X Ales in the 1860's

Looking at X Ales from the 1830's was so much fun, I've decided to revisit the topic. Except this time I'm also including provincial X Ales. I would have done the same for the 1830's except I have bugger all records from outside London for that period. That's OK. I'm making up for it now.

If you can remember as far back as the 1830's, you'll see that the gravities had fallen in the intervening 30 years. That's no surprise. The 1830's were the high point. It's been all downhill for Mild gravities ever since.

What should be immediately apparent is the disappearance of some of the high-gravity X Ales. The XXX Ales have all disappeared and some of the XXX Ales. On the other hand, both Whitbread and Truman had introduced an intermediate beer between X Ale and XX Ale. XL in the case of Whitbread, 40/- Ale in the case of Truman. I assume that the L in XL stands for London. That's usually what it meant. 40/- Ale's name is pretty easy to explain: it's the price per barrel. (Those who think the shilling system of designation was purely Scottish, please take note.)

Surprisingly, the hopping rates had increased averaging around 10 pounds per quarter compared to about 8 in the 1830's. I've absolutely no idea how to explain this. It could be connected with a change in the source of hops. There had been a revolution in hop supplies in the intervening decades. with foreign hops, especially American ones, becoming very common. In the 1830's the hops had been all English. The increased hopping rate could reflect these imported hops being of lower quality.

Attenuation had edged up a tad, and averaged closer to 70% than the former 65%. Though I'm not sure that the change is big enough to be really significant.

London X Ales in the 1860's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermentation temp	length of fermentation (days)
14th May	1867	Barclay Perkins	X	1061.2	1018.6	5.64	69.68%	9.85	2.77	1.25	1.5	2.5	65º	º
2nd Oct	1868	Barclay Perkins	XX	1078.9	1024.7	7.18	68.77%	12.89	4.47	1.5	1.75	3	61º	77º	3 + 4
2nd Oct	1868	Barclay Perkins	XXX	1092.8	1030.2	8.28	67.46%	14.21	5.90	1.5	1.75	3	58º	77º	3 + 4
8th Jul	1867	Whitbread	X	1061.2	1020.2	5.42	66.97%	10.12	2.95				64º	º	5
16th May	1867	Whitbread	XL	1071.2	1026.0	5.97	63.42%	9.01	3.05				60º	74º	3 + 3
3rd Jun	1867	Whitbread	XX	1082.3	1031.3	6.74	61.95%	9.09	3.21				60º	74º	3 + 1
3rd Jul	1865	Truman	X Ale	1067.3	1013.9	7.07	79.42%	9	2.78				59º	º
4th Jul	1865	Truman	40/- Ale	1072.6	1020.8	6.85	71.37%	9	3.00				59º	º
22nd Aug	1865	Truman	XX Ale	1081.2	1020.5	8.03	74.74%	11.0	7.17				58º	º
22nd Aug	1865	Truman	XXX Ale	1088.9	1022.7	8.76	74.45%	11.0	10.15				58º	º
23rd July	1867	Courage	Ale X	1065.9				10.00	3.10				º
30th July	1867	Courage	Ale XX	1078.9				10.00	3.71				º
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/032 and LMA/4453/D/01/033.
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers ACC/2305/1/572 and ACC/2305/08/275.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number B/THB/C/147.
Courage brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/08/275.

Let's move on to the provincial X Ales. They cover a fairly good part of the country, being from Scotland, Yorkshire and Kent. I realise now that Lovibond, as a London brewer, should have been in the first table. Though in terms of the profile of their beers, they fit in better here. Presumably because they were considerably smaller than the likes or Truman, Whitbread, Courage and Barclay Perkins.

Provincial X Ales in the 1860's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermentation temp	length of fermentation (days)
1st Oct	1868	Tetley	X	1047.4	1020.8	3.52	56.14%	6.00	1.11	1.5	2		66º	66º	4
2nd Oct	1868	Tetley	X1	1055.4	1019.4	4.76	65.00%	6.00	1.30	1.5	2		59º	63º	6
5th Oct	1868	Tetley	X2	1062.0	1017.7	5.86	71.43%	8.00	2.00	1.5	2		62º	65º	9
19th Oct	1868	Tetley	X3	1066.5	1022.2	5.86	66.67%	9.96	3.93	1.5	2		61º	65º	8
17th Oct	1868	William Younger	X	1053	1023	3.97	56.60%	6.30	1.36	2.5			59º	66º	3 + 3
24th Aug	1868	William Younger	XX	1057	1024	4.37	57.89%	9.58	2.25	2	2.25		58º	69º	4 + 2
26th Aug	1868	William Younger	XXX	1068	1028	5.29	58.82%	8.00	2.55	2	2.5		60º	69º	4 + 2
18th Jun	1869	Medway	X	1051.5				8.00	1.75	1.5	1.5		60º
2nd Jun	1869	Medway	XX	1066.8				9.00	2.63	1.5	1.5		60º
	1864	Lovibond	X Ale	1050.4	1015.5	4.62	69.23%	10.50	3.15
	1864	Lovibond	XX Ale	1065.6	1015.0	6.70	77.20%	2.73	0.81
	1864	Lovibond	XXX Ale	1074.2	1016.6	7.62	77.61%	6.50	1.04
	1864	Lovibond	XXXX Ale	1085.3	1019.9	8.65	76.62%	10.50	2.01
Sources:
Tetley brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds document number WYL756/16/ACC1903
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive document number WY/6/1/2/21
Medway brewing record owned by me
Lovibond brewing record owned by me

The table confirms what I told you before: that the beer from the large London brewers was in general stronger than from their smaller or provincial competitors. The X Ales of the big boys all had gravities over 1060º, while those of the provincial brewers were only around 1050º. The same pattern continued as you went up the strength scale, with Tetley's strongest Mild, X3, only being about the same strength as a London X Ale.

The hopping rates of the provincial beers were also lower, averaging a little under 8 lbs per quarter, while the London beers averaged almost 10.5 lbs per quarter.

It's a shame that I don't have more complete figures for fermentation temperatures. It looks as if, although the pitching temperatures were all around 60º F, that the maximum temperature was considerably lower outside London. A difference in the order of 10º F. This had to be deliberate as London brewers had total control of their fermentation temperatures. I assume the other brewers did, too, as by this time attemperators were standard pieces of kit.

The License-holders' Burden

We've heard about the reaction of drinkers to the huge increase in the tax on beer at the beginning of WW I. Now it's time to hear the view of the pub trade.

Drinkers were quick to blame the trade - both publicans and brewers - for profitting at their expense from the increse in the price of beer of a penny a pint. That may not sound much to us, but it was a 50% increase on the pre-war price of 2d.

It was a bit more complicated than just scaling down the tax increase per barrel to a pint. For one thing, there's the retailer's markup. You have to add that to the tax increase per pint. I believe it was around 50% for beer. They also wanted an extra markup to compensate for the reduction in the amount of beer that they expected to sell. 35%, by the chancellor's reckoning. Though, at least until the end of 1915, this proved wildly inaccurate.

The tax increase was from 7s 9d per standard barrel to 17s 3d, so 9s 6d. Or 114 pence. 36-gallons is 288 pints. Which means the tax increase per pint was 0.4d. Much less than the 1d increase consumers had to pay. Even factoring in the items above, it still doesn't come to 1d a pint. It makes me think that when chancellor Lloyd George said that he expected the price of a pint to rise by 1d, he was trying to keep the brewers and publicans onside.

Funnily enough, the trade wasn't happy with their cut.

"THE LICENSE-HOLDERS' BURDEN.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE COURIER.
Sir, —With reference to the proposed further curtailment of the hours of license-holders in Dundee we shall be obliged if you will publish the following figures with reference to the extra taxation which has been put upon the licensed trade within the past few years. The figures are from the fourth report of His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the year ended 31st March, 1913. this being the latest report which has so far been issued His Majesty's Commissioners, the one for the current year, so far we know, not yet being printed.

The quantity of spirits retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom for the year 1909, when the spirit duty was increased by 9d per gallon, was 38,939,969 proof gallons. The quantity retained for home consumption in the year 1913 was 30,736,088 proof gallons, a decrease of 8,203,881 proof gallons. The duty paid in the year 1909, at 11s per gallon, was £22,599,287, while in 1913, at 14s 9d per proof gallon, it was £21,417,508, an increased taxation of £1,181,779, against a decrease in consumption of nearly eight and quarter million gallons of spirits.

The amount collected from intoxicating liquor licenses in the year 1913 was £4,508,706, whereas in 1909, before the licenses were increased, it amounted £2,172,549, an increase of £2,336,157.

The number of standard barrels of homemade beer; that is to say, at 1000.55 gravity, retained for home consumption in the United Kingdom in 1913 was 34,088,393, which, at 7s 9d per barrel, paid a net duty of £13,200,343. In his speech on the war budget in the House of Commons Tuesday, 17th November, when dealing with the beer duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he anticipated an increase of £17,600,000 on the beer duty at an increase of 17s 3d per barrel, while he believed that the decrease consumption would be 35 per cent. Since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a rebate of 2s per barrel for the current year on the price of beer, but by the year 1916 the price will be 17s 3d, so that it is quite competent to accept his calculation of the increase which he originally anticipated; viz., £17,600,000, which will ultimately be paid extra on beer. If the Chancellor's anticipations are correct the result of his taxation will be that, while the beer consumpt will be reduced by 11,930,937 barrels, he will have increased the taxation on beer by £17,600,000, giving him a yield from this source of revenue of £30,800,343. In addition to all the above duties exacted from the trade they pay all the other taxes that flesh is heir to in this country, and, so far as municipal taxation is concerned, in a much higher proportion than other shopkeepers on account of the high rents which they pay.

The general opinion of the man the street is that all extra charges have been passed on to the consumer; this is not the case. We have made a careful calculation, and find that since the year 1909 the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appropriated 37.3 per cent, of the net income of the licensed trade in Scotland, all of which, of course, has gone to reduce the taxation of those not connected with the licensed trade, and who have consequently benefited to this extent.

The increase in taxation, it will be seen, has been as follows:- Spirits £1,181,779, license duties £2,336,157, and now from beer £17,600,000, a total extra taxation of £21,117,936, which will also benefit to a very large extent each individual in the community. If it is proposed to further curtail the hours of license-holders in Dundee, we hope, in justice to the license-holders, that proposal will be put forward at the same time agreeing to compensate them for the loss of trade and also for a rebate of the duty from which those who are putting forward the motions are benefiting to such a huge extent.

We may say that the 0.5d per glass of beer which the Chancellor suggested should be added to meet the extra taxation on beer does not anything like compensate the license-holders for the loss of trade estimated by the Chancellor.—We are, &c..
For James Watson & Company, Ltd.
C. H. Marshall, Director.
97 Seagate, Dundee, 2d December, 1914. "
Dundee Courier - Thursday 03 December 1914, page 6.

What a lovely phrase "all the other taxes that flesh is heir to in this country" is. I'll have to remember that for future use.

James Watson makes a very good point about the taxation that the pub trade paid: it reduced the amount everyone else needed to pay. It's a point completely ignored by temperance (I shouldn't use that word as it means something other than what they truly were) prohibitionist campaigners. The sum the drinkers contributed to the national coffers. And how they would replace it, should their dream come true.

The complaints about the burden put on the pub trade by the government sounds very much like laments of modern publicans. Some things really never change in Britain.

London X Ales in the 1830's

Mild. Not written anything about it for a while. It must be time to give it another go. I know, early London X Ales. They're fun.

The 1830 Beer Act is one of the most important pieces of British legislation regarding beer. Its main provision was the shifting of taxation from finished beer to the raw materials. Another which had an even bigger impact on brewing was with regard to a new type of licence. The beer-only or beerhouse licence. These were issued automatically (once a few basic criteria had been filled) without the need for approval from local magistrates. Thousands of beer houses opened almost immediately.

This new market caused a rethink amongst the large London Porter brewers. Before 1830 most of them brewed no Ales at all, concentrating 100% on Porter and Stout. They had tied customers in the London pub trade, but the tie was only for Porter and Stout, not for Ale, which was supplied by other brewers. Beer houses appeared just at the time when Porter's long ascendancy began to be challenged by Mild Ale. Mild Ales popularity surged along with beer house number. It was a trend the Porter brewers couldn't afford to ignore and in the 1830's they started to brew Ales.

I love these early Milds. My favourite historical recreation brew is Pretty Things version of an 1830's Truman XXXX Ale. It's a ridiculously simple beer with just one type of malt and one type of hops. I do wish other commercial brewers would give this type of Mild a go. I think there would be a ready market for them. Even the session-strength X Ales of just 6-7% ABV.

London X Ales in the 1830's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	max. fermen-tation temp	length of fermen-tation (days)
5th Dec	1836	Whitbread	X	Mild	1077.0	1029.4	6.30	61.87%	6.55	2.33	2	2	3	63.5º	74.5º	4 + 2
17th Feb	1837	Whitbread	X	Mild	1066.2	1030.5	4.73	53.97%	7.65	2.15	2	2	3	63º	72º	5 + 4
13th Dec	1838	Barclay Perkins	X	Mild	1072.6	1013.0	7.88	82.09%	6.32	2.30	3			58.5º	º
31st Dec	1838	Reid	X	Mild	1073.4				6.75	2.06	1	3		60º
3rd Dec	1831	Truman	X Ale	Mild	1072.3	1021.6	6.71	70.11%	7	2.33				62º	77º	8
3rd Mar	1836	Truman	X Ale	Mild	1075.3	1024.9	6.67	66.91%	6	2.07				60º	70º	8
15th Mar	1837	Whitbread	XX	Mild	1091.4	1035.5	7.40	61.21%	6.05	2.35	2	2	3	59º	74º	6 + 2
27th Dec	1838	Reid	XX	Mild	1088.6				8.8	3.12	1.5	3		57º
25th Jul	1839	Barclay Perkins	XX	Mild	1088.6	1015.0	9.74	83.08%	9.10	4.21	3.75			58º	76.5º	5 + ?
24th Dec	1831	Truman	XX Ale	Mild	1083.1	1030.5	6.96	63.33%	6	2.63				59º	77º	10
18th Jul	1835	Truman	XX Ale	Mild	1092.5	1027.7	8.57	70.06%	10	4.46				59º	71º	10
11th Nov	1836	Whitbread	XXX	Mild	1102.8	1036.0	8.83	64.96%	6.09	2.80	2	2	3.5	62.5º	74.5º	5 + 4
3rd Aug	1839	Barclay Perkins	XXX	Mild	1104.4	1017.6	11.49	83.15%	8.17	4.93	3.25			58.5º	77º	6 + ?
18th Mar	1839	Reid	XXX	Mild	1105.3				8	3.75	1.5	3		57º
1st Dec	1831	Truman	XXX Ale	Mild	1086.4	1016.6	9.23	80.77%	8	4.00				62º	º	13
11th Aug	1835	Truman	XXX Ale	Mild	1109.4	1034.3	9.93	68.61%	10	4.65				59º	69º	9
23rd Dec	1836	Whitbread	XXXX	Mild	1114.7	1039.3	9.97	65.70%	7.00	3.64	2.17	2	2.5	60º	73º	7 + 1
21st Nov	1835	Truman	XXXX Ale	Mild	1116.3	1045.4	9.38	60.95%	8	5.97				58º	69º	12
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number LMA/4453/D/01/001.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/550.
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers B/THB/C/115 and B/THB/C/119.
Reid brewing record held at the City of Westminster Archives document number 789/266.

Looking at the gravities of the beers in the table, I'm struck by how similar the gravities are across the different breweries. I suspect that they were keeping an eye on each other's gravities and prices. One word about beer strengths. In general, the large London brewers made stronger beers than other brewers. Their economies of scale and high degree of mechanisation meant that they could brew more cheaply than their smaller competitors. As prices were constant across different brewers, lower production costs were expressed in greater strength.

X Ales had gravities around 1075º, XX Ales 1090º, XXX Ales 1105º and XXXX Ales 1115º. So they basically started at around double the gravity of modern Milds and worked up from there. Why isn't there any wailing about modern Milds being completely inauthentic? I know, because only IPA is judged by early 19th-century standards. I still can't work out why that is.

You can see that the attenuation is all over the shop, from a low of 54% to a high of over 80%. The ones at the top end are more the exception. In general, Milds of this period had about 65% attenuation. Around 10 points lower than you would expect today.

In common with all 19th-century British beers, they contained a shed-load of hops. Not quite the several shed-loads of a Pale Ale, but still serious quantities. There's still a fair bit of variation in hopping rates amongst the beers in the table. Some of that is probably explained by when they were brewed. Summer brews normally received more hops than winter ones.

Fermentation temperatures are one thing that seem to have changed little over the years, remaining in the 60-70º F range right up until after WW II.

Excuse me if I haven't mentioned the ingredients. In my defence, they are pretty dull. Pale malt and Kent hops. See what I mean? There's not much to be said about them.

What next? X Ales in the 1840's? It's a possibility.

The Price of Beer in Scotland

This is brilliant. I've managed to combine three of my favourite obsessions: Scotland, WW I and British Lager. I think I'll have to go and lie down for a while, I'm so excited.

Below are a series of reports about the price increases agreed by publicans in response to the increased beer duty in the Finance Bill, introduced in November 1917. It increased beer tax from 7s 9d per standard barrel (36 imperial gallons of beer with an OG of 1055) to 17s 3d. The figure for the new duty wasn't random. The intention was to increase the price of a pint by 1d. Unlike later war measures concerning beer, the intention wasn't to reduce consumption but to raise more money.

The figures given below confuse. Especially given the lower average gravity of beer in Scotland on the eve of the war. You can see all the details in this table:

Beer output and average OG by UK country 1913 - 1920
	England		Scotland		Ireland		United Kingdom
Year	bulk barrels	average OG	bulk barrels	average OG	bulk barrels	average OG	bulk barrels	average OG
1913	30,758,800	1051.52	2,119,666	1047.85	3,417,851	1065.73	36,296,317	1052.64
1914	31,737,384	1051.69	2,288,481	1047.67	3,532,902	1065.93	37,558,767	1052.80
1915	29,310,783	1051.16	2,042,477	1046.85	3,412,520	1065.93	34,765,780	1052.35
1916	26,914,428	1050.49	1,917,148	1046.45	3,279,032	1066.43	32,110,608	1051.88
1917	25,497,825	1047.01	1,816,003	1043.16	2,850,170	1065.69	30,163,998	1048.54
1918	16,340,250	1038.25	1,141,114	1036.74	1,603,679	1057.89	19,085,043	1039.81
1919	20,133,048	1029.35	1,325,439	1029.77	1,806,046	1044.43	23,264,533	1030.55
1920	29,891,845	1038.57	2,186,604	1038.83	2,969,498	1043.35	35,047,947	1039.41
Source:
Brewers' Journal 1921, page 246.

Average gravity in Scotland was four points lower than in England. I'd love to know the reason why. It makes something I noticed about the prices quoted particularly odd: a pint was dearer in Scotland than in London. Below the price of a pint of draught beer before the tax increase is given as 3d. In London a pint of Mild was 2d a pint before the increase. I'm confused.

I can only think of one explanation: the standard draught beer in Scotland wasn't Mild. But if that's true, why was the average gravity lower?


Here are the articles about price increases:

"THE CUPAR "TRADE" FIX BEER PRICES.
At a meeting of the licensed traders in the Cupar district held yesterday in the Station Hotel, Cupar, the retail beer and stout prices were fixed follows: —Schooners, 2.5d; draught pints, 4d; bottled beer or stout supplied off the premises, 3s per doz.; bottled beer stout consumed on the premises, 4d per pint; table beer, 2.5d per bottle or 2s 3d per doz,; three guinea ale, 2s 9d per dozen."
Dundee Courier - Friday 20 November 1914, page 4.

What size was a schooner? Somewhere between a half pint and a pint, obviously. As a draught beer measure, I've only come across it in Australia. Table beer is something that doesn't turn up in English price-fixing agreements because it didn't exist any more south of the border.

"PRICE OF BEER DUNDEE WILL BE INCREASED MONDAY.
The price of beer will be increased in Dundee on Monday. A meeting of the members of the Dundee Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Protection Association was held yesterday to adjust the prices view of the increased duty on beer. Mr Alfred Neave presided over a large attendance. The prices were fixed as follows: — Glass, 2d, increase 0.5d; schooner, 3d, increase 1d; pint, 4d, increase 1d; pint-bottled beers, 4d, increase 1d; and small bottled ales, 3d, increase 1d. The practice of giving small quantities of beer gratuitously with spirits was condemned, and it was decided that steps should be taken to stop the system."
Dundee Courier - Saturday 21 November 1914, page 6.

Note that a schooner, whatever its size, was a halfpenny dearer in Dundee than in Cupar. Giving away free beer with spirits seems very civilised. Why would they stop it? I'm surprised that bottled beer cost the same as draught. Logic would demand it be more expensive.

"DEARER BEER AT PERTH.
Perth and District Licensed Trade Defence. Association have fixed the prices o£ beer follows: — Glass, 2d —increase of 0.5d; "schooner," 3d, and pint, 4d — increase of 1d: bottled beer, 4d for consumption on, premises, and 3.5d carrying away — increase, of 1d.

The increases come into operation on Monday."
Dundee Courier - Saturday 21 November 1914, page 6.

So carry-out bottled beer was cheaper. Cheaper even than draught beer. It's the world turned upside down.

"ARBROATH LICENSE-HOLDERS AND "OFF" PRICES OF BEERS.
At a largely-attended meeting of Arbroath license-holders held in the Masonic Hall, Hill Street, yesterday —Mr D. Darroch presiding— the following "off" prices were fixed in regard to beers: —Draught beer, 4d per pint; table beer, 3s per dozen; Burton ales and lager beers, 3s 6d per dozen; small lagers, 2s 9d per dozen; No. 1 Bass, 4s 6d per dozen; London stouts — No. 3 3s 6d and imperial 4s per dozen; Whitbread's large 3s 6d and small 2s 6d per dozen; Ballingall's imperial pints 3s, small 2s 6d, and Ballingall's double stout 3s per dozen. Increased prices to take effect immediately.

A committee of grocers and publicans was appointed to investigate cases of underselling, and to take whatever steps might be considered necessary to have the practice discontinued."
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 25 November 1914, page 2.

I particularly like this one because it lists specific brands and types of beer. Bass No. 1, of course, is the original Barley Wine. At 4.5d a pop, that's probably a nip bottle. There's a beer that wouldn't be around by the end of the war. Way too strong.

It's interesting that of all the brewers named, only one is Scottish: Ballingall of Dundee. And that so many Stouts get a mention. What was No. 3 Stout? I've not seen numbered Stouts except at Bass. Assuming the bottle was a half pint, it must have been quite strong.

I'm please to see Lager making an appearance. At 3.5d a pint it seems too cheap. Unless that's a half pint bottle and the small bottle is a nip. That would make more sense. Otherwise a pint of bottled Lager would have been cheaper than a pint of draught beer.


Such price-fixing by a trade organisation would be highly illegal today.

Military Uses for Beer Barrels

It's surprising what they used beer barrels for - apart from the obvious one of carrying beer - in WW I. The Central Powers found all sorts of cunning uses for these seemingly peaceful objects.

One use was as a the missile in a giant catapult:

"BEER BARREL SHELLS
Incredible Story of Austrian Engine of War
Copenhagen. Thursday.
According to a private message from Berlin the Austrians in their attack on the Servian positions outside Belgrade used a remarkable engine of war for the first time.

This machine is constructed on the principle of the ancient Roman catapult, and throws barrels filled with stones and explosives at a high trajectory into the enemy's position with terrible effect, the stones being split up into thousands of pieces and hurled over a wide area.

The range of these machines is necessariiy small but for the warfare on the Danube they have proved peculiarly effective. The message adds that numerous transports are coming up the Danube towards Belgrade loaded with empty beer barrels for the new engine."
Western Times - Friday 20 November 1914, page 8.

That is just weird and, to be honest, a great waste of such a lovingly crafted object as a beer barrel. It sounds a bit primitive, in the days of heavy howitzers, to be messing around with catapults.

This sounds more reasonable: using barrels as a transportation device.

"Paris, Saturday.
The Excelsior's Rome correspondent says: "According a telegram from Lugano, the police are seeking for several mysterious individuals of German nationality who for some days have been buying old rifles from the inhabitants of Lugano. They paid fairly high prices for them. According information received, these rifles were intended for the Tripolitan rebels. Following the discovery made at Venice of 92 casks of beer sent from Germany to Tripoli, advices from Tripoli state that the police have arrested the consignee of these famous casks. His identity has not been revealed. Further arrests are expected among the Germans and Austrians who have remained in considerable numbers in Tripoli."— Reuter."
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 April 1915, page 6.

I assume the barrels were filled with guns, though frustratingly the article doesn't make that totally clear. Unlike this one:

"FOR TURKEY.
RUMANIA STOPS GERMAN CONSIGNMENTS.
Reuter's Agency is informed with regard to the renewed efforts which are being put forward by Germany to induce Rumamia to permit the passage of arms to Turkey, that the Rumanian Government continues successfully and energetically to prevent all arms from Germany and Austria, intended for Turkey or elsewhere, from passing through Rumanian territory.

In addition to the stopping already reported of double-partitioned waggons, the Rumanian authorities have lately confiscated trains laden with what were represented to be barrels of Munich beer. In order that this might be sent forward in good condition, the German authorities had telegraphic messages sent to various stations for supplies of ice blocks to be provided. Suspicion, however, was aroused, and on examination the barrels of Munich beer were found to contain ammunition. All were promptly seized.

Subsequently large consignments of enormous blocks of cement, consigned to Constantinople from Germany for building purposes, attracted attention. On examination these building blocks were found to be hollow, and filled with shell cases for large German howitzers. All have been stopped and confiscated. "
Liverpool Echo - Wednesday 14 July 1915, page 5.

Personally, I'd be dead disappointed if I found my barrels of Munich Beer only contained bloody bullets. Not much fun drinking those. Roumania eventually joined the war on the allied side.

Drinkalongathon 2012

Did I mention that I have a Freesat box? It's brilliant. I can get most British channels. All the classy ones. ITV3, ITV4+1, 5*, More4, BBC Parliament. The higher-number ITV channels are great if you want to pretend that you're living in the 1970's. Something that happens to me 3 or 4 times a year.

I brought that up because of christmas adverts. They started a few months ago. Reminding me that it's that special time of year. When I create a unique blogging experience. The Drinkalongathon. Which I traditionally* hold at Christmas.

This year I want to make it extra, extra special. By adding an interactive element that lets you really drink along. How cool is that! You'll be able to join me in every drink, all through the day. And send in your own pictures to feature on the blog.

"How can I take part, Ron?"

I'm glad you asked that. By preparing. Because, if you're going to join me in every drink, you'll need to have supplies in. Very specific supplies.

To allow you plenty of time to stock up, I'll give you the requirements now.

1 crate St. Bernardus Abt
8 bottles St. Bernardus Prior
1 bottle manzanilla sherry
1 bottle fino sherry
1 bottle port (preferably LBV)
1 bottle Lagavullin
1 bottle Laphroaig 
1 bottle Villiers 8
1 bottle Rotkäppchen
1 bottle of some red wine or other
1 small bottle of still water
1 packet paracetamol and codeine
1 mini pork pie
1 bottle vermouth
1 wheelchair
1 medium-sized plastic bag
2 bottles absinthe
1 mop
2 buckets
1 10 inch piece of string
1 soft boiled egg
1 quarter slice of Warburton thick sliced bread, toasted
1 bottle 8 year old rum, preferably Appleton
1 slice of lemon
1 rasher of thick-sliced smoked bacon
3 toothpicks
2 bottles Guinness Special Export Stout
1 bar soap
1 bottle grappa
4 paper hats
6 paper handkerchiefs
1 miniature vermouth
1 bottle advocaat
3 anchovy fillets
1 spare pair underwear
2 spare pairs trousers
5 spoons
7 medium-sized pickled onions
1 1.25 inch diameter Jersey Royal potato, boiled for 6 minutes
1 half bottle overproof rum
2 glasses crank
1 red star badge
1 portrait of Stalin
1 demijohn applejack
1 pack smackothene
1 wrap crystal sugar
1 wrap icing sugar
1 7-inch willow-patterned plate
3 roast turnips
1 bottle chili beer
6 rolls toilet paper
1 stretcher


Not much there you wouldn't already have around the house anyway. I've the lot, other than the bar of soap and the three toothpicks.










* In the sense of at least once before.

Provincial Porter Brewing around 1850 - Storage

This post has been prompted by yesterday's Let's Brew recipe. It mentioned the addition of "old ale on hops" about which Gary Gillman usefully found this mid-19th century reference.

The text below describes the method for storing, blending and racking Porter in provincial British breweries. I'll say one thing upfront in case you're planning to travel back 150 years and follow this method: much of it was illegal in a commercial brewery. All of these ingredients would have got you in the dock if the exciseman had found you using them: alum, carbonate of potash, orange powder, bark and porter extract.

"Storing.—The cleansing being finished, the future disposal of the porter determines the brewer what course to pursue,—either to remove the brewing into cellar-stock, in the same casks into which it was tunned, to be afterwards racked into barrels, to be sent out to customers ; or to store it in a vat for the same purpose.

In the first instance, supposing the porter to have been made in the spring, to be ready for delivery during the summer, such old ale in the brewery as may be fit for the purpose is put down with hops, 2 lbs. to each barrel, and kept until required. In racking the porter from the pipes into barrels, 9 gallons of the old ale are first delivered into each barrel of 36 gallons, and smaller casks in proportion, and the barrels filled up with porter. A table-spoonful of heading is added; this consists of equal parts of alum and carbonate of potash; also the same quantity of orange powder; last, about the third of a pint of finings made up with vinegar and isinglass. Some brewers keep a supply of London porter by them, and add a gallon or two to each barrel racked; and it may be easily imagined, that the provincial production will be all the better for such an addition. In porter-brewing one thing is essentially requisite, the brewer should contrive to make a strong-bodied, fine-flavoured, malt liquor, which, if it does not pass for London porter, will pass on its own merits, which is all that is required.

When porter is required to be stored, a quantity equal to three-fourths of the measure of the vat must be overturned into it fresh from the stillions, immediately after having undergone the process of cleansing. One-fourth of prepared old ale is added to fill up. The manhole is battened down air-tight, sufficient space being left for the rise and fall of the liquor within, a slack-spile or vent-plug being inserted at the same time on the head of the vat.

A trial stopcock is placed about a third part up, by which the brewer has access to judge of the progress the contents are making towards ripeness. In two or three months it is ready, when the same additions are made in racking as previously described in racking from the pipes.

It is at this stage that brewers differ as to the additions to be used to obtain the flavour of London porter. Decoction of bark, and porter extract. are sometimes used ; but, as has been already mentioned, if the malt liquor is really good, there is not much occasion for using such ingredients.

The reader must take the preceding description of brewing malt liquor, not as the general method adopted by provincial brewers of making porter, but rather as affording general information of the mode of conducting the process, and preparing the foreign ingredients, by a judicious management of which, an imitation of London porter can be produced."
"Brewing and Distillation" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1849, pages 286-287.

I'm accustomed to the blending Porter after vatting, but this something different. Here already aged Ale is being added at the start of the vatting process. My guess - and remember this is just a guess - as to the reason why they did this is that it speeded up the ageing process. The old Ale would presumably already have the desired aged flavour and the purpose of vatting would be to meld these with the Porter, rather than to leave the Porter to acquire aged character itself.

Note the proportions of old Ale to fresh Porter: 1 to 3. The Amsdell Porter had 65 barrels of old Ale to 205 barrels of freshly-brewed Porter. Which is just about 1 to 3. The big difference, however, is that the old Ale was added at the start of primary fermentation rather than at vatting time.

Labatt in Canada were doing something similar with their Brown Stout in the 1890's, adding about 10% old Ale. Though it's not clear from their records at what point it was added to the fresh Stout.

I'm pretty sure that what's meant is old Ale rather than Old Ale. That is, Ale that had been hanging around the brewery for a while rather than Ale that had been deliberately brewed to be aged. As this passage from page 277 of the same book makes clear:

"it is very useful to make two or three brewings of porter to take up hard ale, which answers excellently, when it has been properly treated with hops"

"Hard Ale" being Ale which had got too old.

Traditional watch - the street version

The misuse of the word "traditional" isn't limited to the beer world. Elsewhere it's also used with the very vague meaning of "sometime in the last few hundred years".

I was shocked to hear it used in this particular context: a BBC TV report about replacing the street lights in Sheffield. The reporter said that LED lights were going to replace the traditional orange street lights.

Traditional? Street lights can be traditional? Wouldn't a traditional street light be a gas one?

It's probably my age that makes me baulk at this usage. Because I can remember those sodium lamps appearing. I can even remember the very first time I encountered them. It was in Sunderland, probably about 1968 or 1969. They were introduced even later than that in Newark. Not much more than 40 years ago.

Here's a phiosophical question. How long does a practice or an object have to have been around before it becomes traditional?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20308297