that they have decided to concentrate in the London business, and to have submitted for sale February 86 licensed houses in the Midlands, owned by the firm — at Coventry Leicester, Nottingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Worcester, Derby, and Burton-on-Trent. Our Burton correspondent understands that the step involves the closing down of Abbey brewery, Burton, where 150 men are employed, and that the employees will receive liberal consideration the hands of the directors."
Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 11 December 1925, page 6.

It turns out those licensed houses weren't all pubs, but included some off-licences. Here's the breakdown:

"CHARRINGTON'S. LTD.
TO SELL ALL THEIR LICENSED HOUSES
Messrs. Charrington and Co., Ltd., the well. brewers, have decided to sell the public houses in various parts of the provinces, and they will concentrate on their London business. Altogether 87 licensed properties will submitted for auction. There are 53 fully-licensed houses, 23 on-beer licences and 11 off-licences, with contiguous properties, as well the Abbey Brewery, Burton-on-Trent, with offices, maltings, cooperage, railway sidings, houses, stores, etc.

In Derby the properties are: Dog and Duck. Haarlem-street, and cottage adjoining: off licence, 61, Church-street; Bedford Arms, Bedford-street; Coach and Horses, Mansfield road; Lamb Inn Park-street, and adjoining premises; Boar Tavern Cockpit Hill; and Station Inn, Midland-road."
Derby Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 06 January 1926, page 4.

Just 76 pubs and 11 off-licences miles away from London would have been an expensive proposition to supply. Which is presumably why Charrington, having decided to close the brewery, got rid of them, too. They probably used the cash they raised to buy more pubs down South. Nine of the pubs were sold for £84,250*.






* Nottingham Evening Post - Thursday 04 February 1926, page 6.

US tour finished

At least the gigs. I finished the last one in Maryland Homebrew in Columbia, Maryland a few hours ago.

It was much the same as yesterday's event in 3 Stars in D.C., event but  without the handicap of food poisoning. I didn't know an hour before if I'd be able to perform. Somehow I found the energy, but was ready to collapse soon after.

I've never spoken so much a bout beer in my life,  both at the formal events and just chatting in pubs, while travelling around and pretty much any other moment of the day.

Here are a couple of my radio appearances.


http://www.heritageradionetwork.com/episodes/5692-Fuhmentaboudit-Episode-64-Pretty-Historical-with-Ron-Pattinson-and-Dann-Paquette

http://thegoodamericancollective.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-good-american-radio-show-feat_8.html

A knackering experience, but a rich and satisfying one.

And this was just the first leg . . . .

Barclay Perkins Pale Ale quality 1922 - 1925

You must have realised what I'm ip to. I really am going to grind through all the beer styles one by one. We may be done by Christmas, if you're lucky.

First some random fun, courtesy of the newspaper archive:

"ENGINE CRASHES INTO BREWERY
200 BARRELS OF BEER CAUSE A DELUGE
Locomotive That Took the Wrong Turning
Taking the "wrong turning" at the points outside Cannon Street Station, London, yesterday, a 60-ton locomotive and tender ran along a " blind " line, mounted the buffers about fifty yards from the crossing, and crashed into the side of Messrs Barclay Perkins' Brewery at end the track.

The wall of the brewery was smashed in and a girder, with some hundredweights of masonry, was thrown into a huge beer vat, which burst with the impact. More than 200 barrels of beer leaked through to the floor below. The front of the engine remained suspended through top of the wall above the vat.

There was no one the room at the time the crash, and one was hurt."
Dundee Courier - Tuesday 03 August 1926, page 5.

Sounds to me like it crashed into the building marked "Ale Brewery", about half way up on the right:

Barclay Perkins brewery in 1896

 Dangerous places, these breweries. There was always something happening:

"BREWERY EXPLOSION.
An explosion took place at the premises of Messrs Barclay, Perkins, & Co., brewers, Park Street, Southwark, London, in the early morning.

Two men were injured.

The men, H. Nicholls and G. Fenton, arrived at the brewery at 6.30 a.m. They went to store cupboard to get their tools.

They lit a gas jet. Immediately there was an explosion. Both men were blown a distance of ten yards. Nicholls was burned badly about the face.

The men, after first-aid treatment at the brewery, were taken to Guy's Hospital. They were able to go home later.
Evening Telegraph - Thursday 16 February 1928, page 3.

What caused the explosion? A gas leak?

Right, on with the beer. It says PA, but that's not what Barclay Perkins called it. They gave this beer the snappy name of XLK (Trade). Trade meaning draught. There was a weaker bottled version. Their stronger Bitter, actually called PA, had been discontinued during WW I. It returned in 1928 at a gravity of 1053. PA was discontinued a second time during WW II and never returned.

In the Pale Ales we'll be looking at there are basically two subtypes: Best Bitter costing 9d per pint (8d in 1923) and Bitter costing 8d (7d in 1923).

Barclay Perkins XLK was a very simple beer: pale malt, No. 2 invert sugar, flaked maize, Golding and Fuggles. Fairly modest hopping of 1.2 lbs per barrel, 3 oz. of dry hops. The attenuation is quite high so it must have been a pretty dry beer.

Let's see how it gets on with scores.

Barclay Perkins Pale Ale quality 1922 - 1925
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score	Price
1922	PA	1008.2	1044.2	4.69	81.45%	grey	good	2	8d
1922	PA	1007.6	1046.6	5.09	83.69%	bright	fair	1	8d
1922	PA	1011	1046.5	4.61	76.34%	grey	v fair	2	8d
1922	PA	1008.6	1046.1	4.88	81.34%	bright	good	2	8d
1923	PA	1008.8	1046.3	4.88	80.99%	bright	v fair	2	8d
1923	PA	1007.8	1046.3	5.02	83.15%	fizzy	going off	-2	8d
1923	PA	1008.4	1045.4	4.82	81.50%	not bright	v bitter (yeast?)	-1	8d
1923	PA	1009.4	1045.9	4.75	79.52%	bright	going off	-2	7d
1923	PA	1009	1045.5	4.75	80.22%		going off	-2	7d
1923	PA	1007.8	1041.8	4.42	81.34%	grey	gone off	-3	7d
1924	PA		1045.6			brilliant	good	2	7d
1925	PA	1009.4	1047.4	4.95	80.17%	bright	good	2	7d
Average		1008.7	1045.6	4.81	80.88%			0.25
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

You can see what a theme clarity is becoming. Just half of these samples were clear, six from twelve. Flavour does slightly better with seven positive scores. And for the first time they get a positive average score: 0.25. How well will that rank them? We'll see.

There's a brewery making a debut appearance in this series next: Benskins. What a treat.

Beer tax reduction

Brewers weren't happy when the tax on beer remained at a high level after the end of WW I. Faced with falling beer consumption, they desperately appealed to the government to reduce beer tax and so stimulate demand.

They were eventually partially successful, getting a flat rate 20 shillings per barrel rebate on beer duty. It was far less than they had hoped for, and only allowed beer prices to drop by 1d per pint across the board.

This is a leader article from the first issue of the Brewers' Journal in 1923.

"THE MONTH.
BEER TAX REDUCTION.
For the third year in succession we reiterate the demand for a reduction in the beer duty; never before, however, has the position been so favourable for a successful issue. Two years ago, and even to some extent up to the spring of last year, the brewers' ease was obfuscated by the false cry on the part of our opponents that brewers themselves were responsible for keeping up the price of beer. At that time Lloyd's News typified the outlook of certain newspapers when it said that "the brewers are morally and economically compelled to give the people cheaper beer." The fictional character of this and other similar misstatements has now largely been dispelled by the wise policy adopted by the Trade in putting before the public the irrefutable and unimpeachable facts from our side, which may be summarised in the sentence which has become the slogan of this campaign. "Less duty; cheaper beer." All the ingenuity and all the misrepresentation of our highly organised opponents have not made it possible for any newspaper that has taken up the cry of "cheaper beer" to hold to their primary attestation that brewers were mainly responsible. If only the members of the Trade will redouble instead of slackening their efforts to get the truth to the people, then the ground will be cut under the feet of our opponents when, as assuredly it will be, this question is brought before Parliament."
"Brewers' Journal, 1923", page 1.

Nothing ever really changes, does it? The newspapers are still full of biased shit, especially when it comes to beer. How anyone could truly believe brewers were to blame for the high price of beer is beyond me. You only needed to look at the rate of tax to realise that was bollocks.

The leader went on to explain why beer duty should be reduced:

"The factors and considerations making for the desirability of a reduction in the beer duty accumulate in an increasing ratio with the fluxation of time. Primarily, the case for relief is founded largely on the grounds that the increase in the beer duty, having been the first fiscal act of the war period, raised as it was on no less than six separate occasions, and standing ultimately at a figure thirteen-fold that of 1914, should be the first to receive consideration now that four years have elapsed since the cessation of hostilities. This argument is supported by the fact that the increases in duty were unquestionably part of our temporary war-time emergency legislation. The point could not, perhaps, be put better than in these words, quoted from The Observer of December 31st, 1922:--

The war increases in the beer and spirits duties were, like many other war taxes, of greater social importance, emergency taxes only, and there is probably no intelligent person inside or outside the Trade who has ever imagined that they woirld or could be maintained at the war-time level when the financial condition of the country improved. If the condition and prospects of the national exchequer appear to justify a reduction of the beer duty in April next, the reduction will unquestionably be made.

This from an organ more aggressively teetotal than any other London newspaper is decidedly a useful
declaration." "Brewers' Journal, 1923", page 1.

I never realised the Observer had been a teetotal newspaper. It makes me feel all dirty for having bought it in the past.

The high price of beer was becoming a form of Prohibition for some:

"The undeniable factor of the situation is that tens of thousands of former beer-drinkers have unwillingly been forced into a state of virtual or partial teetotalism by the irrationally increased duty on beer. A form of partial Prohibition has, in effect, been set up, which is no less effective because it is not founded on a Prohibition law and which is certainly class legislation, because it affects the people in direct ratio to their spending power, so that the wealthy are left with the means of possessing alcohol whilst to the poor it has become a luxury instead of part of their daily diet. Whatever may have been the causes which have brought about this condition of affairs, the situation warrants the quotation of John Stuart Mill's pregnant words':—

Every increase of cost is a prohibition to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price.

To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to obtain is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition, and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable.

"Brewers' Journal, 1923", pages 1 - 2.

There probably were some in the Liberal party who were happy to snealk in a form of partial Prohibition.

Now for some numbers about tax and beer production:

"The statistics show that, whatever the real intentions of the super-taxers of beer may have been, the effect has been to diminish the output in the 12 months ended September, 1922 to 21,892,454 barrels as against 25,501,935 barrels in the corresponding 12 months of the previous year. The output for 1913-14, the  last pre-war year,  was, in  round figures, 36,000,000 standard barrels. The consumption of beer in the present year (ending March, 1923) is estimated at 18,000,000 standard barrels—that is one-half of the pre-war consumption. In a sentence, in the period when the beer duty has been increased by nearly 1,200 per cent., the consumption has decreased by one-half. Surely facts rarely told so graphic a tale. And there is also the fact that even when the enormous increases in alcohol taxation are alone considered, beer stands out as having been unfairly dealt with. Since 1913-14 the following approximate taxation increases have been made :—

Wine (unsparkling)	100 per cent.
Sparkling wines	300 „
Spirits	400 „
Beer	1,200 „

"Brewers' Journal, 1923", Page 2.

That does look pretty unfair on beer. I can't see the logic in increasing the tax on beer three times as much as that on spirits. And it's clear what effect those tax increases had on beer consumption: they halved it.

There were various proposals for how to reduce beer duty:

"Hope of a beer duty reduction runs high in the Trade ; indeed, various schemes supplying a modus vivendi have been prepared. The general basis of such schemes is a taxation reduction averaging -  some schemes putting it higher ami some lower— 35s. to 40s. per standard barrel with a view to enabling a reduction in the price of beers now sold at 9d. and 8d. per pint by 1d., and of beers now sold at 7d. and under, by 2d. a pint, except that the 5d. beer would become a 4d. instead of a 3d beer. Other schemes suggest a 1d. off the lower priced beers and 2d. off the 8d- and 9d. beers. Yet another proposes a 50/- reduction in duty and 2d. off all classes of beers. It is variously estimated that the increase in consumption which would follow in the first fiscal year upon such price reductions would be 15 per cent. to 33 per cent.; in our own view 20 per cent, would be a likely figure."
"Brewers' Journal, 1923", Page 2.

Personally, I think they should have reduced dury by 50/- and reduced the price of all beer by 2d a pint. But that's me talking as a pisshead.

But what would that cost?

"If this increase were borne out in practice, a loss of something like £20,000,000 would be entailed to the Exchequer; but as against this must be set off the normal loss which a continuance of high prices in 1923-4 would undoubtedly bring with it - a loss which we should estimate at round about £10,000,000. These figures are, of course, both tentative and approximate. Naturally, very diverse views are held by different sections of the Trade, who would be differently affected by any reduction in the beer duty. We have merely endeavoured to give an average based on the various schemes which have been advanced, but which must not be taken as embodying the general views either of the Trade or of this Journal on the subject. It seems fairly safe to say, however, that at a cost to the national exchequer of some £10,000,000, the important reductions in the retail prices of beers above, mentioned could be brought about. When the enormous contributions to the national revenue made by alcohol consumers in the last eight years are brought into account, and when consideration is given to the hardships entailed by a continuance of the existing rate of tax, and it is remembered how much the contentment of the masses of the people of this country is bound up with a reasonable beer supply, we do not think that the sum named is one which should stand in the way of the new Government. As it is, we have the declaration of Mr. Stanley Baldwin (Chancellor of the Exchequer) that "beer will certainly be one of the first subjects of taxation to come under review in order to see how far any practicable reduction in duty would benefit the consumer."
"Brewers' Journal, 1923", Page 2.

 The truth is, with Britain's economy still up shit creek, the government couldn't afford a reduction of £10 million in its income. Which is why it never happened. Want to know what did?

This:

Beer output, tax, revenue and retail price 1921 - 1928
Year	Bulk Barrels	Std. Barrels	Tax/Std. Brl	Total Tax £	Tax/Bulk Brl.	Av. sg	price pint	tax pint
1921	34,504,570	26,729,883	100s	123,406,257	71s 6d	1042.61	7	2.98d
1922	30,178,731	23,513,774	100s	121,864,865	80s 9d	1042.88	7	3.37d
1923	23,948,651	18,564,212	100s	92,262,893	77s	1042.72	7	3.21d
1924	25,425,017	19,890,033	80s	76,110,638	59s 10d	1043.04	6	2.49d
1925	26,734,825	20,954,392	80s	75,825,827	56s 7d	1043.12	6	2.36d
1926	26,765,610	21,034,419	80s	76,320,021	57s	1043.23	6	2.38d
1927	25,100,461	19,745,199	80s	78,763,480	62s 9d	1043.28	6	2.61d
1928	25,435,145	19,962,997	80s	77,800,471	61s 2d	1043.17		2.55d
Source:
1928 Brewers' Almanack

As predicted, only 18 million standard barrels were produced in 1923. And, despite the modest decrease in duty, revenue from it fell by £45 million.

League table of London Burton Ales in the 1920's

Did I remember to tell you how much these Burton Ales cost? 9d a pint falling to 8d in 1923. By comparison, the different strengths of Mild were 7d, 6d and 5d, falling to 6d, 5d and 4d. just thought I'd get that out of the way.

Lots of tables is what you're in for. Tables which will prove . . . . I'm not quite sure. Let's take a look at the numbers and see if anything jumps out as at us.

To start, let's recap the Mild results:

League table of London Milds in the 1920's by score
Brewery	Beer	No. examples	no. bright	% bright	no. good flavour	% good flavour	average score
Mann	X	15	10	66.67%	11	73.33%	1.33
Watney	X	17	16	94.12%	15	88.24%	1.25
Wenlock	X	12	8	66.67%	10	83.33%	1.17
Whitbread	MA	3	0	0.00%	2	66.67%	0.67
Cannon	X	14	9	64.29%	9	64.29%	0.54
Truman	X	14	11	78.57%	9	64.29%	0.5
Lion Brewery	X	10	5	50.00%	6	60.00%	0.40
Courage	X	16	15	93.75%	11	68.75%	0.38
Hoare	X	10	7	70.00%	7	70.00%	0.30
Huggins	X	10	6	60.00%	7	70.00%	0.20
Meux	X	11	6	54.55%	6	54.55%	0
Whitbread	X	5	3	60.00%	2	40.00%	-0.2
Meux	MA	7	4	57.14%	2	28.57%	-0.57
Truman	MA	8	4	50.00%	2	25.00%	-0.63
Barclay Perkins	X	14	1	7.14%	5	35.71%	-0.64
Charrington	X	10	3	30.00%	5	50.00%	-0.70
City of London	X	12	4	33.33%	3	25.00%	-1.25
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

A good showing for Mann, Watney and Wenlock. Disappointing from Charrington, Barclay Perkins and, Truman and Meux. The number of beers with negative score was 6 from 17, or 35%. The average of all scores was just positive, 0.16.

You can see that the scores for Burton were generally higher:

League table of London Burton Ales in the 1920's by score
Brewery	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score
Whitbread	1010.6	1053.2	5.56	80.26%	1.33
Courage	1012.1	1052.5	5.25	76.95%	1.25
Mann	1011.7	1053.9	5.49	78.31%	1.25
Meux	1009.7	1053.3	5.69	81.69%	1.11
Charrington	1014.6	1054.5	5.19	73.28%	1.00
Wenlock	1011.2	1052.5	5.38	78.69%	1.00
Lion	1012.6	1053.7	5.35	76.47%	0.78
Watney	1013.4	1058.7	5.90	77.11%	0.77
Truman	1013.4	1058.7	5.90	77.11%	0.77
Hoare	1017.2	1054.9	4.89	68.70%	0.67
Huggins	1012.5	1054.2	5.42	76.88%	0.67
City of London	1010.2	1051.3	5.36	80.03%	0.09
Barclay Perkins	1010.8	1052.4	5.42	79.41%	-0.18
Cannon	1013.3	1052.8	5.13	74.77%	-0.73
Average	1012.4	1054.0	5.42	77.12%	0.70
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Only 2 from 14, or 14%, of the beers had negative scores. And the average of all scores was a reasonable 0.70.

I think we can ignore Whitbread because of the small sample size. Mann and Wenlock both place high again, while there's a big improvement for Meux and Charrington. City of London and Barclay Perkins again do badly. This is really sad. It's starting to look as if Barclay's beers were mostly shit.

I've combined the placings for Mild and Burton to come up with an overall league table:

Brewery	Burton	Mild	Total
Mann	3	1	4
Whitbread	1	4	5
Wenlock	6	3	9
Courage	2	8	10
Watney	8	2	10
Lion	7	7	14
Meux	4	11	15
Truman	9	6	15
Cannon	14	5	19
Hoare	10	9	19
Charrington	5	16	21
Huggins	11	10	21
Barclay Perkins	13	15	28
City of London	12	17	29

Mann is the clear winner, followed by, if we ignore Whitbread, by Wenlock, Courage and Watney. This is odd. Three of the top four later became Big Six breweries. I really don't know what that tells us.

Time for the next table. This includes details of the number of bright and well-flavoured examples:

League table of London Burton Ales in the 1920's by score
Brewery	No. examples	no. bright	% bright	no. good flavour	% good flavour	average score
Whitbread	3	1	33.33%	3	100.00%	1.33
Courage	12	6	50.00%	9	75.00%	1.25
Mann	12	6	50.00%	10	83.33%	1.25
Meux	9	4	44.44%	6	66.67%	1.11
Truman	11	6	54.55%	9	81.82%	1.09
Charrington	9	6	66.67%	7	77.78%	1.00
Wenlock	9	4	44.44%	7	77.78%	1.00
Lion	9	2	22.22%	6	66.67%	0.78
Watney	13	9	69.23%	9	69.23%	0.77
Hoare	9	2	22.22%	5	55.56%	0.67
Huggins	9	4	44.44%	7	77.78%	0.67
City of London	11	3	27.27%	5	45.45%	0.09
Barclay Perkins	11	3	27.27%	6	54.55%	-0.18
Cannon	11	5	45.45%	3	27.27%	-0.73
total	138	61	44.20%	92	66.67%
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

As I suspected, the level of clarity is rubbish: fewer than 50% of the examples were bright. Flavour is much better, with two-thirds getting positive scores. Six breweries had 75% or more of their samples with good flavour. I think that's not bad going. Probably as good, if not better, than today.

Finally, the same table but ordered by the percentage of beers that were clear:

League table of London Burton Ales in the 1920's by clarity
Brewery	No. examples	no. bright	% bright	no. good flavour	% good flavour	average score
Watney	13	9	69.23%	9	69.23%	0.77
Charrington	9	6	66.67%	7	77.78%	1.00
Truman	11	6	54.55%	9	81.82%	1.09
Courage	12	6	50.00%	9	75.00%	1.25
Mann	12	6	50.00%	10	83.33%	1.25
Cannon	11	5	45.45%	3	27.27%	-0.73
Meux	9	4	44.44%	6	66.67%	1.11
Wenlock	9	4	44.44%	7	77.78%	1.00
Huggins	9	4	44.44%	7	77.78%	0.67
Whitbread	3	1	33.33%	3	100.00%	1.33
City of London	11	3	27.27%	5	45.45%	0.09
Barclay Perkins	11	3	27.27%	6	54.55%	-0.18
Lion	9	2	22.22%	6	66.67%	0.78
Hoare	9	2	22.22%	5	55.56%	0.67
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

There's some correlation between good scores and clarity, but not a complete one. Standing out is City of London, slightly above half way for clarity, in the bottom three for score.

My conclusions? That draught Burton was mostly in reasonably good nick in 1920's London, if not always perfectly bright. And draught Burton was a safer bet than draught Mild.