Edinburgh United Breweries' litigation (part three)

EUB and Mr. Dunn just couldn't let their claim against Molleson go. After their initial claim was thrown out by Lord Kyllachy, they appealed. Not that the appeal achieved much, other than fill the pockets of their lawyers.

Molleson must have been well and truly sick of the affair. He hadn't been the owner of the Palace Brewery, just the trustee. He hadn't committed - or even been aware of - the fraud in books. Yet he kept getting dragged through the courts by EUB. I wonder if he had been paid for his work as trustee?

Here's a report of the appeal:

"EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES (LIMITED) v. JAMES A. MOLLESON.
Judgment was given in the action by the Edinburgh United Breweries Company and Mr Henry Dunn, 27 Bishopsgate Street, London, against James Alexander Molleson, C.A., Edinburgh, trustee under a trust deed by David Nicolson, brewer, Parson's Green. Edinburgh, in which reduction was sought of the sale of the Palace Brewery, Edinburgh. The price paid was £28,500, and pursuers said it was effected by fraudulent misrepresentations that the profits of'the business for the two years previous had amounted to £3750 a year. Defenders said the books of the brewery were examined by accountants on behalf of the purchasers, and that the purchase was completed upon their report. In the Outer House Lord Kyllachy said it had transpired that the books of the brewery had been falsified by a clerk. This was done to deceive Mr Molleson, and his Lordship held that both parties agreed to accept the books as showing the true amount of the profits. He therefore held the pursuers were not entitled to reopen the contract, and be gave absolvitor, with expenses. The pursuers reclaimed to the First Division, who gave judgment today.

Lord McLAREN delivered the opinion of the Court. He said that to his mind the placing of falsified books before the purchaser was equal to placing no books before them at all. He came to the conclusion that Mr Dunn could not be barred by the agreement between him and Mr. Molleson from challenging the sale, because he only agreed to take the brewery on the condition that the books should contain a true record of the business. But while he held that to be established, it did not quite follow that the pursuers were in a position to enforce a claim for restitution, which was what was asked in this action. There were two contracts, one between Mr Molleson and Mr Dunn, and the other between Mr Dunn and the United Breweries. The United Breweries were not parties to the contract with Mr Molleson, and the really important question was whether Mr Dunn had a right to reduce the contract. The special feature of the case was that Mr Dunn had re-sold the brewery at a profit of £8000. He understood that Mr Dunn intended to keep that £8000 which he made by means of the representation of forged books, and at the same time to cut down the sale on the ground that it was restricted by those very books. The truth was that Mr Dunn was not an injured person. His Lordship thought they would do no injustice if they maintained unimpaired the principle that no person could maintain the principle of equity who was not prepared to do equity, and that, in particular, the right of relief against fraud was denied to him who was seeking to obtain benefit secured by fraud. As, in his opinion, Dunn was not in a position to claim restitution, it followed that the action at the instance of the United Breweries must also fail. The other judges concurred, and Lord Kyllachy's judgment was affirmed, with expenses."
Glasgow Herald - Saturday 18 March 1893, page 3.

Mr. Dunn had a cheek. He was happy to keep the profit he got from selling the brewery, benefit of the cooked books, but wanted to get the price he had paid reduced. As EUB and Dunn brought the case jointly, one can only assume that some of the reduction of the price he paid would have been passed on to EUB.

I can see how EUB and Dunn got sucked into this case. They must have been pretty pissed off when they found out the Palace Brewery books had been lying. Angry enough to bring in the lawyers. But they don't seem to have thought things through. Did their lawyers think they had a chance of winning? Perhaps not. Probably not. Maybe Dunn and EUB just ignored their sage advice and told them to get on with it. We'll never know.

Shorts

Watching the European Championship I've noticed something weird. The shorts are as long as when the players had waxed moustaches. How odd.

I remember the 1970 World Cup finals in Mexico. The majestic Brazilian side and players in shorts that were, er, short. More like hot pants.

Since then they've gradually lengthened. Until where they are now. I can barely see the knees of the Croation players.There's only one way the length can go now.

When will footballers be dressed like redneck women again? My guess is 24 years.

The Pattison's roller coaster

1899 was a difficult year for Pattison's shareholders and creditors. One minute everything looked black, the next there was renewed hope.

See what happened in the second half of April and the first half of May.

There was good news for some when the final transactions in Pattison's shares were settled:

"CORNER IN PATTISON'S SHARES.
A Glasgow telegram, states that, in view of a final settlement, in Pattison's shares to-day, over-sold operators were placed at the mercy of holders on the Glasgow Stock, Exchange yesterday. Some lots were covered at £5, as against £2. When last quoted £5 was understood to have been fixed as the maximum, but yesterday afternoon £10 was stated to have been paid for one lot of fifty shares."
Belfast News-Letter - Saturday 15 April 1899, page 8.

If I read that correctly, people who had sold more shares than they had to speculators had to pay whatever was demanded to get hold of enough to fulfill their obligations. £10 is the full price for the shares. Whoever sold that lot of 50 got the best deal of anyone. We'll learn just how good a deal when we get to the final settlement

A few days later, things looked uncertain as the liquidators' deadline for an offer approached:

"THE PATTISON RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME.
A telegram from London states that the London solicitors for the syndicate posted last night to the agents for the liquidators proposals for the reconstruction of Pattisons (Limited), Leith, in liquidation. To-day is the last day the Court gave them to lodge proposals."
Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 18 April 1899, page 5.

Luckily, the syndicate got their offer in on time and it looked as if they would successfully purchase Pattison's:

"At last the Pattison reconstruction scheme is said to be nearing a success, and that only a few details of no significance have now to be adjusted. So far as can be gathered the scheme which the syndicate is to take over the assets is to pay the liquidator the sum of £345,000 for the book debts, stock, and good will, and £100,000 for the heritable property."
Freeman's Journal - Monday 08 May 1899, page 3.

Those few insignificant details turned out to be rather more significant than first reported:

"FAILURE OF THE PATTISONS' SCHEME.
The negotiations between the liquidators of Pattisons' (Limited) and a London syndicate for the purchase by the latter of the assets of the company have failed, and are declared to be at an end. The liquidators will now proceed to realise the assets in the ordinary way, and they have already advertised the brewery at Duddington for sale."
York Herald - Friday 12 May 1899, page 5.

When the brewery staff were laid off, it really looked like the end of the line for Pattison's:

"MESSRS. PATTISON'S AFFAIRS.
DISMISSAL OF THE STAFF.
Edinburgh, Saturday. On the staff being paid their wages to-day at one o'clock, they all received their notices to quit at the end of the ensuing week. On being asked, the brewer informed the men and the clerks that no further orders would be sent out, and that the brewery is to be closed."
Freeman's Journal - Monday 15 May 1899, page 2.

But wait a minute. There was another glimmer of hope. Some creditors wanted the negotiations to continue:

"PATTISONS NEGOTIATIONS. 
The Exchange Company's Edinburgh correspondent states that some of the most influential ot the creditors of Pattisons (Limited) have expressed their intention of not allowing the negotiations between the liquidators and the London syndicate to fall through, and have prepared a petition to the Court of Session asking the Court to give powers to continue business until the negotiations with the syndicate are brought to a successful issue. They are dissatisfied with the action of the liquidators in declaring that negotiations are at an end."
Pall Mall Gazette - Monday 15 May 1899, page 5.

There was a disagreement between the creditors and the liquidators on what should happen next. It would be resolved in court. Exactly how, we'll find out next time.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1909 Maclay's Oatmalt Stout

For once there's a specific reason why I've chosen to publish this recipe. It's because I've just been learning about this beer and am planning to write about it. Several times.

I've a feeling this is the original oat Stout. Maclay's certainly took out a patent on it. And went to great lengths to advertise it calling it "the beverage of the century". Very modest claim, that. When other breweries started brewing beers called "Oat Malt Stout" they got very upset. Not quite as bad as Bass, but then again, who was as litigious as Bass?

I suspect that's why there where plenty of beers called Oatmeal Stout. Getting around Maclay's patent. I'm now going to repeat something I've said several times before. The London Oatmeal Stouts I've seen in the brewing records only contained token amounts of oats. 1% or even less of the grist. And, as these beers were parti-gyled with other Porters and Stouts, effectively all of them were Oatmeal Stouts. Whitbread's London Stout and Oatmeal Stout were identical, save for the label. And oats made up lass than 0.5% of the grist.

It was a very long-running product for Maclay. The first advert for it I've found is from1897 and they were still brewing it in 1994. A very impressive run.

You'll see that there are some, well, unusual ingredients in this beer. Linseed oil and liquorice. Can't be bad for you. It says on the label "strongly recommended for invalids". Though ity does also say "brewed from oatmalt and hops" which isn't quite the whole truth. There's a whole load of other shit in there as well.





I'll be returning to this later, so for now that's me done and it's Kristen's turn . . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Notes: Here we go boys and girls. A definite oddity. This bastard pours like its crude oil. The oat malt is not a typo and, no, you can’t get the same character from plain oats. Find them. This one, really can’t be done by you extract guys, sorry. Its got so much oat malt in it, there is nothing that can compare. Minimash, sure. The linseed was very odd to me. I’ve seen it in a few beers but nothing like this. Very little of it was used too. The licorice, well I like a nice licorice flavor in my stouts. Not the crappy Allsorts-type but proper licorice. The hops were pretty old and there was a good deal of them. The Cluster seem to lend a harshness that can get through all the thickness. Nothing really escapes this beer, especially light. This is one you all should do if able.

Arctic Ale tasting

The day started so well.

Chris Bowen was there waiting for me as I popped through customs at Stansted. I'd started worrying on the plane after realising that, while I had a map of the area around Martyn Cornell's house, I hadn't written down his house number. Was it 127 or 197?

Once in Chris's rental car, we chatted away like crazy about beer history in general and Allsopp's in particular. Chatted away so much, Chris eventually realised we were headed the wrong way down the M25. Taking the next exit, we tried to find the right direction. I say tried, because we didn't quite get it right. We were headed to London, but on an A road. Wandering around Romford 's suburbs (good Allsopp connection there) we saw plenty of boarded-up pubs, but no signs for the M25. How hard could it be to find a dirty great motorway?

Ask. That's what we eventually did. A couple of times. And got directions of the follow this right then straight on, then go right, left, third on the right, then look for the chip shop - see that? you've gone the wrong way, go back, up the hill, left at the garage, well what used to be the garage, it's been a Tesco's for five years, used to buy my petrol there, lovely pumps they had, right next, past my mum's old house . . . kind.. I was slightly sceptical when he said "go right", while gesturing left.

It's amazing how country it is around Romford. I expected wall-to-wall tarmac and concrete. Travelling down an ever narrowing road, so overhung with trees it became a tunnel, we finally spotted the motorway. As our tiny road passed over it, an exit nowhere in sight. A bit more asking and a little bit of luck brought us finally to a junction. I remembered the roundabout from before. We'd taken one exit too early.

The prospect of Arctic Ale rendered me immune to doubt or depression. We'd get there because we had to. And if we didn't, we had the Arctic Ale. If we ran out of petrol, we could drink it at the roadside.

We wandered a while around Teddington, but found Martyn's street. When I discovered Chris didn't have his house number either. "197?", he suggested. That was one of my guesses. Must be right. Mustn't it? The street ended at number 193. 179. "Was it 179?". While I went to check, Chris unpacked his precious bottles.

The door of 179 opened - and there was Martyn. Phew. I wouldn't have to knock randomly on doors, hoping a neighbour might know Mr. Cornell.

After pie, chips, a look at Martyn's library and some more beer history chat, we started the serious business. At least when John Keeling of Fullers had appeared. Appropriately enough (it being jubilee weekend), the first beer was 1935 Ind Coope and Allsopp Jubilee Ale.

It might well have been a version of the Arctic Ale. Very dark and very strong. "Flat, vinous, slightly acidic, liquorice." That's my tasting notes. Not great, I know, my descriptions. It was in pretty good nick for its age. I've had beers that were in a far worse state after 18 months.

Bass King's Ale from 1902 was next. It took a while of careful coaxing to remove the crumbly cork. Then there it was. A beer almost as legendary as Arctic Ale. Sitting placidly, a luscious deep chocolate brown. "Touch of acidity, raisin, chocolate, a slight bitterness." An incredibly rich beer and in better condition, surprisingly, than the 1935 Jubilee Ale. Wow. They certainly knew how to brew beer to last. A beer of a round hundred and ten years old.

It was, like the Jubilee Ale, for a few minutes the oldest beer I'd ever drunk.

Next, the star of the show. The beer Alfred Barnard drank when visiting Allsopp in 1889. I was going to drink a beer Barnard had. I can't tell you how excited that made me. Like an excited thing in an excitement shop. Squared. In Martyn's library, we'd been looking at battered volumes of Barnard. The beer had been over ten years old when Barnard drank it. Would it be in better condition than his book?

The cork took some work. Lots of work. Chris never did get it all out. It disintegrated and some fell back into the bottle. What the hell. I wasn't going to let a few bits of cork spoil my enjoyment. Finally, there it was. A glass of Arctic Ale. With my name on it.

Can a beer more than 130 years old still be drinkable? Er, . . . .  yes. Though, as John Keeling said, you wouldn't want to drink two pints of it. Liquid christmas cake came to my mind. Intense dried fruit flavours, with an acidic edge to pickle, sorry tickle, the palate. "Sour, sour cherries, raisins, tobacco." Words can't do it justice. My powers of description wither in the glare of its intensity and complexity. Double wow.

Chris kindly brought along a version of Arctic Ale he had brewed two years ago. A mere infant. Yet there were flashes of the old beer's character. A bit green, but developing beautifully. I hope he's keeping some back to drink in ten years time. Or 100.

We didn't stop there. Martyn contributed a Whitbread Celebration Ale, brewed in 1992 for Whitbread's 250th anniversary. "Figs, leather, dates, black toffee". Another darkly brooding monster of a beer. "Undrinkable the first couple of years after bottling", Martyn said. Time had worked wonders.

The main man is centre stage

For the Barclay Perkins obsessive, Martyn pulled out a brace of Russian Stouts: 1977 and 1992. We tried the later one first. It was much as I remembered it (I've a few dozen bottles, lurking in my beer cupboard to console me on particularly depressing birthdays). A pleasant mix of chocolate and brettanomyces horse blanket. If you can imagine such a combination being pleasant.

I'm not sure I've had a 1977 Russian Stout before. (1979, Bethnal Green Road - what vintage would that have been?) The crown cork still said Barclays on it*. I think it might even have still been matured at Park Street, though it was brewed at Horsleydown. Surprisingly, it was very well carbonated. But the biggest shock was the flavour: a very prominent brettanomyces character. Given it blind, I'd have guessed Harvey's Imperial Stout.

Once done, we headed down Martyn's local. Bizarrely, a Belgianish-themed pub. They did have cask beer. Perfect to wash our overloaded palates.

Didn't end badly, either. A day I'll never forget.



I can't thank Chris enough for a unique chance to try Arctic Ale. Nor Martyn's generous hospitality and wonderful old beers.




* Saddo note: I brought it home. "So you're the saddoes." Martyn's wife greeted us. Perceptive woman.

German beer in the aftermath of WW I

If WW I was unkind to British beer, it was downright malevolent to German beer. Beer production ground to a virtual stop in the final year of the war. And when peace came things didn't get much better.

Raw materials were so scarce that they even suspended the Reinheitsgebot:

"Use of Raw Grain in German Brewing. - In consequence of the scarcity of barley and malt in Germany, the prohibition of raw grain for brewing is to be relaxed in so far that husked and de-germed maize and rice screenings unsuitable for food are to be permitted as malt adjuncts. With a view to informing the German brewer of the character and treatment of these unfamiliar substances, Windisch, Grohn and Coblitz have contributed to the Wochenschrift fur Brauerei lengthy articles emphasising the necessity for investigating the method of using these grains with different  qualities of: malt, the means of preventing yeast degeneration, etc., subjects which, as Petit observes, in Brasserie et Malterie,have been well known to brewers in other countries for many years."
Brewers' Journal 1921, Page 114.

But in one way German drinkers did fare better. As this article demonstrated. And I don't just mean they got free beer. German beer eventually returned to its pre-war strength, something that we're still waiting for in Britain:

"Pre-war Beer in Germany.—The return to the beer drinkers status quo, by which Munich citizens are enabled after a suspension of more than six years again to indulge in beer of pre-war strength, was joyously celebrated in the chief Lion Brew beer hall, says the Munich correspondent of the Daily Express, the mouth of a gigantic statue of Gambrinus, the beer-god, which had been connected with the cellars beneath, poured forth a continuous stream of beer for an hour, during which no charge was made for the refreshment. Numbers of well-dressed men and women, and even boys and girls, provided with mugs and vessels of all kinds, filed in and out of the building, and filling their vessels with the foaming liquor, drank to the god Gambrinus while they danced round in their joy."
Brewers Journal 1921, page 332.

Why should that be? Why did German beer get back all its strength when British beer didn't. I think it's connected with the German way of  classifying and labelling beer. Schenkbier, Vollbier, Export, Bock and Märzen were defined in law as being in specific gravity bands. Whereas in Britain it was a free for all.

And then there's the taxation element. Not only were the wartime tax increases not repealed, beer duty was raised even more. I suspect that wasn't the case in Germany, though I don't have any figures.

That sounds like quite a party at Löwenbräu. Wish I could have been there.

New cover for Trips! (West)

Yes. I'm at it again. Changing covers. I've got Lexie to do me a new cover for Trips! (West). Looks neat, doesn't it?

I thought I'd do it now because, well, I can do what I want when I want with my books. Ah, the power!  Also because it's holiday season and a new cover is a good opportunity to remind of the existence of this handy traveller's guide to pubs in the West of Germany. Düsseldorf, Cologne. Those sorts of places.

So if you're heading that way this summer, Buy Trips! (West)! And don't miss out on any German beery enjoyment.

A Dropping Problem.

British brewershad some adjusting to do after WW I. It took them a while to get the hang of brewing low-gravity beers.

During the 1920's and 1930's brewers acquired new skills. They learned how to tweak recipes and techniques to compensate for the lower strength. Britain's brewers became masters of producing stable, flavoursome beers of modest gravity. It's something they still excell in today. Where else are beers of less than 4% ABV brewed that actually taste of something?

This is an example of brewers adapting to the new circumstances. It concerns the dropping system of fermentation, which used to be common, especially in th South. Fermentation started in tall round vessels and then transferred (dropped) into shallow square vessels. It helped aerate the wort and stop the remperature of the wort rising too much. It also aided clarity, as much sediment was left in the round.

"A Dropping Problem.
It is customary, in dropping equate breweries, to drop or cleanse the fermenting worts at or about the period of half-gravity. This procedure answered well enough when gravities were liberal, but since the compulsory advent of weak beers, some few workers have found that if allowing fermentation to proceed to the limit of half-gravity before dropping to shallow skimmers, the necessary increment in heat does not always take place during the colder months of the year, with the result that the fermentation receives a more or less severe check which is apt to leave its imprint on the finished beer. Limited depth of wort and aeration at dropping are naturally conducive to increased reproductive activity and a corresponding tendency for yeast to rise to the surface before full attenuation and purging of the fermenting fluid is accomplished. No great harm may come of this while the weather remains cold, but matters should certainly be adjusted before the advent of summer, since high racking finals coupled with insufficient purging of wort are certain forerunners of disaster under anything like forcing conditions of temperature, The matter is a simple one and essentially practical, and by restricting the temperature in the collecting vessel and arranging to drop the worts at an earlier period, normal and sufficiently extended attenuation usually results, assuming, of course, that materials and procedure are in order."
Brewers' Journal 1921, Page 115.

Seems to make sense. A weaker beer need to be dropped earlier.

As I have brewing records from breweries using the dopping system that span WW I, it was easy enough to check if they changed when they dropped.

I looked at Fullers first, as I've a good set of their records. Except they never let the wort get anywhere near half gravity. They usually dropped after around 12 hours, so nowhere near half gravity. Both before and after WW I. I could see no change.

Next I tried Kidd. Their records have a full fermentation record and indicate when dropping occurred. This is what I found.

This is a batch of X brewed 5th April 1917:

And this is one brewed on the 25th February 1936:

As they'd switched from brewer's pounds to specific gravity, I'll convert the first lot to SG: 15.4 is  1042.7º and 9.4 is 1026º. Mmm. The 1917 brew was dropped when the gravity was 61% of the OG. So well above half gravity. The 1936 brew was dropped when the gravity was 42% of the OG. Or well below half gravity.

The same story is repeated for all Kidd's beers. In the 1930's they were waiting longer before dropping than they did in 1917. The exact opposite of what the article says. Isn't that confusing?

Edinburgh United Breweries' litigation (part two)

Persistent. Edinburgh United Breweries were certainly that in pursuit of poor Mr. Molleson. They didn't give up when their case was thrown out in 1891. They tried again in 1892. Same arguments as first time around. Was this judge more impressed than the first? Read the article:

"EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES COMPANY v. J. A. MOLLESON.
Lord KYLLACHY gave his judgment in the action by the Edinburgh united Breweries Company and William Henry Dunn, 27 Bishopsgate Street, London, against James Alexander Molleson, C. A,. Edinburgh trustee under a trust deed, by David Nicolson, brewer and wine merchant, Parson's Green, Edinburgh, in which reduction was asked of the minute of agreement for the sale of the Palace Brewery, Edinburgh. The price paid for the brewery and ground was £28,500. It was stated that the sale was a representation by the seller that the profits for the two previous years amounted to £3750, a year, and it was averred that the books of the brewery had been falsified. Defenders stated that the books were examined by accountants, upon whose report the purchase was completed. Lord Kyllachy said the price of the brewery was fixed, not on so many years' purchase of the profits, but with reference to certain valuations of the brewery premises and plant. The agreement was dated 13th November, and the date of settlement was 31st December, 1889. During that interval the purchaser was to have access to the books of the brewery with a view to purifying the profits, and there was an express provision for repayment of the purchaser's deposit in the event of a shortcoming in the profits being ascertained, but there was no corresponding provision for repayment of the price. He preferred to hold that the settlement of the 31st Decemnber foreclosed, and was intended to foreclose, all further reference to the question of profits. But it was said by pursuers that they were entitled to get behind the settlement. The books of the brewery were placed in the hands of the purchasers, and they were examined, first by a firm of accountants in London, and then by a firm of accountants in Edinburgh. Some discussion arose, but the purchaser waived his objection and completed the purchase, and the company which was then formed has since carried on the business of the brewery. In the course of last summer it transpired by the confession of a clerk that the balance-sheet for the year 1888 had beer falsified to the intent of £1000 and that the ledgers had been falsified so as to correspond with the balance-sheet. These falsificationss had been, made by the managing clerk in order to deceive Mr Molleson, and they were made by exaggerating the assets. The frauds were certainly so perpetrated that they were quite likely to be overlooked if the accountants were not suspicious, and did not think it necessary to go into the details of customers' accounts, or only thought it necessary to do so by taking a specimen entry here and there. Pursuers' accountants in fact failed to discover them, and the question was what was the legal result ? Was the purchaser entitled to be restored or was the true view of the matter that both parties being in entire good faith, the seller performed his part of the contract by handing over the books, while, on the other hand, the purchaser took their chance of obtaining from the books the true amount of the profits? The seller did not know, and it was not suggested that he did, that the books were otherwise than correct. The only persons who knew were two clerks, and they Were in no way identified with the seller, and they did not even know that the question of profits entered into the sale. The question therefore was whether it was a condition of the contract, express or implied, that the books of the firm were to contain no errors, or at least no errors that were not easiy discovered. He confessed he saw no sufficient reason for so holding. He could find no standard according to which the purchase examination of the books was to be conducted, and he was therefore not able to hold that the pursuers were entitled to re-open the contract, and to raise now the question of whether a condition as to the amount of the profits had been fulfilled. His decision was that fraud had been disproved, and he granted absolvitor to the defenders, with expenses, under deduction of the expenses of debates in the procedure roll and in the Inner House. "
Glasgow Herald - Thursday 14 July 1892, page 4

Simple answer: no. There were two flaws in their case. First, Molleson hadn't known the books were false. Second, the profits hadn't determined the selling price. That had been based on a valuation of the brewery and its stock.

Did EUB and Dunn get discouraged by this second failure? No. They weren't about to stop now.

Britain's handicap

 Have you seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? See if you can guess which scene this reminds me of.

"TOURISTS ; BRITAIN'S HANDICAP.
Those who scan with interest the important "balance of trade" figures which are from time to time published probably are not aware that the tourist traffic is of sufficient importance to form an appreciable item in those figures. For example, in 1929. the year before the depression set in, the United Kingdom bad some 700,000 visitors, who spent more than £22 millions. In the same year over a million British tourists went abroad and spent more than £32 millions. So that in an average year Great Britain has a debit balance of some £10 millions under the head of tourist traffic. Can the deficit be wiped out? Could Britain become the "playground of Europe" ? Commander Stephen King-Hall recently canvassed this possibility in a broadcast talk. He answered the question in the affirmative - "provided we are prepared to take the business of catering for the foreigner more seriously than is at present the ease." He went on to say that "at present the tourist traffic is hampered and restricted by a host of irksome regulations."

There is no doubt at all that the restrictions on the ability to obtain alcohol is one of the factors at present making against England becoming Europe's playground. Moreover, not only does the foreigner know this, but he trades on it. There recently appeared in the national Press an official advertisement issued by the French State Railways advertising Normandy and Brittany. The greater portion of the space occupied by the advertisement was given up to the invitation, "Have a drink when you want it." In smaller type appeared the following declaration : -

"Think of all the holiday restrictions you can. Now laugh. Decide to go to Normandy or Brittany. Bathe, dance, do the Casino, drink when you wish or as long as you wish. Nothing to stop you."

The relaxation of restrictions on tourist traffic should command widespread support ; to be successful, however, it must include greater freedom to obtain alcoholic refreshment."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 307.

Bloody French, taunting us with their freedom.

Tourism was one of the reasons quoted for finally breaking Britain free from annoyances like afternoon closing. Weird, isn't it, that inconvenience and annoyance of the local population was fine with the authorities for nearly a hundred years.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1955 Fullers X

I know. It's not May any more. This recipe should have appeared last week, But there have been a few technical hitches. Just pretend it's last week Wednesday. I'm always doing that myself. Living in the past.

Kristen was a little confused by the use of "H" instead of "X". Fullers use both in the logs to denote the same beer. Why? It's obvious to me, having drunk Fullers Mild in pubs. It was called Hock. The y still have something called the Hock Cellars in the brewery. Not that it often has any Hock in it nowadays. Fullers only occasionally brew Hock.

As I've already told you, I drank a later version of this beer several times. In fact my all-time quickest drinking was a Hock session. Back in 1979 when me and my mate Matt were working in an arms factory close to Old Street. We often drank in a Fullers pub called the George and Vulture at lunchtime.

But that wasn't where I performed my speed drinking stunt. It was in another pub. A beer place called the Bricklayers Arms. We nipped in there one dinner time when they had Hock on. In wonderful condition. (That was the problem with Hock. Lovely beer, but the few pubs that stocked it often couldn't sell it quickly enough.) It just slipped down. Real suicide beer - it couldn't help throwing itself down your throat. I managed 5 pints in little more than half an hour. Then back to operate heavy machinery.

The beer I drank in 1979 wasn't a million miles away from this one. About 3% ABV, dark in colour and brewed from a simple grist of pale malt, maize and sugar. It sounds awful when you list the ingredients like that, but I've learned not to fear adjuncts. The ber in the glass is all that counts.

X Ale is by far Fullers oldest beer. It's in all the brewing logs I've seen. They go back to 1887. I'm sure they were brewing it way back in the start in 1845. It's a shame it's so rarely brewed now.






Now it's time for Kristen to work his magic . . . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Notes: Only one ‘English’ malt is listed for this beer. In all actuality it had 5 different pale malts. Use as many as you’d like in this beer. If you want to use just a single one, I’d go with Maris Otter. Here is another instance where its going to pay off for you for making some much of the different inverts we’ve talked about over the years. In a pinch, or out of sloth, you can use Belgian Dark syrup. There is an awful lot of color that comes from the caramel so in this instance I would definitely suggest finding some.

Lager riots

Messing with Sunday rituals is risky:

'Riots are now chronic in New York, and both mob and authorities fight with fire-arms. The last two sectional insurrections were an attack by the oystermen on the quarantine station, and a rising of the Germans against a prohibition to vend their beloved lager-beer on Sundays. In all these rows the insurgents attain at least one common end — they combat the detested "new police." '
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 05 August 1857, page 4.

Fire-arms? That's serious rioting.  I'd love to learn more about these disturbances. I guess stupid licensing laws weren't uniquely British.

I couldn't imagine a Sunday in Bavaria without beer. Few Bavarians could either.

I'll be there soon. In beer's heartland. Two Sundays I'll get. Beer? Sure, there'll be beer. Along with impractically large chunks of pork, rustling trees, laughing kids, chatty blokes, dirndled waitresses and absolutely no stress at all. Can't wait.

No wonder they got so angry in New York.

Why Lager didn't catch on

This might help explain why British brewers were so reluctant to move to bottom-fermentation. There was an incentive in the system of beer taxation to get beer out of the brewery as quickly as possible, because the tax was paid before the beer had even fermented.

"LAGER BEER BREWERS' GRIEVANCES.
Colonel J. Baldwin-Webb, M.P , has issued the following statement: —

In view of the urgent representations which have been made within the past year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to individual Members of Parliament by various lager beer brewers, with regard to what is undoubtedly a real grievance, I have, after consultation with colleagues at the House of Commons, and in conjunction with fourteen of them, suggested the addition of the following new clause to the Finance Bill: —

"The duty of excise and the excise drawback allowed in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom under Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1933, shall be reduced as from the first day of July, 1934, by 5 per cent, in the case of beer known as lager beer—that is to say, beer mashed by the decoction process and fermented by a bottom yeast at a temperature of under 45 deg. Fahr."

The supporters of this new clause are Mr. W. W. Boulton, Mr. H. G. Williams, Col. Sir George Courthope, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold Wilson, Wing-Commander James, Lt.-Col. Heneage, Sir Thomas Rosbotham, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Vice-Admiral Taylor, Dr. O'Donovan, Lt.-Commander Bower, Sir Paul Latham, Mr. Mitcheson and Mr. D. G. Somerville.

At least half of these Members belong to the Parliamentary Agricultural Committee and have the interests of farmers no less than brewers at heart.

Until comparatively recent times, lager beer was virtually a foreign monopoly, but manufacturers in this country have been trying to make it an entirely British article, and but for the heavy pressure of foreign competition would have been successful. The home producer has to store his beer for four months, and the high rate of duty entails a considerable loss of interest on the capital so locked up, whereas the. foreign competitor, on the other hand, does not pay duty on the beer until it arrives at the port, and is also able to purchase his raw materials more cheaply.

The lager beer brewers of this country who are endeavouring to build up a British industry feel that they are entitled to some support from the Government.

They have already built up a considerable trade under great handicaps, but a great many of them are beginning to feel that, ii they have to conduct their home trade at a loss in order to compete with foreigners who enter this country under no handicap, they will have to give up what they hold to be an unequal struggle. This would cause unemployment among the makers of British labels, bottles, corks, etc., and among bottlers and casers

While the British lager brew has been struggling against these heavy odds, foreign imports have been increasing. The last available figures show the increases as follow: —

1932-3        22,486 standard barrels
1933-4        32,480 standard barrels

Other trades could, of course, go before the import Duties Advisory Committee and obtain protection for their business, but, owing to the technical point that beer is a dutiable article, the lager beer brewers are not entitled to do this. Nevertheless, they feel very strongly, that they are entitled to some protection, since their trade has greatly benefited other British industries. For instance, one firm I have in mind spent £70,000 last year for its export trade alone in purchasing glassware, labels, etc., of British manufacture, and, in addition, paid over £30,000 in freights to British shipowners. Failing other means of assistance, various British lager beer brewers have urged me to take up their case in the House of Commons, but as a Private Member is not entitled to move any clause or amendment to impose fresh taxation, my colleagues and I have adopted the alternative of pressing for a reduction in the excise duty.
June 6th, 1934.
House of Commons.
[The  new  Clause  was considered in the House Commons  on  the 12th inst., and negatived.—ED
"B. J."]"
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 324.

Of course they got nowhere with this proposal. One of the problems was how to decide what was Lager and what wasn't. The amendment suggested a decoction mash and a cool bottom fermentation defined Lager. Odd that lagering didn't get a mention. I'd have thought that was a key part of the definition. Especially as it was this long storage that financially disadvantaged Lager brewers.

In the 1960's and 1970's the extra costs involved with lagering were given as an explanation of the higher proce of Lager compared to top-fermenting beers. Bullshit, obviously, as very little lagering was going on by then.

The extra cost in brewing Lager must have been a disincentive to switch to bottom-fermentation. Especially at a time when brewery profits were under pressure. Anyone making such a bold step risked being undercut by competitors who stuck with top fermentation.

Those figures for the imports of Lager aren't 100% precise. As the official figures didn't record the type of beer, they just assumed that all beer coming from Denamrk, Holland, Germany and Czechoslovakia was bottom-fermenting.

Edinburgh United Breweries' litigation

Remember how Edinburgh United Breweries was formed? A Mr. Dunn bought the four breweries and then sold them on to the new limited company. It seemed an odd arrangement to me. It turned out not everyone was happy with the transaction.

Having looked at a few flotations and their aftermath, I've learned that what was in the prospectus wasn't always true. Often they included some items of improved truth. In particular, the profits of the company. That was the case here.

"EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES COMPANY v. MOLLESON.
The Edinburgh United Breweries Company and William Henry Dunn, 27 Bishopsgate Street, London, here sue James Alexander Molleson, C.A. Edinburgh, trustee under a trust deed by David Nicolson, brewer and wine merchant, residing at Parsons Green, Edinburgh, for reduction of a minute so agreement dated in November, 1889, between Dunn and the defender, which proceeded on the narrative that Nicolson was the proprietor of the Palace Brewery in Edinburgh, and of maltings and bottle stores, that Dunn should become the purchaser of them with the whole plant connected with them at the price of £20,500, and that he should take over the stock at a valuation. Reduction is also asked of a disposition conveying a ground in London Road to the United Brewery Company for £28,500, of which £8000 was contributed by Dunn and £20,500 by Molleson. Persuers also seek to be restored in possession of the Properties, and they sue for payment of £20,500 or alternatively for £10,568 2ls 1d. Pursuers state that it was represented by Mr Molleson that the profits in the brewery and wine business for the two years ending 31st December, 1888, amounted to £3700 in each year. The company was formed With a view to the purchase of four breweies in Edinburgh, including the one in question, Mr Dunn's intention being to transfer his interests to the company. Before the transaction was completed Mr Dunn employed accountants to ascertain the profits, and it was stated that the balance-sheet for 1888 showed a profit £2181 10s. It is averred that the figures in the balance-sheet were fraudulently falsified, and that the balance-sheet was concocted so as to show the balance of profit for the year to be greater than it really was. Another balance-sheet was discovered by them a bringing out a profit of £930 17s. Persuers aver that Mr Molleson personally knew of the fraudulent alterations, but they state that he has benefited by them to the extent of the enhanced price. The defence is that the Pursuer Dunn was the mere nominee of a company called the City of London Contract Corporation, that before the agreement the accounts were examined - first, by a firm of accountants in London, and a subsequently by another firm in Edinburgh, upon whose report the pursuers paid the price. It is also stated that the sale did not proceed upon the Profits, but upon the valuations of the subjects sold. It is maintained that the contract was completed by Dunn with the full knowledge that the profits did not amount to the sum stated. The record in the case was closed to-day. "
Glasgow Herald - Monday 02 November 1891, page 4.

It's all rather odd. Mr. Molleson, the accountant who sold the brewery, was unaware that the books had been cooked. And Edinburgh United Breweries hadn't even been a party to the agreement, yet were still suing Mr. Molleson.

Wondering why it took two years before they sued? Because it was only when the clerk who committed the fraud confessed after more than a year thaat anyone realised the books weren't right.

This case was to run and run. Edinburgh United Breweries just wouldn't let it go. No doubt much to the delight of their lawyers.

Charrington buys Hoare

So you remember the Toby jug symbol? It was all over Charrington pubs back in the days when hair was long and flares were wide. I didn't realise that it hadn't been their trademark originally. They'd only acquired it in 1934 with the purchase or Hoare.

Hoare had been one of the big boys back in Porter's heyday, brewing more than Barclay Perkins in 1748. In the second half of the 18th century they slipped behind Barclay Perkins, Combe, Whitbread and Calvert and never quite managed to break through the 100,000 barrel barrier, their output peaking at 97,600 barrels in 1796*. In the early 19th century they produced 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a year and were most definitely in the second division of London brewers.

Charrington was the first London Ale brewer to break into the big time. As public taste moved from Porter to Mild Ale in the second half of the 19th century, they expanded rapidly. The purchase of Hoare cemented their position as one of London's leading brewers.

Now we've done the contextualising, here's the article:

"CHARRINGTON AND CO., LTD.
Trade Conditions and the Beer Duty.

The ordinary general meeting of Charrington and Co.. Ltd. was held on the 10th inst., at the Anchor Brewery, Mile End, London, E.

Mr. Cecil E. W. Charrington, M.C. (the chairman of the company), presided.

I do not propose to go into the details of our deal with Messrs Hoare and Co., for the simple reason that it would take a very long time. The negotiations were very long and intricate, but I may say at once that the terms were accepted by both sides with a minimum of disagreement. As regards Messrs. Charrington and Co.'s Ordinary and Preference shareholders, although they did not all agree, not a single one objected; and in the case of Messrs. Hoare and Co. (there were only Ordinary shareholders there), less than half of 1 per cent, objected. Therefore, I think we can congratulate ourselves, in an amalgamation of this size, that the two bodies of shareholders came to such an amicable agreement.

The net result of this big "deal" has been a very large increase in the company's liabilities, but I trust it has also been a very valuable addition to our assets. I may say that the directors of Charrington and Co. did not enter lightly into these new commitments, nor did they very willingly put an end to what had been for 150 years an almost purely family business, but they considered that an amalgamation with a firm of the same size and standing as themselves would in the long run be in the best interests of the company.

The issue of the £4,500,000 Debenture stock at 98 we can consider, I think, on the whole, quite satisfactory. I am well aware that it we were going into the Money Market at the present moment we could get better terms, but we must not forgot that if we had wanted to raise this large sum of money only three or four years ago we should no doubt have had to do so on a 5.5 per cent, basis. I think we can congratulate ourselves that we were able to issue the debentures at 4 per cent. None of the prior charges bears a higher rate than 4 per cent.

Now, as regards the trading conditions of the year. You will have gathered from the printed report that the first four months of the year were extremely bad. The "Snowden" tax of 1931 had a very damaging influence on our trade when it started, but it had an increasingly severe effect as time went on. - The first four months of last year were quite the worst period for trailing that we have experienced since the war. Our barrelage dropped very considerably until about the end of April, 1933; the increase in the last eight months of the year did not quite make up the leeway lost in the first four months. Unfortunately, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took eighteen months instead of only six to find out the great mistake his predecessor had made. When he did find it out, 1 think he met the situation fairly He said: "The public are to get their beer cheaper, but I am going to ask the brewers to do something for me" —and he asked us to increase our gravity by two degrees and  to  use  more  British  malt. Well, that was an expensive matter to brewers, but it enabled us to inform the public that beer would be "cheaper and better" and good advertising can never be had for nothing.

The continuance of the policy has been strongly recommended by the Brewers' Society, and is being strictly adhered to by this company.

The "Snowden"  tax, besides damaging the brewing trade and threatening the Exchequer with consistently diminishing returns on the beer duty, hit the retail trade with exceptional severity. While we have made considerable reductions in our rents of licensed property, I regard it as a very real grievance on the part of the licensed victualler that no reduction has beer made in the licence duties.

With regard to our beers, during the past 12 month they have been excellent. In taking over this large increase in trade we are installing the very best plan available, for I do not believe it is ever good policy to do anything which might interfere with the quality of the article produced. We have a very fine site, and one which has proved readily capable of expansion.

As regards our licensed property, we have spent last year about an average sum on repairs to houses and on rebuildings of old properties, and on the erection of modern public-houses. I hope they will be well patronised by our shareholders and the public at large.

It is really outside my scope, I think, to deal with the closing down of the Red Lion Brewery and the concentration of the work here at the Anchor Brewery but I feel sure you would like to know that we run already taken over the supply of a large number of the houses that were supplied by Messrs. Hoare and Co.

There is one more matter to which 1 ought to refer, and that is the matter of compensation for the staff of Messrs. Hoare's Brewery. It was part of the terms of our "deal" with Messrs. Hoare that a definite lump sum should be guaranteed by Charringtons for that purpose, and that sum was agreed at £25,000. I do not think that that will be an adequate amount, but that was the sum agreed on; if necessary we shall, course, add to it. But it is only right for me to tell you that during his lifetime Sir John Ellerman, without making a definite promise, said he would like out his own pocket to add to that fund. Unfortunately, he died very shortly after the "deal" was completed but his executors felt that they would be carrying out his wishes (and they were entitled to do so under the terms of his will) by dealing with the matter; they have most generously promised to grant the sum of £20,000 towards that fund."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 280.

It's no surprise that Hoare's Red Lion Brewery was closed straight away. Charrington had a modern brewery of their own not far away. Supplying Hoare's tied estate wouldn't be a problem.

Wondering what the "Snowden tax" was? A salutary lesson for greedy governments, that's what it was. In 1931 Philip Snowden, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised beer duty from 84 shillings a standard barrel to 114 shillings. What happened next? Brewers cut gravities so the retail price could remain the same and the revenue raised actually fell. The tax collected didn't return to its 1930 level until 1940.

Tax and beer output 1930 - 1938
Year	Bulk Barrels	Std. Barrels	Tax/Std. Brl	Av. sg	Total Tax £
1930	25,061,956	19,550,867	80s	1042.9	71,254,674
1931			114s
1932	20,790,812	15,514,209	114s	1041.04	68,710,020
1933	17,950,303	12,658,324	114s	1039.52	67,097,581
1934	20,182,308	15,043,120	80s	1040.99	53,884,405
1935	20,864,814	15,577,836	80s	1041.06	53,582,335
1936	21,969,763	16,386,985	80s	1041.02	55,451,926
1937	22,724,450	16,985,231	80s	1041.1	57,318,585
1938	24,205,631	18,055,539	80s	1041.02	61,241,404
Source:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, page 50.

Eventually the tax was dropped back to 80 shillings when the brewers agreed to raise gravities.

Given the slump that it caused in beer production, the tax rise and Hoare's decision to sell may well have been connected.



* “The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830”, Peter Mathias, 1959, p 551-552

Lambic

One thing I love about the Brewers' Journal is that it wasn't inward looking. It regularly included articles about foreign beer and brewing. As srticles written by people conversant with breing for an audience of brewers, they're much more valuable than articles from a general newspaper or magazine.

You can imagine my delight when I found an article about Lambic. I don't know about you, but I can never learn too much about Lambic. This piece is particularly informatibve with regards to brewing techniques.

"LAMBIC

Visitors to Belgium usually wish to taste some of the beers typical of that country, such as Lambic or Faro, though they afterwards admit, not infrequently, that their palates would require a certain amount of education before they could fully appreciate the special qualities of these beverages. One of the characteristics of these beers consists in the use of grain other than barley. Wheat is generally used in the form of raw grain mixed with malt. The quantity employed may be even equal to that of the malt, it is usually said that wheat beers froth a great deal, but it would be more correct to say that they hold their head better than all-malt beer. Lactic and acetic acid are very quickly produced in them, and this is one of the characteristics of the Special Brussels beers. The high percentage of acids produced esterifies the alcohol during storage and gives the typical aromas to these beers. Use of different kinds of wheat gives special characteristics to the beers, while rye, oats and buckwheat are also occasionally used in addition.

The fermentation  methods adopted  in the breweries may resemble either bottom or top fermentation. In the first case the temperature is kept below 50 deg. Fahr. and the yeast settles on the bottom of the fermenting vessel. The top fermentations are carried out at the temperature of the air and the yeast comes up. In certain cases the fermentation is spontaneous and started by organisms from the air or in the casks. This fermentation is very slow, and is not now used in the breweries devoted to making these beers.

Additions of wort or very acid old beer play a very important part in the brewing. These are made in variable proportions to suit the taste of customers, and sometimes even vinegar or acetic acid are added. The old beer is acid and has passed through a sequence of diseases. If it is added to the casks, it is advisable to pasteurise it by heating it for a short time at 158 deg. Fahr. If the old beer is added before fermentation, it may be boiled for a few minutes in the copper and afterwards passed over the refrigerator before mixing with the wort in the starting vessel.

Tho spontaneously fermented beers of the Brussels district are usually browed from equal parts of malt and ungerminated wheat. Several types are frequently obtained from the same brew. For example, the first wort gives Lambic, the later runnings give March or small beer. Faro is obtained by blending the two. The Lambic is often kept two or even three years before use. Gueuse-lambic is natural Lambic to which no additions have been made. The customer may add sugar if he so desires. It is often kept several years in bottle.

One is frequently asked what is the origin of the name Gueuse-lambic. It may simply be the Lambic of the poor. It is known that the latter adopt as a title of honour the name which was given to them in contempt. The poor woodmen and sailors reserve for themselves the best drinks and foods they produce.

Tasting is a very important ceremony in the preparation of special beers. As with all luxury drinks, the aim is always to please customers. Each brewery consequently has a taster who has to determine the quantity of candy syrup or old beer which must be added. He has to regulate the blends and must know the taste of every customer. Each brewery thus tends to produce a beer of special flavour and the fermentations differ from one brewery to another. Details of brewing also influence the flavour. Thus blending in cask or fermenting vessel have different effects. It has been noticed that the flavours marry better in the latter case, as some of the constituents of the old beer may be modified during fermentation. The Lambic may contain all sorts of disease organisms and may have suffered from ropiness or haze. The yeast must consequently progressively become more infected, and the bad effects show themselves in the beer after quite lengthy periods of storage, sometimes months or even a year. Wort to which additions are to be made is comparatively strong, and in it 25 to 50 per cent, of wheat or other grain is used, with 8 to 12 lb. per barrel of hops. The beer is fermented in large storage casks und clarifies spontaneously. After the secondary fermentation it is kept long enough to become definitely acid.

The alcohol content of Lambic varies from 4 to over 6 per cent., with solid matter between 6 and 3 per cent. The beers are better fermented in open casks than in fermenting vessels as the attenuation is too rapid in the latter. The lactic acid develops first followed by the acetic. The fermentation is slow and the characteristic flavour is not developed in less than a year. The beers are very dextrinous.
—Petite Gazette du Brasseur."
Brewers' Journal 1932, page 581.

My palate certainly needed education to appreciate Lambic. I was didtinctly unimpressed the first time I tried it. But with knowledge has come love. I'd forgotten just how much I loved Lambic until we bumped into one another at the ZBF this year. When we parted, we promised to keep in touch this time. I hope we do.

Rye, oats and buckwheat used, too? Sounds very renaissance. A couple of hundred years ago three or four grain beers were the norm in the Low Countries. With oats often making up a surprising proportion of the grist - more than 50% sometimes. It sounds like Lambic fits right in with this tradition.

I'd heard before that Lambic and March beer came from the same mash. And I'm pretty sure that I'd also heard Faro was a blend of the two. Adding sugar when drinking seems to have been commonplace in the past. Modern sweetened Lambics - Belle Vue comes to mind - no doubt grew out of this practice.

That "taster" sounds remarkably like what we would call a blender. Though now I guess in Oude Geuze there's no sugar added.

That hopping rate of 8 to 12 pounds per barrel. Can that be right? I know they used old hops, but that's a huge quantity. Even Barclay's Russian Stout only had 10 pounds per barrel.

Scotland's plea for improved public houses

What a weird, twisted bunch temperance campaigners were. They didn't want to see pubs improve. Oh no. They wanted them to remain miserable drinking dens so that they could campaign against them more easily. It seems to be the main reason they kept pushing the local veto polls when it became clear that no more than a handful of districts would ever vote to go dry.

Why did the veto polls stop pubs improving? Because the threat of having your pub snatched away from you once every three years was a huge disincentive to making any improvements.

"SCOTLAND'S PLEA FOR IMPROVED PUBL1C-HOUSES.
The improved public-house is the bete noir of the enemies of the Trade. Although the so-called Scottish (Temperance) Act of 1913 has failed, and has resulted in not one licence being permanently extinguished, it has succeeded in one particular it has kept the licensed houses of Scotland relatively antiquated and unimproved. From the point of view of the rigid teetotaler, therefore, it has by no means been abortive.

But this is only one side of the question. In Scotland the vast majority of licensed premises are owned by their occupiers, over whose heads has hung the shadow of the guillotine since the Act became operative in 1920. A man whose business may he extinguished at any triennial period, whose security of tenure is subject to the possibility of extinction every three years, is least of all likely to be found modernising or adapting his premises by the expenditure of large sums to this end.

It has for some years been obvious to any student of the liquor position in Scotland that matters cannot remain where they are, moribund, in the rut of the teetotalers' making. The Scottish Royal Commission in its Majority Report dealt the Act of 1913 a severe body blow, but refrained from giving it the complete knock-out. "Let it go on yet a little while longer," they said in effect, "for peradventure wisdom in the matter will arise from the people themselves."

Meanwhile, Lord Salvesen, Chairman of the Scottish Public-House Reform League, has loosened the controversial cat amongst the teetotal pigeons by addressing to Members of Parliament two questions. The first asked whether they favour legislation for the improvement of public-houses on the basis that such premises should receive a definite security of tenure so long as they are properly conducted; the second asks whether they favour abolition of the triennial Local Veto polls. We doubt not that of those to whom the questionnaire was addressed a number will be engaged in giving "no reply." Others, if they represent Scottish constituencies, will probably be seeking some "safety first" answers in an endeavour successfully to skate over the thin ice which Lord Salvesen has prepared for their doubtful enjoyment.

But something must be done. All constructive, proposals for reform have been sidetracked for many years past; so far as the improvement of existing licensed houses and of new ones is concerned, stagnation has prevailed. Meanwhile, the triennial polls have confessedly become a dead letter, from which not even the centenary of teetotalism and the "seven wise men of Preston" were capable of reviving them."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 246.

I must find out when (if ever) the idiot local veto polls were stopped. They couldn't still be continuing, could they?

Edinburgh United Breweries is launched

It seems like ages since I last reproduced a company prospectus. As I realise how much you all love them, here's another.

This is a rather special one. For several reasons. Firstly, it's one of the earliest large mergers in British brewing. It marks the beginning of a new phase in the industry. An age of brewery combines operating from multiple plants. By combining forces, the four breweries involved immediately promoted themselves to being one of Scotland's largest beer producers. It's this process of mergers and takeovers that eventually led to the formation of the Big Six in the 1960's.

What's significant is that this predates by almost a decade the first big London merger, that of Watney Combe and Reid to form, er, Watney, Combe, Reid. Already substantial breweries in their own right, after the merger they became the third-largest in the country, trailing behind only Guinness and Bass.

Right. On the with the dull bit. See if you can spot the unusual way the assets were purchased by the new company. It's important for what happened later.

"The LIST of APPLICATIONS will OPEN on THURSDAY, the 19th Day of December, 1889, and will CLOSE on or before SATURDAY, the 21st Day of December, 1889,
THE EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES, LIMITED.

SHARE CAPITAL, £450,000. Divided into—
12,500 Six Per Cent. Cumulative Preference Shares of £10 Each,     £125,000
12,500 Ordinary Shares of £10 Each, . . ..             125,000
                                £250,000
Five Per Cent. First Mortgage Debentures, £200,000.
Present Issue— £110,000 in Preference Shares, £110,000 in Ordinary Shares, and £200,000 in Debentures.

The Shares are Payable as follows, viz. :— 10s per Share on Application, £4 10s per Share on Allotment, and the balance by two instalments of £2 10s each per Share at two and four months thereafter.

The first Mortgage Debentures, which will be issued in multiples of £10, are payable— 5 per cent, on application, and 95 per cent, on allotment.

TRUSTEES FOB THE DEBENTURES.
The Commercial Union Brewery Investment Corporation, Limited.

DIRECTORS.
Sir W. Hamilton Dalrymple, Bart., of North Berwick,
C. Page Wood, Esq.
F. M. Haig, Esq., Director of Parker's Burslem Brewery, limited.
Percy Reid, Esq., of Messrs Prior & Reid, Brewers, Hatfield.
*Duncan Stewart. Esq., Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company.
*Archibald Smith. Esq., Summerhall Brewery, Edinburgh.

MANAGING DIRECTOR.
*Mr William Stewart, late Managing Partner of Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company.

*Will join the Board after Allotment.

BANKERS.
The Royal Bank, of Scotland, 123 Bishopsgate Street, London ; St Andrew's Square, Edinburgh : and Branches.

SOLICITORS.
Messrs Nicholson, Graham, A Graham, 21 Coleman Street, London. E.C. Messrs Whillip, Laing, A Co., 41 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh.

BROKERS.
Messrs Panmure Gordon. Hill, & Co., Hatton Court, Threadneedle Street, London, E.C.
Messrs John Robertson & Co., 31 George Street, Edinburgh.

AUDITORS.
Messrs J. R. Ellerman & Co., 12 Moorgate Street, London, E.C.
Messrs F. J. Moncreiff & Horsbrugh, 40 Castle Street, Edinburgh.

SECRETARY (pro tem.)
Mr F. G. Burt.

Temporary London Offices— 12 Moorgate Street, London, E.C.
Registered Offices— Bells Brewery, Edinburgh.

ABRIDGED PROSPECTUS.
This Company has been formed to acquire, amalgamate, and carry on four well-known and old-established Breweries in Edinburgh, viz :— (1) The Edinburgh and Leith Brewery (Robert Disher A Co.) ; (2) Ritchie A Sons' Bells Brewery ; (2) Robin, McMillan, & Co.,Summerhall Brewery ; and (4) D. Nicholson's Palace Brewery and Wholesale Wine and Spirit Business. By amalgamation material economies in the expenses should be effected, both of production and distribution. The businesses are all old-established, and have been successfully carried on up to the present time.

EDINBURGH AND LEITH BREWING COMPANY.
This Business, better known out of Scotland as Robert Disher A Co., has been carried on by a large private Copartnery since 1821. The Business even then was old established. Its products enjoy an almost world-wide reputation, "Disher's Ten Guinea Ale" being among them. The trade mark is well known throughout the country. The Company acquire the valuable feuhold Brewery covering two acres of ground, consisting of Brewhouse, Tun, and Square, Rooms, Coolers, Cellars, Cooper-house, Yards, Stables. Maltings, &c, Horses, Drays, Carts, subject to a nominal rent practically equal to freehold.

Attached to this Business are Agencies in London, Glasgow, Newcastle, and many other important towns.

In addition to the well-established home trade a large Business is done in England, where Disher's Ales are well known. Included in the purchase are certain dwelling-houses, &c, and there is room for extension if necessary.

G. RITCHIE AND SONS' BELLS BREWERY.
This Business is very old established, having existed prior to 1755. Its Beers enjoy the best reputation. A large trade is done with the North of England, Agencies being numerous and well established, the principal in England and Ireland being at Newcastle, Sunderland, Manchester, Hull, Cardiff, Dublin, and Belfast.

The Brewery, which is feuhold at a nominal rent, practically equal to freehold, covers two-and-a-half acres of ground, and consists of Brewhouse fitted with 50-qr. plant maltkilns, with a capacity of over 19,000 qrs., Office, Cooperage Stores, and Stables. There is an excellent supply of good water for brewing purposes from a well on the premises.

Included in the purchase of this Brewery are loans to publicans, andseven Publichouses or Beerhouses, Cottages, Horses, Drays, Carts, &c.

ROBIN, McMILLAN, A CO.'S SUMMERHALL BREWERY.
This Business has been established over 150 years. The Brewery, which is feuhold at a nominal rent practically equal to freehold, covers about two acres of ground, and consists of Brewhouse Maltings with a capacity of 9000 quarters — 40-qr. plant, and the usual appliances. There is an excellent supply of water from a well on the premises. This Brewery also does a considerable trade in England, and has many well-established Agencies, besides its home trade. Included in the purchase are Horses, Drays, Carts, Ac.

D. NICOLSON's PALACE BREWERY.
This Business is also old established, and its Beer enjoys a good reputation. The capacity of the Brewery is, however, much larger than the present output. The tenure is feuhold at a nominal rent, practically equal to freehold. It has a 40-qr. plant, with the usual appliances, horses, carts, &c, with Maltings at the Brewery and at Jane Terrace, equal to 10,000 qrs. There are many well established Agencies and a small export trade attached to the Brewery, and carried on in conjunction therewith is a Wholesale Wine and Spirit Business, and the extension of this to the customers of the other Breweries should yield large additional profits.

The books of the Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company for the year, ending 31st August, 1889 ; and also of G. Ritchie & Son, Bells Brewery, and of D. Nicolson & Son, Palace Brewery, and Wine and Spirit Business, for the year, ending 31st December, 1888, have been examined by Messrs F. J. Moncreiff & Horsbrugh, of Edinburgh, and Messrs J. R. Ellerman & Co., of London, whose reports state that the net profits, after making provision for bad debts, depreciation, &c, amounted to £22,528. They have also examined the books of Messrs Robin, McMillan, & Co. for the three years ending 30th September last, and certify the average annual profits at £5939, after making provision for bad debts, depreciation, &c.

Thus the total profits of the four Businesses amounts to £28,467 per annum. The trade of G. Ritchie A Sons is increasing very rapidly, the sales for the year ending 31st December, 1888, being 33.000 barrels, while this year, up to the 30th November last, they have been at the rate of 39,000 barrels per annum, which will undoubtedly increase this year's profit.

The sales of the Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company (Disher's Ale) have also been rapidly increasing, but the balance-sheet is taken to a more recent date. Still, the sales for September, October, and November last exceeded those of the corresponding months of last year by 1517 Barrels, or at the rate to over 6000 Barrels per annum.

The two other Businesses are also doing a good and increasing trade, and the total Barrelage of the Combined Businesses for the year ending 30th November, 1889, was 110,000 Barrels, showing a considerable increase upon the previous year.

The Amalgamation of the four Businesses under one management must not only tend to increase the sales and effect economies both in cost of production and distribution, but should lessen the competition the existing firms individually are subject to, and convert them into one large concern, whose trade marks should enjoy great publicity.

To pay 5 per cent, on £200,000 Debentures requires         £10,000
To pay 6 per cent, on £110,000 Preference shares requires     6,600
                                £16,000

Thus if the profits only amount to £25,467, as shown by Messrs F. J. Moncreiff & Horsbrugh and Messrs J. R. Ellerman & Co.'s reports, there would remain, after paying the above £16,600, a sum exceeding 10 per cent, on the Ordinary Shave Capital, apart from the increase in the respective businesses above indicated, and the extra profit anticipated from the amalgamation, which will accrue entirely to the Ordinary Shares.

The properties have been acquired by Mr W. H. Dunn, the vendor to the Company, upon the terms of the contracts presently described, and he has fixed the price to be paid by the Company for the whole of the properties, breweries, maltkilns, loans to publicans, wine and spirit stores, plant, goodwill, horses, &c, at £320.000. The Company will not take over any of the liabilities of the respective firms.

Under the above arrangement there will be a Working Capital of £100,000. The Company will also have £30,000 of Unissued Capital for extending the Business from time to time.

Application will be made for a quotation on the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Stock Exchanges.

Special attention is drawn to the fact that there will be no Mortgages on any of the properties other than that for securing the First Mortgage Debentures.

The following contracts have been entered into : — A contract dated the 1st and 11th November, 1889, and made between Robert Robin, Archibald Smith, and William Greenlees of the one part, and W. H. Dunn of the other part ; a contract dated the 4th and 11th November, 1889, and made between James Alexander Molleson of the one part, and W. H. Dunn of the other part; a contract dated the 10th and 18th November, 1889, and made between George Ritchie of the one part, and W. H. Dunn of the other part ; a contract dated the 23d and 25th November, 1889, and made between Robert Robin, Archibald Smith, and William Greenlees of the one part, and W. H. Dunn of the other part; a contract dated the 26th November and 6th December, 1889, and made between the Edinburgh and Leith Brewing Company and the shareholders thereof of the one part, and W. H. Dunn of the other part ; a contract dated the 14th day of December, 1889, between W. H. Dunn of the one part, and the Company of the other part, for the sale by Mr Dunn to the Company of the said business, properties, and effects at a profit, Mr Dunn paying all expenses attending the incorporation and registration of the Company, and also all underwriting, brokerage, commissions, printing, advertisement, and expenses attending the formation of the Company up to and including allotment.

Other arrangements have been entered into with various persons, which may constitute contracts within the meaning of the 38th section of the Companies Act, 1867.

There are also various contracts connected with the Breweries, &c, as a going concern, which, from the nature of the business, it might be injudicious to publish.

Applicants for Shares must therefore be deemed to waive the insertion of dates and names of the parties to any such arrangements or contracts, and, in order to prevent any questions, must accept the above statement as a sufficient compliance with Section 38 of the Companies Act, 1867, and otherwise.

The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, together with copies of the above-named Contracts and of the reports of Messrs F. J. Moncreiff A Horsbrugh and Messrs J. R. Ellerman & Co., can be inspected at the Offices of the Solicitors of the Company.

Prospectuses and Forms of Application can be obtained at the Offices of the Company or at the Offices of the Bankers, Brokers, and Solicitors."
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 18 December 1889, page 1.

See what was odd? The breweries weren't sold directly to the new company. They were purchased by Mr. W.H. Dunn who then sold them on to the company. I'm not sure I understand why the deal was done this way. What I do know, is that it led to a court case. A very long and drawn out one.

This is one of those prospecti with some useful details, not just about profits (we've learned just how unreliable those can be) but of output. 110,000 barrels a year (the combined output of all four breweries) was very substantial in Scottish terms. To contextualise that, the largest London brewer, Barclay Perkins, brewed just over 500,000 barrels in 1889*.

That Disher's Ten Guinea Ale is specifically mentioned shows gives an indication of its renown. It even survived the closure of the Edinburgh and Leith brewery.

On the face of it, this merger seemed a smart move. The company got a jump on its competitors both in terms of company organisation (this was one of the first Scottish brewery flotations) and in output. They should have gone on from strength to strength. But, just as so often, things weren't quite that simple.




* "The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980" T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611