Section III Beer and Ale
“The nutricious and strengtheningI beverage” of the English, “their own native old Sir John Barleycorn,” is not exempt from the sophistications and corruptions of the adulterator! Ye topers of “pure extract from malt and hops,” do you hear this? That your own sweet proper suction—your ancient and legitimate accompaniment of the sirloin and the plum-pudding, is composed of every thing else than what it ought to be,—in fact, that it is one of the slowest and most fatal poisons with which your good friends “the honest English brewers” are continually entertaining you. Aye, John, it is the truth—and the whole truth. But should you, with your usual “well-clothed stupidity, and sneering ignorant scepticism,” feel inclined to doubt my assertion, a reference to the “Minutes of the House of Commons, appointed for examining the price and quality of beer,” will furnish you with a goodly list of nearly two hundred Excise prosecutions and convictions (between the years 1812 and 1819), of wholesale and retail brewers, publicans, and brewers’ druggists, for the nefarious adulterations of your favourite beverage, or for having in their possession, or selling the poisonous ingredients for the purpose; in which there are several instances of penalties of £500, with costs having been inflicted on the offenders. Since that time, seizures of illegal and poisonous articles have also been often made by the Excise, and convictions have taken place. During the latter end of the last year, and at the commencement of the present year, seizures have been made, and convictions have taken place, nearly equal in number to those before stated: indeed, as a writer on the subject truly observes, “scarcely a week passes without witnessing the detection of some wicked greedy wretch,” who has been sporting with the lives and health of his fellow-creatures. And, when you have satisfied your incredulous understanding of your “honest” countrymen’s dealings with you, you may, perhaps, by reading the following extract from Mr. Accum’s book on Culinary Poisons, p. 189, be satisfied that you are not exactly swallowing a “cordial balsam,” or “the elixir of life,” when you are pouring into your portly stomach that delectable mixture, in the composition of whose combustible materials the brewer’s (or “gentleman”) druggist, the brewer, and the publican have kindly and humanely exerted their honest and patriotic skill.
“That a minute portion of an unwholesome ingredient, daily taken in beer,” (says the intrepid advocate of offended justice, whose civil death to science and suffering humanity is to be sincerely deplored,) “cannot fail to be productive of mischief, admits of no doubt: and there is reason to believe that a small quantity of a narcotic substance daily taken into the stomach, together with an intoxicating liquor, is highly more efficacious than it would be without the liquor. The effect may be gradual; and a strong constitution, especially if it be assisted with constant and hard labour, may counteract the destructive consequences, perhaps for many years, but it never fails to show its baneful effects at last.”
But, perhaps, friend John, you will say that this is all talk, and a mere bug-a-boo of the “radicals” to annoy you in your daily potations of your “favourite beverage,”—thy own native nutritious liquor. And you will call for something like proofs, or an enumeration of the deleterious substances or ingredients which have been found in the possession of brewers and publicans, and for the admixture of which with their “neat article,” they have been subject to the Law’s angry visitations. This is a reasonable request, and it shall be satisfied to the best of my power.
Know then, friend Bull, that the following harmless and invigorating ingredients have been found in the possession of thine honest fellow-countrymen, the brewers, according to the list of the Excise prosecutions detailed in the Minutes of the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed for examining the price and quality of beer in the year 1819.
1. Cocculus Indicus, or, as it is vulgarly called, occulus Indian berry. This is a powerfully narcotic, and most intoxicating and deleterious drug. In its mildest form, it produces excruciating head-aches and distressing sickness, when the beer is over-dosed. So great was the demand for this poisonous drug, that it rose, as Mr. Accum says, within the space of ten years, from 2s. to 7s. per lb. The extract or poisonous principle obtained from the berries is so abundant as to be easily separated from the substance, and is called by the chemist picrotoxin, a term derived from two Greek words, namely, πιχρος, bitter; and τοξιχον, poison. What thinkest thou of this, friend John? In India, the berries are thrown on the surface of the water for the purpose of intoxicating the fish, when they float on the water, and are easily taken by the hand.
2. Black Extract, or, as it is called, in the slang phrase of the Adulterating Vocabulary, Hard Multum, which is also an extract of the poisonous Indian berry, or a composition of opium and other ingredients.
3. Nux Vomica and St. Ignatius’s Bean, which are both poisonous; but the first is so extremely deleterious a drug, ten or twelve grains of it being sufficient to kill a dog, that it is now expunged from the Pharmacopeias. Yet, although no one ever hears of its application, except for poisoning rats, it is imported in large quantities, and tons of this deadly poison are ground every year in the drug-mills of the metropolis. The bitter bean, or, as it is more commonly termed by the tender-conscienced gentry, who sport with the health and lives of their fellow-creatures, St. Ignatius’s bean, in order, no doubt, to appease the qualms of conscience under a sanctified name, is no less injurious to health.
4. Opium, Tobacco, Extract of Poppies, Henbane, Bohemian Rosemary, and Coriander seed, which are all highly dangerous when improperly used. Chemical experiment has proved that less than one pound of the last-mentioned ingredient equals in strength and stupefactive quality one bushel of malt.
5. Essentia Bina, or Double Essence; that is, sugar boiled down to a black colour and an empyreumatic flavour. But, instead of the concentrated essence, the intent of which is to produce the requisite colour in porter, the colouring matter now generally used by the more respectable part of the trade is malt roasted in iron cylinders until it is black like coal. In this state it is called patent malt, and is not prohibited by the Excise.
6. Heading Stuff, that is green copperas, or, as it is vulgarly called, Salt of Steel. This poisonous ingredient is used for the purpose of giving the beer a frothing head; sometimes used alone; sometimes it is mixed with alum.—In the hands of one adulterator, 310lbs. of copperas and 560lbs. of hard multum were found and condemned. A sufficient dose for slowly poisoning half a generation!
7. Capsicum, grains of paradise, carraway seeds, treacle or molasses, liquorice root, &c.
8. Wormwood, aloes, quassia, bitter oranges, &c.
9. Lime, marble dust, powdered oyster shells, hartshorn shavings, jalap, spirit of maranta, &c.
These ingredients, nocuous and innocuous, are intended to produce the following effects:
1. To give a factitious strength and intoxicating quality to the beer.
2. To increase the bitter principle, and consequently to save hops.
3. To add a stimulating aromatic flavour.
4. To produce a fine mantling head to porter, and strike a fine nut brown colour over the froth.
And, 5. To prevent acidity, or to diminish or destroy it when formed.
“It is absolutely frightful,” exclaims Mr. Donovan, (Domestic Economy, p. 201,) “to contemplate the list of poisons and drugs with which malt liquors have been (as it is technically and descriptively called) doctored. Opium, henbane, cocculus indicus, and Bohemian rosemary, which is said to produce a quick and raving intoxication, supplied the place of alcohol. Aloes, quassia, gentian, sweet scented flag, wormwood, horehound, and bitter oranges, fulfilled the duties of hops. Liquorice, treacle, and mucilage of flax seed, stood for attenuated malt sugar. Capsicum, ginger, and cinnamon, or rather cassia-buds, afforded to the exhausted drink the pungency of a carbonic acid. Burnt flour, sugar, or treacle, communicated a peculiar taste which porter drinkers generally fancy. Preparations of fish, assisted in cases of obstinacy with oil of vitriol, procured transparency. Besides these, the brewer had to supply himself with potash, lime, salt, and a variety of other substances, which are of no other harm than in serving the office of more valuable materials, and defrauding the customer.” In this extract it is observable that that ingenious gentleman has drawn up his account in the past tense, as if there were no adulterations now!!! The author of “The Art of Brewing,” in the Library of Useful Knowledge, has adopted a juster and a more honourable course; besides giving a fuller list of poisonous articles, he has spoken boldly and truly, and tells us that poisonous adulterations are “still used extensively” by those who “sport with the lives of their fellow creatures for the sake of gain,” and that “the seizures and convictions that have been so often made, and are still making by the Excise,” are proofs of the fact. It is, however, with much satisfaction (for no other motive influences me in making the horrific disclosures detailed in this volume than a regard for the public welfare and for public justice) that the statement made in that publication respecting the introduction of gypsum into the manufacture of Burton Ale has been disproved in the recent application made to the Court of King’s Bench by the Burton Ale Brewers, who assert that the peculiarity of flavour belonging to their liquor is occasioned by the water from which it is made running over a rock of gypsum, and thus impregnated with that substance.
In the year 1807, a paragraph appeared in almost all the London daily papers, asserting that porter, brewed in London, contained deleterious drugs. The London porter brewers, indignant at the “unjust and causeless” accusation, had a meeting, and one and all agreed to prosecute the offending journalists. They of course made affidavits, and complied with all the requisites of the law to establish their “innocence.” They moved the Court of King’s Bench for criminal informations against three-fourths of the daily press, and their Counsel made long speeches on “the guilt and unfounded and malicious libels of their accusers.” All looked well for obtaining a verdict of guilty against the denouncers of fraud and villany, and establishing the purity and justice of “the brewing interests,” by the verdict “of an impartial and intelligent jury,” had not the late Lord Ellenborough declared the affidavits of the swearing-brewers insufficient, as the cunning varlets had only denied the introduction of deleterious ingredients in brewing; whereas, to ground their application and entitle them to the rule, they should have denied having used them after the beer was brewed. But as the pillory might have stared the honest gentry in the face had they made this “hard” assertion in their affidavit, the knowing folks here broke down; they could go no further. After making the town echo with the cries of “the infamous press,” they prudently dropped all proceedings against the proscribed journalists. The inference to be drawn is not difficult to surmise; but the fact is, that the publicans, who have of late been so sharply prosecuted by the Excise for adulterating their beer, can best answer the question: From whom did they learn the respectable art of beer-sophistication? Was it not from their “betters,” the “beer-mongers?”
If the foregoing statement of ingredients contained in the above infernal list is not sufficient to induce thee, friend Bull, to lay aside thy incredulity, and open thy eyes to the frauds that are daily practised on thy unsuspecting nature, I can only add that one of the “craft” (see Child, on Brewing, p. 18) tells thee that porter cannot be made of the necessary flavour and taste to suit the Londoner’s appetite, and of the proper colour to tickle his fancy by its appearance, of wholesome malt and hops, and that those simple ingredients would not furnish a profit sufficient to satisfy the modern brewer’s cupidity. Well may the old ladies exclaim (and no doubt, Mr. Bull, thou hast a penchant for displaying thy Latinity) O trickery! O mouthes!
But supposing, dear Bull, that all the above “horrid array” of poisoning and stupefying ingredients was “mere fudge,” and that you should have the fortune to deal with a brewer and publican, who have the “fear of the Lord” before their eyes, and who “wax strong in well doing,” recollect that the present manufactured “entire beer” of the most honest trading brewer alive is a very heterogeneous mixture—a composition of all the waste and spoiled beer of the publicans, the bottoms of their butts—the leavings of their pots—the drippings of their machines for drawing the beer—the remnants of beer that lay in the leaden pipes of the brewery, with a portion of brown stout, bottling beer, and mild beer. So admits that “paragon of brewers,” Mr. Barclay. (See Parliamentary Minutes, p. 94.) Surely, John, it is not courteous and loving treatment of thy “better half” and her “dutiful daughters” to expect them to sully their delicate throttles with the leavings and hawkings of some bearish beast of a coal-heaver or a night-man! This, friend John, is one of the “indicia” of the necessity of thy cultivating the clean and wholesome “home brewery” of thy forefathers; and in the promotion of this laudable and necessary undertaking I hope I shall be able to assist thee in my projected work, “The Family Brewing Oracle,” and that, by its means, thou wilt be enabled to drink a wholesome and nourishing beverage, either ale or porter, at the trifling cost of from five farthings to three halfpence per pot, after the tasting of which thou wilt never allow a drop of brewers’ or public-house porter, or intermediate beer, or any other vile or new-fangled substitution for the home-brewed liquor of thy ancestors, to enter thy chaps.
But, in your honest sincerity and “usually naive manner,” you will exclaim “but we have methods and tests for detecting the adulteration of our native liquor—our vinum Britannicum—our own Sir John Barlycorn.” Aye, have you, Old Gentleman! then I give you joy of your discovery, and hope thou wilt put it into constant practice every day of thy life before thou takest a sup of the delectable and heart-cheering composition. But, for my part, John, give me leave to say that I have always understood that the detection of the adulteration of beer with vegetable substances deleterious to health is extremely difficult, if not beyond the reach of chemical agency or analysis; and in most cases, particularly where cocculus indicus, or its extract, has been used, quite impossible. The tests for ascertaining the admixture of sulphuric acid are more determinate, and are ably detailed in Mr. Accum’s work, p. 193.
Among the minor crimes of fraudulent brewers is the art of converting new beer (that is beer that is just brewed) into old or entire beer; and this operation (which, in the cant phraseology of the trade, is called bringing the beer forward, or making it hard) is performed by an easy, expeditious, and economical method: an imitation of the age of eighteen months is produced in an instant, or, as modern statesmen, versed in the wonderful arcana of political science, would phrase it, “As soon as you could say Jack Robinson.” To put into execution this rare feat of “brewers’ art” you have nothing more to do, in order to convert any wishy-washy slop into an old entire beer, and, consequently, to render it “rich, generous, of a full-bodied taste, without being acid, and of a vinous odour,” than to throw in a quantum sufficit of sulphuric acid.J Stale, half spoiled, or sour beer, may as easily be converted into mild beer, by the proper quantity of alkali, or alkaline earth, oyster-shell-powder, subcarbonate of potash or soda; which substances have the effect of neutralizing the excess of acid.
Another of the less culpable adulterations by both brewer and publican is the admixture of small with strong beer. According to the evidence of the solicitor of the Excise (Mr. Carr), given before the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed for examining the price and quality of beer, in the year 1819, (see Minutes of the House of Commons, p. 32, &c.) the retailers of beer in London and its neighbourhood, purchase stale table-beer, or the bottoms of casks, from a set of men who go about and sell such beer at table-beer price to mix in the publicans’ cellars with the new beer they receive from the brewer. Among some of the trade it is the custom to mix the poor low-priced country ales with porter.
But, O John, thou lover of a “cauliflower head!” art thou aware how this object of thy admiration, and indeed natural property of good beer is produced? No doubt thou wilt be hard of belief in this respect; but I must be candid with thee, and tell thee that the “fine frothy head,” the ne plus ultra of thy admiration and test of good porter, is produced by thy honest friend and crony, the publican, by the simple admixture of the delectable and harmless article “beer heading” with the “genuine stuff” he receives from his worthy compeer, the brewer. When thy “gentle friend” observes the frothy property of the beer to be lost by his admixture of the legitimate modicum of small beer or “aqua pura,” molasses, extract of gentian-root and isinglass, (all which ingredients, no doubt, good soul, he adds for thy better health, and to save it from the injurious effects of too strong potations,) he prudently throws in his beer-heading, which is a composition of common green vitriol, or copperas, alum, and salt. The publicans are supplied with this article either by the regular and accredited manufacturer, or they are instructed in its manufacture by those vile and infamous publications in circulation, known by the name of Publicans or Vintners’ Guides, Directors, Friends, &c.—I have carefully gone through those pestiferous books, and examined their farrago of mischievous receipts and instructions for the adulteration and “making up” of wines, spirits, beer, &c. and can safely say that more infernal ingenuity, and a more reckless want of honesty and humanity have never been displayed in the basest concoctions of fraud and villany than is the case in those wretched publications. It is, however, but fair to exempt from this censure a work which has recently appeared, entitled “Clarke’s Publican and Innkeeper’s Guide, and Wine and Spirit Dealer’s Assistant;” which, though not entirely exempt from objection, is evidently the production of a skilful, and, what is of greater importance to the public, of an honest man, and possesses the great recommendation of instructing the trade in all the allowable secrets of the craft, without endangering the health and lives of the consumers; while it enables its readers to obtain better and more efficient results by its directions than can possibly be obtained by following the deadly and inefficient receipts of its predecessors.
I have now, friend Bull, brought my disclosures respecting thy favourite beverage—thy fondly but mistakenly imagined “pure extract from malt and hops,” to a close; but, shouldst thou still be hard of belief, I recommend thee to put thy tongue into the enchanting cauldron of some brewer-friend of thine; but, remember that I cannot ensure thee that thou will redraw it quite as unaffected or renovated as the tragic poet describes Æson to have sprung from the cauldron of Medea.
In the above detail of adulterations in the public brewery of this country, no personality is intended in the tone of reprehension assumed on the subject; the remarks are intended to be applied only to “the most worthless part of the trade, to such as disgrace the name of brewer, by sporting with the lives of their fellow creatures for lucre’s sake.” Those odious and detestable wretches deserve the severest castigations, and every member of the community should lend his hearty co-operation to their exposure and punishment. But while it is the duty of every man whom nature has gifted with a heart capable of feeling for his fellow creatures, to expose the monsters who secretly poison the human race, it must be admitted that the very heavy and injudicious taxation to which brewers are subject has compelled even many of the more conscientious of the trade to have recourse to measures which are not quite agreeable to the dictates of honesty, and to draw immense lengths of wort from the least possible quantity of malt, so that the liquor is neither of a nutritive nor a relishing quality. But the error in this case arises from the same cause as it does in that of wines—the incompetency of the persons (who were either the favourites, the dependants, or the retainers of the existing ministry of the day) appointed to frame the statutes regulating those trades; and, laughable to say, those precious legislators have prohibited the use of articles which are not only innoxious, but occasionally advantageous.K In the statute of Charles the Second, which regulates the management of foreign wines, the blunder is singular; by that act several substances are forbidden to be mixed with wine, which, in themselves, are not only innocuous, but are highly conducive to its purity and right preservation, and give it the necessary brightness and perfection!
Oh, Bull, when will thy law-makers and law-concocters learn a little of that old-fashioned and much neglected commodity,—common sense. Were the same good sense and knowledge of the subject, and of the condition of society, indicated by them as are displayed by the more unassuming but efficient department of the state machinery—the dispensers of our laws (of course I cannot be mistaken to mean the justices of the peace!) the country would not be put to the expense of making laws one day which are to be repealed the next, and there might appear some just pretension for the high-sounding titles of “English Justinians,” and “heaven-born legislators,” with which a portion of the periodical press is idly and continually bespattering certain members of the executive department of the government.
As my printer tells me that a few lines are wanting to complete this page, and being desirous to give my readers all I can afford for their money, a word or two on the legislative mania which seems to have taken hold of some honourable members “of the noblest assembly of freemen in the world,” may not be misplaced. And for the sake of brevity, I shall adduce, as an example, the memorable attempt to modify the Quarantine Laws on the advice, testimony, and experience of the renowned Dr. M’Lean. When arguments being taken as facts, and the absurdities of reasoning as the evidence of experience, the whims and reveries of that gentleman, who was described by one (a member of St. Stephen’s) of the anti-contagionists as “one of those extraordinary persons who will be pointed out by the finger of the future historian,” would have received the stamp and authority of law, and we should have had the blessing of plague being as common in our houses as measles, coughs or colds, had not “the ignorance of those who attempt to mislead the public, and the indiscretion of those who are inclined to believe them,” been exposed and refuted by the late Dr. Gooch, in his invaluable paper “Is the Plague a Contagious Disease?” which appeared at the time (anno 1825), in The Quarterly Review, and is now appended to his Account of Female Diseases.