Illegal liquor sales in the House of Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decoction recreation

Just recreated this cover an hour or two ago.

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

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

An underrated beer destination, Regensburg.

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

I'll be back later to watch the footie.

Aitchison beers 1843 - 1859

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last chance for Pattison's

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

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

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

. . . . .

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

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

. . . .

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Deuchar beers 1929 - 1959

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edinburgh United Breweries' beers 1926 - 1934

All those court cases and dodgy prospectuses are giving me a thirst. Time to take a look and the products of Edinburgh United Breweries.

I just noticed something weird about these beers. They were all brewed in the period when Edinburgh United Breweries were defrauding the revenue by brewing in secret. Were any of these beers, I wonder, brewed that way? It's a definite possibility.

Let's start with the Brown Ale. With a gravity of the mid 1050's, it's definitely not a Southern Brown Ale. Looks more like a Double Brown to me. I'd love to know what the beer was like. Were Scottish Brown Ales like English ones? Given the business they did in the Northeast of England, it's tempting to think that they must have been similar to Newcastle Brown or Vaux Double Maxim

I've got an analysis of Newcastle Brown from 1931: OG 1056, FG 1014, colour 62. It looks pretty similar to the EUB beer, except for the colour, which was paler. And an analysis of Vaux Double Maxim tells me that had an OG of 1053.2 and an FG of 1009.3. On the face of it, all three look quite similar.

Now for the Pale Ales. I'm still trying to get my head around the naming conventions in Scotland between the wars. Most of the 90/- Pale Ales I've seen were weaker than this one. Usually in the low to mid 1030's. And Export usually was used for something stronger than 1040º. I'm all confused.

Finally we've Disher's Ten Guinea Ale. A real beast of a beer. Amazing that they sold the stuff on draught. I assume that they didn't sell it in pints. Even I would struggle to get down more than one. It's quite well attenuated for a beer with an OG north of 1100º.

Edinburgh United Breweries beers 1926 - 1934
Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1929	EUB	Export	Pale Ale		pint	bottled	1008	1040	40	4.16	80.00%
1931	EUB	Brown Ale	Brown Ale		pint	bottled	1015	1055	92	5.20	72.73%
1931	EUB	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	3.5d	nip	bottled	1014	1056	65	5.46	75.00%
1931	EUB	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	6d	half	bottled	1015	1055	75	5.20	72.73%
1933	EUB	90/- Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled	1007	1040		4.29	82.50%
1934	EUB	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	draught	1013	1037		3.17	66.22%
1926	Disher	Ten Guinea Draught Ale	Strong Ale	20d	pint	draught	1035	1115.4		10.61	70.10%
1927	Disher	£10.10/- (10 guinea)	Strong Ale		pint	bottled	1029	1114	130	11.20	74.56%
1928	Disher	Strong Ale	Strong Ale		pint	bottled	1027	1104	120	10.11	74.04%
1931	Disher	Strong Ale	Strong Ale		pint	bottled	1033	1091		7.53	63.74%
Sources:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive

Edinburgh United Breweries' litigation (part four)

I told you EUB and Mr. Dunn didn't give up easily. They took their case as far as they could: all the way to the House of Lords, the ultimate court of appeal in the UK.

"THE LAW COURTS. 
HOUSE OF LORDS APPEALS.
(Present : The Lord Chancellor and Lords Watson, Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and Morris.)
THE SALE OF A BREWERY COMPANY.
The Edinburgh United Breweries Company (Limited) and others v. Molleson and another. — This was an appeal from a decision of the First Division of the Court of Session in Scotland. — The Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby, Q.C), the Solicitor General for Scotland, and Mr. Shaw were counsel for the Appellants ; the Lord Advocate and Mr. Muir for the Respondents.

The question raised by the appeal was whether a contract of sale between oue of the Appellants, William H. Dunn, and the Respondent James A. Molleson ought to be set aside, and the contract price repaid. David Nicholson owned the Palace Brewery Company, Edinburgh, which, in consequence of failing health, he conveyed in 1887 to Molleson, a chartered accountant, as trustee, with a view to its eventual sale. In November, 1889, Molleson sold the property to Dunn for £20,500, and Dunn resold it to the Edinburgh United Breweries Company for £28,500, thus making a profit of £8000. by the re-sale. The contract between Dunn and the company contained a condition that the actual profits from the bnsiness were £3750 a year. It appeared that Dunn employed two firms of accountants to examine the books and verify the profits; but after the Breweries Company entered into possession it was discovered that a clerk employed at the brewery during Molleson's management had falsified the books ; that Dunn's accountants had been misled ; and that the true profits were £1000 less a year than the accoun- tants reported. No blame attached to Molleson, the falsification being made to lead him to believe that the concern was more prosperous than it was in reality. Retention of his own situation and salary was the only motive suggested for the clerk's wrong-doing. Then the Breweries Company and Dunn instituted the present proceedings against Molleson and Nicholson, the original owners, to set aside the contract, and recover back what had been paid. They contended they were both entitled to sue, and that the transac- tion was induced by misrepresentations, for which the Respondents were responsible. The Respondents said that under the peculiar circumstances of the case neither of the Appellants was entitled to sue, Dunn because he suffered no injury, having in fact profited to the extent of £8000, and the company because they had no contract with the Respondents, and had suffered no wrong for which the Respondents were answerable. The First Division of the Court of Session decided the matter in favour of the Respondents — hence the present appeal. Their Lordships, Without calling upon counsel for the Respondents, upheld the decision of the First Division, which was appealed from, and dismissed the appeal with costs. — Appeal dismissed accordingly. "
London Standard - Saturday 10 March 1894, page 2.

Unsurprisingly, the Lords upheld the decisions of the lower courts. How could they have decided otherwise? The facts hadn't changed. Ultimately what buggered EUB and Dunn was the weird way the brewery had first been purchased by Dunn, then sold on to EUB. It meant that there was no connection between EUB and Molleson.

I'd have come to the same decision. What could EUB possibly have been claiming? They'd bought the Palace Brewery from Dunn. How could the books have played any role in that transaction?

It must have cost them a few quid, taking the case through all the courts right up to the House of Lords. Wondering how much? Wonder no longer:

"The annual meeting of the EDINBURGH UNITED BREWERIES (Limited) was held yesterday at Dowell's Rooms, Edinburgh - Sir Walter Dalrymple, Bart., chairman of the directors, presiding. The report of the directors for the year to 13th October stated that the gross profits amounted to £20,385 12s 6d. After providing for upkeep, depreciation, and deducting head office charges, legal expenses, &c., there remains a balance of £23,152 8s., including the amount brought forward from the previous year. It was proposed to complete the dividend on the preference shares, making in all 6 per cent, for the year; to write off the whole expenses incurred in connection wins the Palace Brewery action, £4868 17s 1d ; and to carry forward the balance of £1703 10s 11d. The directors a hoped that their policy in at once wiping off the whole of the expenses of their litigation over the Palace Brewery and not declaring a dividend on the ordinary shares would meet with the approval of the shareholders."
Glasgow Herald - Saturday 29 December 1894, page 7.

They spent £4868 17s 1d. Did they bear all the costs of the action, or did Dunn pay half? Even if Dunn didn't contribute, that's still a hefty sum wasted on the court action. Remember that they bought the Palace Brewery for just £28,500. They would have had to get pretty much all of that refunded for it to have been worth their while. I wouldn't have been very happy, had I been a shareholder.

Maturing Bass Pale Ale

One of the strangest techniques I've found is how Bass Pale Ale was mature. So counter-intuitive, I was inclined not to believe it was true.

What was this weird technique? Stacking up barrels of it in the brewery yard and leaving it exposed to the elements for several months, with nothing more than a little moistened straw to keep it cool on the hottest days.

It sounds a crazy way to mature a beer. What with all the temperature variations, especially being exposed to direct sunlight. I'd always thought maturation went on in cool cellars with a constant temperature.

So, even though I'd seen it mentioned in more than one source, there was still a lingering doubt in my mind. It was common for breweries to stack empty barrels in the yard. Had someone misunderstood and mistaken empty barrels for full ones? Things like that happen all the time.

Then I came across this photo (in The Graphic of March 21st, 1908, page 410):

There are a couple of reasons why this confirms that they really were crazy enough to leave full casks outside. Firstly, the title. It's called "The Ale Bank", not the cask bank or empties bank. And the three workers pushing the cask. Wooden barrels are heavy, but even so it doesn't take three men to push one. They aren't that heavy.

I can sleep easier now I've got that one sorted out in my head.

Rubber bullets

I'm prone to musical suggestion. Most of it I can decipher. But not all.

When I lived in scenic Thornton Heath and commuted into central London very day, there was a song that leapt into my head every time I hit the terminus. A Kinks number. See if you can guess what it was. I'll come back to it later.

Some are just weird.

Coming back into town from the Arctic Ale tasting, I hummed Abba. There's a particular chord change - it could be one that's only in my imagination - in their Eurovision hit that bounces around the closed court of my head like a squash ball. If only my internal soundtrack were classier. Sorry. I do Abba an injustice. If only it were more hip.

Coming to my credibility rescue are the John Coltrane tunes that sometimes bubble in my subconscious. No idea why. I don't even like jazz.

Potatoland is another fave. "Take my hand, and go to potatoland." Why does that phrase pop its head up from its burrow while I stare at my work screen? I probably don't want to know. Rubber Bullets - a song I don't even like - is another worktime companion.

The bus is worse. I've been re-arranging in my head the songs of our crap band. I'd tell you the name of the band. But it's just too embarassing. Even worse than the names of the songs. My new bass line for Hot Thing is way better than the original. And my adjustments to the chord structure have added a new dynamism. That's what I think. And you'll never be able to call me a liar, because it will never leave my head. That's the fun of virtual arranging. No-one can call it crap, as I'm the only one ever to hear it.

 A song about a long-dead monarch, famed for being as hip as wristbands. Bit out for the radical sixties.

But that's what I sang inside my head every morning for two years.