CHAPTER VI.

Come all that love good company, And hearken to my ditty, ’Tis of a lovely Hoastess fine, That lives in London City, Which sells good ale, nappy and stale, And always thus sings she, “My ale was tunn’d when I was young, And a little above my knee.” _The Merry Hoastess._ “. . doughty sons of Hops and Malt.” _A Vade Mecum for Malt Worms._ _BREWING AND MALTING IN EARLY TIMES. — THE ALE-WIVES. — THE BREWERS OF OLD LONDON AND THE BREWERS’ COMPANY. — ANECDOTES. — QUAINT EPITAPHS._ It seemeth well that before we record the doings of departed brewers, brewsters, and ale-wives, a page or so should be devoted to the two principal ingredients—malt and water—used by those ancient worthies in compounding their “merrie-goe-downe.” Old Fuller thus moralizes on the art of malting:—“Though commonness causeth contempt, excellent the Art of first inventing thereof. I confesse it facile to make Barley Water, an invention which found out itself, with little more than the joyning of the ingredients together. But to make mault for Drink, was a masterpiece indeed. How much of Philosophy concurred to the first Kill of Mault, and before it was turned on the floor, how often was it toss’d in the brain of the first inventor thereof. First, to give it a new growth more than the earth had bestowed thereon. Swelling it in water to make it last the longer by breaking it, and taste the sweeter by corrupting it. Secondly, by making it to passe the fire, the grain (by Art fermented) {121} acquiring a lusciousnesse (which by nature it had not) whereby it doth both strengthen and sweeten the water wherein it is boyled.” Those practically engaged in the production of our English national drink, whether maltsters or brewers, will no doubt be interested to compare the art of malting as it was carried on three hundred years ago in this country, with the more familiar processes of to-day. A description of malting in the sixteenth century is given by Harrison. “Our drinke,” he says, “whose force and continuance is partlie touched alreadie, is made of barleie, water and hops, sodden and mingled together, by the industrie of our bruers, in a certain exact proportion. But before our barleie doo come unto their hands, it susteineth great alteration, and is converted into malt, the making whereof I will here set downe in such order as my skill therein may extend unto. . . Our malt is made all the yeare long in some great townes, but in gentlemen’s and yeomen’s houses, who commenlie make sufficient for their owne expenses onelie, the winter half is thought most meet for that commoditie, howbeit the malt which is made when the willow doth bud, is commonlie worst of all, nevertheless each one indeuereth to make it of the best barleie, which is steeped in a cesterne, in greater or less quantitie, by the space of three daies and three nights, untill it be thoroughly soaked. This being doone, the water is drained from it by little and little, till it be quite gone. Afterward they take it out and laieng it upon the cleane floore on a round heape, it resteth so until it be readie to shoote at the roote end, which maltsters call ‘comming.’ When it beginneth, therefor, to shoote in this maner, they saie it is ‘come,’ and then foorthwith they spread it abroad, first thick and afterward thinner and thinner upon the said floore (as it commeth) and there it lieth (with turning every day foure or five times) by the space of one and twenty daies at the least, the workemen not suffering it in any wise to take any heat, whereby the bud end should spire, that bringeth foorth the blade, and by which oversight or hurt of the stuffe it selfe the malt would be spoiled, and turne small commoditie to the bruer. When it has gone or been turned so long upon the floore, they carie it to a kill covered with haire cloth, where they give it gentle heats (after they have spread it there verie thin abroad) till it be dry, in the meane while they turne it often that it may be uniformelie dried. For the more it be dried (yet must it be doone with soft fire) the sweeter and better the malt is, and the longer it will continue, whereas if it be not dried downe (as they call it) but slackelie handled, it will breed a kind of worme, called a wivell, which {122} groweth in the floure of the corne, and in processe of time will so eat out it selfe, that nothing shall remaine of the graine but even the verie rind or huske. The best malt is tried by hardnesse and colour for if it looke fresh with a yellow hew and thereto will write like a peece of chalke, after you have bitten a kirnell in sunder in the middest, then you may assure yourselfe that it is dried downe. In some places it is dried at leisure with wood alone, or strawe alone, in other with wood and straw together, but of all the straw dried is the most excellent. For the wood dried malt when it is brued, beside that the drinke is higher of colour, it dooth hurt and annoie the head of him that is not used thereto, bicause of the smoake. Such also as use both indifferentlie doo barke, cleave, and drie their wood in an oven, thereby to remove all moisture that should procure the fume, and this malt is in the second place, and with the same likewise, that which is made with dried firze, broome, &c.: whereas if they also be occupied greene, they are in a maner so prejudicial to the corne as is the moist wood. And thus much of our malts, in bruing whereof some grind the same somewhat groselie, and in seething well the liquor that shall be put unto it, they adde to everie nine quarters of mault one of headcorne, which consisteth of sundrie graine as wheate and otes groond . . .” Though the reasons which caused one kind of water to be more suitable than another for brewing, were not so well understood in olden days as they are at present, our ancestors had learned in the school of experience that the quality of the water had much to do with the quality of the ale and beer brewed from it. Speaking of brewing, Harrison says: “In this trade also our Bruers observe verie diligentlie the nature of the water, which they dailie occupy, and soile through which it passeth, for all waters are not of like goodnesse, sith the fattest standing water is alwaies the best; for although the waters that run by chalke and cledgie soiles be good, and next unto the Thames water which is the most excellent, yet the water that standeth in either of these is the best for us that dwell in the countrie, as whereon the sunne lyeth longest, and fattest fish are bred. But of all other the fennie and morish is the worst, and the clerist spring water next unto it.” The silver Thames—very different then from the turbid noisome sewer of to-day—by reason of the excellence of its water, formed the ordinary source of supply for the old London Brewers, many of whom erected their breweries on or near its banks. As early as 1345, however, there seems to have been a tendency on the part of certain brewers to get their water elsewhere. In that year a complaint was made to the {123} authorities on behalf of the Commonalty of the City of London, “that whereas of old a certain conduit” (probably the Cheapside conduit constructed in Henry III.’s reign) “was built in the midst of the City of London, that so the rich and middling persons therein might there have water for preparing their food, and the poor for their drink; the water aforesaid was now so wasted by Brewers and persons keeping brewhouses and making malt, that in these modern times it will no longer suffice for the rich and middling, nor yet for the poor.” In consequence of this state of things, the brewers were forbidden to use the conduit water under penalty, for the first offence to forfeit the _tankard_ or vessel in which the water was carried, on a second conviction to suffer fine, and on the third, imprisonment. More than four hundred years ago the waters of the Thames were at some states of the tide too turbid for use, and accordingly in the reign of Henry VI., the Wardens of the Brewers’ Company were commanded not to take water for brewing from the Thames when it was disturbed, but to wait till low water and the turn of the tide. In Queen Elizabeth’s reign the Thames was beginning to acquire an evil repute, if we may believe the author of _Pierce Penilesse, his supplication to the Deuill_ (1592), who refers to the London Brewers in terms of contempt. “Some” says he, “are raised by corrupt water, as gnats, to which we may liken brewers, that, by retayling _filthie Thames water_, come in a few yeres to be worth fortie or fiftie thousand pound.” Stow remarks of the London Brewers that “for the more part they remain near the friendly waters of the Thames.” In his time many brewhouses were gathered together in the parish of St. Catharine, near the Tower, and are distinguished on the map of London given in the Civitates Orbis by the name of “Beer Houses.” Many years ago a canal led up from the Thames to the Stag Brewery at Pimlico, and provided that now famous brewhouse with water. All through the reign of Elizabeth, and for some time afterwards, the Thames in the neighbourhood of the City, continued to afford the greater part of the water used by the London Brewers. Until the New River water was brought to London, an event which took place in the time of James I., the Thames would naturally furnish the chief supply. The regulations in force touching the Thames water, had regard to the manner in which it was carried from the river to the Breweries, and did not in any way seek to restrict the use of the water as unfit for its purpose. For instance, in the third year of Elizabeth’s reign the Wardens of the Brewers were called before the Common Council and {124} charged not to fetch the water of the Thames in a “liquor-cart,”[43] but to make use of “boge” horses (horses carrying boges, _i.e._ water-barrels), according to the ancient laws and ordinances. The command was subsequently relaxed in favour of brewers living close to the River, and drawing water from “the Water-gate at the Tower Hill or at the Whitefriars.” The reason for this regulation is not stated, but the partial removal of the restriction would seem to show that it was intended to prevent the crowding of the narrow thoroughfares of the City with brewers’ carts passing and repassing. The horse with his “boge” would pass another horse with ease, while two “liquor carts” meeting would certainly block the way. This interpretation is rather confirmed by a subsequent regulation, made three years before the Great Fire cleared away many of the narrow lanes of the City, that brewers’ drays should not go abroad in the streets after 11 a.m. on account of the obstruction to traffic thereby occasioned. [43] “Liquor” had then, and also at a far earlier date, the same technical sense as it now has, and meant water. Turning now from the ingredients used in brewing to the actual brewers, it will not surprise any one who has read the chapter immediately preceding the present one, to be informed that in early times a great part of the brewing trade was in the hands of the gentler sex. Alreck, King of Hordoland, is said to have chosen Geirhild for his queen, in consequence of her proficiency in this necessary art, and what was not derogatory to the dignity of a queen might of course be performed by a subject. Accordingly, as has been already shown, even as late as the seventeenth century the brewing of ale and beer for the household was looked upon as belonging to the special province of the housewife and her female servants. Anciently the same custom prevailed in regard to the brewing of ale for sale, and the brewsters or ale-wives had at one time a great part of the trade, both in the country and the city. Mr. Riley, in his preface to the _Liber Albus_, goes so far as to say that even down to the close of the fifteenth century, if not later, the London brewing trade was almost entirely in the hands of women, and he states that Fleet Street was at that time nearly wholly tenanted by ale-wives and felt-cap makers. With all respect for Mr. Riley’s intimate knowledge of the ancient lore connected with London Town, it must be said that this view seems to be incorrect, for in a list of the London Brewers, made in the reign of Henry V., and still existing in the City Records, out of about three hundred names, only fifteen are those of women. {125} The ale-wives of Fleet Street were probably not brewers, but hucksters or retailers. The first ale-wife deserving of special mention is the Chester “tapstere,” whose evil doings and fate are recorded in one of the Chester Misteries, or Miracle Plays, of the fourteenth century. The good folk of Chester seem to have had a peculiar dislike to being subjected to the tricks of dishonest brewers and taverners. Even in Saxon times it was a regulation of the City that one who brewed bad ale should be placed on a cucking-stool and plunged in a pool of muddy water. For the ale-wife of the old play a worse fate was reserved, and though she was a fictitious person, many of the audience would no doubt find little difficulty in fitting some of their acquaintances with the character depicted. With that mixture of the sacred and profane which to a modern ear is, to say the least, somewhat startling, the Mystery in question describes the descent of Christ into Hell and the final redemption of all men out of purgatory—all, save one. A criminal remains whose sins are of so deep a dye that she may not be forgiven. She thus confesses her guilt:— Some time I was a tavernere, A gentel gossepp, and a tapstere Of wine and ale, a trusty brewer, Which woe hath me bewrought. Of cannes I kept no true measure, My cuppes I solde at my pleasure, Deceavinge many a creature, Tho’ my ale were nought. [Illustration: The Sad Fate of a Mediæval Ale-wife.] {126} The ale-wife is then carried off into Hell’s mouth by the attendant demons, and the play closes. The illustration is taken from a _miserere_ seat in Ludlow Church. The scene is a very similar one to that just described. A demon is about to cast the deceitful ale-wife into Hell’s mouth. She carries her gay head attire and her false measure. Another demon reads the roll of her offences, and a third is playing on the pipes by way of accompaniment. Elynour Rummynge, the celebrated ale-wife of Leatherhead in the reign of Henry VIII., has been handed down to fame by the pen of Skelton, the Poet Laureate of the day. It may be, as Mr. Dalloway, one of Skelton’s editors, suggests, that the poet made the acquaintance of Elynour while in attendance upon the Court at Nonsuch Palace, which was only eight miles from her abode. That the Laureate had a very intimate knowledge of this lady, may be gathered from his minute description of her unprepossessing person:― Her lothely lere Is nothynge clere But ugly of chere, * * * * * Her face all bowsy, Comely crynkled Wondrously wrinkled, Lyke a rost pigges eare, Brystled wyth here, * * * * * Her nose somdele hoked, And camously croked, Her skynne lose and slacke, Grained like a sacke; With a croked backe. * * * * * Her kyrtel Brystow red With clothes upon her hed That wey a sowe of led. {127} [Illustration: Eleanor Rummyng, Alewife. When Skelton wore the Laurell Crowne, My Ale put all the Ale-wiues downe. ] {128} Thus, and with many more unpleasing qualities, does the poet garnish the subject of his verse, going on to describe how— She breweth noppy ale And maketh thereof fast sale, To trauellers, to tynkers, To sweters, to swinkers And all good ale drynkers. So fond are many of her customers of her ale, that they will come to it, even though they cannot pay in coin of the realm. Instede of coyne and monney, Some brynge her a conny, And some a pot of honny, Some a salt, and some a spone, Some theyr hose, and some theyr shone. The writers of the Elizabethan age make frequent reference to the ale-wives. “Ask Marian Hacket, the ale-wife of Wincot,” says Christopher Sly, “if she know me not; if she say I am not fourteen pence on the score for sheer ale, score me up for the lyingest knave in Christendom.” One would think that the ale-wife mentioned in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ would have a large, if not a very lucrative, trade:— For Jillian of Berry she dwells on a hill, And she hath good beer and ale to sell, And of good fellows she thinks no ill, And thither shall we go now, now, now, And thither shall we go now. And when you have made a little stay, You need not ask what is to pay, But kiss your hostess and go your way, And thither will we go now, now, now, And thither will we go now. All ale-wives, however, had not so good a repute as Jillian of Berry. Harrison, whose knowledge of ale was indisputable, speaking of the fraudulent ale-wives of his time, says: “Such sleights have they for the utterance of this drink (ale) that they will mire it with resin and salt, but if you heat a knife red-hot, and quench it in the ale, so near the {129} bottom of the pot as you can put it, you shall see the rosen come forth hanging on the knife. As for the force of salt, it is well known by the effect; for the more the drinker tipleth, the more he may, and so dooth he carry oft a drie drunken noll to bed with him, except his luck be the better.” The lady, whose tall hat and large white frill appear upon the next page, went by the unpleasant name of Mother Louse. She is mentioned by Anthony Wood, in 1673, as an ale-wife of Hedington Hill, and was supposed to be the last woman who wore a ruff in England. The verses under the engraving indicate that the dun hat and ruff had gone out of vogue, and were objects of merriment. From the _Accounts of the Lord Treasurer of Scotland_ (fifteenth century) it may be gathered that the customs and regulations respecting the brewing and sale of ale were much the same in Scotland as in this country. The price of ale was fixed from time to time “efter the imposicioune of the worthi men of the toune,” who regulated it according to the price of malt. “Browster wives” brewed the greater part of the ale, and kept most of the ale-houses. Their ale was frequently made from a barley and oat malt, as was the practice in England at the same date. As in this country, the lack of piquant flavour, afterwards supplied by the hop, was in those days compensated by the addition of ginger, pepper, spices, and aromatic herbs. Though the use of hops spread but slowly into Scotland, a considerable import trade in beer (hopped ale) was carried on with Germany. In 1455 the accounts already quoted show a payment for German beer supplied to the garrison at Dunbar. Some curious entries also appear for the years 1497–8: “Item, to Andrew Bertoune, for ten pipe of cider and beir, the price of all IX li; item, for _aill that the Kinges horse drank_, viiijd.; item, for the King’s ships, xij barrellis of ail; for ilk barrell xiiijs. iiijd.” [Illustration: Mother Louſe of Louſe Hall, near Oxford. An Alewife at Hedington Hill (1678) mentioned by Anthony Wood. Probably the laſt woman in England who wore a ruff. AN ALEWIFE. You laugh now Goodman two ſhoes, but at what? My Grove, my Manſion Houſe, or my dun Hat; Is it for that my loving Chin and Snout Are met, becauſe my Teeth are fallen out; Is it at me, or at my Ruff you titter; Your Grandmother, you Rouge, nere wore a fitter. Is it at Forehead’s Wrinkle, or Cheeks’ Furrow, Or at my Mouth, ſo like a Coney Borrough, Or at thoſe Orient Eyes that nere ſhed tear But when the Exciſemen come, that’s twice a year. Kiſs me and tell me true, and when they fail, Thou ſhalt have larger potts and ſtronger Ale. ] The following extracts from old Scotch laws show the similarity of the old English and Scotch usages:—“All women quha brewes aill to be sould, sall brew conforme to the use and consuetude of the burgh all the yeare. And ilk Browster sall put forth ane signe of her aill, without her house, be the window or be the dure, that it may be sene as common to all men; quhilk gif she does not, she sall pay ane unlaw (fine) of foure pennies.” “It is statute that na woman sel the gallon of aill fra Pasch until Michaelmes, dearer nor twa pennies; and fra Michaelmas untill Pasch, dearer nor ane pennie.” A verse or two of the “_Ale-wife’s Supplication_; or, the Humble Address of the Scotch Brewers to his Majesty King George III., for taking away the License and charging some less {131} duty on Malt and Ale,” must close this reference to the old Scotch brewing trade:— Here’s to thee, neighbour, ere we part, But your Ale is not worth the mou’ing You must make it more stout and smart, Or else give over your brewing. It’s nineteen Times ’courg’d thro’ the Draff, So whipt by Willy Water, That Barm and Hop bears a’ the Scoup; I swear I’ve made far better. Cries Maggy, then, you speak as you ken, Consider our Taxations; And brew it stout, you’ll soon run out, Of both your Purse and Patience: For these gauging Men, with nimble Pen, Can count each Pile of Barley; And he that cheats them of a Gill, Will get up very early. Returning now to London, it is proposed to give some account of the brewing trade in olden times, and of the Brewers’ Company. The first differences that strike one in contrasting the ancient and modern breweries are that the former were on a very small scale compared with the huge establishments of to-day, and that originally nearly every brewer was also a retailer. In Chaucer’s time a brewhouse was often synonymous with an ale-house:— “In al the toun nas brewhouse ne taverne That he ne visited with his solas.” We have no knowledge of any representations of brewhouses at this early period. The interesting picture of a sixteenth-century brewery is taken from a rare work by Hartman Schopper, entitled, “Πανοπλια, omnium illiberalium, mechanicarum, aut sedentariarun artium genera continens, carminibus expressa, cum venustissimis imaginibus omnium artificum negociationes ad vivum representantibus,” published at Frankfort-on-Main, 1568. The illustration would no doubt stand as well for a brewhouse of a much earlier period, judging from the written descriptions which we possess. The engraver of _Der Bierbreuwer_ was Jost Ammon, and the engraving is considered one of the best examples {133} of the art at this very early period. A plate taken from the same work, representing a cooperage, will be found on page 334. [Illustration: Der Bierbreuwer. Auß Gerſten ſied ich gutes Bier, Feißt und ſüß, auch bitter monier, In ein Breuwfeſſel weit und groß Darein ich denn den Hopſſen ſtoß, Laß den ich denn in Brennten fühlen daß Damit ſüll ich darnach die Faß, Wohl gebunden und wohl gebicht, Denn giert er und iſt zugericht. Beschreibung aller Stände (1568). ] The old German lines under the engraving of the Beer-brewer may be thus rendered into English: From barley I boil good beer, rich and sweet and bitter fashion. In a wide and big copper I then cast the hops. Then [after boiling the wort] I leave it to cool, and therewith I straightway fill the well-hooped and well-pitched [fermenting] vat; then it [the wort] ferments, and [the beer] is ready. There is no doubt that the brewers’ trade was originally held in little esteem, and was considered as mean and sordid (_de vile juggement_). The ignominious punishments and restrictions (some of which have been already mentioned) to which the old London brewers were subjected, prove that their status only slowly improved. In the time of Henry VIII., however, their position had so far advanced in repute that in the grant of arms then made to them, they are specified as “the Worshipful Occupation of the Brewars of the City.” The Records of the City of London are particularly full of details concerning the brewers and the brewing trade, and it will probably give the best idea of the conditions under which the business was carried on in former days to mention a few of the principal regulations gathered from that valuable body of information, and to supplement them by extracts from the records of the Brewers’ Company. Truth to say, the brewers and the City authorities were never the best of friends, and long accounts are to be found from time to time of disputes between them as to the legal price and quality of the liquor with which the lieges were to be supplied—struggles in which the action of the authorities seems, according to our modern notions, to have been arbitrary in the extreme. An instance of this tyranny over a trade is given in the _Liber Aldus_, from which it appears that not only was a brewer compelled to brew ale of a specified price and quality, but he was not even allowed to leave off brewing in case he found it did not pay him to continue. The regulation runs thus: “If any shall refuse to brew, or shall brew a less quantity than he or she used to brew, in consequence of this ordinance, he or she shall be held to be a withdrawer of victual from this city and shall be punished by imprisonment, and shall forswear his trade as a brewer within the liberties of the City for ever.” The same idea, formerly so prevalent, that persons ought to be compelled by the strong hand to pursue their avocations, and the arbitrary manner in which the authorities acted in obtaining a supply of victuals, may be illustrated from the _Annals of Dunstaple_ (1294), in which it is {134} recorded that the King’s long stay at St. Albans and Langley “enormously injured the market of Dunstaple and all the country round. . . The servants of the King seized all victual coming to the market, even cheese and eggs; they went into the houses of the citizens and carried away even what was not for sale, and scarce left a tally with any one. They took bread and ale from the ale-wives, and if they had none _they made them make bread and ale_.” In 1297 the Sheriffs of Notts and Derby are ordered by Edward I. (Rymer R. 1. 883) to proclaim in every town that the bakers and brewers should bake and brew a sufficient store of bread and ale for certain Welshmen, who were marching to chastise the Scots, “because the King is unwilling that, by reason of such victuals failing, the men of those parts should suffer damage at the hands of the sd Welshmen.” The persons employed in the malt liquor trade, whether as manufacturers or retailers, are specified in an ordinance of the reign of Henry IV. to be Brewers, Brewsters, Hostillers (_i.e._, Innkeepers), Kewes (_i.e._, Cooks), Pyebakers, and Hucksters. The hucksters were undoubtedly at one time accustomed to sell their ale in the streets of London. In 1320 they were prohibited by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen from selling ale on London Bridge. In the sixth year of Richard II. Juliana atte Vane, huckster, was charged with selling her ale in “hukkesterie;” she is asked from whom she bought the ale, and replies that she bought the said ale, viz., one barrel of 30 gallons, from Benedicta (brewster), who lived at “Crepulgate.” It was accordingly adjudged that Juliana had broken the City regulations, and the ale was forfeited. The brewers were forbidden at this time to sell to hucksters under pain of forfeiture and imprisonment _at the will of the Mayor_, the intention apparently being that only a brewer should be a vendor of ale. By the reign of Henry IV. the brewers, although they had as yet no royal charter, had joined themselves together for purposes of mutual protection and social intercourse. They are mentioned in an ordinance of the seventh year of that reign as the Mystery (_i.e._, trade or craft) of Free Brewers within the City, and a constitution is ordained for them by the City Fathers. The freemen of the Mystery are yearly to elect eight persons, four of the part of the City east of Walbrook, viz., two masters and two wardens, and four like persons of the part west of Walbrook. These eight are to make regulations for those using the mystery of brewing, as to the hiring of servants, the sale of ale, and such like matters, as they should be charged by the Mayor and Aldermen; they are also to see “that the good men of the mystery may {135} have a proper place to go to to transact their own business,” and are called together upon the proper occasions “by summons of their beadle in such a manner as other mysteries are;” they are to supervise those who make and supply ale, and to see that “good, able and seyn (sound) ale” is brewed according to the legal price, and to report offenders to the Chamberlain of the City. Considerable difficulty was at this time experienced in compelling the sellers of ale to keep to the lawful measures of barrel, kilderkin, and lesser vessels. On a complaint being made to the Common Council in the ninth year of Henry IV., that whereas “each barrel ought to contain thirty gallons of just measure, but each is deficient by two gallons or more . . . if the dregs are reckoned as clear ale, and that the brewers will make no rebate in the price on that account to the great deceit and damage of the Lords, Gentles and Citizens,” therefore the deputies of the Chamberlain are ordered to mark every barrel as containing 27 gallons, and the half barrel as containing 14 gallons by reason of the aforesaid dregs. Five years later further evil doings are recorded. The Brewers and brewsters, “to the displeasure of God and contrary to the profit of the City, sell their ale three quarts for a gallon, one quart and a half for a potell (_i.e._, a two-quart measure); and one hanap (_i.e._ a two-handled tankard), for a half quart of which six or seven hanaps scarcely make a gallon,” and they are therefore ordered for the future to sell only by sealed measure and not by hanap, tankard, or any such vessel. In the reign of Henry V. the famous Lord Mayor, Richard Whitington, and the Brewers seem to have been perpetually at daggers drawn. The records of the Brewers’ Company contain a quaint account of an information laid against them for selling dear ale; the complainant in the case being Sir Richard, whose mayoralty had then expired. The substance of it, translated from the original Norman French, is as follows:— “On Thursday, July 30th, 1422, Robert Chichele, the Mayor, sent for the masters and twelve of the most worthy of our company to appear at the Guildhall; to whom John Fray, the recorder, objected a breach of government, for which £20 should be forfeited, for selling dear ale. After much dispute about the price and quality of malt, wherein Whityngton, the late mayor, declared that the brewers had ridden into the country and forestalled the malt, to raise its price, they were convicted in the penalty of £20; which objecting to, the masters were ordered to be kept in prison in the Chamberlain’s company, until they {136} should pay it, or find security for payment thereof.” Whereupon, the Mayor and Court of Aldermen, having “gone homeward to their meat,” the masters, who remained in durance vile, “asked the Chamberlain and clerk what they should do; who bade them go home, and promised that no harm should come to them; for all this proceeding had been done but to please Richard Whityngton, for he was the cause of all the aforesaid judgment.” The record proceeds to state that “the offence taken by Richard Whityngton against them was for their having fat swans at their feast on the morrow of St. Martin.” Whether this unctuous dish had offended the famous Mayor’s mind by way of his digestion, does not appear. [Illustration: Whityngton.] The same Robert Chichele is recorded to have issued the following curious regulation in 1423:—“That retailers of ale should sell the same in their houses in pots of “peutre,” sealed and open; and that whoever carried ale to the buyer should hold the pot in one hand and a cup in the other; and that all who had cups unsealed should be fined.” Many other complaints of the “oppressive” acts of Whitington towards the Company are also recorded. {137} The Company, as appears from these records, had the power of fining its members for breach of discipline. In 1421 one William Payne, at the sign of the Swan, by St. Anthony’s Hospital, Threadneedle Street, was fined 3s. 4d., to be expended in a swan for the masters’ breakfast, for having refused to supply a barrel of ale to the King when he was in France. Simon Potkin, of the Key, Aldgate, was fined for selling short measure, whereupon he alleged that he had given money to the masters of the Brewers’ Company, that he might sell ale at his will. This excuse embroiled him with the Company, who were not to be appeased until he had paid 3s. 4d. for a swan to be eaten by the masters, but of which, it is added, “he was allowed his own share.” In 1420 Thomas Greene, master, and the wardens of the Company agreed that they should meet at “Brewershalle” every Monday for the transaction of their business. It would appear that the first Hall had then been recently erected, for, as we have seen, the Brewers had in the preceding reign no fixed place to which “the good men of the mystery” might resort. Many curious accounts are to be found of election feasts. The presence of females was allowed. The brothers of the Company paid 12d., and the sisters 8d., and a brother and his wife 20d. A _menu_ of one of these feasts, given in the ninth year of Henry V., is subjoined. It shows the nature of these entertainments at that period. LA ORDINANCE DE NOSTRE FESTE EN CESTE AN. _La premier Cours_ _The First Course_ Brawne one le mustarde Brawn with mustard Caboch à le potage Cabbage soup Swan standard Swan standard Capons rostez Roast capons Graundez Costades. Great costard apples. _La seconde Cours_ _The Second Course_ Venyson en broth one Venison in broth Blanche mortrewes[44] Mortreux soup {138} Cony standard Rabbit standard Pertriches on cokkez rostez Partridges with roasted cocks Leche Lombard[45] Leche Lombard Dowsettes one pettiz parneux. Sweetmeats and pastry. _La troisme Cours_ _The Third Course_ Poires en serope Pears in syrup Graundezbriddes one Great birds and Petitz ensemblez Little ones together Fretours Fritters Payne puff one Bread puff Un cold bakemete. A cold baked meat. [44] _Mortreux_ was a kind of white soup. Chaucer says of the Cook that:— “He coude roste, and sethe, and broille, and frie, Maken mortreux, and wel bake a pye.” [45] An old receipt for _leche lombard_ describes it as made of pork pounded with eggs; sugar, salt, raisins, currants, dates, pepper, and cloves were added; the mixture was put in a bladder and boiled; raisins, wine and more spices were added, and the whole was served in a wine gravy. It will be gathered from a study of this bill of fare that, though the Brewers frequently alluded to themselves in petitions as “the poor men of the Mystery of Brewers,” “your poor neighbours the Berebruers,” and such like, they nevertheless fared rather sumptuously than otherwise. Here is their drink bill for a similar entertainment:— BOTERYE. item for xxii galons of red wine xiiijs. viijd. item for iij kilderkyns of good ale at ijs. iiijd. viis. item for ij kilderkyn of iij halfpeny Ale at xxij iijs. viijd. item for j kilderkyn of peny ale xijd. In 1422 Parliament ordered that all the weirs or “kydells” in the Thames from Staines to Gravesend should be destroyed, and the Lord Mayor and Aldermen ordained that two men from each of the City Companies should assist in the work. Thomas Grene and Robert Swannefeld were accordingly chosen on behalf of the Brewers to go to Kingston. The expenses were defrayed by a general contribution by the members of the Company. “These be the names,” says the old {139} writer, “of Brewers of London, the wheche dede paien diverse somes of monye for to helpe to destruye the weres yn Tempse for the comynalte of the Cite of London shulde have the more plente of fissh.” The names of some two hundred and fifty subscribers are subjoined to the record. In 1424 the Brewers had a Lord Mayor to their mind in John Michelle, who was “a good man, and meek and soft to speak with.” When he was sworn-in, the Brewers gave him an ox, that cost 21s. 2d., and a boar valued at 30s. 1d.; “so that he did no harm to the Brewers, and advised them to make good ale, that he might not have any complaint against them.” Returning to the ordinances of the City, we find that about this time (7 Hen. V.) there were some three hundred brewers in the City and liberties. In that year another precaution was taken to ensure a proper measure of cask. The coopers were ordered by Whitington to mark with an iron brand all casks made by them. Each cooper was to have his own brand, and the marks were to be entered of record. This regulation was carried into effect, and the mark chosen by each cooper appears on the City Records with his name annexed, as thus:— [Illustration] In the sixteenth year of the reign of Henry VI. the first charter was granted to the Brewers’ Company. It empowered the freemen of the Mystery of Brewers of the City of London thenceforward to be a corporate body, with a common seal and powers of taking and holding land. The Company was yearly to elect four of their number as wardens, who were to have power to regulate the members of the Mystery and their brewing operations, and also to govern and rule all men employed in, and all processes connected with, the brewing of _any kind of liquor from malt_ within the City and suburbs for ever. This last provision was probably intended to extend the power of the Company to the Fellowship of the Beer-brewers, then beginning to come into existence. Some years afterwards a coat-of-arms was granted to the Company by William Hawkeslowe, Clarencieux King of Arms of the South Marches of Ingelond. It is thus described in the grant: {140} “They beren asure thre barly sheues gold, bound of the same, a cheveron, gowles, in the cheveron thre barels, Sylvir, garnyshed with sable.” [Illustration: The Ancient Arms.] The Brewers had taken for their patron saints St. Mary and St. Thomas the Martyr, and bore the arms of Thomas à Becket impaled with their own, until Henry VIII., discovering that St. Thomas was no saint after all, desecrated his tomb, scattered his dust to the four winds of heaven, and compelled the Brewers to adopt another escutcheon. The new coat, discarding the obnoxious saint’s insignia, was a good deal like the old one, and is borne by the Company to this day. It is described in the grant as follows: “Geules on a Cheueron engrailed silver three kilderkyns sable hoped golde between syx barly sheues in saultre of the same, upon the Helme on a torse siluer and asur a demy Morien in her proper couler, vestid asur, fretid siluer, the here golde, holding in either hande thre barley eres of the same manteled sable, dobled siluer.” [Illustration: The Arms of the Brewers’ Company.] With regard to the old Hall of the Brewers’ Company, it occupied the site of the present Hall, and is described by Stowe as a “faire house;” it was destroyed in the Great Fire. Of the present edifice, which sprang Phœnix-like from the ashes of the yet smoking City—it bears date 1666—suffice it to say that it is a fine building, characteristic of the architectural style of the period, and that for lovers of old oak carvings its interior is worthy a visit. This notice of the Brewers’ Company, its foundation, its feasts, and {141} its troubles has taken us rather in advance of our tale, and we must hark back to the middle of the fifteenth century. To judge from an entry in the City Records of the sixteenth year of Edward IV. the Brewers were sometimes openly resisted by force of arms. The actual occasion on which this was done is not specified, but it is recorded that Richard Geddeney was committed to prison for having said that the Brewers had made new ordinances, and that it would be well to oppose them, as had formerly been done, with swords and daggers, when they were assembled in their Hall. Six years afterwards a petition was presented to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen by the Brewers, which is so good a specimen of the usual style of their supplications that some portions of it are given. It begins by “petieously compleynyng that where in tyme passed thei have honestly lyved by the meanes of bruyng, and utteryng of their chaffer as well within the fraunchises of the saide Citee as withoute. And hath ben able to bere charges of the same citee after their havours and powers as other freemen of the saide citee. Where now it is so that for lak of Reules and other directions in the saide Crafte they ben disordered and none obedience nor goode Rule and Guydyng is hadd within the saide Crafte to the distruction thereof.” It is therefore prayed—“That eny persone occupying the Craft or feat of bruying within the franchise or the saide citee make or do to be made good and hable ale and holesome for mannys body. . . and that no manner ale after it be clensed and set on yeyst be put to sale or borne oute to eny custumers hous till that it have fully spourged (worked).” That no brewer shall occupy a house or a “seler” _apart from his own dwelling-house_ for the sale of his ale. That no brewer shall “entice or labour to taak awey eny custumer from a brother brewer,” or “serve or do to be served any typler (_i.e._, retailer of ale) or huxster as to hym anewe be comen custumer of any manner ale for to be retailed till he have verrey knowlage that the saide typler or huxster be clerely _oute of dett and daunger for ale to any other person_” . . . . . That every person keeping a house and being a _brother of Bruers_ do pay to the Wardens of the Company a sum of 4s. yearly. “That no manner persone of the said crafte . . . presume to goo to the feeste of the Maior or the Sherriff _unless he be invited_ . . that members of the crafte shall appear in livery when so commanded that is to sey gowne and hode . . . That the livery of the crafte be changed and renewed every third year agenst the day of the Election of the newe Wardeyns of the crafte . . .” That once a quarter the ordinances of the Company shall be read to the assembled brewers in {142} their common hall. That no brewer is to buy malt except in the market. That malt brought to market must not be “capped in the sakke, nor raw-dried malte, dank or wete malte or made of mowe brent barly, belyed malt, Edgrove malte, acre-spired malte, wyvell eten malte or meddled[46], in the deceite of the goode people of the saide citee, upon payn of forfaiture of the same.” No one is to buy his own malt or corn in the market, “to high the price of corn in the Market,” under pain of the pillory. No one is to sell malt “at the Market of Gracechurch or Greyfreres before 9 of the clock till market bell therfor ordeigned be rongen,” and at one o’clock all the unsold malt is to be cleared away. [46] “Capped in the sakke” = probably with some good malt put on the top and defective malt beneath. Mowe brent barley = barley that has heated in the stack. Belyed = swollen. Acre-spired = with the shoot of the plant projecting from the husk. Wyvell-eten = weevil-eaten. Meddled = mixed. All these rules and ordinances the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were graciously pleased to sanction and confirm. The records contain many entries showing the difficulties the authorities had to contend with in keeping the brewers to the legal price and qualities of ale, a subject already touched on in Chapter V. The prices being fixed by law, and no allowance being made for the natural fluctuations of the market, it is not to be supposed that the brewers would give their customers any better ale than they were absolutely compelled by law to give. As old Taylor quaintly says:— I find the _Brewer_ honest in his _Beere_, He sels it for small Beere, and he should cheate, Instead of _small_ to cosen folks with _Greate_, But one shall seldome find them with that fault, Except it should invisibly raine Mault. Disputes arising between the officers of the Brewers’ Company and any members of the guild, were sometimes referred for settlement to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. In 1520 there was “variance and debate in the Court of Aldermen between the Master and Wardens of the ale-brewers and Thomas Adyson, ale-brewer, concerning the making of a growte” by the latter. The parties having submitted their case to the Court, it was adjudged that Adyson should go to the Brewers’ Hall, {143} and there, before the Master and Wardens, “with due reverence as to them apperteynyng, standing before them his hed uncovered, shall say these words: ‘Maysters, I pray you to be good masters to me, and fromhensforth I promytte you that I shall be good and obedient to you . . and obey the laws and customs of the house.’” Foreign brewers (_i.e._, brewers not members of the Company) were only allowed to sell ale within the City on paying 40s. annually to the use of the City, and in default of payment the Chamberlain “shall distreyne their carts from tyme to tyme.” There was also a duty called ale-silver, which had been paid from time immemorial to the Lord Mayor by the sellers of ale within the City. Complaints of short measure were still common, and as it is shown that the barrels were delivered to customers without being properly filled, so that “thynhabitants of the City paye for more ale and bere than they doo receive, which is agenst alle good reason and conscience,” therefore the brewers were ordered to take round “filling ale” to fill up their customers’ casks. In the eighteenth year of Henry VIII. a striking instance of the insubordination of the Brewers is recorded. The four Wardens of the Company were ordered to produce their books of fines, “the whiche to doo they utterly denyed.” Therefore the four Wardens and their Clerk, Lawrence Anworth, “were comytted to the prisn of Newgate ther to remayne.” This seems to have awakened the Wardens to a sense of their duties, for on the same day they brought in “ij. boks inclosed in a whytte bagge.” A committee was appointed to inspect the same, “forasmuche as it is thought that mayne unreasonable fynes and other ordynannces be conteyned in theym.” It has been already mentioned (p. 68) that from the time of Henry VI. beer had begun slowly to displace the old English ale. The Beer-brewers had gathered themselves together into a “fellowship” for the protection of their interests, and were quite distinct from the Ale-brewers, who composed the Brewers’ Company. Whatever may have been the case earlier, in the reign of Henry VIII. the Beer-brewers numbered in their fellowship a certain proportion of Dutchmen. In the twenty-first year of that reign it was ordained that “no maner Berebruer, _Ducheman or other_, selling any bere shall, etc.” “Also that no maner of berebruer _Englise_ or _straunger_, shall have and kepe in his house above the nomber of two Coblers to amende their vessells.” Constant reference is made to the Beer-brewers as being a fellowship separate from the Ale-brewers until the reign of Edward VI., by which {144} time they had united, apparently without obtaining the sanction of any authority to the change. In the fifth year of that reign a resolution was passed by the Court of Common Council that, “forasmoche as the beare-bruers in the last commen counseyll here holden most dysobedyentlye, stubborenelye, and arrogantlye behaved theymselfes toward this honourable Courte,” the whole craft of the Beer-brewers are for ever disqualified from being elected to serve upon the Common Council; if, however, the Beer-brewers make humble submission, they may be restored to their old status, “if your lordship and the wysdomes of this Citee shall then thynke it mete.” And forasmuch as “most evydently yt hathe apperyd that this notable stobernes of the beare-bruers hath rysen by the counseyll and provocatioun of the ale-bruers, which have unyted to theym all the beare-bruers,” it is ordered that for the future the two crafts shall not unite, nor shall the Ale-brewers compel any one to come into their Company. This state of things continued till the third year of Queen Mary’s reign, when a petition was presented by the Brewers to the Common Council, which recited that the two crafts had formerly been united, “as mete and verye convenyente it was and yet is,” and prayed that the restriction might be removed. The petition ended thus: “and they with all their hartes accordinge to theire dueties shall daylye praye unto almightye god longe to prosper and preserve your honours and worshippes in moche helthe and felycytie.” This affecting appeal, which would have moved a heart of stone, had the desired effect, and from that day to the present the Beer-brewers and Ale-brewers have been united, “as mete and very convenyente it is” that they should be. Different governance, however, was applied to the former, and for long after this period four Surveyors of the Beer-brewers, being “substantyall sadd men,” were elected every year to supervise the trade. An instance of the tyranny with which the trades were regulated in the old days has been already given; a very similar one may be taken from an order of the Star Chamber in the twenty-fourth year of Henry VIII., which commands that “in case the Maire and Aldermen of the same Citie shall hereafter knowe and perceyve or understonde that any of the saide Brewers of their frowarde and perverse myndes shall at any tyme hereafter sodenly forbere and absteyne from bruynge, whereby the King’s subjects shulde bee destitute or onprovided of Drynke,” the brewhouses of such “wilfull and obstynate” brewers shall be taken possession of by the City, who are to allow others to brew there, and provide them materials “in case their lak greynes to brew with.” {145} Regrators and forestallers (_i.e._, persons who bought large stocks of provisions with the object of causing a rise in price) were in old times severely treated by the authorities, who generally checked their iniquitous dealings by ordering them to sell their stores at a _reasonable_ price. The forestaller, indeed, might think himself lucky if he escaped so easily. In the fourth year of Edward VI. four persons who had accumulated great quantities of hops in a time of scarcity were ordered to sell their whole stock at once at a reasonable price. All through the reign of Queen Elizabeth the unfortunate brewers were vexed with frequent and, in some cases, contradictory regulations: This beer was to be allowed; that beer was prohibited; prices were still fixed by law, and qualities must correspond to the City regulations. Even though a man be ruined, he could not leave off brewing, for fear of being held a “rebel.” A curious ordinance, made in the fourteenth year of Elizabeth’s reign, shows the extreme newness of the ale and beer consumed by the good men of the City of London in those days. The ordinance is expressed to be for the reformation of “dyvers greate and foule abuses disorderlye bigonne by the Brewers,” and, reciting that the Brewers have begun to deliver their beer and ale but two or three hours after the same be cleansed and tunned, it provides that no beer or ale is to be delivered to customers till it has stood in the brewer’s house six hours in summer and eight in winter. There seems to have been a smoke question in London even as early as this period, for in the twenty-first year of Elizabeth we find that John Platt was committed to prison, “for that he contrarye to my Lorde Maior’s comaundement to refraine from burninge of seacoles during her Majestie’s abode at Westminster, he did continually burn seacole notwithstanding.” A petition from the Brewers to Her Majesty’s Council about the same period recites that the Brewers understand that Her Majesty “findeth hersealfe greately greved and anoyed with the taste and smoke of the seacooles used in their furnaces.” They therefore promise to substitute wood in the brewhouses nearest to Westminster Palace. What would have been Her Majesty’s “grief” if she could have experienced a modern November in London? In Peter Pindar’s poem on the visit of King George III. to Whitbread’s Brewery, allusion is made to the once popular belief that brewers’ horses are usually fed on grains. The origin of this idea may possibly be found in the regulations enforced in London as to the price of and the dealings in brewers’ grains. In a proclamation of Elizabeth’s {146} time it is recited that “forasmuche as brewers’ graines be victuall for horses and cattell as hey and horsebread and other provinder be,” therefore a price is to be set upon grains by the Lord Mayor, and the buying of grains to sell again is forbidden. The difficulties of enforcing the rules as to price and quality of ale and beer are shown in the frequent complaints of the brewers, and in the numerous trials that were made from time to time by the City authorities to ascertain how much drink ought to be brewed from a fixed quantity of malt. In the thirty-fifth year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, a large Committee was appointed to make trial, at the charges of the City, of twenty quarters of malt, to be brewed into two sorts of beer, viz., strong beer at 6s. 8d. the barrel, and “doble” beer at 3s. 4d. the barrel. As a result of the trial, the brewers promised to draw only five barrels and a half of double beer from a quarter of malt until the price of malt had fallen to 18s. the quarter; a strong proof this of the growing taste for strong ale and beer. Shortly before this time the strongest ale allowed by law had been this same “doble.” Now the “doble” had taken the place of the single, and the strong ale of twice the strength of the “doble” had stepped into its place. A very summary way had the City authorities in the sixteenth century, of treating any drink or victual which did not come up to the required standard of excellence. In 1597 we find it ordered that two and fifty pipes of corrupt beer, “being nether fitt for man’s body, nor to be converted into sawce (_i.e. vinegar_) . . . shall have the heades of all the same pipes beaten owte and the beer poured out into the channells, part in Cheapside, part in Cornhill and part in Bishopsgate.” After the reign of Elizabeth the entries concerning the Brewers and their delinquencies become fewer and farther between. The prices of ale and beer were still fixed by law, but more common-sense views on the subject of trade and trade regulation were slowly beginning to prevail, and we soon lose all traces of the tyrannous and vexatious regulations of which so many instances occur in earlier times. One more such instance may be mentioned of an arbitrary attempt to force trade out of its natural channels, and to lower prices and compel sobriety at one and the same time. In 1614 the Lord Mayor, “finding the gaols pestered with prisoners, and their bane to take root and beginning at ale-houses, and much mischief to be there plotted, with great waste of corn in brewing heady strong beer, many consuming all their time and means sucking that sweet poison,” had an exact survey taken of all victualling houses and ale-houses, which were above a thousand. As above 300 {147} barrels of beer were in some houses, the whole quantity of beer in victualling houses amounting to above 40,000 barrels, he had thought it high time to abridge their number and limit them by bonds as to the quantity of beer they should use, and as to what orders they should observe, whereby the price of corn and malt had greatly fallen. The Brewers, however, seem to have been too many for his Lordship, for though he limited the number of barrels to twenty per house, and the quality of the two sorts of beer to 4s. and 8s. a barrel, so that the price of malt and wheat was in a fortnight reduced by 5s. or 6s. per quarter, yet the Brewers brewed as before, alleging that the beer was to be used for export, and, “combining with such as kept tippling houses,” conveyed the same to the ale-houses by night, so that in a few weeks’ time the price of malt had risen to much the same figure as before. In 1626 the Brewers’ Company was in evil case, as may be judged from a petition presented by them in that year to the City Fathers, in which they allege that they are in a decayed state and not able to govern their trade, that their Company consists of but six beer-brewers and a small number of ale-brewers, and that other brewers are free of other Companies. The petition goes on to pray that no other person than a freeman of the Company be allowed to set up a brewhouse in the City. The petition was referred to a Committee, and nothing more was heard of it. A similar petition, presented to the Common Council in the year 1752, was considered and the prayer granted. While, however, the Brewers’ Company had been allowed to fall into decay, the City regulations of the trade had become less and less irksome, and the brewers themselves increased in wealth and prosperity. Many allusions may be found in the writers of the middle of the seventeenth century, which prove that the status of the brewers had greatly improved. The old Water Poet thus describes how the brewers “are growne rich”:— Thus Water boyles, parboyles, and mundifies, Cleares, cleanses, clarifies, and purifies. But as it purges us from filth and stincke: We must remember that it makes us drinke, Metheglin, Bragget, Beere, and headstrong Ale, (That can put colour in a visage pale) By which meanes many Brewers are growne rich, And in estates may soare a lofty pitch. Men of Goode Ranke and place, and much command, Who have (by sodden Water) purchast land: {148} Yet sure I thinke their gaine had not been such Had not good fellowes usde to drinke too much: But wisely they made Haye whilst Sunne did shine, For now our Land is overflowne with Wine: With such a Deluge, or an Inundation As hath besotted and halfe drown’d our Nation. Some there are scarce worth 40 pence a yeere Will hardly make a meale with Ale or Beere: And will discourse, that wine doth make good blood, Concocts his meat, and make digestion good, And after to drink Beere, nor will, nor can _He lay a churl upon a Gentleman_. A somewhat similar moral may be drawn from the humorous little poem, written a century and a half later by a namesake of the Water Poet:— THE BREWER’S COACHMAN. Honest William, an easy and good natur’d fellow, Would a little too oft get a little too mellow; Body coachman was he to an eminent brewer, No better e’er sat on a coach-box to be sure. His coach was kept clean, and no mothers or nurses, Took more care of their babes, than he took of his horses; He had these, aye, and fifty good qualities more, But the business of tippling could ne’er be got o’er. So his master effectually mended the matter, By hiring a man who drank nothing but water, “Now William,” says he, “you see the plain case, Had you drank as he does you’d have kept a good place.” “Drink water!” cried William; “had all men done so, You’d never have wanted a coachman, I trow. They are soakers, like me, whom you load with reproaches, That enable you brewers to ride in your coaches.” A short space only may be devoted to a record of a few of the more remarkable brewers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Jan Steen, of Delph, seems to have been a brewer famed rather for his eccentricities than for his beer. He flourished in the days of Charles II., and Arnold Hinbraken, his biographer, says that a whole book might {149} be filled with droll episodes of his life. “He was so attached to boon companions, that his Brewery came to grief. He bought wine with his money instead of malt. His wife, seeing this, said one day to him, ‘Jan, our living is vanishing, our customers call in vain, there is no beer in the cellar, nor have we malt for a Brew, what will become of us? You should bring life into the brewery.’ ‘I’ll keep it alive,’ said Jan, and walked away. He went to market and bought several live ducks, having first told his men to fill the largest kettle with water and heat it. He then threw a little malt in it, and threw in the Ducks, which, not accustomed to hot water, flew madly through the Brewery making a horrid noise, so that his wife came running in to see what the matter was, when Jan, turning to her, said, ‘My love, is it not lively now in our Brewery?’ However, he gave up brewing, and turned Painter.” William Hicks, who died in the year 1740, was one of the most remarkable Brewers of the last century. He was brewer to the Royal household, and left behind him a well-earned reputation for honesty and loyalty. A striking proof of his loyalty may be seen to this day in the statue of George I., which he set up on the summit of Bloomsbury steeple, and of which a facetious person wrote:— The King of Great Britain was reckon’d before The head of the Church by all good Christian people, But his brewer has added still one title more To the rest, and has made him the head of the steeple. Another celebrated brewer of last century was Humphrey Parsons, twice Lord Mayor of London. This gentleman, when upon a hunting party with Louis XV., happened to be exceedingly well mounted, and, contrary to the etiquette observed in the French Court, outstripped the rest of the company, and was first in at the death. On the King asking the name of the stranger, he was indignantly informed that he “was un chevalier de malte.” The King entered into conversation with Mr. Parsons, and asked the price of his horse. The Chevalier, bowing in the most courtly style, replied that the horse was beyond any price other than his Majesty’s acceptance. The horse was delivered, and from thenceforward the _chevalier_ Parsons had the exclusive privilege of supplying the French Court and people with his far-famed “black champagne.” It has been the sad reflection of many an one, on wandering in a churchyard and reading the epitaphs of the departed, that certainly the most virtuous and highly-gifted of mankind have already passed {150} away—that is, if the epitaphs are absolutely to be relied on. Mr. Tipper, the Newhaven brewer, who died in 1785, and lies buried in Newhaven Churchyard, is an instance in point. Surely none but himself could have been Mr. Tipper’s parallel. His epitaph runs thus:— Reader! with kind regards this grave survey, Nor heedless pass where Tipper’s ashes lay. Honest he was, ingenuous, blunt and kind, And dared do, what few dare do—speak his mind. Philosophy and History well he knew, Was versed in Physick and in Surgery too. The best old Stingo he both brewed and sold, Nor did one knavish trick to get his gold. He played thro’ life a varied comic part, And knew immortal Hudibras by heart. Reader, in real truth, such was the man, Be better, wiser, laugh more if you can. The last resting place of Mr. Pepper, sometime brewer of Stamford, in Lincolnshire, bears these lines:— Though _hot_ my name, yet mild my nature, I bore good will to every creature; I brew’d good ale and sold it too, And unto each I gave his due. The following lines were composed on a brewer who, becoming too big a man for his trade, retired from business—and died:— Ne’er quarrel with your craft, Nor with your shop dis’gree. He turned his nose up at his Tub And the bucket kicked he. And so the old Brewers are dead and gone, with their virtues and their faults, their troubles and their successes, and the modern Brewers reign in their stead. [Illustration] {151} [Illustration]