Tetley Stout grists 1858 - 1896

Time for Tetley's Stout grists. Not that they will hold many surprises for you, if you've been paying attention. As they part-gyled Stout with Porter, the grists for the two styles are exactly the same.

Tetley's Stout grists begin deathly dull, just pale and black malt. Then in the 1890's suddenly get all interesting, with exotic ingredients like brown and crystal malt. The net effect of which is to leave it looking much more similar to Truman's Stout grist. Which is the classic London combination of pale, brown and black malt.

I wonder how Tetley sold their Stout. Some of their Porter is indicated as being intended for bottling, but not the Stout. Given the small quantities they brewed, I can't see their Stout being a draught beer. But, as I've yet to find any evidence of it being bottled, I can't say that for sure.

Tetley Stout grists 1858 - 1896
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	crystal malt	MA malt	caramel
1858	SP	Stout	1071.7	1024.4	6.27	66.02%	93.38%		6.62%
1858	X2P	Stout	1066.2	1021.6	5.90	67.36%	93.38%		6.62%
1868	X3 P	Stout	1067.0	1033.5	4.43	50.00%	94.88%		5.12%
1878	S	Stout	1065.9				94.55%		5.45%
1878	S	Stout	1066.5	1027.1	5.20	59.17%	94.55%		5.45%
1878	S	Stout	1065.9				94.47%		5.53%
1888	S	Stout	1067.0	1028.3	5.13	57.85%	94.88%		5.12%
1888	S	Stout	1068.7	1029.1	5.24	57.66%	94.88%		5.12%
1896	S	Stout	1064.8	1020.5	5.86	68.38%		11.69%	5.84%	15.46%	54.12%	12.89%
1896	S	Stout	1066.5	1018.3	6.38	72.50%	8.81%	11.32%	3.99%	14.97%	52.83%	8.08%
Sources:
Tetley brewing records held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service document numbers WYL756/11/ACC1903, WYL756/16/ACC1903, WYL756/25/ACC1903, WYL756/44/ACC1903 and WYL756/49/ACC1903.

Truman Stout grists 1855 - 1894
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	pale malt	brown malt	black malt
1855	Stout	Stout	1071.7	1025.2	6.16	64.86%	85.08%	12.86%	2.06%
1860	Stout	Stout	1069.5	1019.9	6.56	71.31%	86.19%	13.03%	0.78%
1870	Running Stout	Stout	1069.8	1016.6	7.04	76.19%	90.00%	6.00%	4.00%
1880	Running Stout	Stout	1074.8	1024.9	6.60	66.67%	84.70%	10.67%	4.62%
1894	SS	Stout	1075.9				80.80%	12.22%	6.98%
Sources:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers B/THB/C/057, B/THB/C/062, B/THB/C/072, B/THB/C/082 and B/THB/C/096.

How London tied publican

Here's a fascinating collision between beer history and normal history, through the medium of a stroppy landlord.

A short explanation of the context. The Liberal government of the day had had several run-ins with the House of Lords, the culmination of which was the rejection of the 1909 Budget (the Finance Bill). This caused a constitutional crisis, a new election and eventually a limitation of the power of the House of Lords.

One of the provisions of the rejected Finance Bill was an increase in beer duty. It seems that breweries had jumped the gun and increased their prices before the law came into effect.  The Bill was passed in 1910, but I'm not sure that the increase in beer tax was included. The figures I have don't show it increasing between 1901 and 1915.

"HOW LONDON TIED PUBLICAN
UNDERSOLD HIS NEIGHBOURS.
STRANGE CASE IN THE LAW COURT.
Brewers and Their Covenant.
In the Chancery Division to-day Messrs Courage, the well-known brewers, sought injunction to restrain George Andrew Carpenter, a Deptford publican, from selling beer not supplied by them in breach of the covenant of his lease. The case arose out of the action of the London brewers in increasing the price of beer six shillings per barrel in view of the Finance Bill. The defendant, who declared that the increase was out of all proportion to the Budget burdens, refused to pay the new price, and was able to undersell the neighbouring houses. He further held that plaintiffs having broken their covenant to supply him with beer at fair prices he was under no obligation to take their beer.

Mr. Jenkins, for the plaintiffs, said the consumer was charged at the rate of twelve shillings per barrel of 36 gallons. There were very few brewers who did not come in and the rise was accepted by the retail trade without protest. There was reason at that time to suppose the Finance Bill would not become law, and the brewers had to consider their position.

Answering Mr Justice Nevelle who asked if brewers paid duty on an undertaking like some Other trades, Mr. Hemmerde, for the defence, said they Had not paid at all.

Mr Jenkins said they had not been asked when they found there was a probability of the Lords rejecting the Bill. They took the increase off in anticipation. Had they Known July that it would be rejected the price of beer would probably never been raised.

The Court, said Jenkins, had not concern with the rights the public in this case. The question was whether the extra charge of six shillings in the case of a tied house was a reasonable charge, and whether it would make up for the decrease in consumption.

Mr. Cecil Lubbock, managing director of Whitbreads, and a director of the Bank of England, was then called. The scheme under which the price was increased, he said, was considered the best means of meeting the increased taxation, and saving the shareholders. Whilst the increased price prevailed the decreased consumption amounted to from ten to fifteen per cent. Had the proposed new duties been imposed, the price beer would have been increased to brewers by half-a-crown per barrel, affecting witnesses' company by about £50,000 to £60,000 a year. He considered the increase to the tenant a fair and reasonable one.

Answering Mr Hemmerde, witness said he knew of no case in which a tied tenant had been refunded the six shillings per barrel on the saloon bar trade on condition that he raised the charges to the poorer classes for London porter and mild ale. In the case of free houses the tenants might have been so refunded. The whole of the taxation on beer until this year had been borne by the brewers. It was true there had been a certain weakening the article supplied, but the public taste had tended towards a lighter ale. (Proceeding.)"
Evening Telegraph - Thursday 16 December 1909, page 3.

I'm confused as to the size of the tax increase. The tax had been 7s 9d per 36-gallon barrel. It sounds like the brewery charged an extra 6s per barrel and expected the retail price to increase by 12s a barrel. The 12s equates to a 0.5d per pint increase, which is probably why that figure was chosen. The smallest coin was a farthing (a quarter of a penny), so a halfpenny a pint was the smallest possible increase that would leave the price of a half pint payable with existing coins.

Hang on, it says the tax increse to the brewer was a half crown, or 2s 6d. That's quite a jump in the tax, almost a third. 

Nice to see one of the Whitbreads taking the stand. That he was also a director of the Bank of England demonstrates the standing of the large London brewers. It;s no surprise that he thought the price increase was reasonable. He was a brewer, after all.

Of course, they were never going to let a landlord get away with buying beer outside the tie. That would have destroyed the whole basis of their business, which by this date was very dependent on the captive market provided by tied houses.

The "Original" Brewery

There's nothing new under the sun. Things like advertorials have been around longer than you might suspect, as the article below proves.

Why publish a piece of shamelss self-promotion? I'll tell you after the article.

"THE "ORIGINAL" BREWERY.
[Extract from the" Pictorial Record," Feb. 1899.]
An original title it must be confessed but one that can be substantiated, inasmuch as the brewery to which it applies is the oldest in Tamworth.

It would seem on that account to need but little introduction to local readers, but the proprietors, Messrs. White & Combe, have inaugurated a policy that should be always under the notice of consumers in whose interest it has been devised. There is no doubt that the wholesale buying of licensed properties and converting them into "tied houses" that has been in operation some time, has had in many cases a bad effect upon the quality of the beer supplied. It could not be otherwise, seeing the fabulous prices that have been given for houses, and consequently the consumer has to suffer.

We do not say that this is so in all cases, but one point is quite obvious, namely, that it must pay the brewer quite as well to sell his productions at wholesale rates to private families as it does for him to dispose of to the publican for retailing. At any rate, Messrs. White and Combe are of this opinion, and they have for some time past devoted themselves exclusively to a family trade, selling ale and stout in small or large casks or in bottle at about half the price that it can be obtained from licensed victuallers, while they guarantee that the quality is of the highest.

On this latter point weareable to satisfy ourselves by a personal visit, and if the use of English hops and malt combined with pure water, scrupulous cleanliness, and the utmost care in connection with all brewing operations can produce a perfect malt beverage, such may certainly be had at the Original Brewery.

The place itself is fitted with a four-quarter plant, with copper, mash-tun, coolers, fermenting tuns, vats, cellarage, &c., complete, and adjoining are the maltings for the firm's brewings only. Strong ale, mild ale, nourishing stout, and a nourishing light bitter ale, such as "The Medical Times" has declared to be an ideal drink, are produced here (under the personal supervision of Mr. G. Adams, formerly of London), and a very extensive trade is done throughout a radius of ten miles around Tamworth. A dozen hands and four horses are employed, and the brewery, which is in the Albert Road, bears every sign of prosperity and success. Mr. Combe is now sole proprietor, Mr. White, who, had had the business since 1857, and with whom he was in partnership for two years, being recently deceased. - [Advt.]"
Tamworth Herald - Saturday 27 January 1900, page 8.

It's the stuff about the pub trade. That's why I've reproduced this article.

The 1890's was a fraught and chaotic period for brewers. There were still profits to be made but restictions on the number of pub licences meant outlets were getting harder to find. Not only were many authrities no longer issuing new licences, many were actively reducing the number of licensed premises by removing licences. The result was a scramble to but pubs to secure outlets.

Panic buying by brewers, such as Allsopp, who entered the game late, meant pubs changed hands for ridiculous sums. Speculators also helped drive up pub prices. One of their tricks was to buy a pub, order large quatiuties of beer from a brewery and just pour most of it down the drain. The brewery would think the pub was doing a good trade and buy it for an inflated price based on nonexistent custom.

We're told it was a four quarter brewery. Which equates to just 16 barrels of standard-strength beer per brew. Or around 5,000 barrels a year. So quite a small operation. According to Norman Barber, the brewery closed in the early 1920's.

While concentrating on selling directly to domestic customers might have lookd a good business plan in 1900, it wouldn't turn out to be long term. The home trade in cask beer fizzled out after WW I and customers either switched to bottled beer or brought back draught beer in jugs from pubs.

Tetley Stout 1858 - 1896

Yes, you guessed it. I'm continuing to be lazy. Putting Tetley's Stout under the microscope is even less effort than looking at their Porter.

Why's that? Because I'm struggling to find London Stout to compare it with. The Tetley's Stout is just too weak. It was rare for a London Stout to dip below 1070º. After a bit of searching I managed to find a set of Truman Stouts that aren't too different in gravity.

The hopping is the first thing to jump out. It's clear that Tetley dropped the hopping rate considerably after 1858. And that after this date is was much less heavily hopped than Truman's Stout. Both started at over 13 lbs per quarter, but Tetley dropped to 7.5 lbs. There was a reduction in the hopping rate at Truman, but to a much lesser degree, still being 11 lbs per quarter in the 1890's.

The degree of attenuation was mostly lower at Tetley, often below 60%. 65-70%, as at Truman, was more typical in London.

As most of the boil times are missing for Truman, I can't really say much about that. The one that there is, shows a generally similar pattern to the boils at Tetley.

I think there can be little doubt that Tetley's Stout would have tasted quite different to Truman's. We'll discover just how different next time when we look at the grists of these beers.

Tetley Stout 1858 - 1896
Year	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)
1858	SP	Stout	1071.7	1024.4	6.27	66.02%	13.89	4.08	1.5	2		º	68º	8
1858	X2P	Stout	1066.2	1021.6	5.90	67.36%	13.89	3.77	1.5	2		º	68º	7
1868	X3 P	Stout	1068.4	1030.2	5.06	55.87%	8.00	2.16	1.5	2	2	65º	66º	6
1868	X3 P	Stout	1067.0	1033.5	4.43	50.00%	7.47	2.19	2	2		66º	66º	6
1878	S	Stout	1065.9				7.43	2.05	2	2		70º	70º	6
1878	S	Stout	1066.5	1027.1	5.20	59.17%	7.43	2.12	2	2		70º	69º	6
1878	S	Stout	1065.9				6.86	2.05	2	2		69º	69.5º	6
1888	S	Stout	1067.0	1028.3	5.13	57.85%	7.47	2.07	2			64º	67º	7
1888	S	Stout	1068.7	1029.1	5.24	57.66%	7.47	2.24	2			65º	68º	7
1896	S	Stout	1064.8	1020.5	5.86	68.38%	6.62	1.75	2			62º	66.5º	6
1896	S	Stout	1066.5	1018.3	6.38	72.50%	5.62	1.59	2	2		61º	68.5º	6
Sources:
Tetley brewing records held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service document numbers WYL756/11/ACC1903, WYL756/16/ACC1903, WYL756/25/ACC1903, WYL756/44/ACC1903 and WYL756/49/ACC1903.

Truman Stout 1855 - 1894
Year	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)
1855	Stout	Stout	1071.7	1025.2	6.16	64.86%	13.6	4.41				63º	78º	9
1860	Stout	Stout	1069.5	1019.9	6.56	71.31%	14.1	4.70				63º	º
1870	Running Stout	Stout	1069.8	1016.6	7.04	76.19%	12.2	4.40				59º	º
1880	Running Stout	Stout	1074.8	1024.9	6.60	66.67%	12.8	4.48				58º	º
1894	SS	Stout	1075.9				11.0	4.10	2	2	3	60º	º
Sources:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers B/THB/C/057, B/THB/C/062, B/THB/C/072, B/THB/C/082 and B/THB/C/096.

Change for a sovereign

Getting short-changed in a pub. It must have been going on since, er, pubs first existed.

Have a read through the case. I'll meet you the other side for a discussion of the best bits.

"CHANGE FOR A SOVEREIGN.
Remarkable Claim in London Court.
BURTON BREWERS SUED
In the City of London Court on Tuesday, before Mr. Registrar Wild, a claim was made by Mr. Walter Wallis, scientific instrument maker of 24 Moselle-street, Tottenham, against Worthington and Company, brewers, Burton-on-Trent, for 19s 10d, the balance of the change of a sovereign.

The plaintiff said that on the night of 18th August he entered the defendants' White Bear public-house, King William-street, London, and tendered a sovereign in payment of two glasses of mild ale for himself and a friend. He drew the barmaid's attention to the fact that he tendered a sovereign. After serving the ale the barmaid went into another part of the house, and it not until ten minutes afterward that he could tell her he had nor received his change. She looked surprised, and said she had received the sovereign, but did not know what she had done with it. In the presence of the manager, the barmaid repudiated the statement she had formerly made and said she had not receivedit a sovereign. A constable was fetched, and then it was stated that he (plaintiff) had paid in bronze for the ale which was untrue. The tills were searched in the presence of the constable, but no trace could be found of his sovereign. 

Plaintiff's friend, Mr W. G. Myers corroborated.

For the defence, the barmaid said she remembered serving the plaintiff with the two glasses of ale, and his complaining that he had not received his change. The plaintiff could only have given her 2d. She told. the plaintiff to see the manager. She was afterwards searched  by the manager's wife. She admitted having gone to the change till after the plaintiff made his complaint, but that was only to make sure she had made no mistake. She was certain she had not rceived a sovereign from the plaintiff.

Mr. Stephens, the manager of the White Bear, said the barmaid had been with him for six months. He had found her thoroughly honest, and had excellent refeernces with her.

The Registrar was certain no jury would convict the barmaid of having stolen the sovereign. Everything was done for the plaintiff, after making his complaint, that could be done. plaintiff had failed to prove his case, and there must be judgment for the defendants."
Derby Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 27 September 1911, page 2.

My first point is who Mr. wallis sued - not the barmaid or the manager but Worthington, the owner of the pub. It's similar to what happens in the US, where it's usual to go after the defendent with the most money rather than the greatest culpability. All very interesting, but what it tells me is that Worthington owned pubs in London and used managers rather than tenants.

Paying for two halves of Mild with a sovereign is pretty crazy. A sovereign was enough to buy 120 pints of Mild. The equivalent today would be buying a pint of Mild with a £400 pound note. If such a note existed.

What do I reckon? The barmaid had it away with the sovereign, I reckon. But she wasn't daft enough to keep it on her. My guess is that she hid it somewhere before the constable turned up.

I've just realsied something. Though the plaintiff, the manager and even the managers firend are named in the article, the barmaid isn't. Despite her being the one accuse of theft. Odd that. I wonder why that is?

The White Bear no longer exists. Though I realsie that I've walked many times down King Willian street - it's the approach road to the north end of London Bridge.

Inside the Dorchester Brewery (part four)

Wow. I've just looked to see how long ago this series about Eldridge Pope's Dorchester Brewery began. Too long ago. Much too long ago.

You may remember that we had just visited the fermenting room with its lovely rounds. Next comes the racking cellar.

"Our progress downward next brought us to the great racking cellar, which covers two-thirds of the entire ground floor of the brewhouse. It contains three slate racking or settling tanks, each holding 200 barrels,from which the beer is racked into the casks; also four vats of great capacity for receiving running ales. We found the floor, which is asphalted throughout, strewn with hundreds of barrels, either filled or in the process of being filled; and waiting  outside  was a train, composed of an engine and some eight or ten trucks, ready to convey them to their respective destinations. In the centre of this cellar there is fixed an endless chain barrel elevator, for lifting the stock ales from the cellars below to this level, to be rolled away on to the loading-out stage, which runs parallel with this room. The forwarding clerks' office is situated at the entrance to the loading-out department ; and opposite is the yeast store-house, containing a Johnsons press.

Through an archway we reached the vat-house, a spacious building 85 feet long and 45 feet high, used for storing old ales. Here, rising to a great height, are to be seen sixteen store vats, the two largest among them holding some 400 barrels each, and all containing old Dorchester beer, so much approved of in the West of England."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol III", by Alfred Barnard, 1890, pages 138 - 139.

I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the settling tanks and the vats for running ales. I don't understand why you would need both. Surely the settling tanks would be filled with running ales from the fermenters immediately before they were racked.

Pale ale cellar.

Time for some brewhouse maths. Assuming an average vat size of 300 barrels, that would give a storage capacity of 4,800 barrels. Quite an amount. But without knowing how long they stored the beer for before sale, it's hard to estimate how much Old Ale they were selling.

Time to move on again.

"Descending by a lift to the basement, we walked through two spacious paved cellars, one used for storing stock ales, the other for running beers, and then reached a sunken passage leading to a tunnel 200 feet in length, which gives access to the largest cellar on the premises. It is situated beneath the malthouse, is 140 feet long, 50 feet broad, and contained about 3,000 barrels of pale ale.  The roof of this cellar is very remarkable, as it is arched with tiles "three deep," set in cement The cellar itself is dug out of the solid chalk, with a natural floor of hard chalk, and forms one of the most perfect pale ale stores we have ever inspected.

The sampling and bottling cellars, afterwards visited, are beneath the counting-house. We tasted several of the firm's brews during our visit, among them being the Dorchester pale ale, the "A.K." and the "Crystal" ale. The Dorchester pale ale is of great merit, and challenges comparison. It is an exhilarating beverage, and possesses all those characteristics which insure its keeping sound. The "Crystal" ale suited our tastes for a general drink, it being light, delicate, and sparkling; as also did the Burton ale, a nourishing, hop-flavoured, sound beverage, as clear as champagne. All of them compare favourably with the ales of London and Edinburgh, and the demand for them in the former city is sufficient proof of their popularity. Near the sampling room there is a large wine and spirit store, for supplying the firm's numerous hotels and public-houses, and their private trade in the town and district. It contains seven large spirit vats, and a row of wine bins 50 feet in length; also a cellar for storing wines in the wood, and every convenience for bottling. In close proximity is a bottle-washing yard, 100 feet square, covered with a corrugated iron roof and laid with Staffordshire bricks."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol III", by Alfred Barnard, 1890, pages 139 - 140.

Our patience has been rewarded with a quick description of some of Eldridge Pope's beers. It's a bit confusing when he talks about AK and Crystal as separate beers, but I think I understand it. If you remember the details of the beers from previous posts you'll know that Crystal was a form of AK. BAK, or bottling AK, to be precise.

I've repeated my table of Eldridge Pope beers from the 1890's for your reference. Looking at the stronger beers, I wonder which is the old Dorchester beer and which the Burton. XXXX looks the right gravity for  a Burton. To be honest, it looks to weak to be the Old Ale. But if it isn't, which beer is?

Eldridge Pope beers in 1896-1897
Year	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. fermentation temp	length of fermentation (days)
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.6	4.87	76.00%	7.33	1.50	2.5	2.5	2.5	60º	71.25º	8
1896	AK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	7.03	1.44	2.5	2.5	2.75	59.5º	69º	8
1896	BAK	Pale Ale	1048.5	1011.9	4.84	75.43%	7.03	1.44	2.5	2.5	2.75	59.5º	69.75º	8
1896	PA	Pale Ale	1057.6	1014.4	5.72	75.00%	10.50	2.56	2.5	2.75		59.5º	70.25º	7
1896	XX	Mild	1049.0	1011.6	4.95	76.27%	4.36	0.91	2.5	2.75		60º	70.5º	7
1896	S	Stout	1061.5	1026.9	4.58	56.31%	9.43	2.50	2.5			59º	70.5º	8
1896	LTS	Stout	1051.2	1019.4	4.21	62.16%	10.37	2.23	2.5			60º	70º	8
1897	XXX	Mild	1065.1	1018.6	6.16	71.49%	6.25	1.75	2.5	2.5	2.75	60º	74.25º	9
1897	XX	Mild	1048.8	1013.9	4.62	71.59%	6.25	1.31	2.5	2.5	2.75	60º	69º	8
1897	XXXX	Strong Ale	1074.8	1023.8	6.74	68.15%	8.95	2.82	2.5	2.5	2.5	60º	74º	9
1897	KK	Pale Ale	1051.5	1014.1	4.95	72.58%	6.81	1.50	2	2.5		60º	69.5º	4
1897	XX	Mild	1049.6	1012.5	4.91	74.86%	6.23	1.33	2	2.5		60.25º	70.5º	4
Source:
Eldridge Pope brewing records

Why are Eldridge Pope's beers compared with those of London and Edinburgh? Because those two towns were renowned for the quality of their Ales.

Boston and snow

What a pain in the arse the weather has been here in Boston. Snow, lots of it, Wind,  scarily cold. Needles of snow jabbng your skin,

Just crossing the road, it was.

That's Dolores and Lexie walking back from the shop. I would have gone with them. But I don''t do shopping, Unless it's for beer.

Scary that I can  name more friends in Boston than Newark. Bloody Lincolnsire.

The big event is just two days away - my book-signing in Meadhall. Do come along if you're in the area,

I'll be shelterig until tomorrow.

Bloody snow.