Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to give people a better understanding of beer in 18th­century England and her colonies. What was it? Who drank it? How was it made? Why was it so popular? As 20th-century Americans, it is nearly impossible to understand the importance of beer to 18th-century Britons. Today, beer is just another alcoholic beverage, often associated with a bunch of guys watching football or blue collar workers in a bar. The idea that beer is a healthy and nutritious beverage to be consumed at breakfast, lunch and dinner is sacrilegious. Currently, no single beverage enjoys the popularity that beer did over two hundred years ago. In terms of consumption, soda may come close but, certainly, nobody is tooting Pepsi as a healthy and nutritious beverage to be consumed constantly for the betterment of society!

M. Cesar de Sausser, a foreign traveler visiting London in 1726, asserted "26 November 1726 — would you believe it, although water is to be had in abundance in London and of fairly good quality, absolutely none is drunk? The lower classes, even the paupers, do not know what it is to quench their thirst with water. In this country nothing but beer is drunk and it is made in several qualities. Small beer is what everyone drinks when thirsty: it is used even in the best houses and costs only a penny a pot. Another kind of beer is called Porter…because the greater quantity is consumed by the working classes. It is a thick strong beverage, and the effect it produces if drunk in excess, is the same as wine… There are again other beers called ales, some of these being as transparent as fine old wine… It is said that more grain is consumed in England for making beer than making bread."¹

What is Beer?

At this point it would be nice to be able to give a clear, concise definition of beer. Unfortunately, this proposal is easier said than done. The definition of beer seems to change greatly over time. Perhaps the simplest definition would be "a fermented beverage produced from grain." This definition distinguishes it from wine, which is produced from fermented fruit juice.² This definition also describes the product produced by ancient brewers.

Beer in this form is truly ancient, going back to about 5000 BC at the dawn of the Bronze Age. In fact there are some scholars who claim that beer was the cause of early man's switch from hunting and gathering to domestication of grains. This theory sparked a debate when Professor Jonathan D. Saur, a botanist from the University of Wisconsin, first proposed this theory in the 1950s. The traditional view was that bread was the cause of early domestication of grains. It is probable that both sides were partially correct since early beers were often brewed from bread in conjunction with raw grains. In this process, bread called Bapir was made from barley and honey. This bread was added to more loose grain and water to create the fermentable liquid that would become beer. It is also around this time (2000 BC) that the process of malting barley appears to have come into common use.

The malting of barley is a process where the grain is soaked in water until the barley kernels sprout and just as they begin to grow; the grain is heated in a kiln to stop the growth. This process is very important in the production of beer, because it creates the enzymes that begin the conversion of the natural proteins into sugars, which can be eaten by yeast to produce alcohol and carbon dioxide, thus giving beer its kick and fuzz. Unmalted barley has plenty of starch but not enough sugar to produce a decent beer.

Barley is the primary grain used in beer, both in ancient time and today. Whereas wheat, the second most common grain, is rarely used by itself today. An early version known as Emmer Wheat may have been used alone in ancient times. Oats, another grain that can be malted, are not nearly as ancient. There are a number of 18th-century receipts (recipes) that call for malted oats and even beans.

Recently, Fritz Maytag, the owner of Anchor Steam Brewery, attempted to brew a Sumerian beer recipe from 1800 BC. Other scholars have also tried to brew a beer recipe found in an ancient Egyptian tomb. These brews are certainly different from today's beer, often flavored with dates and honey. Despite different ingredients and processes, these ancient brews certainly qualify as beer.³

Brewing on the Islands of England may go back as far as 4000 years. Residue of a beer-like substance has been found in clay pots on the island of Rhum off the western coast of Scotland.⁴ Malted barley beverages were common in England by 400 BC. Both the Greeks and the Romans commented that the British made their wine from grain. The 3 Romans thought this was inferior and tried to introduce viniculture into England during their occupation. This new beverage never really became popular with the poorer sorts; and when the Romans left, wine production dropped drastically.

By the early Middle Ages, ale established itself clearly over mead and became the drink of most Britons. By this time, ales were brewed with malted barley, wheat, and oats and often spiced with a wide variety of herbs and spices. These included rosemary, yarrow, bogmyrtle and ground ivy, also known as ale hoof. The popular ale spices were long pepper, nutmeg, mace, ginger, cinnamon and grains of paradise.⁵ It is not clear exactly when hops were first used in England. There is some mention of hop gardens in Saxon documents from the year 822 AD. It is possible that the Saxons may have made some use of these hops in brewing. The Dutch, however, are generally credited with introducing hops to England on a large scale. Sometime in the 16th century a large number of Flemish immigrants began to settle in Kent and planted hops. The area of Kent is still the premiere hop-growing region in England. Hops were slow to gain acceptance in England, and early on there were a number of laws banning the use of hops in ale, because it was viewed as foreign weed. The use of hops first caught on in the south and gradually spread to the rest of England.⁶

The introduction of hops resulted in a change in the definition of beer and ale. By the 1500s beer had become a malt beverage with hops, while ale was a malt beverage made without hops. This distinction was maintained for about 200 years. During this period fines were imposed for putting hops into ale. Soon, the preserving qualities of hops won out over the prejudice against its flavor. During the 18th-century the distinctions between beer and ale became more vague. The term ale is sometimes used to indicate a stronger drink, but this usage is not consistent. The best description of this changing definition comes from Pamela Sambrook, in her book Country House Brewing in England, 1500 to 1900. Mrs. Sambrook says, "Both contemporary manuals and the house records are clear with the odd exception, it seems that the usual habit adopted at this later date was to use the word 'ale' for the first drawn stronger worts and 'beer' for the weaker following worts. The two products would vary not only in strength but also in taste. The first wort was delicate in flavor, whilst the later worts would take up the coarser, more disagreeable part of the malt. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the old practice of brewing several sequential mashes using the same charge of malt. It was fundamental to English brewing tradition.⁷

Mrs. Sambrook then explains how the amount of hops used came to affect the terms, beer and ale: "Evidence as to hop content clouds the issue further. By the seventeenth century private ale was still stronger than beer but was now hopped, though often to a lesser extent than beer—maybe a legacy from the original use of the words and from the necessity to use more hops to stabilize the weeker worts, especially in the summer. As late as 1747 George Watkins, when listing the beers made by private brewers, described country ale as being strong but with a low hop content, 4 not designed for long keeping. Tastes and habits were changing, however, for by the later eighteenth century ale had become very heavily hopped, more so than beer; according to Croker's Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, published in the 1760s, ale was distinguished from beer by its higher hop content—an exact reversal of the earlier situation. By this time household ale had developed into a strong, light, clear and bitter drink, the private equivalent of the famous commercial pale ales of the midlands. In summary, the safest generalization is that the relative characteristics of 'ale' and 'beer' changed over time; generally the former was stronger than the latter, unless that is, the latter was designated as 'October.'"⁸

Unfortunately, in her attempt to prove her point Mrs. Sambrook seems to have misquoted Mr. Watkins. The 1770 version of the Compleat English Brewer says, "The Liquor called ale, in distinction from beer, is usually of less strength; and is less tinctured with the hop; being intended for drinking soon after it was brewed; not for keeping years as the other."⁹ This statement conflicts with the theory that ale is stronger than beer. Thus there was confusion even in the 18th-century about the distinctions between beer and ale.

It is probably best to use the all encompassing term "malt liquor," because definitions of beer and ale changed again in the 1840s. German brewers began to select types of yeast that worked in the bottom of the beer very slowly. This yeast became known as lager yeast which, in German, means to store.¹⁰ The change in yeast types resulted in yet another change in definition. Today beer is a malt beverage with hops that is made with a bottom fermenting (lager) yeast. Ale is a malt beverage with hops that is made with a top fermenting (ale) yeast. Lager yeast works much slower and at a much lower temperature, usually around 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Ale yeast works much quicker at a higher temperature, usually around 60 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Lagers tend to be light and cleaner, while ales tend to be heavier and fruitier.

Malting

Now that we have established what beer is, let's talk about how it is made. The first step in making beer is making malt. This process is often a separate trade. Maltsters were common throughout England and colonial America. In fact, Samuel Adams was actually a maltster, not a brewer as is commonly believed. In earlier times, most brewers made their own malt, but this practice was on the decline by the 18th-century.

We will now turn to the Complete English Brewer for a period description of malting.

"The right kind of barley being chosen, no care can be too great in the making it into malt. The first operation is the covering it with water, to soak it in the cistern; for this clear water of a running brook or small river should be chosen … In this water the barley is to lie about three days and nights … to know when it is soaked enough take up one corn from the middle of the quantity and hold it between the forefinger and thumb of the right hand by the two ends, press it gently and the softness will show whether it is enough…. The grain being soaked enough the water is to be drawn leisurely from it. After this it is to be put into a hutch, and lie together thirty two hours: after this it is to be turned up on the floor; when it begins to spire it must be turned every four hours and spread thin on the floor … when the malt is made thus far without any accident, it is the common practice to lay it on the kiln at once … the time of drying malt varied according to the kind intended to be made, for the difference of color depends on the drying quick or slow. For brown malt, four hours will be sufficient, because the briskness of the fire that is used. For amber malt, the fire being smaller, there will require about seven hours; and the pale malt, the fire being very weak, the time will amount to about twelve."¹¹

It is important to point out that malting at this time was not standardized. Literally thousands of different types of malt existed in three main categories. One man's amber may have been another man's brown or yet another's pale. One factor that would affect the flavor of the malt was the material used to fire the kiln. The most expensive choice was coke. This fuel had very little affect on flavor. Coal imparted a somewhat sulfur taste to it. Wood gave a very smoky flavor, similar to German Rauch beers of today. Peat was also used and gave a distinctly earthy flavor. Today peat is primarily used in Scotch Whiskey. Sometimes even straw was used to dry malt. The varieties of malt were almost infinite depending on the fuel, the time, and the temperature in the kiln and the type of barley used.

Once the malt was produced, it was prepared for brewing by grinding it very lightly to just crack the grains open. The Complete English Brewer stated, "When the malt is ground, it should lie sometime to mellow in the air. The time it will require to lie is different, according to the kind. The brown malt should be allowed three days; the pale only two or one."¹² Then the malt was ready for brewing.

Brewing

The first step in brewing was called mashing. This process involved combing the malt with hot water or, in the terminology of 18th-century brewing, "liquor." The temperature of the water was important in determining how much sugar was extracted and the eventual flavor of the beer.¹³ The traditional method for judging the temperature was to wait until the "steam that first arises from it begins to abate, and it becomes so transparent as to see your face in it."¹⁴ As the 18th-century progressed; this process became more scientific with increasing use of the thermometer. Morrice in his Treatise on Brewing said, "the use of the thermometer in the brewery is various and of such importance, that any instrument of this kind, however inaccurate are better than none."¹⁵

When the proper temperature (around 150 degrees Fahrenheit) was achieved, the malt was combined with the liquor. This mixture was stirred with a mashing rake and allowed to sit for anywhere from one to three hours while maintaining this temperature. This process allows the enzymes, created during malting, to continue the transformation of proteins into sugars. Some of these sugars are removed from the grain to the water. After mashing, the brewer must remove the grain. In larger brew houses, this process occurred in a device known as a lauter tun. This instrument was a large copper with a perforated bottom just above the tap. This process could be repeated with fresh water up to three times. The first runnings produced an ale, the second a strong beer or table beer, and the third a small beer. Each time new water was added less sugar was removed from the same grain, resulting in less alcohol in each batch. Often the process was done twice, resulting in ale and small beer. The liquid coming from this process was referred to as wort.

The next step in the brewing process was to boil the wort with hops for a couple of hours. Normally, each wort was boiled separately. This was one reason why manor home brewhouses were sometimes made with two boiling coppers. This way the ale wort could be boiled in the second copper while the first copper heated water for the next mashing. The hops added bitterness and aroma as well as helped to preserve the beer. The boiling of wort also sterilized the liquid.¹⁶ .

After boiling the wort the hops were removed. Then the wort was cooled. This process was completed in long flat containers called cooler backs. The cooling of the wort was the most critical stage of the brewing process. As the wort cooled, it was exposed to literally thousands of types of bacteria and microorganisms, any of which could land in the wort and spoil it before the yeast could convert it to beer. The 18th­century brewers did not understand the exact nature of these infections but were very concerned about them anyway.

George Watkins gave a good period example of the importance of cleanliness, "Cleanliness is as essential in the brewhouse as in the dairy: fermentation, on which all depends, is a very nice article; and the least mixture of foulness will disturb the operation: the least ill-scent in a vessel will also communicate itself to the liquor. Every tub and every utensil, should be boiled in the copper, or very well scalded, then thoroughly strained, and then scaled again, and after this exposed to the air to sweeten."¹⁷ Luckily 7 none of these infections are fatal to humans, but they can certainly result in some nasty tasting beer.

Aside from bacteria, there were also wild yeast spores in the air. In the past this was the only source for yeast. By the 18th-century, however, yeast was usually saved from the last batch. This could be done in two ways. When the beer was fermenting the foam that arose could be removed. Alternatively, when fermentation was over and the beer was transferred to casks, the remaining sediment was mostly yeast. This could be kept in a liquid form or pressed and formed into cakes. The process of fermenting beer with natural airborne yeast is still practiced in Belgium today; resulting in some very unique and interesting flavored beers called Iambics.¹⁸ Once the yeast was added, the beer fermented very quickly for about four days. Then it was transferred into casks or sometimes bottles. No matter how well made the beer was, it would eventually go bad. This process was slowed by the amount of alcohol and hops in the beer and by keeping the beer from being exposed to air. Because of this, beer for export to the colonies was probably very strong (7 to 8% alcohol) and very highly hopped. I believe these beers were probably the forerunners of what would become called an India Pale Ale.

During the British occupation of India, a new style of beer was developed. This beer was designed to survive the long journey to India, and once there, needed to be very strong and hoppy to last in the hot climate. This style of beer became known as the India Pale Ale. This style had an alcohol content anywhere from 5-10%. It also had lots of hop flavor and some hop aroma, as well as a slight oak taste because of the long time spent in unlined oak barrels on board ship.

Most India pale ales were produced in the British brewing center of Burton or Trent. Burton had been a brewing center since medieval times, mainly because of the water. Burton's water is very hard. This was useful in producing dry, pale beers. Some of the biggest names in British brewing, like Bass and Marstons, started in Burton. The style of India pale ale was created in the early 19th-century, but the idea of increasing alcohol and hops to help preserve the beer was older. Certainly, many of the beers exported to Virginia during this period were strong and full of hops, the true forerunner of the India Pale Ale. The main difference is the Burton ales were clearer and had a lighter color.¹⁹

During this discussion of the beer-making process, I think you can understand how almost an infinite number of beers could be created. The flavor, color and mouthfeel of beer were influenced by a large number of factors. These included the type of malt (light or dark), the kiln process (high or low temperature and fuel), the type of water (hard or soft), the type and amount of hops, as well as where each were used in the brewing process. Hops early in the boil added bitterness. Hops late in the boil added more flavor and smell. The use of hops after the boiling was called dry hopping and was used mainly for producing aromas. Even the type of yeast used could have a large impact on the flavor of the beer, because some yeast ferment more fully than others. Beers of 18th-century England could range from the light, dry almost clear ales of Burton to the heavy almost black porters of London.

Beers in England

As discussed, the art and skill of the brewer offered a wide variety of beers, but usually the various regions of England were recognized for producing various styles of beer. We already mentioned Burton on Trent and its pale ales. Eighteenth century London was known primarily for one style of malt beverage. This style was Porter, a new ale created in the 1720s. The exact origins are somewhat vague but most beer historians agree that Porter first was brewed by a man name Ralph Harwood. Harwood was a brewer at the Bell Tavern in the section of the city known as Shoreditch. It is widely believed that he was trying to simplify a common practice of blending three different beers to create a new product. This beer was referred to as Three Threads. The blend was usually composed of one part pale ale, one part brown ale, and one part stale or aged brown ale. It is safe to assume the serving of Three Threads was inconvenient to the barkeep. In order to get one beer, he would have to draw from three different casks. Harwood's idea seems to be to create a beer that combined all of these elements into a new beer. Porter, or Mr. Harwood's Entire Butt (as it was first known) typically combined pale, amber and brown malts together in a brew that would be aged for at least six months. This brew, first called Entire Butt, was soon dubbed Porter.²⁰

The most serious challenge to this theory on the origin of porter comes from Mr. Graham Wheeler. Wheeler's contention seems to be that Harwood did not brew a new style of beer but blended one. He asserted, "In 1722 Ralph Harwood, a London brewer, prepared a blend of various beers in a single cask that imitated the mixture of mild and stale, and sold it under the trade name 'Entire Butt' this was the origin of porter." He continued saying that the only characteristic that set porter apart from any other beer of the day was that adding a percentage of 'stale' beer to deliberately sour it.²¹ There is, of course, no way of knowing exactly what Mr. Harwood's original product was or whether it was brewed or just mixed, but Mr. Wheeler does make some interesting points. First, it was common to mix different types of beers at this time, and as he points out, stale did not have the same meaning as it does today. Wheeler quotes a passage from a 1760 article that described the blending of different beers. Then he said, "This passage conveniently introduces the concept of 'stale beer' the phrase that most commentators on porter seem to stumble over and get completely wrong. It is quite obvious that stale beer was not the duff-stuff, as many people believe, but a value added commodity. Mild beer was two pence per quart and stale was four pence, mixtures of both were three pence."²² This makes sense, because even today's dark strong beers like stout or porter must age for longer periods than pale ales. The problem with aging beer in the 18th century was the likelihood of infection.

A common infection was Lactobacilli, which gives a sour flavor to the beer. This sour beer would then be blended with fresh beer. In my 18th-century brewing experience, I have had this souring occur in beer that has aged for a long time. The beer has not gone bad in the traditional sense of the word, but does obtain a pronounced 9 sourness. It is probable that a merchant confronted with such a beer would try to blend it to make it saleable. It is also likely that consumers were used to drinking beer that was somewhat sour. Therefore, Mr. Wheeler made some very valid points about early porter, but I must disagree with his statement, "The only thing that distinguished porter from other beers was that it was deliberately soured."²³ Although Mr. Harwood may not have brewed a different style of beer that became known as porter, eventually someone did.

The difference was not only caused by the fact that porter was aged for long periods, but also from the type of malt, and the spicing that was used. Wheeler is correct in saying, "All beers of the early 1700s were brown beers brewed from brown malt."²⁴ It is my contention, however, that there were many types of brown malt ranging from those that were lighter in color to those that were very dark. One type of malt was called porter malt. There are many period texts that talk about porter malt. Why would they make the distinction if any brown malt could make porter? I think that the difference between porter and other brown malts was the amount of time spent in the kiln. This resulted in a puffy appearance to the malt. This malt was also known as blown malt, because some of the kernels actually exploded from the heat of the kiln.²⁵ The other main difference between porter and other beers were the spices used in its production. This included Spanish juice, an extract of licorice and essential binia, derived from molasses.

John Bickerdyke in his 1880s book The Curiosities of Ale and Beer offered two possible explanations as to why porter got this name. "One is that being a hearty, appetizing, and nourishing liquor, it was specially recommended to the notice of the porters, who, then as now, forward a considerable portion of the Shoreditch population." Pennant, in his London seemed to hold the view that porter is "a wholesome liquor that enables the London porter drinkers to undergo tasks that ten gin drinkers would sink under." Another explanation of the origin of the name is that Harwood sent round his men to his customers with the liquor, and that the men would announce their arrival and their business by the cry "Porter," meaning not the bear, but the bearer.²⁶

Porter was created in London, but soon spread throughout the world. Most felt, however, that London porter was the best. One possible explanation for this may have been the water. The soft water of this area was suited to work with the brown malts. Another possible explanation may have been additives that the London brewer used. These additives may have included spices, including nutmeg, and licorice or a licorice extract called Spanish juice. The most dangerous additive was the berry of the cocculous indicus plant. The Oxford English Dictionary defined this berry as "A small black berry often used by natives for stupefying fish and as an additive in porter." This additive seemed to produce a stupefying intoxication in Porter drinkers as well, thus making the drink more powerful without using more malt. Cocculous indicus was not the only drug put into Porters. Some brewers used opium, and laudanum may have been added as well.²⁷ Brewers soon realized that the cocculous indicus berry could be toxic, so its use was banned. There were, however, only small fines for breaking this law, so it is reasonable to assume that some brewers continued to use the berry.

The real distinguishing factor that made Porter unique aside from its taste was its color. This color could range from brown to black. The first Porters must have been brown, because it was not until the early part of the 19th-century that the patent system of creating black malt was invented. The problem with using brown or black malt was that the longer a malt stays in the kiln at a high temperature, the more sugar was destroyed. So, despite its appearance, there were little or no fermentable sugars. Early Porter made entirely from brown malt would have been very weak. This is one reason why brown malts were soon commonly mixed with Pale and Amber malts so as to give the beer some strength. This was probably why early Porter brewers were adding things like opium and cocculous indicus to increase strength.

Another way to add strength and color was the use of sugars. The use of sugars was and is still fairly common in English brewing. The one way to create a black Porter before the creation of patent malt was to use essentia bina. Essentia bina seemed to have been a product of molasses. This molasses was first boiled to make it more concentrated. Then it was lit on fire. The burning caused the liquid to caramelize and gave it a black color and unique taste. The main advantage of using essentia bina was that molasses was highly fermentable. This gave a higher concentration to the wort and imparted a unique taste and color.²⁸ Another common additive in early Porter was coriander seed. This seed was said to replace malt in many ways, both as a bitter and to add saccharine. Some Porter brewers also used salt of steel to aid in head retention and something called "Fabia Amara," also known as bitter bean.²⁹

The proper aging of the beer was very important in the production of Porter. The need to age Porter for long periods gave an advantage to large brewers. Small-scale brewers could not afford to tie up all of their casks by letting them sit in a cellar aging porter. They would need to be constantly filling and selling them in order to make a profit. The question of how best to age porter would occupy the brewing industry for some time to come. Probably the most ingenious solution was done at Whitbread Brewery. The owners built the brewery over a giant storm cistern, which could then be filled with porter.

The other option pursued by many brewers was the construction of large wooden vats.³⁰ This piece of equipment led to sort of one-up-manship between breweries to see who could build the largest porter vat. This competition ended tragically in the early part of the 19th-century. Let's turn to Mr. Bickerdyke for a description of this tragedy. "In October 1814, owing to the defective state of its hoops, it [a vat containing 3,555 barrels of porter] burst, and the results were most disastrous. Their brewery was, at the time, hemmed in by miserable tenements, which were crowded by people of the poorer classes. Some of these houses were simply flooded with Porter. Two or three of these collapsed, and no less than eight people met their death, wither in the ruins or from drowning, the fumes of the porter, or by drunkenness."³¹ After this, the competition to build bigger vats stopped. The use of large vats, however, continued into the 20th century.

The largest aspect in the industrialization of brewing came in the 1780s with the introduction of the steam engine. In 1781 Mr. Watt patented the "sun and planet" gear. 11 By 1788 almost all of the large London brewers had acquired steam engines. The steam engine was soon combined with other technical advances. These advances included better, more powerful pumping systems for moving beer and wort in the brewery. The creation of the mechanical mashing rake meant that the breweries no longer had to employ people to stir the mash with hand rakes. There was also a large screw-like device that moved malt; meaning men no longer had to carry sacks of grain. With these advances, the industrialization of brewing was fully under way by the end of the 18th­century. By 1800 large-scale brewers were able to get rid of the old horses that formerly ground the grain, as well as most of the human workers previously engaged in menial tasks in the brewery. Because of the vast amounts of capital held by the large common brewers of London, they were able to convert to steam power very quickly. This mechanization saved these companies money and increased their productivity.³²

While mechanization helped the large common brewers, two other technical advances helped the small-scale home brewer as well. These advances were the increasing use of the thermometer and the hydrometer or sacrometer. The thermometer, as mentioned earlier, allowed the brewer much greater control over the type of wort produced. The hydrometer was an instrument that allowed the brewer to measure the sugar in suspension in water. By using it twice, first before the wort was fermented and again after fermentation was over, the brewer could know exactly how much of the sugar had been converted into alcohol. This told the brewer how efficient his yeast was, as well as the final strength of the beer. This device eventually changed the way beer was taxed. At first, the tax was based on the amount of malt. By the end of the 19th-century it was based on the original gravity of the wort.

At the beginning of this discussion, I described porter as a style of beer. The other member of this family is stout. Today, the primary difference between stout and porter is that stout makes more use of roasted barley.³³ In the early stages of brewing, there was no real difference. Sometimes the word 'Entire Butt' referred to a stout porter. In this case, "stout" was referring to the strength. Eventually, the term stout became a subgroup of porter. N.B. Redman, the archivist at Whitbread's, asserts that by the 1860s stout and porter were two different products. He sums up the difference in this way, "As well as having a higher original gravity than porter, stouts were also more heavily hopped."³⁴ Eventually, stout would over-take porter to become the better known product, mainly through the success of Arthur Guiness and Sons Brewery in Ireland. At one point porter and stout were even mixed together to produce a drink called London Cooper, harking back to the days of Three Threads. Porter's popularity continued to decline to the point that in the 1950s it stopped being made altogether. Luckily the renewed interest in beer in the 1980s and 90s have led to the production of a great many types of porters both in England and America.

After Burton and London, Dorchester was also known for the quality of its ales. This honor seemed to have been due to the water. The Complete Country Housewife published in 1760 asserts, "One of the best esteemed beers in England is that brewed in and near Dorchester. The excellence of this beer is in great measure owing to the 12 quantity of chalk, with which that country abounds; which being impregnated with the water, produces that agreeable softness, for which this beer is so much admired."³⁵ The author then gave instructions on how to make caulked water. There were two or three other brewing manuals that gave similar instructions for creating Dorchester water. The author of Every Man his Own Brewer claimed it was not only the water but also the malt that made Dorchester beer unique. "It is said to be brewed from barlies well germinated but not to the domination of pale malt and its peculiar taste proceeds from the starchiness of malt and quantities of salt and flour mixed with the wort."³⁶

Nottingham, another English town, was also known for the quality of its beer. Every Man his Own Brewer also credited the type of malt for this taste, saying, "Nottingham beers are usually brewed from amber dried to 132 or 138 degrees Fahrenheit have the same soft opiumate quality as Burton but are much higher hopped. It is in general a much cleaner liquor than Burton or Dorchester."³⁷ There is a famous 18th­century ballad that sang the praises of Nottingham ale. It claimed "there is no liquor on earth like Nottingham ale".

One of the unique regional beers of Germany was Brunswick Mum, which was often imported to Briton. This beer was made with less malted barley, using wheat and oats instead. It was also made with herbs and spices instead of hops and was described as clear and tasty. Using wheat malt can produce a very light crisp flavor, and without hops to add bitterness, this beer was probably very sweet.

The last regional ale of Britain was Welsh ale. The difference between this ale and the others was the malt. Welsh ale contained malt that was often dried with wood, giving it a very smoky taste. Some of the better quality Welsh ales may have used high dried brown malt, dried with Welsh coal or coke.³⁸ Welsh ale seemed to be popular in Virginia and it appeared in Williamsburg inventories, like Wetherburn's Tavern.

The practice of making unique regional beers also seemed to have been common in the colonies. In New England brewing was practiced as much as it was in England. In areas with large German or Dutch populations, however, followed a more continental approach. The real changes in the New World appeared in the South. This change was based on the ingredients from which the beer was made. There was a serious lack of malted barley in the Williamsburg area. After studying over 240 inventories from York County, only 4 of them listed malted barley, most in quantities too small to brew with. At first glance it seemed that there was little brewing in this area. Many inventories, however, included hops, and stores offered them for sale. Hops were also commonly grown in the Virginia area.

Why have hops if you are not brewing? Some hops may have been used medicinally. Physicians believed that hops assisted in sleeping and increasing the appetite.³⁹ Regardless, the quantities are too large for merely medicinal uses. The answer came as I studied local small beer receipts. Studies have revealed four different colonial receipts for small beer, including one believed to be written by George Washington. In each one of these receipts molasses replaced malted barley. It seems that in Virginia, 13 small beers were for the most part molasses beers. Those receipts all called for some quantity of molasses, bran and hops, but no malted barley.

There seems to have been a discrepancy in the term small beer. In England small beer was the last running of the grain. In Virginia, small beer was molasses beer. This theory is supported by the household accounts of the Governor's Palace in Williamsburg, VA. Shortly after the arrival of Governor Botetourt in 1768, the following entry was written in his accounts, "1768 Nov 25 to 81bs. of hops 0-8-0, to yeast for small beer, 0-1­3, To 26 lbs of hops 1-6-0."⁴⁰ There is no malted barley listed on the inventory but in the cellar of the Palace there was quite a bit of molasses, and a half barrel of molasses beer. Every Man his own Brewer also confirmed this theory by saying, "In Pennsylvania, beer is made this way. Start with 5 lbs of molasses and some powdered ginger and pour in 2 gals boiling water. Boil this mixture. When cool add 13 gallons of water and yeast. In Carolina the pine tops from the turpentine tree is added to molasses to make beer. When spruce can be obtained the pine tops are rarely used."⁴¹

Spruce beer was also fairly common in the New World. This beverage was made from barley, or more commonly, molasses, but instead of using hops they used the tops of spruce trees. It is likely that in many southern colonies molasses was a common substitute for barley, probably because molasses was easily obtained through the constant trade with the Caribbean. Writing in the 1950s Stanley Baron in his book, Brewed in America, supported this assertion with some quotations. The first quote is by an English traveler in Maryland in the 1730s, "The beer they brew is excellent, which they make in great quantities, of persimmons, and c (sic), of molasses; for few of them are come to malting their corn, of any kind, at which I was much surprised, as even the Indian grain, as I have found experimentally, will produce an wholesome and generous liquor."⁴² Another quote came from a German pastor writing to perspective colonists back home, "A brewer is not needed for as yet too little barley is grown and the inhabitants have the ability to cook a healthy beer for themselves out of syrup, Indian corn and hops or the tops of the white or water fir, which is very cheap."⁴³

Another interesting thing about these quotations is they both mention the use of Indian corn. Once it became clear that this was the grain most suited to the New World, it was only natural that the colonists should try to brew using corn.

The best description of brewing with corn comes from Landon Carter. Carter published the following receipt in the February 14, 1775 Virginia Gazette: "The stalks, [of corn] green as they were, as soon as pulled up, were carried to a convenient trough, then chopped and powdered so much, that, by boiling all the juice could be extracted out of them … after this pounding the stalks and all were put in to a large copper, there lowered down in its sweetness with water, to an equality with common observations in malt wort, and then boiled, till the liquor in a glass in seems to brake(sic), as the brewers term it; after that it is strained, and boiled again with hops."⁴⁴ It is interesting that this quotation comes from Landon Carter because he was one of the few Virginians that was growing his own hops and malting his own barley. His diary mentions brewing his own beer several times.

Molasses and corn were not the only New World products used in brewing. There are several colonial references to brewing with persimmons. The most interesting aspect of brewing with persimmons is the way that they were used. It seems that the common method was to mash them and bake them in cakes. These cakes would then be crumbled up and mixed with water to form a mash. This method was similar to what ancient Egyptian and Sumerian brewers did with bapir. The other New World plant sometimes used in brewing was the pumpkin. This vegetable does not seem to have been as popular for brewing, because pumpkins produced a sharp tasting beer.

Despite attempts at brewing with a wide variety of products, the south was primarily known for its molasses beer, most of which was homebrewed and very inexpensive to make. Virginia had only a few real commercial breweries. One such brewery was located in the Winchester area. It was not very successful and was offered for sale twice in a short period of time. Apparently, no one was able to profit from it. The same fate befell a fairly substantial brewery in Fredericksburg.⁴⁵ The city of Alexandria also had at least two breweries in the 18th-century. In Williamsburg there was a brew house at The College of William & Mary, but this was for supplying the students and faculty.⁴⁶ There was also money allocated during the initial construction of the Governor's Palace for a brewhouse and a copper for brewing.⁴⁷ It is unclear whether this brewhouse was actually constructed or whether brewing was done in the kitchen or another outbuilding. A reference was discovered mentioning a brewery at College Creek Landing near Williamsburg. Finally, Norfolk had a couple of breweries, which probably provided beer to ships traveling to England and elsewhere.

The real centers of colonial brewing were in the North. New York City was a natural choice because of its Dutch heritage. Brewing in New Amsterdam began by the 1620s, when the Dutch East Indian Company began to settle New Amsterdam. By 1632 there was a brewery established on Browers Street, and brewing continued there until prohibition in 1919. Even after the Dutch lost New York the English colonists continued brewing. Eventually New York was to supply a large amount of beer to the rest of the colonies.⁴⁸

Philadelphia was another main colonial brewing center. Here it was not the Dutch, but the Germans, who joined with English immigrants to create a long lasting brewing tradition. Brewing started with the colony's founder, William Penn, who established a brewhouse at his estate of Pennsbury Manor.⁴⁹ By the end of the 17th century, there were at least four breweries in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia beer became very successful. Early in its production, it had "a better name, that is, is in more esteem than English beer in the Barbadoes and is sold for a higher price there."⁵⁰ The most famous admirer of Philadelphia beer was George Washington, and his taste seemed to be for Porter, in particular the Porter of a Mr. Hairs. Washington described this drink as the best Porter in Philadelphia. He ordered large amounts for both state entertainment and for personal use. Washington was not the only founding father interested in brewing.

Thomas Jefferson began to brew at Monticello in the early part of the nineteenth century. As usual, Jefferson started by reading, first The London and Country Brewer and then The Theory and Practice of Brewing by Michael Couburne. Apparently, these books were not sufficient, so Jefferson hired a brewer named Joseph Miller. Miller was a sea captain and brewer who Jefferson described as "the most skillful brewer that has ever come to the country."⁵¹ Jefferson had Miller train his servant Peter Hemmings in the art and mysteries of brewing. Apparently after two brewing sessions with Miller, Hemmings was competent at brewing and malting. Jefferson seemed confident enough in his servant's ability that he offered to have him train one of James Madison's servants to brew. Thomas Jefferson summed up the brewing at Monticello best in a letter to a James Barbour in 1821; "I took a Capt. Miller to my house. He had been a brewer in London, and undertook to teach both processes to a servant of mine, which during his stay here and one or two visits afterwards in the brewing season; he did with entire success. I happened to have a servant of great intelligence and diligence, both of which are necessary. We brew 100 gallons of ale in the fall and 100 gallons in the spring, taking 8 gallons only from a bushel of wheat. The public breweries take 15 which make their liquor meager and often vapid… "⁵²

The last brewing center in early America was New England. In the 17th-century New England became the brewing center of the colonies. The Puritans seemed to prefer beer to harder liquors. Homebrewing was very common in New England. In 1650 the colony of Massachusetts tried to limit the number of people brewing.⁵³ By the 18th­century commercial brewing was producing less beer in New England, as both Philadelphia and New York surpassed it.

Hopefully, our discussion of the definition of beer, the beer-making process, beer history and regional variations has provided the reader with a better understanding of the 18th-century beverage. I started this paper with a quotation about the popularity of beer in England. Now that beer has been defined thoroughly, one must explore some reasons for its popularity.

Beer's Popularity

Beer enjoyed a position of prominence partially because of a great distrust of water. A 16th-century Englishman summed it up best by saying, "Water is not wholesome, sole by its self for an Englishman."⁵⁴ There were good reasons for distrusting water at this time. Primarily, concern arose because of the numerous sources of contamination and the lack of good hygiene. This view of the unhealthy nature of water had not changed by the time the first settlers came to Jamestown. Governor Francis Wyatt wrote to England in 1623 complaining, "To plant a colony by water drinkers was an inexcusable error in those, who laid the first foundations, and have made it a received custom, which until it be laid down again there is little hope of health."⁵⁵ This view of water remained intact for the next two and a half centuries. John Bickerdyke presented nearly the same complaint. When arguing against the teetotaler party in 1880s England, he stated

"It would be difficult to imagine a liquor more suitable for the working classes then good Porter—taken in moderation of course. Not only does it afford the slight stimulant which we have shown to be beneficial to the human body, but it also contains much nutritive matter, both organic and inorganic, together with saccharine…. What have the total abstainers to suggest? Water the diffuser of epidemics, and hardly ever obtained pure by the laboring classes; tea, which is almost as injurious as spirits to the nervous system, which lacks nutritive properties, and which by no means an inexpensive liquor; coffee and cocoa, both hot drinks and most unsuitable to shake the thirst of a laboring man; various effervescing drinks, all more or less injurious to the digestive organs when taken habitually, and of whose composition no man have knowledge, save the maker and temperance wines, certain vendors of which were not long back prosecuted for attempting to defraud the revenue, when this abstainer's tipple was found to contain some twenty percent alcohol…as matter of fact, no alcoholic substitute has been put forward by the teetotaler party which is the least likely to take the place of Porter; and until such beverage is invented—an event which we feel perfectly certain will never come to pass—the Porter and Stout breweries of the United Kingdom will have every opportunity of continuing to confer on the working classes the benefits of cheap and wholesome liquor."⁵⁶

A second factor in the popularity of beer is what some call the "lesser of two evils" approach. Beer, although it was an alcoholic beverage, contained far less alcohol than spirits or hard liquor. This theory allowed beer to gain the favor of those who opposed alcoholism and drunkenness. Drunkenness was prevalent throughout Europe at this time. Although drinking and drunkenness were fairly common, the attitude toward this problem was different from today. Historian, Harry G. Levine, presents this view of the 18th-century perception of alcohol abuse, "During the eighteenth century per capita alcohol consumption was higher than in most of the nineteenth century, even higher then it is today… And drunkenness was common. New England's Puritan ministers denounced drunkenness as a sinful and willful misuse of the 'Good Creature,' but most colonials regarded drunkenness as unproblematic and unsurprising. George Washington's agreement with his gardener included "four dollars at Christmas with which 17 he may be drunk four days and nights; two dollars at Easter to effect the same purpose; two dollars at Whitsuntide to be drunk for two days."⁵⁷

In his rich and thorough study of early American drinking practices, William Rorabaugh concluded, "To most colonial Americans inebriation was of no particular importance." William Byrd, for example, 'noted with equal indifference intoxication among members of the Governor's Council and his own servants.' Rorabaugh found that Byrd's attitude was typical and for most Americans in the period, drunkenness was a natural harmless consequence of drinking."⁵⁸

This viewpoint may have been a reflection of most people's attitude toward alcohol during the first half of the 18th century. however, this attitude was starting to change. Some people had always opposed alcohol, but starting in the 1600's and increasingly in the 1700's, more people began to speak out against heavy drinking.⁵⁹ There were a number of factors that caused this change in attitude. Primarily there was a change in the type of alcohol consumed. Strong liquor, or aqua vita, was becoming more prevalent. The process of distilling became more refined and widespread during the 1650s. In England the real problem drinking started with gin.

Most historians blame soldiers returning home from was in Holland for introducing gin drinking to England. It spread quickly especially among the lower classes. The stigma of being a low class beverage stayed with gin right up until the 20th century.⁶⁰ The consumption of gin by lower class sorts continued to grow, and by the 1720s it had reached dangerous proportions. This situation was intensified by the Gin Act. This act reduced the tax on distilled liquor while keeping in place taxes on malt and hops. The effect was a flood of cheap gin on the streets of England. The act was passed with support from the upper classes who viewed distilling as an economic boom and a great way to use excess grains. Soon, they began to see the results of their action as gin drinking rose drastically. Eventually, the Gin Act was repealed but not before the damage was done.⁶¹ So, perhaps many 18th-century Britons were not so much in favor of beer as they were opposed to gin.

Probably the best visual representation of this view is a set of two engravings by William Hogarth. The first engraving was "Beer Street." This scene depicted a happy section of town populated by prosperous, rotund and law-abiding citizens. This picture was quite a contrast to "Gin Lane." Here, sunken-eyed, malnourished paupers were so drunk on gin that they did not even notice that one woman was about to drop her baby on its head. The message is clear. Beer led to health and prosperity. Gin led to poverty and death.

Another variation on this theme is even more cynical. It was not the health consequences of gin abuse, but the social consequences that worried the upper class. This view was reflected by the Bishop of Oxford in the 1740s when he apparently told Parliament, "That strong liquors produce in everyone a high opinion of their own merit; that they blow the latent spark of Pride into flower and therefore, destroy all voluntary submissions, they put an end to subordination and raise every man to an equality with his master."⁶² Another supporter of this theory was Sir Joseph Jekyll. He claimed "The fear 18 of a house of correction, imprisonment, or danger of the gallows made little impression on the rabble who drank gin." Beer therefore, was better, because, "People cannot so soon nor so easily get drunk with beer as with gin."⁶³ By the 1770s, we can see that some of the gentry equated gin with the collapse of public health and the destruction of the very social fabric of England.

In America it was not gin, but rum and whiskey that were considered the alcohol problem. Author, William Rorabaugh, gave a good description of some of the reasons for the change in American attitudes toward alcohol. "This change of mind was stimulated by a number of impulses among which were the spread of rationalist philosophy, the rise of mercantile capitalism, advances in science, especially the science of medicine, and an all pervasive rejection of custom and tradition." As far as rationalist philosophy goes, I will now turn to the very embodiment of that philosophy in America, personified by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote to a man who was interested in creating a national brewery; "I have no doubt, either in a moral or an economic view, of the desirableness to introduce a taste for malt liquors instead of that for ardent liquors."⁶⁵ In another letter Jefferson said, "I wish to see this beverage (beer) become common instead of the whiskey which kills one third of our citizens and ruins their families."⁶⁶

The man most responsible for changing American medical opinion about alcohol was Benjamin Rush. In 1784 Rush published a pamphlet titled An Inquiry into the effects of Ardent Spirits on the Human Mind and Body. This work blamed heavy alcohol abuse for medical problems such as vomiting, uncontrollable tremors, liver problems and madness. The doctor recommended alcohol use be limited to cider, beer and wine in moderate amounts. Rush even created a visual aid to help his cause of moderation. This aid was called the "Moral and Physical Thermometer or a scale of temperance." At the top of the temperance scale was water then milk, cider, beer and wine. The intemperance scale listed not only the beverage but also the vices, diseases and punishment that resulted from consuming them. Rush's paper struck a chord with many wealthy Americans and religious groups, who seemed to be worried about the same social decay as their English counterparts. The inquiry was also popular in religious circles. The Quakers were among the first of the organized religions to condemn hard liquors, soon followed by the Methodists. Benjamin Rush has been referred to as the father of the American temperance movement, but this title may be inappropriate since he never advocated total abstinence. Rush probably realized that government prohibition would be impossible, but he was responsible for changing many Americans' ideas about strong drink. He also began a serious medical inquiry into the effects of alcohol on the human mind and body. Rush's work would be reprinted for years as the temperance movement gained strength in the late 19th and early 20th-centuries. 67

Economics also played a role in the rising popularity of hard liquor in America. Rum and later whiskey certainly packed more punch per barrel than beer. These beverages also did not spoil like beer. Rorabaugh did an excellent job of presenting the economic argument in favor of hard liquor in this quotation. "The process of distillation interested Americans because it performed a vital economic function by transforming fragile, perishable, bulky, surplus fruit and grain into non-perishable spirits that could 19 easily be stored, shipped or sold. Unlike other commodities, spirituous liquor could be shipped at a profit, even when shipping required the payment of high overland transportation costs. A farmer could realize handsome profits for processing his grain into spirits, since a bushel of corn worth 25 cents yielded 2 ½ gallons of spirits worth $1.25 or more."⁶⁸

Tradition also played a large role in beer's popularity. Because it was the traditional beverage of England and her colonies, beer faced a serious challenge with the coming of the American Revolution. The Revolution knocked beer off of the throne of beverages and increased the popularity of whiskey and cider. These beverages could be promoted as patriotic products made with American raw materials. This change in drinking habits was one of the very first things that distinguished Americans from their British ancestors. The foodstuffs of Americans were not very different from the English. Even the first American cookbook published by Amelia Simmons in 1796 was essentially a British cookbook with the addition of a few Native American ingredients. It was not really until the 1820s and 30's that historians began to see the emergence of a uniquely American cuisine.⁶⁹ The change may have been caused by the Revolution itself. Once the colonists passed the non-importation agreements during the late 1760s and early 1770s, America stopped importing English beer. Non-importation also affected homebrewing and rum distilling because cheap molasses from the Caribbean trade was cut off. Rum appeared to have suffered the same fate as beer. It became unpatriotic to drink rum produced from imported molasses when one could drink whiskey made from native corn. Even when trade was restored after the Revolution, a new patriotism combined with economic factors made whiskey the beverage of choice for Americans.⁷⁰ Beer also faced stiff competition from cider. Cider, like whiskey, had the advantage of changing a cheap, surplus crop into a profitable commodity. Cider was especially popular in the Northeast. In parts of New England individuals consumed as much as a barrel of cider a week.⁷¹ Cider was also popular in Virginia. By the end of the 18th century whiskey and cider were dominant American beverages.

Beer remained popular in brewing centers such as New York and Philadelphia, but it began to disappear in the rest of the country. In some places beer and ale hibernated until the 1850s when German immigrants introduced the newer style of Lager beer. Historians estimate that in 1810 the average American over the age of 15 drank less than a gallon of beer or ale a year. Today, even though Americans drink less than half of the alcohol they drank in the 1820s they drink up to 18 gallons of beer per year.⁷²

In conclusion Americans renounced the drinking habits of their European ancestors and began to drink larger quantities of more potent native beverages very soon after Independence. This trend toward heavier drinking continued until 1830s when the temperance movement began to have some affect in lowering the amount of drinking in this country. The declining consumption of beer reflected this tendency toward spirits.

What can be concluded about British beers and ales of the 18th century? First, it is important to point out that this was a period of great change for these beverages. Improvements in malting altered the end product considerably. The greatest of these improvements was the use of the thermometer. The thermometer allowed more uniform 20 malts to be produced by standardizing the temperature at which various malts were produced. The thermometer also gave maltsters the temperature of their kiln and a new understanding of how much heat was needed to obtain the proper finished product.

The second improvement in malting was in the fuel used. The more widespread use of coke provided a cleaner fuel, thereby reducing the smoky flavor often found in malts of the period. Because coke produced less smoke, it also helped to make lighter colored malts. These lighter colored malts became more popular in the 19th-century with the creation of Pale Ales. The 18th-century also saw improvements in the design of malt kilns. The improvements culminated in the creation of a variety of new types of malt, including crystal, black patent, chocolate and roasted barley. These new malts ranged from pale to black, creating a much wider range of beer colors and flavors from pale ales to black stouts.⁷³ Until this change occurred, most beers were brown; some were lighter and others were darker, but they were mostly brown. The few exceptions were some of the wheat beers and oat beers (like Mum) that were often referred to as white beers.

George Watkins in his book The Complete English Brewer, described oat ale, "Oat ale when genuine and well brewed is fine, spirited and balsamic liquor; it is very pale in colour, brisk and yet extremely soft to the taste; it sparkles in the glass, and rises to a fine creamy head; it is perfectly clear, and free from all ill flavour."⁷⁴

Another improvement in beer color was the increased use of clarifying agents such [as] isinglass. Isinglass helped the yeast and other things floating in beer to settle to the bottom, making even brown beers look clear. This ingredient initiated a new style of drinking vessel for beer. Traditionally, beer was consumed from pewter, leather or stoneware containers. In the 18th-century, however, as beer became cleaner historians see a rise in vessels described as "beer glasses" in Virginia inventories.

In addition to the thermometer, the other scientific invention that affected beer was the hydrometer or sacrometer. This device allowed the producer to obtain the exact density of the wort, which was directly related to the alcohol content of the finished product. The hydrometer allowed brewers and revenuers to know the strength of their beer.

Another factor that influenced the taste of 18th-century beers and ales was their fermentation and storage in wooden containers. Oak was the most frequently used wood. Oak, with its high tannic acid content, flavored and possibly even colored all 18th­century malt beverages. Today, most consumers are familiar with the flavor of oak in wines, but few have experienced oak-aged beer. The bite of the tannic acid combined with the hops made beer taste bitterer. Another effect that wood had on beer involved certain types of bacteria. Bacteria, especially the acetobacters, could thrive in oak barrels. Once inside the wood these infections were almost impossible to remove. It was important to note that a lactic bacterial infection did not necessarily ruin a beer, although it produced a somewhat sour flavor.

A good modern example of a sour beer is Rodenbach. This beer is produced in Belgium and is fermented with a collect of yeast, lactobaccilli and microorganisms. In this case the oak barrels are very important. Oak diffuses oxygen into the beer, which allows these organisms to survive.⁷⁵ Certain types of German wheat beers also rely on lactobacilli for important components in their flavor profile.

Due to frequent infections and the aging of wood 18th-century beers were probably somewhat sour in flavor. As mentioned earlier, this may have been one of the reasons for the blending of beers that lead to Porter. Mixing an old sour beer with a newer sweeter beer was a good way of making both more drinkable. It seemed that mixing or blending did not die with the creation of Porter. It is still popular today in the form of a drink called a "Black and Tan," usually a mixture of lager and stout. Rodenbach is probably the modern beer closest to an 18th-century Porter. It is beer, aged in wood, and is fairly sour. The biggest difference between the Rodenbach and an 18th­century Porter is the color. Rodenbach is reddish in color and Porter was more of a brown color.⁷⁶

The question of alcohol content in 18th-century beers is somewhat more difficult to answer. The invention of the sacrometer made it possible to measure alcohol content, however, the scale used was different from today's hydrometer scales, which were invented in the mid-19th-century. In order to get an accurate reading of alcohol percentage, one must measure the density before the yeast is added and again when fermentation has stopped. I have not seen any evidence of an 18th-century reading taken before and after. If the amount of alcohol was based solely on the amount of grains used beers and ales of the 18th-century were extremely strong. The problem is that the amount of alcohol was determined by how much sugar was extracted from the grain. The varieties of barley available at the time were certainly lower in sugars than are today's modern hybrids. High temperatures in the malting process could also destroy these sugars, and no one knows exactly how much weaker these colonial varieties were. This problem is complicated by the fact that brewing process extracted not all of the sugar available in the grain. A number of factors influenced the amount of sugar extracted. These included water temperature, pH of the water, the malting process and the age of the mash.⁷⁷ It is safe to say that historians might never know the exact strength of 18th­century beers.

Therefore, I will express my opinion that most 18th-century beers and ales were fairly high in alcohol content. I assert this theory because the colonists believed that alcohol helped to preserve the beer. Through period descriptions, it is clear that imported beer was fairly strong, somewhere between 8-10% alcohol. Additionally, numerous descriptions exist of various types of strong ales that were expected to last at least a year in the cask. Even average March or October beers were expected to last at least six months to a year. Perhaps the best measure of the strength of colonial beers is the various molasses beer receipts. Although grains have changed in strength, it is unlikely that molasses has. Most of these small beer receipts called for between one and two gallons of molasses for a ten-gallon batch. This ingredient provided enough sugar for at least 3% alcohol per volume, which is just short of modern American lagers. If these are "small" beers, that[then] the strong beers certainly have a greater alcohol content. In addition to molasses, these beers contained bran, which added to the sugar content as well. Again, historians will never know the exact alcohol content.

Aside from malt, the other important components in creating the beer's flavor are hops and yeast. Hops face a similar problem as grains. Modern breeding and growing techniques have greatly increased the bittering ability of hops. In fact most of the hops in use today were developed in labs during the past fifty years. Hops provide bitterness aroma to beer and it is clear that bitterness has increased in the last two hundred years. Unfortunately, it is not as clear whether the aroma of hops has also increased. It is likely that aroma qualities have changed, but historians cannot determine the extent. The amount of hops in 18th-century beers was at least five times that are typically used in modern beers. Certainly, these beers were not five times as bitter as modern beers. Exactly how much change has occurred in the bittering and aroma may remain a mystery.

Yeast is even more problematic than hops. There are literally thousands of varieties of these single-celled organisms. Each of them has their own flavor characteristics. Without modern laboratory techniques it would have been impossible for 18th-century brewers to select a single strain of yeast. A variety of yeast together has a synergistic effect on flavor. The other problem with yeast is its constant mutation. A single strand of yeast, in as little as ten generations, can mutate to completely new flavor characteristics. Therefore, many brewers keep a pure culture of their yeast in a yeast bank so they can obtain the original strain when necessary. Eighteenth-century brewers did not have this luxury. Interestingly, some antique English strains of yeast are still available today. One of the most interesting is the yeast used in a beer called Flag Porter. This yeast was salvaged from a shipwreck found in the English Channel. Brewers carefully revived this yeast and use it to bottle and carbonate the beer, using a receipt from the 1840s.⁷⁸ As technology advances, the possibility of acquiring 18th-century strains becomes more realistic.

If we traveled back in time, how would we find the beers of the 18th-century? This paper asserts that these beers would be brown, somewhat cloudy with a heavy wood flavor. They would also be fairly high in alcohol content, somewhat hoppy, sour and prone to infection. Above all, they would be "a most wholesome liquor" and the most popular beverage in England and her colonies.