To see all content, you will need the current version of Adobe Flash Player to view it.

Homepage Beer Videos Links Contact Pure Brewed Your Say Hymn to Ninkasi Historic Beer Literature A Treatise On Brewing Beer 1796 The London And Country Brewer 1736 Adulteration Of Beer 1820 (Excerpt) Beer Facts Brewering Process A Briefer History Of Beer Beer Quotes Cooking With Beer Beer Gods Newkie Brown Cauliflower Cheese Soup Slow Cooked Pork In Ale Steak And Ale Stew Farmhouse Pot Roast About The Reviews Example Video Pint Size Bits Brewery Tours Northcote Blackfriars Panther 2 Panther 3 Hackney Brewery Hackney Brewery Update 1 Hop Chart A Hop Chart B 

Adulteration Of Beer 1820 (Excerpt)

Excerpt fromA TREATISEONADULTERATIONS OF FOOD,ANDCulinary Poisons,EXHIBITINGTHE FRAUDULENT SOPHISTICATIONSOFBREAD, BEER, WINE, SPIRITOUS LIQUORS, TEA, COFFEE,Cream, Confectionery, Vinegar, Mustard, Pepper, Cheese, Olive Oil, Pickles,AND OTHER ARTICLES EMPLOYED IN DOMESTIC ECONOMYANDMethods of detecting them...BY FREDRICK ACCUM,Operative Chemist, and Member of the Principal Acadamies and Society of Arts and Sciences in Europe.Philadelphia:PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY AB'M SMALL1820.ExcerptAdulteration of Beer.Malt liquors, and particularly porter, the favourite beverage of theinhabitants of London, and of other large towns, is amongst thosearticles, in the manufacture of which the greatest frauds are frequentlycommitted.The statute prohibits the brewer from using any ingredients in hisbrewings, except malt and hops; but it too often happens that those whosuppose they are drinking a nutritious beverage, made of theseingredients only, are entirely deceived. The beverage may, in fact, beneither more nor less than a compound of the most deleterioussubstances; and it is also clear that all ranks of society are alikeexposed to the nefarious fraud. The proofs of this statement will beshewn hereafter.[48]The author[49] of a Practical Treatise on Brewing, which has runthrough eleven editions, after having stated the various ingredients forbrewing porter, observes, "that however much they may surprise, howeverpernicious or disagreeable they may appear, he has always found themrequisite in the brewing of porter, and he thinks they must invariablybe used by those who wish to continue the taste, flavour, and appearanceof the beer.[50] And though several Acts of Parliament have been passedto prevent porter brewers from using many of them, yet the author canaffirm, from experience, he could never produce the present flavouredporter without them.[51] The intoxicating qualities of porter are to beascribed to the various drugs intermixed with it. It is evident someporter is more heady than other, and it arises from the greater or lessquantity of stupifying ingredients. Malt, to produce intoxication, mustbe used in such large quantities as would very much diminish, if nottotally exclude, the brewer's profit."The practice of adulterating beer appears to be of early date. By anAct so long ago as Queen Anne, the brewers are prohibited from mixing_cocculus indicus_, or any unwholesome ingredients, in their beer, undersevere penalties: but few instances of convictions under this act are tobe met with in the public records for nearly a century. To shew thatthey have augmented in our own days, we shall exhibit an abstract fromdocuments laid lately before Parliament.[52]These will not only amply prove, that unwholesome ingredients are usedby fraudulent brewers, and that very deleterious substances are alsovended both to brewers and publicans for adulterating beer, but that theingredients mixed up in the brewer's enchanting cauldron are placedabove 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 bynarcotic substances, appears to have flourished during the period of thelate French war; for, if we examine the importation lists of drugs, itwill be noticed that the quantities of cocculus indicus imported in agiven time prior to that period, will bear no comparison with thequantity imported in the same space of time during the war, although anadditional duty was laid upon this commodity. Such has been the amountbrought into this country in five years, that it far exceeds thequantity imported during twelve years anterior to the above epoch. Theprice of this drug has risen within these ten years from two shillingsto seven shillings the pound.It was at the period to which we have alluded, that the preparation ofan extract of cocculus indicus first appeared, as a new saleablecommodity, in the price-currents of _brewers'-druggists_. It was at thesame time, also, that a Mr. Jackson, of notorious memory, fell upon theidea of brewing beer from various drugs, without any malt and hops. Thischemist did not turn brewer himself; but he struck out the moreprofitable trade of teaching his mystery to the brewers for a handsomefee. From that time forwards, written directions, and recipe-books forusing the chemical preparations to be substituted for malt and hops,were respectively sold; and many adepts soon afterwards appeared everywhere, to instruct brewers in the nefarious practice, first pointed outby Mr. Jackson. From that time, also, the fraternity ofbrewers'-chemists took its rise. They made it their chief business tosend travellers all over the country with lists and samples exhibitingthe price and quality of the articles manufactured by them for the useof brewers only. Their trade spread far and wide, but it was amongst thecountry brewers chiefly that they found the most customers; and it isamongst them, up to the present day, as I am assured by some of theseoperators, on whose veracity I can rely, that the greatest quantities ofunlawful ingredients are sold.The Act of Parliament[53] prohibits chemists, grocers, and druggists,from supplying illegal ingredients to brewers under a heavy penalty, asis obvious from the following abstract of the Act."No druggist, vender of, or dealer in drugs, or chemist, or otherperson, shall sell or deliver to any licensed brewer, dealer in orretailer of beer, knowing him to be such, or shall sell or deliver toany person on account of or in trust for any such brewer, dealer orretailer, any liquor called by the name of or sold as colouring, fromwhatever material the same may be made, or any material or preparationother than unground brown malt for darkening the colour of worts orbeer, or any liquor or preparation made use of for darkening the colourof worts or beer, or any molasses, honey, vitriol, quassia, cocculusIndian, grains of paradise, Guinea pepper or opium, or any extract orpreparation of molasses, or any article or preparation to be used inworts or beer for or as a substitute for malt or hops; and if anydruggist shall offend in any of these particulars, such liquorpreparation, molasses, &c. shall be forfeited, and may be seized by anyofficer of excise, and the person so offending shall for each offenceforfeit 500_l._"The following is a list of druggists and grocers, prosecuted by theCourt of Excise, and convicted of supplying unlawful ingredients tobrewers._List of Druggists and Grocers, prosecuted and convicted from 1812 to1819, for supplying illegal Ingredients to Brewers for adulteratingBeer._[54]John Dunn and another, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredientsto brewers, verdict 500_l._George Rugg and others, druggists, for selling adulterating ingredientsto brewers, verdict 500_l._John Hodgkinson and others, for selling adulterating ingredients tobrewers, 100_l._ and costs.William Hiscocks and others, for selling adulterating ingredients to abrewer, 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 abrewer, 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 havingliquor for darkening the colour of beer, hid and concealed.Isaac Hebberd, for having liquor for darkening the colour of beer, hidand concealed.Ph. Whitcombe, John Dunn, and Arthur Waller, druggists, for makingliquor 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._ andcosts.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._ andcosts.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._ andcosts.J. Mackway, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, 20_l._T. Renton, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and takingout a license.R. Adamson, grocer, for selling molasses to a brewer, costs, and takingout 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 isat present.At first, the only essential difference in the methods of brewing thisliquor and that of other kinds of beer, was, that porter was brewed frombrown malt only; and this gave to it both the colour and flavourrequired. Of late years it has been brewed from mixtures of pale andbrown malt.These, at some establishments, are mashed separately, and the worts fromeach are afterwards mixed together. The proportion of pale and brownmalt, used for brewing porter, varies in different breweries; someemploy nearly two parts of pale malt and one part of brown malt; buteach brewer appears to have his own proportion; which the intelligentmanufacturer 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 ofbarley during the late war, was very high, the London brewers discoveredthat a larger quantity of wort of a given strength could be obtainedfrom pale malt than from brown malt. They therefore increased thequantity of the former and diminished that of the latter. This producedbeer of a paler colour, and of a less bitter flavour. To remedy thesedisadvantages, they invented an artificial colouring substance, preparedby boiling brown sugar till it acquired a very dark brown colour; asolution of which was employed to darken the colour of the beer. Somebrewers made use of the infusion of malt instead of sugar colouring. Toimpart to the beer a bitter taste, the fraudulent brewer employedquassia wood and wormwood as a substitute for hops.But as the colouring of beer by means of sugar became in many instancesa pretext for using illegal ingredients, the Legislature, apprehensivefrom the mischief that might, and actually did, result from it, passedan Act prohibiting the use of burnt sugar, in July 1817; and nothing butmalt and hops is now allowed to enter into the composition of beer: eventhe use of isinglass for clarifying beer, is contrary to law.No sooner had the beer-colouring Act been repealed, than other personsobtained a patent for effecting the purpose of imparting an artificialcolour to porter, by means of brown malt, specifically prepared for thatpurpose only. The beer, coloured by the new method, is more liable tobecome spoiled, than when coloured by the process formerly practised.The colouring malt does not contain any considerable portion ofsaccharine matter. The grain is by mere torrefaction converted into agum-like substance, wholly soluble in water, which renders the beermore liable to pass into the acetous fermentation than the common brownmalt is capable of doing; because the latter, if prepared from goodbarley, contains a portion of saccharine matter, of which the patentmalt 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 givescolour and body to the beer;) but it cannot materially economise thequantity of malt necessary to produce good porter. Some brewers ofeminence in this town have assured me, that the use of this mode ofcolouring beer is wholly unnecessary; and that porter of the requisitecolour may be brewed better without it; hence this kind of malt is notused in their establishments. The quantity of gum-like matter which itcontains, gives too much ferment to the beer, and renders it liable tospoil. Repeated experiments, made on a large scale, have settled thisfact.STRENGTH AND SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PORTER.The strength of all kinds of beer, like that of wine, depends on thequantity of spirit contained in a given bulk of the liquor.The reader need scarcely be told, that of no article there are morevarieties than of porter. This, no doubt, arises from the different modeof manufacturing the beer, although the ingredients are the same. Thisdifference is more striking in the porter manufactured among countrybrewers, than it is in the beer brewed by the eminent London porterbrewers. The totality of the London porter exhibits but very slightdifferences, both with respect to strength or quantity of spirit, andsolid extractive matter, contained in a given bulk of it. The spirit maybe stated, upon an average, to be 4,50 per cent. in porter retailed atthe publicans; the solid matter, is from twenty-one to twenty-threepounds per barrel of thirty-six gallons. The country-brewed porter isseldom well fermented, and seldom contains so large a quantity ofspirit; it usually abounds in mucilage; hence it becomes turbid whenmixed with alcohol. Such beer cannot keep, without becoming sour.It has been matter of frequent complaint, that ALL the porternow brewed, is not what porter was formerly. This idea may be true withsome exceptions. My professional occupations have, during thesetwenty-eight years, repeatedly obliged me to examine the strength ofLondon porter, brewed by different brewers; and, from the minutes madeon that subject, I am authorised to state, that the porter now brewed bythe eminent London brewers, is unquestionably stronger than that whichwas brewed at different periods during the late French war. Samples ofbrown stout with which I have been obligingly favoured, whilst writingthis Treatise, by Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co.--Messrs. Truman,Hanbury, and Co.--Messrs. Henry Meux and Co.--and other eminent brewersof this capital--afforded, upon an average, 7,25 per cent. of alcohol,of 0,833 specific gravity; and porter, from the same houses, yieldedupon an average 5,25 per cent. of alcohol, of the same specificgravity;[55] this beer received from the brewers was taken from thesame store from which the publicans are supplied.It is nevertheless singular to observe, that from fifteen samples ofbeer of the same denominations, procured from different retailers, theproportions of spirit fell considerably short of the above quantities.Samples of brown stout, procured from the retailers, afforded, upon anaverage, 6,50 per cent. of alcohol; and the average strength of theporter was 4,50 per cent. Whence can this difference between the beerfurnished by the brewer, and that retailed by the publican, arise? Weshall not be at a loss to answer this question, when we find that somany retailers of porter have been prosecuted and convicted for mixingtable beer with their strong beer; this is prohibited by law, as becomesobvious by the following words of the Act.[56]"If any common or other brewer, innkeeper, victualler, or retailer ofbeer or ale, shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer, ale, orworts, with table beer, worts, or water, in any tub or measure, he shallforfeit 50_l._" The difference between strong and table beer, is thussettled 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,) orthat may be hereafter payable in respect thereof, shall be deemed strongbeer or ale; and all beer of the price of eighteen shillings the barrelor under, exclusive of the duty payable (viz. two shillings per barrel)in respect thereof, shall be deemed table beer within the meaning ofthis and all other Acts now in force, or that may hereafter be passed inrelation to beer or ale or any duties thereon."_List of Publicans prosecuted and convicted from 1815 to 1818, foradulterating Beer with illegal Ingredients, and for mixing Table Beerwith their Strong Beer._[58]William Atterbury, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 40_l._Richard Dean, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 50_l._John Jay, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixingtable beer with strong beer, 50_l._James Atkinson, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 20_l._Samuel Langworth, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 50_l._Hannah Spencer, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 150_l._---- Hoeg, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixingtable beer with strong beer, 5_l._Richard Craddock, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing table beer with strong beer, 100_l._James Harris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and forreceiving stale beer, and mixing it with strong beer, 42_l._ and costs.Thomas Scoons, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing 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 formixing strong and table beer, 35_l._ and costs.William Orr, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixingstrong and table beer, 50_l._John Gardiner, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and formixing strong and table beer, 100_l._John Morris, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixingstrong and table beer, 20_l._John Harbur, for using salt of steel, salt, molasses, &c. and for mixingstrong 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 enterinto the composition of beer, but malt and hops.The substances used by fraudulent brewers for adulterating beer, arechiefly 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 alsoreason to believe that they render beer less liable to spoil by keeping;a property which does not belong to quassia. It requires but littlediscrimination to distinguish very clearly the peculiar bitterness ofquassia in adulterated porter. Vast quantities of the shavings of thiswood are sold in a half-torrefied and ground state to disguise itsobvious character, and to prevent its being recognised among the wastematerials of the brewers. Wormwood[59] has likewise been used byfraudulent brewers.The adulterating of hops is prohibited by the Legislature.[60]"If any person shall put any drug or ingredient whatever into hops toalter the colour or scent thereof, every person so offending, convictedby the oath of one witness before one justice of peace for the county orplace where the offence was committed, shall forfeit 5_l._ for everyhundred weight."Beer rendered bitter by quassia never keeps well, unless it be kept in aplace possessing a temperature considerably lower than the temperatureof the surrounding atmosphere; and this is not well practicable in largeestablishments.The use of boiling the wort of beer with hops, is partly to communicatea peculiar aromatic flavour which the hop contains, partly to cover thesweetness of undecomposed saccharine matter, and also to separate, byvirtue of the gallic acid and tannin it contains, a portion of apeculiar vegetable mucilage somewhat resembling gluten, which is stilldiffused through the beer. The compound thus produced, separates insmall flakes like those of curdled soap; and by these means the beer isrendered less liable to spoil. For nothing contributes more to theconversion of beer, or any other vinous fluid, into vinegar, thanmucilage. Hence, also, all full-bodied and clammy ales, abounding inmucilage, and which are generally ill fermented, do not keep as perfectale ought to do. Quassia is, therefore, unfit as a substitute for hops;and even English hops are preferable to those imported from theContinent; for nitrate of silver and acetate of lead produce a moreabundant precipitate from an infusion of English hops, than can beobtained from a like infusion by the same agents from foreign hops.One of the qualities of good porter, is, that it should bear _a finefrothy head_, as it is technically termed: because professed judges ofthis beverage, would not pronounce the liquor excellent, although itpossessed all other good qualities of porter, without this requisite.To impart to porter this property of frothing when poured from onevessel into another, or to produce what is also termed a _cauliflowerhead_, the mixture called _beer-heading_, composed of common greenvitriol (sulphate of iron,) alum, and salt, is added. This addition tothe beer is generally made by the publicans.[61] It is unnecessary togenuine beer, which of itself possesses the property of bearing a strongwhite froth, without these additions; and it is only in consequence oftable beer being mixed with strong beer, that the frothing property ofthe porter is lost. From experiments I have tried on this subject, Ihave reason to believe that the sulphate of iron, added for thatpurpose, does not possess the power ascribed to it. But the publicansfrequently, when they fine a butt of beer, by means of isinglass,adulterate the porter at the same time with table beer, together with aquantity of molasses and a small portion of extract of gentian root, tokeep up the peculiar flavour of the porter; and it is to the molasseschiefly, which gives a spissitude to the beer, that the frothingproperty must be ascribed; for, without it, the sulphate of iron doesnot produce the property of frothing in diluted beer.Capsicum and grains of paradise, two highly acrid substances, areemployed to give a pungent taste to weak insipid beer. Of late, aconcentrated tincture of these articles, to be used for a similarpurpose, and possessing a powerful effect, has appeared in theprice-currents of brewers' druggists. Ginger root, coriander seed, andorange peels, are employed as flavouring substances chiefly by the alebrewers.From these statements, and the seizures that have been made of illegalingredients at various breweries, it is obvious that the adulterationsof beer are not imaginary. It will be noticed, however, that some of thesophistications are comparatively harmless, whilst others are effectedby substances deleterious to health.The following list exhibits some of the unlawful substances seized atdifferent breweries and at chemical laboratories._List of Illegal Ingredients, seized from 1812 to 1818, at variousBreweries and Brewers' Druggists._[62]1812, July. Josiah Nibbs, at Tooting, Surrey. Multum 84 lbs. Cocculus indicus 12 Colouring 4 galls. Honey about 180 lbs. Hartshorn Shavings 14 Spanish Juice 46 Orange Powder 17 Ginger 56Penalty 300_l._1813, June 13. Sarah Willis, at West Ham, Essex. Cocculus indicus 1 lb. Spanish Juice 12 Hartshorn Shavings 6 Orange Powder 1Penalty 200_l._August 3. Cratcherode Whiffing, Limehouse. Grains of Paradise 44 lbs. Quassia 10 Liquorice 64 Ginger 80 Caraway Seeds 40 Orange Powder 14 Copperas 4Penalty 200_l._Nov. 25. Elizabeth Hasler, at Stratford. Cocculus indicus 12 lbs. Multum 26 Grains of Paradise 12 Spanish Juice 30 Orange Powder 3Penalty 200_l._Dec. 14. John Abbott, at Canterbury, Kent. Copperas, &c. 14 lbs. Orange powder 2Penalty 500_l._, and Crown's costs.Proof of using drugs at various times.1815, Feb. 15. Mantel and Cook, Castle-street, Bloomsbury-square.Proof of mixing strong with table beer, and using colouring and otherthings.Compromised for 300_l._1817. From Peter Stevenson, an old Servant to Dunn and Waller, St.John-street, brewers' druggists. Cocculus Indicus Extract 6 lbs. Multum 560 Capsicum 88 Copperas 310 Quassia 150 Colouring and Drugs 84 Mixed Drugs 240 Spanish Liquorice 420 Hartshorn Shavings 77 Liquorice Powder 175 Orange powder 126 Caraway Seeds 100 Ginger 110 Ginger Root 176Condemned, not being claimed.July 30. Luke Lyons, Shadwell. Capsicum 1 lb Liquorice Root Powder 2 Coriander Seed 2 Copperas 1 Orange Powder 8 Spanish Liquorice 1/2 Beer Colouring 24 gallsNot tried. (7th May, 1818.)Aug. 6. John Gray, at West Ham. Multum 4 lbs. Spanish Liquorice 21 Liquorice Root Powder 113 Ginger 116 Honey 11Penalty, 300_l._, and costs; including mixing strong beer with table,and paying table-beer duty for strong beer, &c. * * * * *Numerous other seizures of illegal substances, made at breweries, mightbe advanced, were it necessary to enlarge this subject to a greaterextent.Mr. James West, from the excise office, being asked in the Committee ofthe House of Commons, appointed, 1819, to examine and report on thepetition of several inhabitants of London, complaining of the high priceand inferior quality of beer, produced the following seizedarticles:--"One bladder of honey, one bladder of extract of cocculusindicus, ground guinea pepper or capsicum, vitriol or copperas, orangepowder, quassia, ground beer-heading, hard multum, another kind ofmultum or beer preparation, liquorice powder, and ground grains ofparadise."Witness being asked "Where did you seize these things?" Answer, "Some ofthem were seized from brewers, and some of them from brewers'druggists, within these two years past." (May 8, 1818.)Another fraud frequently committed, both by brewers and publicans, (asis evident from the Excise Report,) is the practice of adulteratingstrong beer with small beer--This fraud is prohibited by law, since boththe revenue and the public suffer by it.[63] "The duty upon strong beeris ten shillings a barrel; and upon table beer it is two shillings. Therevenue suffers, because a larger quantity of beer is sold as strongbeer; that is, at a price exceeding the price of table beer, without thestrong beer duty being paid. In the next place, the brewer suffers,because the retailer gets table or mild beer, and retails it as strongbeer." The following are the words of the Act, prohibiting the brewersmixing table beer with strong beer."If any common brewer shall mix or suffer to be mixed any strong beer,or strong worts with table beer or table worts, or with water in anyguile or fermenting tun after the declaration of the quantity of suchguile shall have been made; or if he shall at any time mix or suffer tobe mixed strong beer or strong worts with table beer worts or withwater, in any vat, cask, tub, measures or utensil, not being an enteredguile or fermenting tun, he shall forfeit 200 pounds."[64]With respect to the persons who commit this offence, Mr. Carr,[65] theSolicitor of the Excise, observes, that "they are generally brewers whocarry on the double trade of brewing both strong and table beer. It isalmost impossible to prevent them from mixing one with the other; andfrauds of very great extent have been detected, and the parties punishedfor that offence. One brewer at Plymouth evaded duties to the amount of32,000 pounds; and other brewers, who brew party guiles of beer,carrying on the two trades of ale and table beer brewers, where thetrade is a victualling brewer, which is different from the commonbrewer, he being a person who sells only wholesale; the victuallingbrewer being a brewer and also a seller by retail.""In the neighbourhood of London," Mr. Carr continues, "moreparticularly, I speak from having had great experience, from theinformations and evidence which I have received, that the retailerscarry on a most extensive fraud upon the public, in purchasing staletable beer, or the bottoms of casks. There are a class of men who goabout and sell such beer at table-beer price to public victuallers, whomix it in their cellars. If they receive beer from their brewers whichis mild, they purchase stale beer; and if they receive stale beer, theypurchase common table beer for that purpose; and many of theprosecutions are against retailers for that offence." The following mayserve in proof of this statement._List of Brewers prosecuted and convicted from 1813 to 1819, foradulterating Strong Beer with Table Beer._[66]Thomas Manton and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer,verdict 300_l._Mark Morrell and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer,20_l._ and costs.Robert Jones and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer,verdict 125_l._Robert Stroad, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 200_l._ andcosts.William Cobbett, brewer, mixing strong and table beer, 100_l._ andcosts.Thomas Richard Withers, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 75_l._and costs.John Cowel, brewer, for mixing table beer with strong, 50_l._ and costs.John Mitchell, brewer, for mixing table beer with strong, absconded.George Lloyd and another, brewers, for mixing table beer with strong,25_l._ and costs.James Edmunds and another, brewers, for mixing table beer with strong,for a long period, verdict 600_l._John Hoffman, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, and usingmolasses, 130_l._ and costs.Samuel Langworth, brewer, for mixing strong with stale table beer,10_l._ and costs.Hannah Spencer, brewer, for mixing strong with stale table beer, verdict150_l._Joseph Smith and others, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer.Philip George, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 200_l._Joshua Row, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, verdict 400_l._John Drew, jun. and another, for mixing strong beer with table, 50_l._and costs.John Cape, brewer, for mixing strong and table beer, 250_l._ and costs.John Williams and another, brewers, for mixing strong and table beer,verdict 200_l._OLD, OR ENTIRE; AND NEW, OR MILD BEER.It is necessary to state, that every publican has two sorts of beer sentto him from the brewer; the one is called _mild_, which is beer sent outfresh as it is brewed; the other is called _old_; that is, such as isbrewed on purpose for keeping, and which has been kept in store atwelve-month or eighteen months. The origin of the beer called_entire_, is thus related by the editor of the Picture of London:"Before the year 1730, the malt liquors in general used in London wereale, beer, and two-penny; and it was customary to call for a pint, ortankard, of half-and-half, _i.e._ half of ale and half of beer, half ofale and half of two-penny. In course of time it also became the practiceto call for a pint or tankard of _three-threads_, meaning a third ofale, beer, and two-penny; and thus the publican had the trouble to go tothree casks, and turn three cocks, for a pint of liquor. To avoid thisinconvenience and waste, a brewer of the name of Harwood conceived theidea of making a liquor, which should partake of the same unitedflavours of ale, beer, and two-penny; he did so, and succeeded, callingit _entire_, or entire butt, meaning that it was drawn entirely from onecask or butt; and as it was a very hearty and nourishing liquor, andsupposed to be very suitable for porters and other working people, itobtained the name of _porter_." The system is now altered, and porter isvery generally compounded of two kinds, or rather the same liquor in twodifferent states, the due admixture of which is palatable, thoughneither is good alone. One is _mild_ porter, and the other _stale_porter; the former is that which has a slightly bitter flavour; thelatter has been kept longer. This mixture the publican adapts to thepalates of his several customers, and effects the mixture very readily,by means of a machine, containing small pumps worked by handles. Inthese are four pumps, but only three spouts, because two of the pumpsthrow out at the same spout: one of these two pumps draws the mild, andthe other the stale porter, from the casks down in the cellar; and thepublican, by dexterously changing his hold works either pump, and drawsboth kinds of beer at the same spout. An indifferent observer supposes,that since it all comes from one spout, it is entire butt beer, as thepublican professes over his door, and which has been decided by vulgarprejudice to be only good porter, though the difference is not easilydistinguished. I have been informed by several eminent brewers, that oflate, a far greater quantity is consumed of mild than of stale beer.The entire beer of the modern brewer, according to the statement of C.Barclay,[67] Esq. "consists of some beer brewed expressly for thepurpose of keeping: it likewise contains a portion of returns frompublicans; a portion of beer from the bottoms of vats; the beer that isdrawn off from the pipes, which convey the beer from one vat to another,and from one part of the premises to another. This beer is collected andput into vats. Mr. Barclay also states that it contains a certainportion of brown stout, which is twenty shillings a barrel dearer thancommon beer; and some bottling beer, which is ten shillings a barreldearer;[68] and that all these beers, united, are put into vats, andthat it depends upon various circumstances, how long they may remain inthose vats before they become perfectly bright. When bright, this beeris sent out to the publicans, for their _entire_ beer, and there issometimes a small quantity of mild beer mixed with it."The present entire beer, therefore, is a very heterogeneous mixture,composed of all the waste and spoiled beer of the publicans--the bottomsof butts--the leavings of the pots--the drippings of the machines fordrawing the beer--the remnants of beer that lay in the leaden pipes ofthe brewery, with a portion of brown stout, bottling beer, and mildbeer.The old or _entire_ beer we have examined, as obtained from Messrs.Barclay's, and other eminent London brewers, is unquestionably a goodcompound; but it does no longer appear to be necessary, among fraudulentbrewers, to brew beer on purpose for keeping, or to keep it twelve oreighteen months. A more easy, expeditious, and economical method hasbeen discovered to convert any sort of beer into entire beer, merely bythe admixture of a portion of sulphuric acid. An imitation of the age ofeighteen months is thus produced in an instant. This process istechnically called to bring beer _forward_, or to make it _hard_.The practice is a bad one. The genuine, old, or entire beer, of thehonest brewer, is quite a different compound; it has a rich, generous,full-bodied taste, without being acid, and a vinous odour: but it may,perhaps, not be generally known that this kind of beer always affords aless proportion of alcohol than is produced from mild beer. The practiceof bringing beer _forward_, it is to be understood, is resorted to onlyby fraudulent brewers.[69]If, on the contrary, the brewer has too large a stock of old beer on hishands, recourse is had to an opposite practice of converting stale,half-spoiled, or sour beer, into mild beer, by the simple admixture ofan alkali, or an alkaline earth. Oyster-shell powder and subcarbonate ofpotash, or soda, are usually employed for that purpose. These substancesneutralise the excess of acid, and render sour beer somewhat palatable.By this process the beer becomes very liable to spoil.It is the worst expedient that the brewer can practise: the beer thusrendered _mild_, soon loses its vinous taste; it becomes vapid; andspeedily assumes a muddy grey colour, and an exceedingly disagreeabletaste.These sophistications may be considered, at first, as minor crimespractised by fraudulent brewers, when compared with the methods employedby them for rendering beer noxious to health by substances absolutelyinjurious.To increase the intoxicating quality of beer, the deleterious vegetablesubstance, called _cocculus indicus_, and the extract of this poisonousberry, technically called _black extract_, or, by some, _hard multum_,are employed. Opium, tobacco, nux vomica, and extract of poppies, havealso been used.This fraud constitutes by far the most censurable offence committed byunprincipled brewers; and it is a lamentable reflection to behold sogreat a number of brewers prosecuted and convicted of this crime; nor isit less deplorable to find the names of druggists, eminent in trade,implicated in the fraud, by selling the unlawful ingredients to brewersfor fraudulent purposes._List of Brewers prosecuted and convicted from 1813 to 1819, forreceiving and using illegal Ingredients in their Brewings._[70]Richard Gardner, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, 100_l._,judgment by default.Stephen Webb and another, brewers, for using adulterating ingredients,and mixing strong and table beer, verdict 500_l._Henry Wyatt, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, verdict 400_l._John Harbart, retailer, for receiving adulterating ingredients, verdict150_l._Philip Blake and others, brewers, for using adulterating ingredients,and mixing strong and table beer, verdict 250_l._James Sneed, for receiving adulterating ingredients, 25_l._ and costs.John Rewell and another, brewers, ditto, verdict 100_l._John Swain and another, ditto, for using adulterating ingredients,verdict 200_l._John Ing, brewer, ditto, stayed on defendant's death.John Hall, ditto, for receiving adulterating ingredients, 5_l._ andcosts.John Webb, retailer, for using adulterating ingredients.Ralph Fogg and another, brewers, for receiving and using adulteratingingredients.John Gray, brewer, for using adulterating ingredients, 300_l._ andcosts.Richard Bowman, for using liquid in bladder, supposed to be extract ofcocculus, 100_l._Richard Bowman, brewer, for ditto, 100_l._ and costs.Septimus Stephens, brewer, for ditto, verdict 50_l._James Rogers and another, brewer, for ditto, 220_l._ and costs.George Moore, brewer, for using colouring, 300_l._ and costs.John Morris, for using adulterating ingredients.Webb and Ball, for using ginger, Guinea pepper, and brown powder, (nameunknown), 1st 100_l._ 2nd 500_l._Henry Clarke, for using molasses, 150_l._Kewell and Burrows, for using cocculus india, multum, &c. 100_l._Allatson and Abraham, for using cocculus india, multum, and porterflavour, 630_l._Swain and Sewell, for using cocculus india, Guinea-opium, &c. 200_l._John Ing, for using cocculus india, hard colouring, and honey, _dead_.William Dean, for using molasses, 50_l._John Cowell, for using Spanish-liquorice, and mixing table beer withstrong beer, 50_l._John Mitchell, for using cocculus india, vitriol, and Guinea pepper,_left the country_.Lloyd and Man, for using extract of cocculus, 25_l._John Gray, for using ginger, hartshorn shavings, and molasses, 300_l._Jon Hoffman, for using molasses, Spanish juice, and mixing table withstrong beer, 130_l._Rogers and Boon, for using extract of cocculus, multum, porter flavour,&c. 220_l._---- Betteley, for using wormwood, coriander seed, and Spanish juice,200_l._William Lane, brewer, for using wormwood instead of hops, 5_l._ andcosts. * * * * *That a minute portion of an unwholesome ingredient, daily taken in beer,cannot fail to be productive of mischief, admits of no doubt; and thereis reasons to believe that a small quantity of a narcotic substance (andcocculus indicus is a powerful narcotic[71]), daily taken into thestomach, together with an intoxicating liquor, is highly moreefficacious than it would be without the liquor. The effect may begradual; and a strong constitution, especially if it be assisted withconstant and hard labour, may counteract the destructive consequencesperhaps for many years; but it never fails to shew its baneful effectsat last. Independent of this, it is a well-established fact, that porterdrinkers are very liable to apoplexy and palsy, without taking thisnarcotic poison.If we judge from the preceding lists of prosecutions and convictionsfurnished by the Solicitor of the Excise[72], it will be evident thatmany wholesale brewers, as well as retail dealers, stand veryconspicuous among those offenders. But the reader will likewise notice,that there are no convictions, in any instance, against any of theeleven great London porter brewers[73] for any illegal practice. Thegreat London brewers, it appears, believe that the publicans aloneadulterate the beer. That many of the latter have been convicted of thisfraud, the Report of the Board of Excise amply shews.--See p. 129.The following statement relating to this subject, we transcribe from aParliamentary document:[74]Mr. Perkins being asked, whether he believed that any of the inferiorbrewers adulterated beer, answered, "I am satisfied there are someinstances of that."_Question._--"Do you believe publicans do?" _Answer._--"I believe theydo." _Q._--"To a great extent?" _A._--"Yes." _Q._--"Do you believe theyadulterate the beer you sell them?" _A._--"I am satisfied there aresome instances of that."--Mr. J. Martineau[75] being asked the following_Question._[76]--"In your judgment is any of the beer of the metropolis,as retailed to the publican, mixed with any deleterious ingredients?"_Answer._--"In retailing beer, in some instances, it has been."_Question._--"By whom, in your opinion, has that been done?"_Answer._--"In that case by the publicans who vend it."On this point, it is but fair, to the minor brewers, to record also theanswers of some officers of the revenue, when they were asked whetherthey considered it more difficult to detect nefarious practices in largebreweries than in small ones.Mr. J. Rogers being thus questioned in the Committee of the House ofCommons,[77] "Supposing the large brewers to use deleterious or anyillegal ingredients to such an amount as could be of any importance totheir concern, do you think it would, or would not, be more easy todetect it in those large breweries, than in small ones?" his answer was,"more difficult to detect it in the large ones:" and witness being askedto state the reason why, answered, "Their premises are so much larger,and there is so much more strength, that a cart load or two is got ridof in a minute or two." Witness "had known, in five minutes, twentybarrels of molasses got rid of as soon as the door was shut."Another witness, W. Wells, an excise officer,[78] in describing thecontrivances used to prevent detection, stated, that at a brewer's, atWestham, the adulterating substances "were not kept on the premises, butin the brewer's house; not the principal, but the working brewers; itnot being considered, when there, as liable to seizure: the brewer had avery large jacket made expressly for that purpose, with very largepockets; and, on brewing mornings, he would take his pockets full of thedifferent ingredients. Witness supposed that such a man's jacket,similar to what he had described, would convey quite sufficient for anybrewery in England, as to _cocculus indicus_."That it may be more difficult for the officers of the excise to detectfraudulent practices in large breweries than in small ones, may be trueto a certain extent: but what eminent London porter brewer would stakehis reputation on the chance of so paltry a gain, in which he wouldinevitably be at the mercy of his own man? The eleven great porterbrewers of this metropolis are persons of so high respectability, thatthere is no ground for the slightest suspicion that they would attemptany illegal practices, which they were aware could not possibly escapedetection in their extensive establishments. And let it be remembered,that none of them have been detected for any unlawful practices,[79]with regard to the processes of their manufacture, or the adulterationof their beer.METHOD OF DETECTING THE ADULTERATION OF BEER.The detection of the adulteration of beer with deleterious vegetablesubstances is beyond the reach of chemical analysis. The presence ofsulphate of iron (p. 134) may be detected by evaporating the beer toperfect dryness, and burning away the vegetable matter obtained, by theaction of chlorate of pot-ash in a red-hot crucible. The sulphate ofiron will be left behind among the residue in the crucible, which whendissolved in water, may be assayed, for the constituent parts of thesalt, namely, iron and sulphuric acid: for the former, by tincture ofgalls, ammonia, and prussiate of potash; and for the latter, by muriateof barytes.[80]Beer, which has been rendered fraudulently _hard_ (see p. 148) by theadmixture of sulphuric acid, affords a white precipitate (sulphate ofbarytes), by dropping into it a solution of acetate or muriate ofbarytes; and this precipitate, when collected by filtering the mass, andafter having been dried, and heated red-hot for a few minutes in aplatina crucible, does not disappear by the addition of nitric, ormuriatic acid. Genuine old beer may produce a precipitate; but theprecipitate which it affords, after having been made red-hot in aplatina crucible, instantly becomes re-dissolved with effervescence bypouring on it some pure nitric or muriatic acid; in that case theprecipitate is malate (not sulphate) of barytes, and is owing to aportion of malic acid having been formed in the beer.But with regard to the vegetable materials deleterious to health, it isextremely difficult, in any instance, to detect them by chemicalagencies; and in most cases it is quite impossible, as in that ofcocculus indicus in beer.METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE QUANTITY OF SPIRIT CONTAINED IN PORTER, ALE,OR OTHER KINDS OF MALT LIQUORS.Take any quantity of the beer, put it into a glass retort, furnishedwith a receiver, and distil, with a gentle heat, as long as any spiritpasses over into the receiver; which may be known by heating from timeto time a small quantity of the obtained fluid in a tea-spoon over acandle, and bringing into contact with the vapour of it the flame of apiece of paper. If the vapour of the distilled fluid catches fire, thedistillation must be continued until the vapour ceases to be set onfire by the contact of a flaming body. To the distilled liquid thusobtained, which is the spirit of the beer, combined with water, add, insmall quantities at a time, pure subcarbonate of potash (previouslyfreed from water by having been exposed to a red heat,) till the lastportion of this salt added, remains undissolved in the fluid. The spiritwill thus become separated from the water, because the subcarbonate ofpotash abstracts from it the whole of the water which it contained; andthis combination sinks to the bottom, and the spirit alone floats on thetop. If this experiment be made in a glass tube, about half orthree-quarters of an inch in diameter, and graduated into 50 or 100equal parts, the relative per centage of spirit in a given quantity ofbeer may be seen by mere inspection._Quantity of Alcohol contained in Porter, Ale, and other kinds of MaltLiquors._[81] One hundred parts, by Measure, Parts of Alcohol, contained. by Measure. Ale, home-brewed 8,30 Ale, Burton, three Samples 6,25 Ale, Burton[82] 8,88 Ale, Edinburgh[82] 6,20 Ale, Dorchester[82] 5,50 Ale, common London-brewed, } six samples } 5,82 Ale, Scotch, three samples 5,75 Porter, London, eight samples 4,00 Ditto, Ditto[83] 4,20 Ditto, Ditto[83] 4,45 Ditto, Ditto, bottled. 4,75 Brown Stout, four samples 5 Ditto, Ditto[83] 6,80 Small Beer, six samples 0,75 Ditto, Ditto[84] 1,28FOOTNOTES:[48] See pages 119, &c.[49] Child, on Brewing Porter, p. 7.[50] Child, on Brewing Porter, p. 16.[51] Ibid. p. 16.[52] "Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons, to whom thepetition of several inhabitants of London and its vicinity, complainingof the high price and inferior quality of beer, was referred, to examinethe matter thereof, and to report the same, with their observationsthereupon, to the House. Printed by order of the House of Commons,April, 1819."[53] 56 Geo. III. c. 2.[54] Copied from the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons,appointed for examining the price and quality of Beer.--See pages 18,29, 30, 31, 36, 43.[55] The average specific gravity of different samples of brown stout,obtained direct from the breweries of Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co.Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Co. Messrs. Henry Meux and Co. and fromseveral other eminent London brewers, amounted to 1,022; and the averagespecific gravity of porter, from the same breweries, 1,018.[56] 2 Geo. III. c. 14, § 2.[57] 59 Geo. III. c. 53, § 25.[58] Copied from the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons,appointed for examining the price and quality of beer, p. 19, 29, 36,37, 43.[59] See Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons for reportingon the Price and Quality of Beer, 1819, p. 29.[60] 7 Geo. II. c. 19, § 2.[61] See List of Publicans prosecuted and convicted for mixing tablebeer with strong beer, &c. p. 129."Alum gives likewise a smack of age to beer, and is penetrating to thepalate."--_S. Child on Brewing._[62] Copied from the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons,appointed for examining the price and quality of beer, p. 38.[63] See Mr. Carr's evidence in the Minutes of the House of Commons, p.32.[64] 42 George III, c. 38, § 12.[65] See Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 32.[66] Copied from the minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons,appointed for examining the price and quality of Beer, 1819, p. 29, 36,43.[67] See the Parliamentary Minutes, p. 94.[68] Mr. Barclay has not specified the relative proportions of brownstout and of bottling beer which are introduced at such an augmentationof expense.[69] Mr. Child, in his Treatise on Brewing, p. 23 directs, _to make newbeer older, use oil of vitriol_.[70] Copied from the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commonsappointed for examining the price and quality of beer, p. 29, 36.[71] The deleterious effect of Cocculus Indicus (the fruit of thememispermum cocculus) is owing to a peculiar bitter principle containedin it; which, when swallowed in minute quantities, intoxicates and actsas poison. It may be obtained from cocculus indicus berries in adetached state:--chemists call it picrotoxin, from +pichros+, bitter;and +toxichon+ poison.[72] See Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 28, 36.[73] Messrs. Barclay, Perkins, and Co.--Truman, Hanbury and Co.--Reidand Co.--Whitbread and Co.--Combe, Delafield, and Co.--Henry Meux, andCo.--Calvert and Co.--Goodwin and Co.--Elliot and Co.--Taylor andCo.--Cox, and Camble and Co.See the Minutes, before quoted, p. 32.[74] _Ibid._ p. 58.[75] A partner in the brewery of Messrs. Whitbread and Co.[76] Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 104.[77] Minutes, before quoted, p. 22.[78] Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 40.[79] Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 32[80] See a Treatise on the Use and Application of Chemical Tests, 3dedition; Tests for Sulphuric Acid, &c.[81] Repository of Arts, No. 2, p. 74.--1816.[82] Copied from Professor Brande's Paper in the PhilosophicalTransactions, 1811, p. 345.[83] Result of our own Experiments, see p. 127.[84] Professor Brande's Experiments.

Beer Goggles Reviews!/profile.php?id=100002265279070!/BeerGgglsReview