The Licensed Victuallers

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 518, 22 November 1900, Page 18

The Licensed Victuallers

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

All subscriptions are payable in advance. A. discunt of 28 6d is allowed on all subscriptions paia Within three months from date of order.

Th« Sporting Review and Licensed io■uailebs’ Gazette has been appointed the Official Organ of the Trade.

The subrcription to me dikw Zealand ©porting Review and Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette is 6* per annum.

It offers special facilities for advertising “ transfers ” and other official announcements, embracing as it does the extensive circulation of an already popular New Zealand and Australian sporting jownal.

Any paragraphs of interest to the Trade, whether af simply local significance or otherwise, will b received and considered in our columns. Question legal points or other matters connected with the Trade will be paid careful attention to and answers given. Our readers throughout the colony and in Australia are requested to communicate with •* Bacchus,' 1 ' who will always be pleased to offer them a medium through which the public may be cached.

In a recent number of the PURE “ Australian Brewing BEER. World,” there appeared an article on this question, extracts from which must possess a good deal of interest to consumers of beer. It says :— « In those parts of the world where beer is brewed, the people have of late years had ample opportunity to follow the skilful warfare of pen against pen on the - question of what constitutes “ Pure Beer,” and what does not. Controversy on this question is, as a rule, the result of a certain slackness of general news, when anything which has the appearance of interest to the public is dear to and welcomed by the daily press at such times. The battles on this question were raging high in England and the United States a short time ago ; to such an extent that the public mind became much disturbed, and those directly responsible for public safety decided that the matter in dispute should be looked into officially, and, of course, thoroughly. In England ' a Royal Commission was appointed, which worked for many months investigating the alleged wrong-doings of brewers, with the’result that they found that these allegations were nothing more nor less than allegations. The inquiry, however, did this good, that it freed the brewing trade of the suspicion of using materials as substitutes for malt which were wrongly understood by the general public —thanks to the teachings of an ignorant and, at times, biassed daily press —to be such as should not be used in the production of a wholesome beer. Similar appointments, investigations, and results were made and obtained in the United States. The Melbourne ‘ Age ’ now feels called upon to raise the Pure Beer question in Victoria, basing its arguments on returns from the Customs Departments. There is no objection to the scurce the figures are obtained from, nor any question as to their reliability, but if matters concerning the quality of the beer are really so alarming as would appear from the article accompanying the Custom’s Department tables, the ‘ Age ’ has been guilty of neglect of the grossest kind in not having drawn public attention long ere this to the alleged condition of affairs. These conditions have prevailed in the colony of Victoria for over 20 years, according to the statistics produced by the ‘ Age,’ and yet no serious comment has been made. According to the statistics, in 1880, four bushels of malt were ‘ used for every hundred gallons of beer; whereas in 1870, seven bushels produced the same number of gallons; and in 1875, five bushels were sufficient. During the years between 1885 and 1896, 4 l-3rd and 4| bushels were the quantities of malt

used to produce 100 gallons of beer; from that time until 1898, they came back to the standard of 1880, viz., four bushels, and in 1899 only bushels of malt were used. From the tenor of the ‘ Age ’ article, one would think that the quantity of malt used to produce beer had steadily decreased, but that is not so. In 1870, an abnormally large quantity of malt was used; and the next quotation in the statistics (1875) already showed a drop of 28 per cent, and 1880, 42 per cent, at which standard the consumption of malt has practically remained ever since. The whole tendency of the article is to show that malt is being replaced by ‘ chemical compounds, injurious to the health of the consumers.’ The only substitutes or adjuncts for and with malt are unmalted cereals or sugar—chemical compounds to take the place of malt do not exist for the very simple reason that they would not be used, as nothing can be as cheap as the raw material itself. Either the ‘ Age ’ is romancing, or else it is the possessor of some secret by which to produce a ‘ chemical compound ’ with the same properties as are by nature vested in the cereals. Sugar, as well as wheat, rice maize, and other cereals which are used in conjunction of barley-malt, cannot be described as ‘injurious’ to the health of the consumers. If the ‘Age’ knows of any other substitutes for malt which are ‘ injurious to the health %f the consumer,’ and charges the brewers with making use of them, why does the ‘Age’ not name this ‘chemical compound.’ That good beer is not necessarily made from malt, hop, water, and yeast alone, but that adjuncts or substitutes for a portion of the malt have under circumstances a most beneficial influence on the quality of the beer, even when the best quality of malt is being used, is a fact which was admitted long ago, and which was emphasized by the inquiries of the English and American Commissions.”