WHISKY—OR WHAT?

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 843, 3 May 1906, Page 21

WHISKY—OR WHAT?

In dealing with the above question and after carefully following the lengthy and varied evidence given in the whisky prosecutions -which have recently been heard, the “London Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette” says :—We gather from the lengthy and lucid judgment which Mr. Fordham delivered in what is known as the whisky prosecutions that whisky shou'd consist of “spirit distilled in a pot-still derived from malted barley, mixed or not with unmalted barley and wheat or either of them.” Furthermore, we learn that the description “Irish” and “Scotch” as applied to whisky denotes, in addition to its place of origin, a particular kind of whisky made in a particular way from particular material in a particular place. The term “Irish whisky” is used, according tc Mr. Fordham, to denote whisky “made bv Irish methods, from materials used in such methods in Ireland”; and the term “Scotch whisky” to denote “whisky made bv Scotch methods from materials used in such methods in Scotland.” The material in the case of Irish whisky is defined as a mash consisting of 75 per cent, of barley malt, while in the case of Scotch whisky the material consists wholly of malted barley and the method of distillation to be employed in both cases is that of the pot-still. The peculiar flavour and smell of Irish whisky manufactured in these conditions he attributed to the rye employed, and the distinctive characteristics of Scotch whisky are derived from the system of malting over a peat fire. Mr. Fordham arrived at his conclusions on the subject from the evidence given by analysts and chemists and by the evidence of his own senses. In their flavours as well as their aroma he found so wide a difference between pot-still whisky and a blend of patent-still spirit stiffened with a dash if the genuine article that he considered no average man could mistake the one for the other, and having submitted both to the test of inward application, he discovered the effects of the two beverages upon the system to be different also.. In the cases of the two samples of Scotch and Irish whisky respectively upoif which the prosecutions were brought by

the Islington Borough Council, he found that they consisted of spirit distilled in a patent still, derived principally from maize, and blended with less than 10 per cent, of pot-still whisky. These fluids, Mr. Fordham declared in his judgment, did not conform to the standard of Scotch or Irish whisky as he defined it; they were not entitled to be so described; they were not what the consumer means when he asks for Scotch or Irish whisky; and their sale under those descriptions was a fraud upon the public. It was in his finding, a dual case of adulteration and misrepresentation, and while he did not think much moral blame attached to the defendants themselves he fined each of them 20s and imposed a further penalty of £ too in the form of costs. According to this judgment, all whisky which is other than potstill spirit must be clearly labelled to inform the purchaser the nature of the fluid he is buying. Patent-still spirit, or pa-tent-still spirit mixed with whisky is not declared to be injurious, nor is it unlawful to sell either the one or* the other, but if this decision stands, notice will have to be given to the purchaser of what it is when such spirit is sold to him, and on being served with it he must not be allowed in his ignorance to believe that what is supplied to him is Scotch or Irish whisky. Seeing that the present output of whisky in Scotland is about 26,000,000 gallons per annum, and of that fully twothirds is represented by the product of the patent-still, it is not surprising to learn that this decision has caused some sensation in the Trade. But it would be even more surprising if the matter is not carried to a higher Court. It will immediately occur to the casual observer that the effect of this somewhat

unexpected judgment, though calculated to cause blenders and distillers the maximum of inconvenience,. will not affect-the public in the remotest degree. If i. had the result of guaranteeing the age which is affixed to the whisky, an advantage would have been secured to the public, as it is an incontrovertible fact that some firms are more than generous in the manner in which they date their manufactures. But it is perfectly safe to say that when the average man purchases whisky he consults his tastes and his pocket, he does not care a continental whether it is pot or patent, so long as he has Mr. Fordham’s assurance that it is not injurious, and he does not expect to get the cream of the market for half-a-crown a bottle. Nor do we doubt that when —if ever—the two-and-sixpenny spirit is decorated with an analytical label that covers the entire bottle, the average man will still ask for whisky in entire contravention of the managerial injunction. The barmaid or bar-

man who keeps the average ma n waiting for the whisky he has demanded, what time his ignorance is dispelled by a technical disquisition, will find themselves unpopular, and we firmly believe that if this decision made ihe consumption of pure pot-still malt spirit obligatory upon the public, whisky drinking would very soon become a habit of the past. The average man does not desire the rye flavour of Mr. Fordham’s Irish, nor does his soul love the “reek” of old-fashioned Scotch. He swears by his particular brand of whisky as he adheres to the brand of tobacco that suits him, and so long as the labels do hot confuse him, the pious anxiety of the Islington Borough Council and the consternation in distilling circles will pass him by like the sportive breeze.