Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:43:03.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pure Beer Campaign and Arsenic Poisoning, 1896–1903

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2008

Jim Phillips  and
Michael French
Jim Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Economic and Social History, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Michael French
Affiliation:
Department of Economic and Social History, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1880s English farmers and their political representatives began a long campaign for tighter control of beer ingredients. The chief aim of the campaign, which continued intermittently until the 1920s, was to increase demand for English barley and hops. The proposed measures were variously introduced in Parliament by farming MPs as ‘Beer’, ‘Pure Beer’, and even ‘British Beer’ Bills; each sought to limit, or in some cases prohibit, the use of sugar, rice and all other ‘substitutes’ for barley and hops. These proposals were given a serious hearing only twice, in 1896 and 1901, the latter following an epidemic of arsenic poisoning, traced to contaminated brewing sugar, which had killed at least seventy beer drinkers in northern and central England. Farmers exploited this crisis by introducing a Pure Beer Bill that was only withdrawn after the government had appointed a Royal Commission, chaired by Lord Kelvin, to study beer materials and the wider question of arsenical contamination of foods. To the relief of the brewers' national organisation, the Country Brewers' Society, Kelvin exonerated the trade generally and did not recommend statutory control of brewing ingredients.

Type
Research Article
Information
Rural History , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , October 1998 , pp. 195 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Perry, P. J. (ed), British Agriculture 1875–1914 (London, 1973), pp. xiv, 153.Google Scholar
2.Murray, Keith A. H., Agriculture (HMSO, 1955), p. 371.Google Scholar
3.Mathias, Peter, The First Industrial Nation. An Economic History of Britain, 1700–1914 (London, 1983), p. 419.Google Scholar
4.Gourvish, T. R. and Wilson, R. G., The British Brewing Industry 1830–1980 (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 221, 251–2.Google Scholar
5.Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series, Vols. 260, 1306 and 265, 608, 27th April and 22nd 08 1881.Google Scholar
6. Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, Public General Acts, 1875, Chapter 63.Google Scholar
7.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 39, 89, 25th 03 1896.Google Scholar
8.Patton, Jeffrey, Additives, Adulterants and Contaminants in Beer (1989), p. 194.Google Scholar
9.The Brewers' Guardian, 24th 03 1896.Google Scholar
10.Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (London, 1992).Google Scholar
11.Perry, , British Agriculture, pp. xxvi, xxxvii–xl.Google Scholar
12. Local Government Board, Annual Reports, 1890–1891, C. 6460, p. cli, and 1894–1895, C. 7867, p. cl.Google Scholar
13.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 39, 117–19, 126–32, 25th 03 1896.Google Scholar
14.The Brewers' Almanack, 1897, p. 84.Google Scholar
15. ‘MPs Known or Believed to be Connected with the Trade’, The Brewers' Almanack, 1898, p. 51; Stenton and Lees, Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, Volumes II–III.Google Scholar
16.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 39, 86–137, 25th 03 1896.Google Scholar
17.Report of the Departmental Committee on Beer Materials conducted by the Board of the Inland Revenue (HMSO, 1899), C. 9171, p. 2.Google Scholar
18.Report from the Select Committee on Adulteration of Food Act (1872). Proceedings and Minutes of Evidence, Parliamentary Papers, 1874 (262), VI, 243.Google Scholar
19.The Times, 23rd 08 1905.Google Scholar
20. C. 9171, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
21.Vernon, Keith, ‘Pus, Sewage, Beer and Milk: Microbiology in Britain, 1870–1940’, History of Science, 28, 1990, 308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on Beer Materials (HMSO, 1899), C. 9172, pp. 10–25, 89–95.Google Scholar
23. The Analyst, XXI, 02 1896, p. 34.Google Scholar
24. C. 9172, pp. 168–181, 274–92.Google Scholar
25. C. 9172, pp. 38–43.Google Scholar
26. C. 9171, pp. 2–8.Google Scholar
27.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Volume 66, 469, 10th 02 1899.Google Scholar
28.Buchanan, , ‘The “Beer Poisoning Epidemic”’, 29th 11 1900, MH 56/156, Public Record Office (PRO).Google Scholar
29.Lancet, 1st 12 1900, pp. 1590, 1600–3.Google Scholar
30.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 88, 511–2, llth 12 1900, and 848–50, 14th 12 1900.Google Scholar
31.The Brewers' Almanack, 1902, p. 62.Google Scholar
32. Texts of reports issued by MCBA Expert Committee issued as Addendum in Report to the Local Government Board on Recent Epidemic. Arsenical Poisoning Attributed to Beer (HMSO, 01 1901), Cd. 459, pp. 21–3.Google Scholar
33. Buchanan to Medical Officer, LGB, 18th 12 1900, MH 56/156, PRO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. ‘The Arsenic Question’, The Brewers' Almanack, 1902, p. 328.Google Scholar
35.Lancet, 8th 12 1900, 1682.Google Scholar
36. Cd. 459, pp. 3, 18–19.Google Scholar
37.Final Report of the Royal Commission to Inquire into Arsenical Poisoning from the Consumption of Beer and other Articles of Food and Drink (HMSO, November 1903), Cd. 1848, p. 5.Google Scholar
38.First Report of the Royal Commission to Inquire into Arsenical Poisoning from the Consumption of Beer and other Articles of Food and Drink (HMSO, 07, 1901), Cd. 692.Google Scholar
39. Chaplin's bankruptcy was also related to his apparent taste for high living and horse racing; see his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1922–1930.Google Scholar
40.The Times, 10th 01 1901.Google Scholar
41. This paragraph is based on reports from The Times, llth–21st 01 1901.Google Scholar
42.Lancet, 8th 12 1900, p. 1662 and 19th 01 1901, p. 192.Google Scholar
43. The Bill's sponsors were Sir Robert Purvis (Liberal Unionist, Peterborough), Sir Cuthbert Quilter (Liberal Unionist, Suffolk Sudbury), Kenyon-Slaney (Conservative, Shropshire North), Sir James Fergusson (Conservative, Manchester North-East), Frederick Wilson (Liberal, Mid-Norfolk), James Round (Conservative, Harwich), Henry Broadhurst (Home Ruler Liberal, Leicester), Arthur Griffith Boscawen (Unionist, Tunbridge), Brookfield (Conservative, Sussex Rye), Sir Robert Price (Liberal, Norfolk East), William Younger (Unionist, Lincolnshire - not the brewing William Younger) and Joseph Walton (Liberal Home Ruler, Barnsley).Google Scholar
44.The Times, llth 01 1901.Google Scholar
45.The Times, 12th 01 1901.Google Scholar
46.The Times, 12th 01 1901.Google Scholar
47.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 91, 1441–1507, 27th 03 1901.Google Scholar
48.The Brewers' Almanack, 1902, pp. 91–3.Google Scholar
49. Cd. 692, p. 5; Royal Commission. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Vol. I. Evidence received in 1901 (HMSO, 1903), Cd. 1845, pp. 61–2, 299–304.Google Scholar
50. Cd. 1845, pp. 304–7.Google Scholar
51. Cd. 692, paras. 4–7, 22.Google Scholar
52.Parliamentary Debates, 4th Series, Vol. 98, 245, 26th 07 1901.Google Scholar
53. Cd. 1848, pp. 8–10, 26–7.Google Scholar
54. Cd. 1848, pp. 21–2, 36.Google Scholar
55.Royal Commission. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Vol. II, 1902–1903 (HMSO, 1903), Cd. 1869, 78–89.Google Scholar
56.The Brewers' Almanack, 1907, 65–7.Google Scholar
57.Weir, Ronald, The History of the Distillers Company, 1877–1939 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 70, 133–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Gourvish, and Wilson, , British Brewing, pp. 317–335.Google Scholar
59.Kirby, M. W., The British Coalmining Industry, 1870–1946 (Basingstoke, 1977), pp. 53–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.Moritz, to Wightman, C. M., 05 1920; Ministry of Food untitled note, 03 1921; MAF 101/315, PRO.Google Scholar
61.Murray, , Agriculture, pp. 17–18, 371.Google Scholar
62. Introduction of the Pure Beer Bill, Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Vol. 231, 479, 1st November 1929; Second Reading of the British BeerBill, Vol. 245, 819–36, 21st 11 1930.Google Scholar
63. C. 9172, pp. 274–92.Google Scholar
64.Gourvish, and Wilson, , British Brewing, pp. 288–95.Google Scholar
65. See the contributions of Stafford Cripps and Tom Williams to the Second Reading of the 1934 Milk Bill; Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Vol. 290, 1124–1224, 7th 06 1934.Google Scholar
66.Perry, , British Agriculture, p. xxxvii.Google Scholar