Let's brew Wednesday - 1967 Eldridge Pope Hardy Ale

I've been promising you this one for a while. An extra super special treat. The very first brew of Hardy Ale.

A word of warning: this version is not identical to the full production one. Hardy Ale was initially brewed as a one-off to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Thomas Hardy's death. When it went into regular production, the recipe was changed. Most notably the gravity was increased from 1110º to 1125º.

The initial brew looks very much like a tweaked version of Eldridge Pope's Barley Wine, Goldie. But with the gravity bumped up a fair bit, from 1085º to 1110º.

This is how the brewery described the beer in their in-house magazine:

"HARDY ALE
'An ample barrel of Dorchester "Strong beer" . . . It was of the most beautiful colour that the eye of an artist could desire; full in body, yet brisk as a volcano; piquant, yet without a tang; free from streakiness of taste; but, finally, rather heady. The masses worshipped it, the minor gentry loved it more than wine . . '

Thus wrote Thomas Hardy of Dorchester beer in The Trumpet Major 80 years ago. What then could be more appropriate than that the brewery in the year of the Thomas Hardy Festival, which is to be held in Dorchester from 7th-20th July, should commemorate Dorset's great novelist and poet by brewing a beer to fulfil the conditions quoted above and name it 'Hardy Ale'.

The beer was brewed in November 1967 and was racked on the 28th of that month under the spotlights and cameras of both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. with the Mayor of Dorchester, Mr. W.H. Christopher, filling the first barrel.

The beer, which is almost as high a gravity as it is possible to ferment was brewed from malt made with the best Dorset barley with only the choicest Kent and Worcester hops being used.

The entire brew was racked into wooden barrels, which are rolled daily in the cellar, and extra yeast has been added to ensure a further two or three fermentations, while it matures in the wood for some six months.

It will be bottled by hand into old fashioned cork mouthed bottles, corked and sealed with wax.

The beer will continue to mature in bottle and will probably not reach its best for another three years, but it should stand up for at least 25 years.

In character it will have the flavour of a bitter beer but it will be of the fullness and strength of a fortified wine or as Thomas Hardy put it 'finally rather heady'.

Hardy Ale in the old fashioned corked bottles will be available on quota or to specific orders only at £1 a bottle for pints or 10s. a bottle for half-pints.

Crown corked nips decorated with silver foil will be available for normal bar sales as 5s a nip or £3 a dozen."
The Huntsman, Spring 1968, page 18.

A quid a pint was a lot of money in 1968. Usefully, the Whitbread Gravity Book tells me that Eldridge Pope's Mild (OG 1030º) was 1s 6d that year. Their IPA (OG 1041.5º) was 2s. So a single pint bottle of Hardy Ale was the same price as 10 pints of Best Bitter. Or effing expensive.

A couple of details of the brewing are left out. Like the Styrian Golding hops. And the fact that it was parti-gyled with BPA and BAK. That's right, it was parti-gyled with AK. How sweet is that? In a way that confirms the brewery's claim that it was like a super-strong Bitter. Is parti-gyling why Eldridge Pope could afford to brew Hardy Ale but O'Hanlon's couldn't? It's definitely a more economical way to brew very strong beers.

It's interesting that it was given a secondary fermentation in wood. I thought no-one had ever thought to age beer in wooden barrels before innovative US craft brewers came up with the idea a decade or two ago. 










Time to pass you over to Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Notes: 
If you know anything about beer, you should know that you should make this…

Malt: ELP like to use a combination of pale malts. Sticking with a single one here wouldn’t hurt. Maris or Optic. Something nice and tasty. The lager malt is specified as particularly English so if you can’t find it, give some continental a try. Just stay away from pilsner specific malt. The flaked wheat is listed for your benefit. They actually used wheat flour…so pick your poison. I’ve not seen a difference other than massively easier to use the flaked stuff.

Hops:  Tons of different hops here but the base were Goldings. The end they had some Hallertauer and some Styrian Goldings. Feel free to blend them or use one or the other. I wanted to keep away from the ‘orange’ of the Styrians so when with the Halls.

Yeast: Same for the other ELP beers. If you want to use the Eldridge Pope/Hardy’s yeast, use the WLP099 Super High Gravity. This is one that the high gravity can really help. This is a beast of a beer that finishes pretty damn sweet even though its still over 8%ABV! Please note the fermentation temp…this baby got over 76 degrees as she was finishing up!
Did I say make this beer? Yeah, you should do that…

Agricultural Statistics and London Porter

There was a good deal of cynicism from drinkers with regard to London Porter breweries. As the article nbelow amply demonstrates.

But there's more. Like a reference to the disappearance of domestic brewing. See if you can spot it.

"MR. DRUMMOND, M.P., ON AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS AND LONDON PORTER.
At the annual dinner of the Surrey Agricultural Society, held at Epsom on Wednesday last under the Presidency of Mr Alcock, M.P., Mr Drummond, whose eccentricities in the House of Commons have gained for him some little celebrity, thus delivered himself upon the subjects of agricultural statistics and London porter:-

Now, gentlemen, with regard to agricultural statistics, I am of opinion that there is a vast deal of humbug in the matter. (Cheers and laughter.) I don't believe it is worth your while either to oppose or adopt them. If anybody wants to know how many acres of wheat or of turnips or potatoes I grow, I'll tell him; but as to its being of the smallest use to any living man, I don't believe one word of it. People go mad, and nations are going mad, after these statistics, and if you don't furnish them I will tell you what will be the consequence. You will have fellows sent round the country to take them, and then you will have to pay for them pretty smartly. That is the point about this agitation which I dislike. I think the odds are that the gentleman who will be sent round will be the barrister of seven years' standing, and that is a sort of gentleman who I think is getting a vast deal too much employment already. I think it is perfectly absurd to suppose that these agricultural statistics will be of the smallest use. You cannot give the requisite information directly after the crop is out of the'ground, for I defy anybody in the world to - and no farmer is fool enough to suppose that he can - tell how his crops will turn out uutil they are thrashed. It is therefore nothing but nonsense to pretend that any advantage whatever can arise to the farmer from the collection of agricultural statistics. Now, my hon. friend in the chair alluded to the tax upon ale. I believe I have advocated more than anyone in the House its removal. I am not only fond of ale myself but I positively believe it to be a national institution. I don't like the nasty beastly black compound which goes under the name of London porter. (Cheers and laughter.) And yet, although I am so fond of ale, I know, I believe but one single house in the whole county of Surrey where good ale is to be had. (Laughter ). A little while ago we had a song about the golden days when there was ale in the cottage and ale in the hall, but I candidly confess that I have never seen any ale in the cottage since I was a child. And there are people who say, "Don't drink beer." Beer, forsooth ! Why, there's hardly any one in the country who knows what beer is now. If we were to shut up all the brewers in London in a room, and give them nothing but malt and hops, I don't suppose that all the malt and hops in the world would enable them to turn out that nasty black stuff they call porter. I recently got out of a friend of mine how much malt was used to a hogshead of liquor in the great London porter breweries. I dare say most of you - at all events some of you - remember the time when it was thought a point of honour never to send the great barley rake into a field to clean it until after the labourer had been there to glean, so as to brew himself a little beer. Some of that beer I have tasted, and certainly it was not very strong. The proportion of malt put into a hogshead - I don't mean to say the labourer brewed a hogshead, or anything like it - but the proportion of malt he put in was six bushels; the farmer brewed eight and the gentleman ten or twelve. But what do you think the proportion of malt put into the London porter is? Two bushels. (Loud laughter.) Now, I was telling this to a friend of mine in the House of Commons who is a capital brewer himself, and I wanted to pump out of him how much he put in his. (Laughter.) He would not tell me that; but he said, "I'll send you a dozen in a present." And he did send a dozen, and very good it was. "But," said I, "don't it appear to be very strong?" " Well," replied he, "I'm a good deal accustomed to go out dear-stalking, shooting, and sporting in the Highlands; I always drink it, and I never finds it affects me." (Laughter.) I fear we shall never get the malt-tax off for the benefit of the farmers unless there is a very strong effort made. (Cheers, and a cry of "Bravo!") Now what's the use of crying "Bravo, bravo." unless you come up with petitions and remonstrances and back me in the House. Gentlemen, I believe this question of beer presses as much upon the morals as the comforts of the people, and if by the means of removing the malt-tax you can give them plenty of real good beer, you will do more to reform their morals than by ail the trumpery schemes that are now being so strongly advocated. (Cheers, and laughter.)"
Falkirk Herald - Thursday 16 October 1856, page 4.

Farmers weren't keen on the malt tax, at the time this pioece was published the way beer was taxed. They reckoned it lowered the demand for barley. I'm not quite sure I follow the logic. This is about the time when Britain's agriculture ceased being able to furnsh all the materials required for brewing. Britain simply couldn't produce sufficient barley and hops. I don't see how removing the malt tax would suddenly make Britain capable of growing more barley.

This is  the refeerence to domestic brewing: "A little while ago we had a song about the golden days when there was ale in the cottage and ale in the hall". It's harking back to a period when not only the lord's household brewed, but also agricultural labourers.

There were several factors that led to the demise of this sort of brewing. Amongst them were the technologicaladvances which improved the quality of commercially brewed. While in the 18th century there was little difference between the equipoment used by domestic and commercial brewers. By the middle of the 19th century most professional brewers possessed far more sophisticated equipment than domestic brewers. But simply, people could buy better quality beer than they could brew themselves.

The malt tax, of course, didn't help. It meant that doemstic brewers were paying tax on the beer they brewed, as the malt tax applied to everyone.

Better equipment also explains why London brewers could use so much less malt in brewing: they got a better yield from their malt. That isn't true, those two bushels of malt to a hogshead. It was two bushels to a barrel (on 7th July 1856 Whitbread brewed a Porter that used 2.14 bushels of malt per barrel, at a gravity of 1054.8, a pretty typical Porter gravity*).

The amounts of malt listed - 6, 8, 10, 12 bushels - are ridiculous, if you're getting a normal yield. That normal yield was about 80 brewers pound per quarter.With that yield, 6 bushels would produce one hogshead of wort at 1111, 8 bushels 1148, 10 bushels 1185 and 12 bushels 1222. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to get a wort as strong as the last two. Either their yield was rubbish or Mr. Drummond is just making it up.

And as for London Porter brewers not being able to make a beer from just malt and hops, that's a damn lie. Malt and hops were all they used. All they were allowed to use, by law (apart from sugar, but none of the Porter brewers I've looked at used sugar at this time).

Which isn't to say that there weren't all sorts of things put into Porter. They were. But not by the brewers. Publicans were the true culprits. Funnily enough, 1856 is a time when publicans were pretty much forced to adulterate, or at least water, their beer. The malt tax had increased to pay for the Crimean War, putting up the wholesale price of Porter. Drinkers, however, refused to pay more for their beer. Publicans were in the crazy position of selling Porter for the same price it cost them. They only way they could survive was to adulterate their beer.







* Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/050.

London Porter Breweries in the 1830's (part three)

Now we're getting on to something of real interest: the London tied house system. It was London where the system of tied house first developed. It was a result of the intense competition for trade amongst brewers in the capital.

"Barclay, Perkins, and Company, have the most extensive porter brew-house in London. Their establishment is one of old standing, being the same which formerly yielded a noble fortune to Samuel Johnson's friend, Thrale. The quantity of porter now annually brewed by this house amounts to between three and four hundred thousand barrels. The following brewing companies, Hanbury's, Reid's, Whitbread's, Meux's, Combe and Delafield's, and Calvert's, produce also very large quantities, the issue of none being less than one hundred thousand barrels a-year, while it is double that quantity in several of the cases. But neither a knowledge of the amount of the annual manufacture, nor an estimate of the stock and consumption of hops and malt, will lead us to any thing like a fair idea of the capital embarked in one of these concerns. The cause of this may be in part explained. The hop and malt rooms are natural and obvious quarters for the employment of the wealth of these brewing-houses. But the funds of the same parties are absorbed also in less obvious ways. The most of the licensed public-houses in the city are connected with some brewing company or another, and hence are called "tied houses." The brewers advance loans to the publican on the security of his lease, and from the moment that necessity or any other cause tempts him to accept such a loan, he is bound to the lending party. Indeed, the advance is made on the open and direct condition that he shall sell the lender's liquor, and his alone. The publican, in short, becomes a mere retail-agent, for the behoof of one particular company. They clap their sign above his door, and he can no longer fairly call the house his own. The quantity of money thus lent out by the London brewers is enormous. One house alone, we know from good authority, has more than two hundred thousand pounds so employed. Perhaps the reader will have a still better idea of the extent to which this system is carried, when he is told that a single brew-house has fifteen thousand pounds worth of signboards stuck up over London — rating these articles, of course, at their cost prices. This explains what a stranger in the metropolis is first very much struck with the number of large boards marked with "Whitbread's Entire," "Meux's Double Refined," or "Combe and Delafield's Brown Stout House," that meet the eye in every part of London. These signs are of such size extend usually from side to side of the building on which they are placed, and if house presents two ends, or even three, to public view, the massive letters adorn them all. Such boards cost from fifteen to twenty pounds a-piece, that eight or nine hundred of them will amount to the sum total stated; and some breweries have that number up, in one quarter and another of the great city. This mode of advertising may look expensive, but it has its advantages. It is permanent,, and readily points out to the favourers of particular brewing-houses where their favourite stout is to he found. One loves Meux's, another man Barclay's, a third Courage and Donaldson's, and these gilded placards show where the desired articles may had by all parties. What an idea this "tie" system in itself gives us of the wealth of these brewers! A handsome fortune laid out on sign-boards!

. . . .

Serious attempts have frequently been made to shake the businesses of the great porter breweries, but the system was too deeply rooted to permit of its easy overthrow. A heavy though indirect stroke of this kind came from the ale-brewers of London, who some time since commenced brewing an ale article so low price as to encroach on the sale of "entire." In retaliation, the porter-houses, with the exception of three only, were tempted to add a proportion of ale to their ordinary manufacture. They do not, however, carry this ale brewing to any great extent, and, on the other hand, their porter monopoly remains but little, if at all. impaired.
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

Here's confirmation of the enormous quantities brewed by London Porter brewers, led by our favourite Barclay Perkins:

London Porter breweries in 1839
Brewery	Barrels brewed
Barclay Perkins	405,819
Whitbread	183,468
Truman, Hanbury	320,675
Reid and Co	171,650
Source:
"The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980" T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611

This tied house system differed in important respects from the one at the end of the 19th century. While brewers did own the freehold of some pubs, the vast majority were tied as described in the text: through loans made to the publican. It was the publican who owned either the freehold or a lease for the pub. In the late 19th century breweries bought the freehold or long leases.

The article mentions how the Porter brewers had started to also brew Ale. This happened in the 1830's, probably as a reaction to the Beer Act and the new class of pubs, beer houses, created by it. There was a huge surge of beer house openings in the 1830's.

Thinking about it, the new liquid measures introduced in 1829 might have had an impact, too. Before then, Ale barrels had been 32 gallons and Beer barrels (Porter and Stout were beers) 36 gallons. The new measures set both at 36 gallons. A Porter brewery would have had to buy a stock of new barrels if it had wanted to brew Ale in the 1820's. In the 1830's the same barrels could be used for both Porter and Ale.

Eight or nine hundred tied pubs sounds a lot, but it's not unbelievable, given the quantity of beer being produced. I've figures for individual pub sales from Barclay Perkins from the early 20th century*. The most any pub sold was around 2,000 barrels a year. Many sold between 500 and 800 barrels. In general pubs had become larger in the intervening years and the 20th-century sales are for all beer, not just Porter. If we take 400 barrels a year as the average amount of Porter a pub sold, Barclay Perkins, brewing around 400,000 barrels a year, could easily have had 1,000 pubs.

I include the final paragraph of the article for your amusement. And for completeness.

"One point more about the London breweries, and have done with these loose hints. The stables of one of these establishments, when filled with their allotted tenants, constitute one of the very finest sights that can be seen on the whole premises. To Scotsmen, the powerful make and general beauty of the horses of burden that are seen traversing the streets of the metropolis, is always a subject of wonder. The little carts of his own country, and the comparatively puny though active creatures which draw them, sink into absolute insignificance in his eyes when contrasted with the colossal waggons and horses of the south. One horse to one cart is the way in Scotland, while in England you observe a train of six or eight gigantic creatures dragging along a large and heavily-loaded vehicle, resembling a goodly haystack in breadth, height, and compactness. A lengthened line of such waggons is one of the most imposing sights imaginable. As the brewers keep the very best of horses, it is in their stables that the beauty of the breed can be seen to most perfection. They are kept in the very highest condition, plump, sleek, and glossy. The order maintained throughout these large establishments extends to their stabling arrangements. In Whitbread's, we observed the name of each horse painted above his stall, and were told that every one of them knew its designation as well as any biped about the place. Some of the most extensive breweries employ above one hundred such horses, to disseminate their produce through all parts of the city and its suburbs.— Chambers's Edinburgh Journal."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

That's this article done. Have to go and find another.

* Document ACC/2305/01/517 held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Beer sold on farm

Undercover cops. Dontcha just love them? Not really. Especially when they're out to trap poor farmers.

In the case below the police seem to have gone to an awful lot of trouble for a pretty petty offence. As the accused himself said to the police: "It's a pity you have nothing better to do."

"BEER SOLD ON FARM
BAILIFF FINED £20
POLICE AS LABOURERS
At Southminster Petty Session Saturday, Charles W. Wilding, farm bailiff Deal Hall Farm, Southminster. was summoned for selling beer by retail without a licence his larm labourers.

Defendant, who wore three medal ribbons, including the 1914-15 star, told the Bench tad been "over the top" 56 times.

P.c. Burrell, of Writtle, said that with P.c. Clark, of Maldon he went to Deal Hall Farm on Southminster Marshes, September 10. Both were wearing shabby, plain clothes. They saw the accused and witness asked if he could give them job. Wilding replied that he had finished the harvest and did not want anyone and suggested they apply the next farm. They both went as far as the sea wall, had some food, and returned to the farm about one o'clock. Outside the farm they spoke to a woman. Wilding came along on his bicycle and also spoke to the woman. He then called witness and P.c. Clark away and said: "Have you got anything on you to show who you are, and where you have come from?" Witness replied, "No." Accused then looked at their hands and said, "I can see you have done bit of work." Witness and his companion had hard skin their hands. Wilding then said he would find them a job and told them to go to the kitchen and wait until he returned. They waited outside the farmhouse until he came along and took them into the kitchen. He showed them where to sit, and said he had seven other men living the kitchen and they liked to keep the same places. He also told them his wife would make them up a bed, that they would have to sleep-in, and could get all foodstuffs from his wife.

When witness told defendant they had had dinner, he said, "You can have a drink, tea or minerals," Witness said, "I think I will have a glass of water." Accused said, "I think can trust you; you can have a glass of beer; I keep the beer outdoors." Both said they would like some beer, and accused took them to a cellar, which was underneath an outhouse. Accused, P.c. Clark, and witness entered the cellar. Witness noticed several beer barrels — two were tapped — also number of pint glass mugs and some seats. Defendant asked witness what he would have; the mild ale was 3d. a pint and the bitter ale 7d. a pint. Witness said he would have a pint of bitter, and P.c. Clark a pint of mild. Defendant drew the two pints, and said their wages would be 5/7 a day and an hour overtime, and they could pay for the beer at the end of the week when they drew their wages.

Witness sat on the cellar steps and while there two men came to the top of the steps and one asked for a pint of mild beer in a bottle. The man handed a bottle to accused, and this he filled with beer and the man gave him threepence. P.c. Clark then left the cellar, and shortly afterwards a motor car drew up and three men entered the cellar. One of them called for three pints of ale and put two sixpences on the table, saying to defendant. "Will you have one?" to which Wilding replied "Yes." P.c. Clark returned to the cellar, and as he entered it defendant said to the men, "It's only Bob." The men drank their beer and left. Witness and P.c. Clark left the cellar and went to work on the farm returning to the farmhouse at 7.30 p.m. Taking their jackets off to have a wash they saw eight men enter the cellar. Some had arrived on bicycles. After a meal they went into the cellar again about 9.20 p.m., with another man who paid for drinks for witness, P.c. Clark and accused. At this time accused's daughter. aged about 10, a lad of 17, and a boy of 14 were in the cellar. The boy of was drawing beer for the men. Money was lying on a table and Wilding put this and other money paid by the nien into his jacket before leaving the cellar at 10 o'clock.

Witness and P.c. Clark began work at six o'clock next morning. Returning to the farm mid-day both had a pint of beer drawn by Wilding, who said. "You pay my wife for what foodstuffs you buy at the end of the week and then you pay me for what beer you have had." In the course of conversation, defendant said they were not to leave the farm. He also told witness he had to be careful whom employed, as the farm had been raided by the police on a previous occasion for selling beer without a licence, and the bailiff had to pay £20. He didn't know whether they were policemen or not. If they were he would have to take the consequences. Later in the day witness communicated with Supt. Day, who arrived at the farm with a number police officers about 8.30 p.m.

In reply to Supt. Day, witness said the language of the men drinking the cellar was not fit for young people to hear.

P.c. Clark corroborated.

Det.-Sgt. Baker (Chelmsford) deposed to visiting Deal Hall Farm with Supt. Day and other police officers about 8.15 p.m. on Sept. 11. He told Wilding he had warrant to search his premises. Wilding replied: "It's a pity you have nothing better to do." In the cellar were two half-used nine gallon casks of beer, three more full casks of the same capacity were on a ledge. The police took possession of these. Later defendant said, "I hope you will be kind to me; I know you are only doing your duty."

Supt. Day gave evidence, stating that defendant paid 12/6 for the barrels and retailed the beer at 3d. per pint, thus making a profit of 5/6 on every barrel. In addition to the offences for which he was summoned, breaches of the Excise regulations had been committed, but the authorities did not wish to take action in the matter.

Mr. H. J. Freeman, for defendant, said it was a case in which he could offer no real defence, and he had no wish to attempt to put one up. The offences could not be regarded as any way similar to those sometimes read of at London clubs or road-houses, where a breach of the licensing regulations was committed. Deal Hall was situated at a remote spot on the marshes some 4.5 miles from the village of Southminster. Defendant had acted ill-advisedly in not forming a properly constituted club, but he had not sold the beer to make gain therefrom — only to satisfy the needs of his workmen.

Defendant was fined £20 and £2/15/11 costs, and the Chairman (Mr. E. Pipe), complimented the police.—It was stated that he is to continue in the employ of Messrs. Strutt and Parker."
Essex Newsman - Saturday 26 October 1935, page 4.

It's clear that the police knew what the bailiff was up to. He had been done once before. But think of the manpower involved in this case, which only resulted in a twenty quid fine. First there were the two plain clothes policemen. They spent two full days at the farm. Then there are the "number of police officers" who raided the farm. It must have added up to quite a few man days of time.

The defence - or rather total lack of it - is a bit weird. It all seems to be saying "you got me bang to right, guv." As is the fact the the Excise authorities couldn't be arsed to prosecute. All in all, despite the number of police employed on the case, it doesn't seem the offence was taken that seriously.

Now on to the price of the beer. 12 shillings and sixpence a firkin sounds very cheap. Too cheap, in fact. I've a Whitbread wholesale price list from 1934* and the cheapest beer in that, Light Ale, was 19 shillings a firkin. And that was a piss-weak Mild, with a gravity of just 1029º**. How on earth could any beer be cheaper than that?

There's a huge difference in price between the Bitter and Mild. 7d is about right for a pint of Bitter. That's what Whitbread's Bitter cost. It had a gravity of 1049º**. But 3d for a pint of Mild? As you can see in the list below, even Whitbread's feeble Light Ale sold for 4d a pint. A more normal price for Mild was 5d (for something around 1036º, like Whitbread's X Ale**) or 6d for Best Mild (about 1043º).

No. That Mild price makes absolutely no sense.

Deal Hall Farm is indeed in the middle of nowhere, out in what look like reclaimed marshland. See:

Quite a trek to the nearest pub.



* Pasted into Whitbread brewing record LMA/4453/D/09/124 held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

** Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/01/098

Boston brewday

Not Boston, really, but Westport. This is a short film put together by Martha about the brewday of 1939 Younger's No. 1.

London Porter Breweries in the 1830's (part two)

Moving away from the inaccurate technical descriptions, the author is on firmer footing when discussing the financial aspects of London brewing.

Here he talks about the capital tied up in the large London breweries:

"From various causes, it would be extremely difficult give any thing like a correct estimate of the capital embarked in one of the great London brew-houses. In the hop room alone of such a concern, there lies a princely fortune, some single houses having usually a stock of hops on hand about two hundred thousand pounds in value. This is in some measure dormant capital, as such a stock would last a year or two. But the keeping of so large store is a provision against scarcity or a rise in prices, and the power of making such a provision is magnificent proof the means held at command. The stock of malt, again, in the larger houses, is on an equal scale. Malt and hops together will generally amount in value to about three hundred thousand pounds. The stock-vats exhibit another immense absorption of money. In these vats vast quantities of porter are stored up, to ripen and mellow for public use. The vessels in question resemble houses in size more than any thing else. In Messrs Whitbread's brewery there are about thirty vats, each between twenty and thirty feet high, and of a proportionate transverse diameter. They hold many thousand barrels each, and are usually full to the brim. These vats are bound with a succession very strong iron hoops, set close one another as they can well go; and, in reality, the danger would be extreme, without powerful supports of this kind. A number of years ago, a vessel of this nature burst in one of the London brew-houses, and did no small damage, floating a family in a neighbouring house clean out of doors, besides other feats of the like order."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

I think the last sentence refers to the Meux beer flood of 1814. It was a bit more serious than just floating a family away. Eight people were killed and many more injured.

Were stocks of hops really that large? £200,000 was an awful lot of money back then. It's easy enough to check up if that figure is a reasonable guess. In the 1830's, hops averaged around 1s a pound. £200,000-worth would have been around 4 million pounds.

In the brewing season 1839-1840, Whitbread brewed 209 times in their Porter brewery, using about 2,000 lbs of hops on average per brew*. Which adds up to about 400,000 lbs of hops used in a year. Add in what they used for Ale brewing and the total is probably about half a million pounds of hops annually. Two years supply would still only be a million pounds, well below 4 million pounds. I think that valuation of hop stocks is way too high. Two years stock for Whitbread, one of the largest London breweries, would have been worth around £50,000 (1 million pounds of hops at 1 shilling a pound).

He's right about the huge and about the enormous sums tied up in maturing Porter. And the huge size of Porter vats:

"A few years before Mr. Thrale's death, which happened in 1781, an emulation arose among the brewers to exceed each other in the size of their casks, for keeping beer to a certain age ; probably, fays Sir John Hawkins, taking the hint from the tun at Heidelburg One of the trade, Mr. Whitbread, it is conjectured, had constructed one that would hold some thousand barrels, the thought of which troubled Mr. Thrale, and made him repeat, from Plutarch, a saying of Themistocles : "The trophies of Miltiades hinder my sleeping." Yet the late Mr. Boswell, in his Journal, relates, that Dr. Johnson once mentioned that his friend Thrale had four casks so large that each of them held 1,000 hogsheads. But Mr. Meux, of Liquorpond-Street, Gray's-Inn-Lane, can, according to Mr. Pennants, shew 24 vessels containing in all 35,000 barrels; one alone holds 4,500 barrels; and in the year 1790, this enterprizing brewer built another, which cost £5,000, and contains nearly 12,000 barrels; valued at about £20,000. A dinner was given to 200 people at the bottom, and 200 more joined the company to drink success to this unrivalled vat."
"Arithmetical questions: on a new plan" By William Butler, 1811, pages 298-299.

A barrel of Porter retailed at around 36 shillings per barrel. Which would mean Meux's 35,000 barrels of Porter in vats were worth £63,000. Remember that Meux weren't even one of the largest Porter brewers. In 1811, they were only in sixth place, brewing 103,152 barrels**. The largest, Barclay Perkins, brewed 264,200 barrels that year***.

Now let's take a look at the people working in the breweries:

"In reality, however, the leading partners, whose names are at the head of these firms, are in many cases men possessed of extensive landed property, and to all intents and purposes private country gentlemen, though retaining, it may be, large shares in the establishment to which the wealth and standing of their families were originally owing. There are always some of the principal partners in these concerns, nevertheless, who take an active share in their management. The mode conducting them is thoroughly systematic, as much so, and necessarily much so, in the case of the Bank of England. The whole divided into sections, with responsible persons at the head of each. One man usually, and sometimes two, superintend the brewing department. These are the operative managers, who are a shrewd and intelligent class of men. Salaries in these extensive concerns are on the handsomest scale, the motto of the proprietors being, "best service, best pay." The number of operatives about these places of course very great. They are usually stout, florid men, with countenances and persons alike redolent of the cherishing fluids amid which they live, move, and have their being. And when hard exercise is combined with this generous nutrition, they will, we have no doubt, be as healthy they appear. Otherwise, they will be liable, it is to be feared, to apoplectic and dropsical affections. Numerous as are these common workers at the brewing business, however, those who conceive the employment flowing from these vast establishments rest and end here, will form but a poor idea of the range of their influence. Hop-growers, iron-founders, coopers, colliers, publicans, horse-dealers, saddlers, cart-wrights, agriculturists in all the various lines of barley corn, and hay growing, with many other trades and professions are all directly and perpetually benefiting from the maintenance of these great concerns. It is astonishing how many of all these tradesmen one single brewing-house will sustain within its circle, disseminating its work and its payments with never-failing punctuality."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

Once they'd made their fortunes, the parnters in the large London brewing firms usually bought country estates and gradually worked their way into the aristocracy, either by marriage or through political manoeuvring. But it's true that, in the first half of the 19th century, one or more of the partners would remain involved in the day-to-day running of the enterprise.

I'm not sure the "stout, florid" workers would be described as healthy-looking today. Different times, different standards. Doubtless compared to an undernourished consumptive they looked the picture of health.

The number of people employed directly by breweries, even ones as large as those in London, was comparatively small. But, as stated in the article, a host of other trades were needed to supply and keep breweries going. Indirect employment must have exceeded direct employment several fold.

Next time we'll be looking and London's tied house system.




* Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number LMA/4453/D/09/033

** "The Edinburgh encyclopaedia", 1830, page 462.

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

London Porter Breweries in the 1830's (part one)

I thought I'd share a large article from the 1830's about London Porter breweries. As you'll see, its author wasn't totally at home with the brewing process. Where he comes into his own is when discussing the social and economic aspects of the Porter trade.

It's not unusual for journalists to struggle with technical details. That's as true now as it was 180 years ago. It's easy for us beer obsessives, daily drenched in the minutiae of brewing, to laugh at their misunderstandings. But just think about this. If you had to write a piece about genetic engineering how accurate would the technical bits be?

"LONDON PORTER BREWERIES.
Accustomed as a provincial inhabitant of the United Kingdom is to estimate at a very high rate the extent of London porter breweries, from his finding the beverage in abundance in every spot on which he may set his foot, yet the reality, when it is his fortune to visit the actual scene of the manufacture in question will prove in general far to exceed any anticipations which may have been formed. Nothing which a stranger can behold in the whole British metropolis will strike and amaze his eye more than the mere appearance of one of larger brew-houses of the city, with its enormous coppers, huge fermenting vessels, and monster-like store-vats; while, if he carries his observations farther, and examines into all the dealings and ramifications of such concern, his mind will be fiiled with still greater astonishment at the seemingly incalculable amount of capital embarked in it, as necessary to sustain and carry it on. The first question which suggests itself to one's thoughts, on looking at the lakes of porter perpetually being manufactured in such places, is, Who is to drink all this? One can scarcely believe that any given number of human throats, even of the thirstiest order, can consume these seas of liquor as fast as they seem to be produced. Yet but a short residence in the mighty city which is the scene of this production, will remove much of this wonderment from the stranger's mind. He will soon discover that porter almost supplies the place of water in London, as the common and hourly means of slacking thirst. None so poor, none so miserable in London, but contemns the thin colourless product of the spring, and will have his deep brown "stout," pot or can, at home or abroad. With the labouring classes the beverage has become a necessary of life, and, indeed, even the most temperate and orderly among them would perhaps as soon want their solid food, as the "entire" to wash it down. In part, the origin, at least, of this habit may be owing to the rather impure sources of much of the water about the metropolis, and we have heard sensible men trace it to such a cause; but the cheapness, abundance, and quality of the liquor, not to speak of other circumstances, seem in a great measure sufficient to account for the prevalence of the custom at the present day."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

Awe at the scale of Porter brewing was totally reasonable. In the 1830's, in no other city in the world was beer brewed in anything like the quantities made in London. In the days before the railways, few places in the world has a large enough concentration of people to allow this size of operation. This is when the London brewing industry was at its peak. In the decades that followed the new railway network enabled brewers elsewhere, notably in Burton, to challenge the dominance of London.

He's probably not far wrong about the dodgy quality of drinking water encouraging Londoners to drink beer instead. Though it often wouldn't have been in the form of full-strength Porter. In the 1830's and 1840's Barclay Perkins still brewed a Table Beer version of Porter.  It had a gravity or 1033-1038º and ABV of 3.5-4%. Their standard Porter was 1065º and around 6% ABV*.

So far so good. Now for the dodgy technical stuff.

"The difference in colour between porter and ale, as well as other malt liquors, is chiefly owing, as is generally known, to the condition of the malt used in preparing the former of these drinks. The malt in this case is slightly scotched in drying, or curing as is more frequently termed, so as to acquire a brown hue, which it communicates to the liquor made from it. But there are other qualities for which porter is remarkable ; and it is for the possession of these, more peculiarly, that the porter of London has obtained its great and distinctive celebrity. The agreeable bitterness and empyreumatic flavour which characterise it, have been the envy of all the brewers, we may safely say, the wide world, and fortunes have been thrown away in the endeavour to discover the source of these properties, and to imitate them. These attempts have always failed so signally, if not uniformly and universally, that at length mankind have almost agreed, by common consent, to rank the puzzle of London porter-brewing with the mystery of the Iron Mask, or that of the authorship of Junius. Numberless, indeed, were the explanations tendered by one party and another, before the point was thus given up ; and as one of these notions may be said still, in some measure, hold its ground, many persons may be glad of a little information upon the subject. Finding that no means whatever, tried in any quarter of the earth, could make porter taste as it did in London, some ingenious individual at length hit on the idea that the cause must lie in the Thames water, with which it was manufactured. As the Thames water was really known to have peculiar properties—that of keeping long fresh and pure at sea, for example, after undergoing several fermentations many people regarded this solution as perfectly satisfactory ; and one enterprising brewer of the Scottish capital actually went the length of bringing down the Thames water in casks, in the full expectation of at length rivalling the metropolitan brewers. The attempt was unsuccessful; nor will the reader marvel at this, when informed how erroneous were the premises upon which the experiment was based. Only four of the London brew-houses do really make use of the Thames river water! In other words, not a sixth part of the London porter is manufactured with water from that source. The breweries have in most cases private wells, and the liquor brewed thus is no whit inferior in quality to that into which the river water enters. The public, at least, have never discovered any difference. So much for the Thames-water fallacy."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

The change in Porter grists around 1800 seems to have eluded the author. In 1837, the grist of Barclay Perkins Porter was: 116 quarters pale malt, 20 quarters brown malt and 4 quarters black malt**. The grists at other London Porter brewers were generally similar. The development of black malt in 1817 had allowed brewers to significantly reduce the proportion of coloured malts.

I'm surprised any London brewer used Thames water in the 1830's. Those that I've studied either had their own wells or used New River water. The Thames was filthy by this time. No-one would have contemplated drinking its water.

It gets worse. I'm not even sure what the author is trying to say in this next paragraph.

"The real cause of the pleasing bitter relish and aroma of the London porter, we have good authority for asserting, rests with the malt used, and also for the mode of curing it for use. The hops, of course, are the principal source the bitter in all porter, but in the case of London porter, the delightful bitter smack is not so much derived from the large allowance of hops, as from the use, in the brewing, of great quantities of brown or embrowned malt, which malt is cured along with dried wood of a stringent quality. This wood is mixed with the malt, and, besides contributing to the spirit and strength of the beverage, is the ingredient that imparts to it its much prized aroma. In the introduction of this stringent wood, consists the long-sought-for secret. All the stories which have been told of the unbounded use of liquorice, and drugs of every kind and name,  are entirely erroneous as far regards the leading brew-houses, which supply the world with London porter."
Kendal Mercury - Saturday 26 January 1839, page 4.

I get that some of the bitterness came from the brown malt. And when he says it's cured along with dried wood, I think I get what he means. That wood is being used in the final curing. But when he goes on about mixing wood with the malt, that's just nonsense. As for it contributing to the strength of Porter, that's just totally crazy.

He seems to have misunderstood the malting process. I guess someone told him the flavour came from the wood used in kilning and interpreted that as meaning that the wood actually ended up in the mash tun.

Interestingly, the author denies the usual adulteration accusations. Rather hastily, I fear. The successful prosecutions brought against brewers prove that the use of illegal ingredients did occur. Though admittedly none of the large Porter brewers was ever prosecuted.

Next time we'll be looking at the capital and people involved in London brewing.




* Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/1/541 and ACC/2305/1/550.

** Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number  ACC/2305/1/550.

1941 home brewed Mild recipe

Here's an unusual recipe for you homebrewers: a wartime Mild (or is it Brown Ale?) recipe.

You may notice one rather vital ingredient is missing: malt or grain of any kind. Not surprising, really, when brewers had their malt rationed. Hops, I suppose, were a bit different as there would have been some growing wild. Though you'd have no idea what variety or what the flavour was like. But that's war for you. You couldn't afford to be fussy.

"HOP ALE.
If hops are available your district, why not try the following recipe for mild brown ale? Boil 5 ounces of hops for 40 to 50 minutes in eight gallons of water: put 4 lb brown sugar, more or less according to taste, in a large pan and strain the liquor over it. Add 2 ounces of yeast when the liquor is luke-warm, turn into a pan or tub to ferment for 4 days, then cask or bottle for use as wanted."
Western Times - Friday 01 August 1941, page 3.

Five ounces in 8 gallons is the equivalent of 1.4 lbs of hops per barrel. Actually a pretty reasonable amount for the day. in October 1941 Whitbread's XX Mild Ale only contained 0.76 lbs hops per barrel and their Pale Ale 1 lb*.

It wouldn't have been very alcoholic. I reckon 4 lbs of sugar across 8 gallons would give an SG of about 1021º. Quite a bit lower than commercial Mild, which was 1030-1032º in 1941. I'd have thrown in another couple of pounds of sugar myself to get something about 3% ABV. Assuming it was available. Because, as with everything else, there was a shortage of sugar.

Bottles wouldn't have been easy to come by. There was a shortage of glass and brewers usually wouldn't send pubs bottled beer unless they sent all the empties back




* Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/107

Unpalatable Nottingham beer

My memory isn't what it was. This proves it.

I'm always pleased when I find proof of dodgy goings on in pubs. If only because there are so many tales about adulteration and watering, but very little hard evidence. Like this.

When the name and address of the pub are included, I usually look it up on Google Maps. Which is exactly what I did with the Queen's Arms mentioned below. Read the article then I'll tell you why it's a sign that my memory is going.

"UNPALATABLE NOTTM. BEER
TWO CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS
IMPROVING BEER THAT HAD "GONE HARD"
HOW A SPECIAL "MILD" IS MADE
DISCLOSURES AND CONVICTIONS AT CITY COURT

There were three defendants in two prosecutions brought by the Customs and Excise, heard at Nottingham Guildhall to-day.

Josiah Widdowson, of the Queen's Arms, Queens-road, Nottingham, was summoned for mixing sugar with beer, so as to increase the quantity of gravity, after an account had been taken by a Customs and Excise officer and duty had been charged.

The offence was admitted. Mr. E. R. Booth, prosecuting, said defendant was a licensed publican and brewer of beer.

Certain beer was brewed on March 16th, and an account was taken the following day.

On March 25th a local excise officer took a sample of beer from a cask on tap, which was found to contain added sugar to the extent of about 71b. to the barrel.

Mr. Booth stressed the seriousness of the offence.

No Intent To Defraud
Mr. F. Clayton said defendant had not acted with any intent to defraud. He had held licence in the city for 35 years, and for 10 years he had been the Queens Arms. Never had there been complaint Against him.

The beer in this particular barrel had "gone hard" and was not palatable. He gave instructions to the brewer to make it palatable by adding a certain quantity of the sugar.

Some 10 or 12 gallons of beer had been sold from the barrel and the gravity of the remainder was raised by the addition of sugar.

Mr. Clayton pointed out that the sugar wag not added to the brew. Defendant made a clear breast of the matter.

Mr. Booth said the original bulk was increased by four gallons.

Mr. Rheinlander, a witness for the Customs and Excise, said the increase of gravity was not sufficient to account for the whole of the 7lb. of sugar. Therefore the sugar must have been added in the form of solution, which case the bulk would be increased as well as the gravity.

The Bench imposed a fine of £5 and £5 5s. costs.


Bottoms And Overs
William Richardson, of the Phoenix Inn, Denman-street, Nottingham, was summoned for a similar offence, and his son. William Arthur Richardson, of the same address, was summoned for aiding and abetting.

Mr. Booth said that 4.1lb. of fermentable sugar had been added to a barrel of 36 gallons, and he submitted that it was added after the account had been taken for duty, though younger defendant said "the only sugar added was that in the copper."

Evidence was given by Robert Charles Moore, officer of Customs and Excise, and Dr. J. W. G. Maclennan, chemist in the Government laboratory, said there was no doubt that the sugar was added. No mixing with a higher gravity beer would explain the presence of the sugar.

Wm. Arthur Richardson, replying to Mr. R. A. Young, who defended both men (they pleaded "Not guilty"), said that bottoms and overs of strong and mild beer were put together in one barrel, refined again, and sold as mild ale at 5d. a pint. It was from this that the sample was taken. Duty had already been paid on it.


A Doubt In The Case?
"I did not add anything to the beer except finings, no sugar whatever had been added except that in the original brewing," said defendant.

He made no attempt to increase the gravity or quality, or to make any profit on the duty that should be paid to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Young said it was particularly unfortunate that those proceedings had come along. The elder defendant had been advised on medical grounds to leave the licensing business, and it was his intention to apply for the transfer of the licence his son in a fortnight's time.

Mr. Young contended that there was doubt in the case, which should be given favour of the defendants.

The Bench imposed a fine of £5 on each defendant, and £2 12s. 6d. costs each."
Nottingham Evening Post - Wednesday 08 July 1936, page 7.

Why's my mind going? I used to drink in the Queens. Quite often. It's right next to Nottingham railway station and was a handy starting/ending point when I visited Nottingham by train. It used to be quite a nice Shipstone's pub. Then Greenhalls took over Shipstone's and it was allowed to fall into decline and eventually closed. It looks rather sad today.

The landlord was a licensed brewer,  which makes it tempting to assume that the Queens was a homebrew pub. But it's possible that the brewery was elsewhere. The article does not make cleaar where the brewing took place.

Bottoms and overs - I wonder what they were exactly? Bottoms I would guess were the dregs left at the bottom of a barrel. But what about overs? Is that a posh word for slops? By "refined" I'm pretty sure they mean "adding finings again" rather than some distillation process. I can guess why they claimed Strong Ale had been mixed with Mild Ale: to explain the too high gravity of the Mild they were selling.

The story used to go around that all the slops were put back into the Mild barrel. The second case seems to imply that is assertion was true. The landlord was happy to admit mixing odds and ends of different beers and selling them as Mild.

"Hard" usually means sour in this context. It's easy to understand how sugar could be used to mask sourness. But, as it also added extra (untaxed) fermentable material, it was very much against the law.

Grätzer - it's official

Grätzer is now officially a style. At least according to the Brewers' Association.

Unfortunately, they seem to have let Charlie Papazian write the specs:

Grätzer
Grätzer is a Polish-Germanic pre-Reinheitsgebot style of golden to copper colored ale. The distinctive character comes from at least 50% oak wood smoked wheat malt with a percentage of barley malt optional. The overall balance is a balanced and sessionably low to medium assertively oak-smoky malt emphasized beer. It has a low to medium low hop bitterness; none or very low European noble hop flavor and aroma. A Kölsch-like ale fermentation and aging process lends a low degree of crisp and ester fruitiness Low to medium low body. Neither diacetyl nor sweet corn-like DMS (dimethylsulfide) should be perceived.
Original Gravity (ºPlato) 1.048-1.056 (12-14 ºPlato)
Apparent Extract/Final Gravity (ºPlato) 1.008-1.016 (2-4 ºPlato)
Alcohol by Weight (Volume) 3.2-4.3% (4 -5.4%)
Bitterness (IBU) 15-25
Color SRM (EBC) 6-12 (12-24 EBC)

Let's go through what they've got wrong. Or maybe I should do it the other way around and say what they've got right. Unfortunately that's impossible, because none of it is correct.

So here's what's wrong:

Gravity. The classic Grätzer gravity is 7.8º Plato. Not 12º to fucking 14º. Who researched that? Oh, silly me. I assumed they'd have done some research.

Ingredients. It should be 100% smoked wheat malt.

Flavour. Low to medium hop bitterness? Every old description mention the hop character of Grätzer. It was nmoted for being a hoppy beer. "low to medium assertively oak-smoky malt emphasized beer". What the fuck does that even mean?

Fermentation. "A Kölsch-like ale fermentation and aging process"? They've just made that up. Absolutely no evidence that's how Grätzer was brewed. And what about the specific Grätzer yeast strain? No mention of that anywhere in these guidelines.

What does "pre-Reinheitsgebot" mean? The Reinheitsgebot only very briefly applied to the region where Grätzer was brewed: 1906 to about 1916 and maybe a few years during WW II. The style doesn't date from before the Reinheitsgebot of 1516. So what on earth does "pre-Reinheitsgebot" mean?

It would have been nice if they'd bothered to mention the Polish name for the style.

Based on this, the Grätzer/Grodziskie I helped brew at Jopen, which we went to great trouble to get as authentic as possible, isn't true to style.

Why do I get so annoyed? Because plenty of people will take this as the "official" definition of Grätzer. I'll waste days of my time arguing about what Grätzer is really like with those who take the excrement of the Brewers' Association as the gospel on beer styles.

I wish they's just carried on ignoring the style. It would have made my life much easier.

The question of harvest beer

We're back on the topic of harvest beer during WW I. With shortages of food, a good harvest was a high priority for the government. As far as farm labourers were concerned, there could be no harvest without beer. But there already wasn't enough beer to go around, even without providing extra supplies for harvesters.

"Both the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food are up against a problem on the question of harvest beer. This is not such a simple matter as a good many people imagine. Harvesting, as those who have tried it know, creates a thirst not easily assuaged by water or barley decoction, and from time immemorial a free supply of harvest beer has been regarded as one of the privileges of the workers engaged. The restricted supplies of beer have led to the appalling prospect of a good many farm labourers having to be content with a less satisfying liquid, and a spirit of unrest has set in. Reports from a good many agricultural districts indicate that the men are taking up the position of "no beer, no harvest" and the food authorities are becoming anxious. Replies given by Mr Clynes to the questions put in the House on the subject fully recognised the gravity of the situation. The way out seems to be the provision of larger supplies for the rural districts at the expense of the urban population, as it is not proposed to increase the barrellage, or of enlarging the available supplies by decreasing the brewing of the heavy beers in favour of mild ale. In any case, it is hardly conceivable that the authorities concerned will permit the harvest to be endangered for lack of harvest beer."
Dundee Courier - Saturday 03 August 1918, page 3.

There's a terrible irony that young men were sent to France and Belgium to be slaughtered without a murmour of protest, yet a harvest without free beer was unthinkable. I'd have been happy to harvest beer-free where no-one was lobbing shells, gas and grenades in my direction all day.

As for cutting down production of heavier beers, I don't see how that was possible. From what I've seen in wartime brewing records, these had been discontinued long before August 1918. This is what Whitbread were brewed in August 1918:

Whitbread beers in August 1918
Beer	OG	Barrels brewed
MA (strong)	1037.6	23,577
MA (straight)	1022.7
MA (weak)	1011.5
IPA	1032.4	6,966
PA	1036.9	2,910
London Stout	1042.8	3,331
Porter	1037.6	2,964
Total		39,748
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/083, LMA/4453/D/01/084 and LMA/4453/D/09/112.

Anything in there you would describe as "heavy"? Unfortunately the output of each of the three types of MA aren't given separately. But I can tell you that not much of it was the strongest version. None of the beers are particularly strong and far more was produced of the weaker ones.

Beer prices (again)

Not current beer prices, of course. I'd never be as modern as that. Though there's much in the debate that resonates today.

Drinkers thought beer prices were already too high. Brewers, on the other hand, claimed that they were too low. Some had found a way to protest, but not one I could have gone along with.

"BEER PRICES.
POSSIBILITIES OF PROHIBITION.
Position of the Brewer.
Each day witnesses a change in the purchasing power of the people. Bread, beans, bacon, potatoes, milk, apparently follow orderly sequence For the moment, however, amongst a not inconsiderable portion of the community the price of beer is the topio of more or less heated discussion.

The licensed trade association has intimated that a further all-round increase is to be at once put into force, and consumers are unmistakably angry. Rightly or wrongly, the working man is under the belief that his little luxury is being unduly taxed, and that the wealthier individual is securing a position of comfort his expense.

A READER'S PROTEST.
A number of our readers write protesting strongly against the policy that is being carried out in Manchester. The arguments advanced centre around the protest made by "Barleycorn" in the following communication:

"Don't you think it ia quite time the Government stopped the sale of intoxicants altogether? The new advance from the 23rd has come like its predecessors, just before the holidays — when, I suppose, the brewers know that some men will nave a little more spare time and possibly extra drink or two. Railway fares are prohibitive (even if the trains were numerous enough) for a man with a family to afford to travel far, so, if he decides to stay at home and try to enjoy himself, he will have to pay more for it. The brewers don't mean to sacrifice anything, and although I shall find it irksome at first, to do without my usual pint of mild ale, I intend to do so. The price is quite beyond the pocket of a working-man who thinks of home and family first, and although I have a shilling or two weekly to spend as I like, I am determined not to pay any more. The brewer is brewing only one-third and charging two-thirds more for his work."

THE BREWER'S POSITION.
With a view to securing the point of view of the trade "Evening News" representative to-day, waited upon Mr. D. P. Davies, the secretary of the Allied Brewery Trades Association, Mr. Davies frankly explained the position from the standpoint of his members in the following interview:

"The price beer has gone up less than any other commodity. The increased cost of materials, and the fact that the Government have  brought the production down to ten million barrels is in itself a sufficient reason why the price is bound to increase.

In my opinion beer has been too cheap for long time,
but in order not to be accused of profiteering the brewers sold up all accumulated stocks at old prices. Now we have reached the higher cost of production and new rates come into force. Already a large number of houses have to be closed certain days of each week. Brewers are experiencing great difficulty, even at the enhanced prices, in securing material. The Food Controller wants all barley until the submarine menace has been overcome and the new season's supplies are ascertainable. The trade has loyally acquiesced in the arrangement, and the public must realise that the necessarily restricted supplies inevitably mean increased rates to the consumer."

Captain Bathurst, in to-day's Parliamentary papers, says that the 26,000,000 standard barrels of beer authorised to March 31 were exceeded by 626,000 barrels, due to 23,000 barrels being brewed under special licence, 13,000 to over-brewing, and the remainder due to the exercise by brewers of the option given of selecting the year ending September 30, 1914 as their datum year. The effect of maize prohibition will be to exhaust the stock of malt earlier than had been anticipated."
Manchester Evening News - Thursday 24 May 1917, page 2.

I should explain this quote: "brewing only one-third and charging two-thirds more for his work". Beer production had been cut to a third of the pre-war level in terms of standard barrels. The fall in bulk barrels had been less because the gravity had been reduced.

From a brewer's perspective, that meant they had to get more profit from what they did brew to maintain their revenues. I can see the logic, but it didn't go down well with drinkers. There was also little sympathy for publicans, whose working day had been dractically shortened and saw the need to make more profit in the few hours they were allowed to open. To the average working man this looked like laziness and profiteering.

That protest. I can see how it would hit brewers if enough followed it, but where would it really get you? Sat in the pub with a bag of crisps and no pint. Just not worth it, in my opinion.

A publican's takings

A husband and wife arguing over money. Not exactly something new (like most beer "innovation").

Amusing as it might be to those on the outside, the squabble isn't why I've chosen to regale you with the article below. Pedantically prosaic as I am, it's the details of a publican's finances that reached out from the page and poked its finger into my eye.  A chance to see how much a pub sold and how much the landlord made in profit.

As you'll see from the figures thrown around, a publican could make a good living. £1 a week was a more than decent wage in 1900.

"A PUBLICAN'S TAKINGS DISCUSSED IN COURT AT CHELMSFORD.
At Chelmsford Police Court, on Dec. 14, before the Mayor (F. A. Wells, Esq.) and other Magistrates, Timothy Clement Shipp, landlord of the Cricketers' Inn, Mill Green, Ingatestone, applied for reduction of the order made on Nov. 2, for him to pay £1 per week to his wife, from whom he was separated.

Mr. F. P. Sutthery, appeared for the applicant, and Mr J. Doherty, barrister-at-law, instructed by Messrs. Wm. Tanner and Co., was for the wife.

Mr. Sutthery stated that on Nov. 2 the Bench ordered the applicant to pay Mrs. Shipp, his wife, £1 a week and £5..5 costs. The costs were paid, but in order to pay them the applicant had to borrow. A warrant was lately served because be failed to make his weekly contributions to his wife. He could not satisfy the claim, but his brother-in-law lent him a cheque to prevent his arrest. When holding a licensed house at Canning Town applicant allowed his wife, on a mutual separation, £1 a week, but the takings at Mill Green were not equal to those at Canning Town. The takings at Canning Town were £128 a month, whereas at Mill Green they were only £21. In fact, his present takings were not enough to make a profit of £1 a week. He had given his brother-in-law a bill of sale over his furniture, and he was practically in au insolvent position.

The applicant bore out what Mr. Sutthery had stated. He said he only sold about two and a half barrels (36 gallons each) a week. When he went into the house at Mill Green be borrowed £10 from his mother and £35 from his brother-in-law. Since then he had had another £10 from his brother-in-law to pay for the costs of the action. Last week, when the warrant was served, be had no money at all, and when he paid the brewers his sister lent him 10s. to make the sum up. If he sold off to-morrow be would be unable to pay his debts. He was now working at practically a dead loss.

In reply to Mr. Komble, J. P., the applicant stated that one of the children had died since the order was made. Cross-examined, applicant admitted that he made no objection to the amount when the order was made, although he said he could not pay it. He did not know what his profits were. He had not drunk whisky ; he had had to drink beer.

Mr. Doherty. Were you not afraid it was poisoned ?— I hope not ; it has not poisoned me. (Laughter.)

In further examination, applicant said he had a horse and three traps, but be lost money on them. He was quite prepared to work for his wife, but he could not pay £1 a week. In addition to his trade as a publican he had cut a lot of brakes (ferns) on the common. He had not sold these yet. He had also kept pigs, on which be lost money, and he had sold some chickens for 2s. a head when they ought to have made 2s. 6d.

Mr. Doherty said the reason why the applicant had not paid was a question of spite, envy, and hatred.

Mr. Sutthery said Mr. Doherty had no right to say that.

Mr. Doherty. He made up his mind from the commencement not to pay.

Applicant. I was told not to pay.

In reply to further questions as to his profits applicant stated that be gave 30s. a barrel for mild beer and 48s. for old. The mild ale be retailed at 4d. a pot, or 1s. 4d a gallon ; and the old at 1s. 8d. a gallon, or 1s. 6d. "outdoors "

Mr. Doherty. That is 30s. a week profit on beer alone. Applicant could give no idea of what the profits were on beer and wines. He sold very little of the latter.

Mrs. Shipp gave evidence. She said the takings in side the house at Ingatestone averaged about £10 per week. When she left the house the debts on the books amounted to about £10. She estimated the profits at £2 a week irrespective of trap letting, &c.

Applicant, re-called, said that if this order were reduced he would pay more when he was able to. The Bench, after a private consultation, said they could not see their way to vary the order; and allowed £1. 8. 6 costs."
Essex Standard - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 7.

What do you reckon - was Mr. Shipp the world's worst businessman or a spiteful bastard. I'm inclined to believe the latter. He does seem to have had a remarkable change in fortunes after separating from his wife. But I'm not here to discuss matrimonial strife, but pub economics.

There's something that doesn't look right about those beer prices. Why does the Old Ale sell for 5d a pot (2 pints), just 1d more than Mild, when a barrel of it cost more than 50% more? That's just crazy. He made much less money per barrel for the Old Ale, despite it being more expensive. As this table demonstrates:

	quart retail	barrel retail	barrel wholesale	profit per barrel	profit for 2.5 barrels	profit for 2.5 barrels (shillings)	profit for 1.5 barrels mild, 1 barrel old	profit for 1.5 barrels mild, 1 barrel old (shillings)
mild	4d	576d	360d	216d	540d	45s	324d	27s
old	5d	720d	576d	144d	360d	30s	216d	18s
old	6d	864d	576d	288d	720d

To try to understand the pricing, I've included a more reasonable-looking retail price of 6d. Maybe that was more than drinkers were willing to pay. The currency itself dictated the size of the steps between differently-priced beer. The smallest unit of currency was a farthing, the smallest quantity sold in a pub was a half pint. The smallest step in price between the price of a quart of two classes of beer was therefore 1d - a quarter of which was the smallest unit of currency.

That 30s profit would only be correct if he sold only Old Ale, a very unlikely scenario. A more likely mix of 1.5 barrels of Mild and 1 barrel of Old Ale would have brought in a profit of 45s. I don't believe Mr. Shipp was quite as broke as he made out.

Notice that only two types of beer are mentioned? Neither Pale Ale nor Porter in sight.

Correction

Learning a foreign language as an adult can be a nightmare. I should know. I've done it a couple of times.

Amsterdam has one particularly difficult moat to swim: the overly-good mastery of English of just about everyone in the city, except the poor expats desperately trying to learn the language. They won't let you speak Dutch here if there's the slightest whiff of uncertainty. Like wolves, the locals smell fear and pounce on any chance to showcase their English language skills.

I'm glad I kicked off my Dutch experience in Rotterdam. By the time I got here, my Dutch was good enough to apply the hammer and tongs technique. Named after the joke bridge bidding method. I'd say something in Dutch, and get a reply in English, I'd continue in Dutch, English reply back . . . and so on, until eventually they spoke Dutch. It often took a while.

Given my natural level of torpor, I'm shocked I could be arsed to go through with it*.

The accent, though. I've never quite cracked that. My inability to properly pronounce the name of the street I live on, never fails to amuse Mikey. Mister bloody parrot. He can pass for Dutch. Bastard.

I can remember my Mum drilling me in the pronunciation of the "th" sound in the word "the" when I was a child. I must have got it right eventually, because she stopped correcting me.

Correcting an adult is impolite. No matter how bad their grammar or pronunciation. So no-one's sat me down and made me pronounce the rolling "R" sound until got it right. As a result, I struggle to make taxi drivers understand my address. It's a curse.

It may have seemed a little harsh when I pulled up Mark Dredge about a point of beer history. I should have been milder in my words. But I swear by the principle.

Sometimes you need correction to improve.

I reserve my right to correct**.



* I often can't any more.
** When I've evidence to back me up.