Status, scale and secret ingredients: the retrospective invention of London porter

Abstract

Porter, a dark style of beer that was the staple of London in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is conventionally addressed as a discrete invention, suited to large‐scale production, whose appearance led rapidly to enclosure of the trade by a few industrial‐scale producers. This paper by contrast presents the capitalist industrialization of brewing as co‐extensive with, and reinforced by, the long‐term emergence of a consensus definition of porter; the invention story is a retrospective construct that telescopes a century or more of technical change. Balancing established economic accounts, I address the role of product identity as a rhetorical device. London’s greatest brewers were in part assisted in capturing smaller competitors’ trade by the enshrining of large‐scale production as a ‘secret ingredient’ in its own right, essential to the nature of the ‘true’ product.

Keywords:

• brewing/brewery
• industrialization
• invention

Notes

1. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 12–16, on 13.

2. Hughes, ‘Evolution’, 57–58; Inkster, Science and Technology, 8–9. For the origins of the divergence see Beales, Industrial Revolution, 13.

3. Berg, Age of Manufactures, 171–72.

4. Burnaby, Essay, 33–35.

5. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 6–11, on 6.

6. Welch, ‘Humphrey Parsons.’

7. Remarks on the Horrible Oppressions, 46, 52 (italics in original).

8. Calvert and Feast: ibid. Calverts in the Worshipful Company of Brewers: Webb, London Livery Company, vols. 1 and 36. Calvert genealogy: Stirnet Genealogy, available at http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/cc4aq/calvert02.htm (accessed 28 January 2006)

9. Trade directories of the 1740s show Josias Nicolson living in Clapham, and the brewery under the name of William Calvert, Felix’s brother.

10. The breweries were typically owned by several family members in partnership. The two branches kept their concerns distinct (though both intermarried with a third), however, until merger in 1810. The businesses are often distinguished by the names of John Calvert and Felix Calvert, third‐cousins who headed the Peacock and Hour Glass respectively around 1760.

11. Stone and Stone, Open Elite?, 52.

12. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 260–61.

13. Lightbody, Every Man, 5.

14. British Curiosities, 50 (italics in original).

15. Weekly Journal or Saturday’s Post, 26 March 1720, 412; Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer, 26 March 1720, 1562; petition of Humphrey Parsons, Middlesex Sessions of the Peace, London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter ‘LMA’) MJ/SP/1720/July/8; petition of Josias Nicholson and Copartners, Middlesex Sessions of the Peace, LMA MJ/SP/1720/July/6.

16. Based on [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1736), 42. At this time a barrel for ale still held 32 gallons, as distinct from the 36‐gallon beer barrel, which later became universal.

17. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 551.

18. Derivation: Slyboots, Tavern Scuffle, 23. Simile: Otway, Works, vol. 1, 248.

19. [Pope], Further Account, 21; [Amhurst], Terræ‐filius, 202; Centlivre, Artifice, 85; and cf. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ‘porter,’ noun, sense 3.

20. Ellis, Country Housewife’s, 376–77.

21. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1738), 60–61; [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1742), 302, 339.

22. Daily Advertiser, 15 October 1742, quoted in Notes and Queries, 25 February 1911, 143; Leeds Mercury, 15 May 1744, quoted in Cornell, Beer, 92; Every Man, 39.

23. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1736), 36.

24. MacDonagh, ‘Origins,’ 533.

25. One guide around 1800 advised publicans to ‘keep your tap‐tubs clean, otherwise your stale beer will become sour’ (Boyle, Publican, 17.)

26. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1736), 43.

27. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1736), 36–37 (italics in original); cf. Smith, Nature of Fermentation, 12.

28. London Chronicle, 1 November 1760, 436–37; 22 December 1760, 603–04; 14 December 1761, 570–71.

29. The Some Account author signs himself ‘A.B.’ He seems to be a small‐scale ale‐brewer in the London area, promotes thermometry and standardization, regards brewing as a chemical art and admires Herman Boerhaave – all attributes matching Combrune, who is identified as the author of the work in J.R. McCulloch’s Literature of Political Economy (1845). From comparison of the sources, however, it seems entirely possible that Some Account was a like‐minded author’s production from which Combrune borrowed selectively. Corran, in 1975, noted the existence in Guinness’ Dublin archives of a manuscript copy of Some Account in Combrune’s hand, and quotes extensively from an otherwise unknown variant of the Poundage letter found among the same papers – conceivably a draft privately communicated to Combrune (Corran, History of Brewing, 112–15, 131, 154, 292; and personal communication, 30 December 2002). Unfortunately these materials cannot be traced by the present Guinness archivist (Eibhlin Roche, personal communication, 9 December 2005).

30. Michael Combrune to James Best, 17 August 1762. Medway Archives and Local Studies Centre, Strood, Kent, UK, Unofficial Series Collections U0480/B874 [hereafter ‘Best MSS’]. For the Country Brewers’ protests, see Mathias, Brewing Industry, 364–67.

31. Combrune, ‘Historical Account,’ [0033].

32. Sumner, ‘Michael Combrune’; Combrune, ‘Historical Account,’ [0033]–[0034]. Combrune states that the thermometer, after early trials around 1740, ‘was by many more persons set aside then [sic] employed.’ The Best MSS (above, n. 30) include two brewing notebooks which demonstrate that ‘Henry Goodwin of Deptford’ – a Henry Goodwyn or Goodwin acquired Parsons’ former brewhouse before 1784 – was routinely recording thermometric data by February 1758, probably not under Combrune’s influence because a non‐Fahrenheit device was used. Otherwise, no clear examples of brewery thermometry before Combrune’s Essay on Brewing of 1758 have come to light.

33. London Chronicle, 1 November 1760, 436.

34. Tuck, Private Brewer’s Guide, 6–7.

35. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. 24 (1741–1745): 541–42.

36. Combrune, ‘Historical Account,’ [0034].

37. Combrune, ‘Historical Account,’ [0034–0035, 0064–0065].

38. Watkins, Compleat English Brewer, 122.

39. Some Account, 6.

40. Sumner, ‘Michael Combrune.’

41. Sumner, ‘John Richardson.’

42. James H. Baverstock in Baverstock, Treatises, xiv–xviii.

43. Some Account, 6–7.

44. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 44.

45. Loch, Essays, vol. 1: 200–01; [Feltham], Picture of London, 250–51; Shannon, Practical Treatise, 7; Hayman, Practical Treatise, 38; Kirby, Essays and Poems, 234.

46. These included Truman on Brick Lane, and the concentration around Whitecross Street and Golden Lane which included Calvert’s Peacock and, from the 1740s, Whitbread.

47. Lightbody, Every Man, 5.

48. Pennant, Of London, 279.

49. [Feltham], Picture of London, 250.

50. Sumner, ‘Powering the Porter Brewery,’ 73–74.

51. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1736), 43.

52. Watkins, Compleat English Brewer, 126.

53. Watkins, Compleat English Brewer, 122–23.

54. Edinburgh Advertiser (30 July 1765): 67. My thanks to John Millburn for this reference.

55. See for instance [Shaw], Juice of the Grape, 51–54; Slyboots, Tavern Scuffle, 23; Jackson, Essay on Bread, 32–42; Combrune, ‘Historical Account,’ [0050]; Every Man His Own Brewer, 39; Crying Frauds, 5; Accum, Treatise on Adulterations, 153–222; and cf. Bickerdyke, Curiosities, 369.

56. LMA B/THB/C11.

57. Such accounts probably have a common source in Bickerdyke, Curiosities, 372.

58. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 253–54.

59. Ashworth, Customs and Excise, 220–21.

60. Parliamentary Papers, 1819, vol. 5, passim, e.g. 16, 32.

61. Parliamentary Papers, 1817, vol. 7, 238.

62. Parliamentary Papers, 1818, vol. 14, 235–37.

63. For instance, evidence of Edward Jackson, Parliamentary Papers, 1819, vol. 5, 35–36; evidence of John Martineau, ibid., 104–05.

64. Accum, Treatise on Adulterations, 215–16. Cf. Sumner, ‘Retailing Scandal’, 37–38.

65. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 12–16, 413–14.

66. MacDonagh, ‘Origins;’ Corran, History of Brewing, 110–11; Cornell, Beer, 92–95.

67. London Chronicle, 1 November 1760, 436–37; Gentleman’s Magazine, 30 (1760): 527–28, and cf. Corran, History of Brewing, 111–16.

68. Gentleman’s Magazine, 60 (1790): 801, 876.

69. Monthly Magazine and British Register, 13(1802) 42. Italics original. The same text appeared almost simultaneously in a topographic survey put out by the Monthly’s publisher, Richard Phillips: [Feltham], Picture of London, 248–49.

70. Cornell, Beer, 96–99.

71. This account is based on Cornell, Beer, 92–95, except where otherwise indicated. The Harwoods are confirmed as brothers by Oldfield, History, 63.

72. ‘Letter to Villebois assumed from Hanbury in 1816’ (copy), LMA B/THB/H/4.

73. London Chronicle, 7–9 October 1762, [1].

74. Gentleman’s Magazine, 58 (1788): 958.

75. The poem reappears in the midst of a digressive discussion on inn signs: Gentleman’s Magazine, 89 (1819): 394.

76. Accounts proceeding from the 1760 source are Morrice, Treatise, 9–14; Hughson, London, 293–94; Tizard, Theory and Practice, 419–20. Those based on the 1802 source alone include Rees, Cyclopedia, s v ‘Porter’; Paris, Treatise, 212 and, in paraphrase, Dodd, Days at the Factories, 37; Loftus, Brewer, 45; Yeats, Technical History, 235. Accum, Treatise on the Art of Brewing, 6–7 presents the 1802 narrative but follows the 1760 account’s dating.

77. Dowell, History of Taxation, 62.

78. Brande, Town and Country, 16; Haydn, Dictionary of Dates, s v ‘Porter.’ Probably the most extensively elaborated version appears in Bickerdyke, Curiosities, 366–68.

79. Cornell, Beer, 102–03, 286.

80. Combrune, ‘Historical Accompt,’ 19.

81. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 15.

82. Spiller, ‘Georgian Brewery,’ 312; Mathias, Brewing Industry, 59–61.

83. Cf. Cornell, Beer, 12–13.

84. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 15, 413; MacDonagh, ‘Origins,’ 534.

85. [Ellis], London and Country Brewer (1738), 10.

86. Sumner, ‘Early Heat Determination,’ 75–77.

87. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 73–76; Gourvish and Wilson, British Brewing Industry, 56–58.

88. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 420–23.

89. Parliamentary Papers, 1817, vol. 7, 241–42; 1819, vol. 5, 95.

90. Mathias, Brewing Industry, 77.

91. The table‐beer market, though much smaller, was dominated by the ale‐brewers; we do not have figures for 1817, but the leaders of this trade such as Charrington and Kirkman each brewed 10,000 or 20,000 barrels in this period in addition to strong ale.

92. Knox, ‘Development,’ 48.

93. Gourvish and Wilson, British Brewing Industry, 41–43, 75–98.

94. Bickerdyke, Curiosities, 366, 369–70.

95. Lynch and Vaizey, Guinness’s Brewery, 70–71.

96. Ibid., 52–68.

97. Ibid., 154, 80.

98. Barnard, Noted Breweries, vol. 1, xv (quotation); Lynch and Vaizey, Guinness’s Brewery, 119–48.

99. Gourvish and Wilson, British Brewing Industry, 98–103, and cf. Lynch and Vaizey, Guinness’s Brewery, 81, 222–23.

100. In line with what I have said about English porter, the color of Guinness’s products apparently ‘varied widely’ before the late nineteenth century: Lynch and Vaizey, Guinness’s Brewery, 219.

101. Dennison and MacDonagh, Guinness 1886–1939, 248–62; Gourvish and Wilson, British Brewing Industry, 338, 504.

102. Daniel McConnell, ‘Last Orders for Guinness Time at St James’s Gate.’ Sunday Independent (Ireland), 17 June 2007.

103. Appleby, ‘Humphrey Jackson,’ 156.