Chapter 6

[43] The sack of marketable flour is by law obliged to weigh 240 pounds, which is the produce of five bushels of wheat, and is upon an average supposed to make eighty quartern loaves of bread; and consequently sixteen of such loaves are made from each bushel of good wheat. It is admitted, however, that two or three loaves more than the above quantity can be made from the sack of flour, when it is the _genuine produce_ of _good wheat_; that is, in the proportion of about sixteen and a half loaves from each bushel of sound grain, and, it may be presumed, sixteen from a bushel of medium corn. The expense, in London, of making the sack of flour into bread, and disposing of it, is about nine shillings.

A bushel of wheat, upon an average, weighs sixty-one pounds; when ground, the meal weighs 60-3/4 lbs.; which, on being dressed, produces 46-3/4 lbs. of flour, of the sort called _seconds_; which alone is used for the making of bread in London and throughout the greater part of this country; and of pollard and bran 12-3/4 lbs., which quantity, when bolted, produces 3 lbs. of fine flour, this, when sifted, produces in good second flour 1-1/4 lb.

[44] Whilst correcting this sheet for the press, the printer transmits to me the following lines:

"On Saturday last, George Wood, a baker, was convicted before T. Evance, Esq. Union Hall, of having in his possession a quantity of alum for the adulteration of bread, and fined in the penalty of 5_l._ and costs, under 55 Geo. III. c. 99."--_The Times_, Oct. 1819.

[45] There are instances of convictions on record, of bakers having used gypsum, chalk, and pipe clay, in the manufacture of bread.

[46] See a Practical Treatise on the Use and Application of Chemical Tests, illustrated by experiments, 3d edit. p. 270, 231, 177, & 196.

[47] Phil. Trans. for 1817, part i.

_Adulteration of Beer._

Malt liquors, and particularly porter, the favourite beverage of the inhabitants of London, and of other large towns, is amongst those articles, in the manufacture of which the greatest frauds are frequently committed.

The statute prohibits the brewer from using any ingredients in his brewings, except malt and hops; but it too often happens that those who suppose they are drinking a nutritious beverage, made of these ingredients only, are entirely deceived. The beverage may, in fact, be neither more nor less than a compound of the most deleterious substances; and it is also clear that all ranks of society are alike exposed to the nefarious fraud. The proofs of this statement will be shewn hereafter.[48]

The author[49] of a Practical Treatise on Brewing, which has run through eleven editions, after having stated the various ingredients for brewing porter, observes, "that however much they may surprise, however pernicious or disagreeable they may appear, he has always found them requisite in the brewing of porter, and he thinks they must invariably be used by those who wish to continue the taste, flavour, and appearance of the beer.[50] And though several Acts of Parliament have been passed to prevent porter brewers from using many of them, yet the author can affirm, from experience, he could never produce the present flavoured porter without them.[51] The intoxicating qualities of porter are to be ascribed to the various drugs intermixed with it. It is evident some porter is more heady than other, and it arises from the greater or less quantity of stupifying ingredients. Malt, to produce intoxication, must be used in such large quantities as would very much diminish, if not totally exclude, the brewer's profit."

The practice of adulterating beer appears to be of early date. By an Act so long ago as Queen Anne, the brewers are prohibited from mixing _cocculus indicus_, or any unwholesome ingredients, in their beer, under severe penalties: but few instances of convictions under this act are to be met with in the public records for nearly a century. To shew that they have augmented in our own days, we shall exhibit an abstract from documents laid lately before Parliament.[52]

These will not only amply prove, that unwholesome ingredients are used by fraudulent brewers, and that very deleterious substances are also vended both to brewers and publicans for adulterating beer, but that the ingredients mixed up in the brewer's enchanting cauldron are placed above all competition, even with the potent charms of Macbeth's witches:

"Root of hemlock, digg'd i' the dark, + + + + + + + + + + For a charm of pow'rful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble; Double, double, toil and trouble, Fire burn, and cauldron bubble."

The fraud of imparting to porter and ale an intoxicating quality by narcotic substances, appears to have flourished during the period of the late French war; for, if we examine the importation lists of drugs, it will be noticed that the quantities of cocculus indicus imported in a given time prior to that period, will bear no comparison with the quantity imported in the same space of time during the war, although an additional duty was laid upon this commodity. Such has been the amount brought into this country in five years, that it far exceeds the quantity imported during twelve years anterior to the above epoch. The price of this drug has risen within these ten years from two shillings to seven shillings the pound.

It was at the period to which we have alluded, that the preparation of an extract of cocculus indicus first appeared, as a new saleable commodity, in the price-currents of _brewers'-druggists_. It was at the same time, also, that a Mr. Jackson, of notorious memory, fell upon the idea of brewing beer from various drugs, without any malt and hops. This chemist did not turn brewer himself; but he struck out the more profitable trade of teaching his mystery to the brewers for a handsome fee. From that time forwards, written directions, and recipe-books for using the chemical preparations to be substituted for malt and hops, were respectively sold; and many adepts soon afterwards appeared every where, to instruct brewers in the nefarious practice, first pointed out by Mr. Jackson. From that time, also, the fraternity of brewers'-chemists took its rise. They made it their chief business to send travellers all over the country with lists and samples exhibiting the price and quality of the articles manufactured by them for the use of brewers only. Their trade spread far and wide, but it was amongst the country brewers chiefly that they found the most customers; and it is amongst them, up to the present day, as I am assured by some of these operators, on whose veracity I can rely, that the greatest quantities of unlawful ingredients are sold.

The Act of Parliament[53] prohibits chemists, grocers, and druggists, from supplying illegal ingredients to brewers under a heavy penalty, as is obvious from the following abstract of the Act.

"No druggist, vender of, or dealer in drugs, or chemist, or other person, shall sell or deliver to any licensed brewer, dealer in or retailer of beer, knowing him to be such, or shall sell or deliver to any person on account of or in trust for any such brewer, dealer or retailer, any liquor called by the name of or sold as colouring, from whatever material the same may be made, or any material or preparation other than unground brown malt for darkening the colour of worts or beer, or any liquor or preparation made use of for darkening the colour of worts or beer, or any molasses, honey, vitriol, quassia, cocculus Indian, grains of paradise, Guinea pepper or opium, or any extract or preparation of molasses, or any article or preparation to be used in worts or beer for or as a substitute for malt or hops; and if any druggist shall offend in any of these particulars, such liquor preparation, molasses, &c. shall be forfeited, and may be seized by any officer of excise, and the person so offending shall for each offence forfeit 500_l._"

The following is a list of druggists and grocers, prosecuted by the Court of Excise, and convicted of supplying unlawful ingredients to brewers.

_List of Druggists and Grocers, prosecuted and convicted from 1812 to 1819, for supplying illegal Ingredients to Brewers for adulterating Beer._[54]

John Dunn and another, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, verdict 500_l._

George Rugg and others, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, verdict 500_l._

John Hodgkinson and others, for selling adulterating ingredients to brewers, 100_l._ and costs.

William Hiscocks and others, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200_l._ and costs.

G. Hornby; for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200_l._

W. Wilson, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 200_l._

George Andrews, grocer, for selling adulterating ingredients to a brewer, 25_l._ and costs.

Guy Knowles, for selling substitute for hops, costs.

Kernot and Alsop, for selling cocculus india, &c. 25_l._

Joseph Moss, for selling various drugs, 300_l._

Ph. Whitcombe, John Dunn, and Arthur Waller, druggists, for having liquor for darkening the colour of beer, hid and concealed.

Isaac Hebberd, for having liquor for darkening the colour of beer, hid and concealed.

Ph. Whitcombe, John Dunn, and Arthur Waller, druggists, for making liquor for darkening the colour of beer.

John Lord, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._ and costs.

John Smith Carr, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._ and costs.

Edward Fox, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 25_l._ and costs.

John Cooper, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 40_l._ and costs.

Joseph Bickering, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 40_l._ and costs.

John Howard, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 25_l._ and costs.

James Reynolds, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs.

Thomas Hammond, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._ and costs.

J. Mackway, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._

T. Renton, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and taking out a license.

R. Adamson, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and taking out a license.

W. Weaver, for selling Spanish liquorice to a brewer, 200_l._

J. Moss, for selling Spanish liquorice to a brewer.

Alex. Braden, for selling liquorice, 20_l._

J. Draper, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._

PORTER.

The method of brewing porter has not been the same at all times as it is at present.

At first, the only essential difference in the methods of brewing this liquor and that of other kinds of beer, was, that porter was brewed from brown malt only; and this gave to it both the colour and flavour required. Of late years it has been brewed from mixtures of pale and brown malt.

These, at some establishments, are mashed separately, and the worts from each are afterwards mixed together. The proportion of pale and brown malt, used for brewing porter, varies in different breweries; some employ nearly two parts of pale malt and one part of brown malt; but each brewer appears to have his own proportion; which the intelligent manufacturer varies, according to the nature and qualities of the malt. Three pounds of hops are, upon an average, allowed to every barrel, (thirty-six gallons) of porter.

When the price of malt, on account of the great increase in the price of barley during the late war, was very high, the London brewers discovered that a larger quantity of wort of a given strength could be obtained from pale malt than from brown malt. They therefore increased the quantity of the former and diminished that of the latter. This produced beer of a paler colour, and of a less bitter flavour. To remedy these disadvantages, they invented an artificial colouring substance, prepared by boiling brown sugar till it acquired a very dark brown colour; a solution of which was employed to darken the colour of the beer. Some brewers made use of the infusion of malt instead of sugar colouring. To impart to the beer a bitter taste, the fraudulent brewer employed quassia wood and wormwood as a substitute for hops.

But as the colouring of beer by means of sugar became in many instances a pretext for using illegal ingredients, the Legislature, apprehensive from the mischief that might, and actually did, result from it, passed an Act prohibiting the use of burnt sugar, in July 1817; and nothing but malt and hops is now allowed to enter into the composition of beer: even the use of isinglass for clarifying beer, is contrary to law.

No sooner had the beer-colouring Act been repealed, than other persons obtained a patent for effecting the purpose of imparting an artificial colour to porter, by means of brown malt, specifically prepared for that purpose only. The beer, coloured by the new method, is more liable to become spoiled, than when coloured by the process formerly practised. The colouring malt does not contain any considerable portion of saccharine matter. The grain is by mere torrefaction converted into a gum-like substance, wholly soluble in water, which renders the beer more liable to pass into the acetous fermentation than the common brown malt is capable of doing; because the latter, if prepared from good barley, contains a portion of saccharine matter, of which the patent malt is destitute.

But as brown malt is generally prepared from the worst kind of barley, and as the patent malt can only be made from good grain, it may become, on that account, an useful article to the brewer (at least, it gives colour and body to the beer;) but it cannot materially economise the quantity of malt necessary to produce good porter. Some brewers of eminence in this town have assured me, that the use of this mode of colouring beer is wholly unnecessary; and that porter of the requisite colour may be brewed better without it; hence this kind of malt is not used in their establishments. The quantity of gum-like matter which it contains, gives too much ferment to the beer, and renders it liable to spoil. Repeated experiments, made on a large scale, have settled this fact.

STRENGTH AND SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PORTER.

The strength of all kinds of beer, like that of wine, depends on the quantity of spirit contained in a given bulk of the liquor.

The reader need scarcely be told, that of no article there are more varieties than of porter. This, no doubt, arises from the different mode of manufacturing the beer, although the ingredients are the same. This difference is more striking in the porter manufactured among country brewers, than it is in the beer brewed by the eminent London porter brewers. The totality of the London porter exhibits but very slight differences, both with respect to strength or quantity of spirit, and solid extractive matter, contained in a given bulk of it. The spirit may be stated, upon an average, to be 4,50 per cent. in porter retailed at the publicans; the solid matter, is from twenty-one to twenty-three pounds per barrel of thirty-six gallons. The country-brewed porter is seldom well fermented, and seldom contains so large a quantity of spirit; it usually abounds in mucilage; hence it becomes turbid when mixed with alcohol. Such beer cannot keep, without becoming sour.

It has been matter of frequent complaint, that ALL the porter now brewed, is not what porter was formerly. This idea may be true with some exceptions. My professional occupations have, during these twenty-eight years, repeatedly obliged me to examine the strength of London porter, brewed by different brewers; and, from the minutes made on that subject, I am authorised to state, that the porter now brewed by the eminent London brewers, is unquestionably stronger than that which was brewed at different periods during the late French war. Samples of brown stout with which I have been obligingly favoured, whilst writing this Treatise, by Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co.--Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Co.--Messrs. Henry Meux and Co.--and other eminent brewers of this capital--afforded, upon an average, 7,25 per cent. of alcohol, of 0,833 specific gravity; and porter, from the same houses, yielded upon an average 5,25 per cent. of alcohol, of the same specific gravity;[55] this beer received from the brewers was taken from the same store from which the publicans are supplied.

It is nevertheless singular to observe, that from fifteen samples of beer of the same denominations, procured from different retailers, the proportions of spirit fell considerably short of the above quantities. Samples of brown stout, procured from the retailers, afforded, upon an average, 6,50 per cent. of alcohol; and the average strength of the porter was 4,50 per cent. Whence can this difference between the beer furnished by the brewer, and that retailed by the publican, arise? We shall not be at a loss to answer this question, when we find that so many retailers of porter have been prosecuted and convicted for mixing table beer with their strong beer; this is prohibited by law, as becomes obvious by the following words of the Act.[56]

"If any common or other brewer, innkeeper, victualler, or retailer of beer or ale, shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer, ale, or worts, with table beer, worts, or water, in any tub or measure, he shall forfeit 50_l._" The difference between strong and table beer, is thus settled by Parliament.

"All beer or ale[57] above the price of eighteen shillings per barrel, exclusive of ale duties now payable (viz. ten shillings per barrel,) or that may be hereafter payable in respect thereof, shall be deemed strong beer or ale; and all beer of the price of eighteen shillings the barrel or under, exclusive of the duty payable (viz. two shillings per barrel) in respect thereof, shall be deemed table beer within the meaning of this and all other Acts now in force, or that may hereafter be passed in relation to beer or ale or any duties thereon."

_List of Publicans prosecuted and convicted from 1815 to 1818, for adulterating Beer with illegal Ingredients, and for mixing Table Beer with their Strong Beer._[58]

William Atterbury, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 40_l._

Richard Dean, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50_l._

John Jay, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50_l._

James Atkinson, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 20_l._

Samuel Langworth, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 50_l._

Hannah Spencer, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 150_l._

---- Hoeg, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 5_l._

Richard Craddock, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing table beer with strong beer, 100_l._

James Harris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for receiving stale beer, and mixing it with strong beer, 42_l._ and costs.

Thomas Scoons, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing stale beer with strong beer, verdict 200_l._

Diones Geer and another, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 400_l._

Charles Coleman, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 35_l._ and costs.

William Orr, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 50_l._

John Gardiner, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 100_l._

John Morris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 20_l._

John Harbur, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixing strong and table beer, 50_l._

John Corrie, for mixing strong beer with table beer.

John Cape, for mixing strong beer with table beer.

Joseph Gudge, for mixing strong beer with small beer.

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES USED FOR ADULTERATING BEER.

We have stated already (p. 113) that nothing is allowed by law to enter into the composition of beer, but malt and hops.

The substances used by fraudulent brewers for adulterating beer, are chiefly the following:

Quassia, which gives to beer a bitter taste, is substituted for hops; but hops possesses a more agreeable aromatic flavour, and there is also reason to believe that they render beer less liable to spoil by keeping; a property which does not belong to quassia. It requires but little discrimination to distinguish very clearly the peculiar bitterness of quassia in adulterated porter. Vast quantities of the shavings of this wood are sold in a half-torrefied and ground state to disguise its obvious character, and to prevent its being recognised among the waste materials of the brewers. Wormwood[59] has likewise been used by fraudulent brewers.

The adulterating of hops is prohibited by the Legislature.[60]

"If any person shall put any drug or ingredient whatever into hops to alter the colour or scent thereof, every person so offending, convicted by the oath of one witness before one justice of peace for the county or place where the offence was committed, shall forfeit 5_l._ for every hundred weight."

Beer rendered bitter by quassia never keeps well, unless it be kept in a place possessing a temperature considerably lower than the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere; and this is not well practicable in large establishments.

The use of boiling the wort of beer with hops, is partly to communicate a peculiar aromatic flavour which the hop contains, partly to cover the sweetness of undecomposed saccharine matter, and also to separate, by virtue of the gallic acid and tannin it contains, a portion of a peculiar vegetable mucilage somewhat resembling gluten, which is still diffused through the beer. The compound thus produced, separates in small flakes like those of curdled soap; and by these means the beer is rendered less liable to spoil. For nothing contributes more to the conversion of beer, or any other vinous fluid, into vinegar, than mucilage. Hence, also, all full-bodied and clammy ales, abounding in mucilage, and which are generally ill fermented, do not keep as perfect ale ought to do. Quassia is, therefore, unfit as a substitute for hops; and even English hops are preferable to those imported from the Continent; for nitrate of silver and acetate of lead produce a more abundant precipitate from an infusion of English hops, than can be obtained from a like infusion by the same agents from foreign hops.

One of the qualities of good porter, is, that it should bear _a fine frothy head_, as it is technically termed: because professed judges of this beverage, would not pronounce the liquor excellent, although it possessed all other good qualities of porter, without this requisite.