HANDBOOK OF BREWING
THIRD EDITION
Edited by
Graham G. Stewart
Inge Russell
Anne Anstruther
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed on acid-free paper
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-5191-9 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http:// www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com
Foreword
Writing a Handbook of Brewing is a challenge! It not only serves as a textbook for students but also as an adviser to the brewmaster and his/her staff. On the one side, it introduces the basics— such as the biochemistry and microbiology of brewing processes—and on the other side, it deals with the necessities associated with a brewery, which are steadily increasing due to legislation, energy priorities, environmental issues, and the pressure to reduce costs.
For this third and extended edition, Graham Stewart, Inge Russell, and Anne Anstruther have assembled many experts in the brewing field, all well-known and respected names. Indeed, some have been conducting research for more than 40 years! The treatment of “brewing” itself ranges from the history of brewing to raw materials to beer styles. “Lean manufacturing,” including “high gravity brewing,” is written by Graham himself, who is one of its promoters, supported by an overview of yeast and fermentation. In addition, craft brewing, product integrity, sensory evaluation, and health and safety are all considered.
There are also other subjects in this book that are not directly about brewing, such as energy management, fuel economy, and electric power, as well as relevant aspects of a brewery’s environment. The handling of by-products, wastes, effluents, and noise abatement—all demand much of a brewmaster’s attention and time these days.
This book teaches and advises us. It focuses on beer production and quality and, at the same time, the different ancillary activities that are necessary to operate a brewery successfully—currently and in the future.
I wish the third edition of the Handbook of Brewing every success, as well as all those operating breweries for production of our beloved beverage—beer!
Ludwig Narziss Weihenstephan, Munich, Bavaria
Preface
The first two editions of this handbook (HoB) (published in 1996 and 2006, respectively) provided extensive coverage of the science and technology of malting and brewing. The first edition (edited by the late William Hardwick) was a detailed consideration of the science and technology of brewing. The book was recommended as a standard text for a number of brewing courses and qualifications including the BSc and MSc degrees in brewing and distilling at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland. Although brewing is considered, by some, to be a traditional and conservative manufacturing industry, considerable numbers of scientific and technical developments occurred in the decade following the publication of the first edition that have influenced both beer products and processes. Many of these developments have been published in peer-reviewed brewing journals and industry magazines. If the first edition had a fault, it was that it contained an inadequate and incomplete index! It should be emphasized that brewing consists of a number of unit processes. Each of these processes is considered in this third edition of the HoB. However, a number of them do overlap with one another (e.g., fermentation and maturation, beer stability and quality, brewhouse technology, and brewing process control). As a consequence, some repetition between the chapters has occurred, and every attempt has been made to minimize this.
Developments in the 1990s and early 2000s led to the publication of a second edition of the HoB (expedited by Fergus Priest and myself). The second edition contained 22 chapters, written by malting and brewing experts based in North America, Japan, and the United Kingdom. It also reflected emerging global developments in the craft brewing industry. Consequently, a large number of these breweries adopted this second edition as their standard reference text. It contained most of the important areas relevant to the malting and brewing process, the final product, and an extensive index.
During the intervening 12 years since the publication of the second edition, there has been unprecedented growth in craft brewing. Currently, approximately 15% of the beer produced in the United States is brewed in facilities that are regarded as craft breweries. China is now producing nearly twice the beer volume of the United States (450 mhL/annum compared to 250 mhL/annum). Also, published brewing research and development data from China, Japan, and Central Europe have increased exponentially. As a consequence, this third edition of the HoB is warranted. As well as updating most of the chapters (as appropriate) by either the original authors or new contributors (chapters on “Packaging: A Historical Perspective” and “Innovation and Novel Products” have been incorporated into other chapters in this book), the following topics have been added:
• Lean manufacturing, including high gravity brewing
• Cleaning in place
• Craft brewing (an update of the chapter on “Microbrewing”)
• Product integrity
• Environmental aspects and waste disposal
• Developments in the marketing of beer
• Sensory evaluation of beer
• Ma king spirits in a brewery (reflecting the trend for a craft brewery and a craft distillery to be located on the same site).
The foreword to this book was written by Professor Ludwig Narziss—certainly one of the most notable brewing scientists of our time! We are honored and grateful that he has taken the time and trouble to endorse our efforts.
Graham G. Stewart
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland
Inge Russell
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland
Anne Anstruther Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Editors
Graham G. Stewart is an emeritus professor in brewing and distilling at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, since he retired in 2007. From 1994 to 2007, he was professor of brewing and distilling and director of the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD), Heriot-Watt University. For 25 years prior to this, he was employed by the Labatt Brewing Company in Canada, holding a number of scientific/technical positions, and from 1986 to 1994 was its technical director. He holds a PhD and DSc from Bath University and is a fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD). In 2015, he was awarded an honorary DSc from Heriot-Watt University “for preeminence in the field of brewing and distilling and contribution to the development of Heriot-Watt University education and that field internationally.” He was president of the IBD in 1999 and 2000. He has more than 300 titles (books, patents, review papers, articles, and peer-reviewed papers) to his name.
Inge Russell is the past editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Institute of Brewing (a position she held for 15 years), a visiting professor at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, and a past adjunct professor in the Department of Biochemical Engineering, University of Western Ontario, Canada. She has more than 40 years of experience in the brewing and distilling industry. She has served as president of both the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) and the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA). She holds PhD and DSc degrees from the University of Strathclyde in Scotland. In 2015, she was awarded an honorary DSc from Heriot-Watt University “in recognition of her exceptional contributions to science, technology, and business and pre-eminence in the field of brewing, fermentation, and distilling.” She is the author of more than 150 publications and is a cofounder and coeditor of the journal, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology.
Anne Anstruther is deeply interested in the history of Scotland, in particular Edinburgh, and the evolution of beer and whiskey worldwide. Apart from her many qualifications, she has a BSc Hons. in computing science from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, and BSc Hons. (and a BEng) in management studies from the Open University. She served as the Edinburgh Field Officer for the St. Andrews Ambulance Association for a number of years. Before retiring, she proudly served as an administrator at the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD) at Heriot-Watt University.
Contributors
Raymond G. Anderson is a retired brewers’ chemist and an active brewing historian. He has been involved with breweries in one way or another since 1972 when he left the University of Newcastle upon Tyne with a PhD in microbiological chemistry and went to work at the Brewing Industry Research Foundation in Surrey. He was formerly the head of research and development for Allied Breweries, one of the now defunct “Big Six” UK brewers. He is the author of more than 100 publications discoursing on science, technology, brewing, and history in various combinations. He is a fellow of three UK professional societies and president of the Brewery History Society since 2002.
Zane C. Barnes is a fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD) and a 1973 graduate in brewing science from Heriot-Watt University. He has extensive brewing experience throughout the United Kingdom and has also worked for 10 years in Trinidad and Tobago, South Australia, and the United States. Currently, he is the senior technical brewer at the Molson Coors Brewing Company (Burton) responsible for delivering general employee engagement with beer and brewing, but specifically to support the attainment of brewing and packaging qualifications (IBD). He has been a lecturer in brewing science at Heriot-Watt University and Nottingham University. He is also an IBD examiner and an industrial fellow of the University of Nottingham.
Patrick Charlton is a farmer’s son, which led him to study animal science at the University of Nottingham, graduating in 1987. He joined the global agribusiness Alltech in 1991, and for the last 27 years has worked with farmers, feed manufacturers, and other agribusinesses around the world, living in South Africa and Canada as well as the United Kingdom. During his time in Canada, he was part of the first group of Alltech employees to join the Heriot-Watt University distance learning masters in brewing and distilling degree, graduating with distinction in 2006. As well as its animal nutrition business, today Alltech owns several craft breweries and distilleries allowing Charlton to enjoy two of his greatest passions, farming and beer, while working for the same company.
Mark Coffman is the master distiller/chief engineer for Alltech. Over the past 30 years, he has led the design, construction, commissioning, startup, and operation of more than 16 manufacturing facilities around the world. He is presently leading a major expansion of Alltech’s Lexington Brewing and Distilling Company.
Andrew Dagnan is a safety and environmental professional, with experience in multiple industries, including brewing. Andrew is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM) with a BS in environmental health sciences from East Tennessee State University. He has served as the chair of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA) Brewery Safety Committee, helping to promote safe work practices in the brewing industry by providing assistance and technical resources.
Brian Eaton is from the Isle of Man and is currently self-employed in his company “BE Inspired,” providing technical consultancy and training to the brewing and distilling industries. An honors chemical engineering graduate, he took an MSc in malting and brewing science under Professor James Hough. He worked for Allied Breweries for 30 years in a variety of roles in engineering, production, and packaging before taking the post of head brewer at the Alloa Lager Brewery, Scotland, in 1985. In 1998, he moved to Joshua Tetley’s Brewery, Leeds, as head brewer and chief engineer before joining the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD), Heriot-Watt University, in January 2001 as the course director for the brewing and distilling undergraduate and postgraduate
courses until July 2009. He is a committee member and treasurer of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling’s Scottish section.
Russell Falconer graduated from Leeds University, UK, in 1984 with a degree in biotechnology. He was recruited by Grand Metropolitan Brewing at the Stag Brewery, London, and brewed there for 25 years. During this time, ownership changed from Fosters, Courage, S&N, Anheuser-Busch, and finally to AB InBev. In 2010, he joined Steiner Hops Ltd, the UK subsidiary of the Hopsteiner Group, and is currently its managing director. In 1992, he became a master brewer and was elected a fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD).
Annie E. Hill is associate professor and program director for the MSc/postgraduate diploma in brewing and distilling by distance learning at the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD) at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Annie’s research interests include microbial spoilage of alcoholic beverages and detection of spoilage organisms in breweries/distilleries—in particular, investigation of anaerobic Gram-negative bacteria. Her recent activities have focused on distilling, including product design and process improvement. Formation of the Scottish Craft Distillers Association and subsequent funding from Interface Food and Drink have enabled research on novel Scottish botanicals and fermentation and distillation of Scottish fruits.
Julie Kellershohn holds an MBA from the Harvard Business School in the United States. She has extensive professional and academic experience in the area of marketing and marketing research. She worked for more than 15 years for a number of multinational companies in the area of pharmaceuticals, food, and beverages. She is currently an assistant professor, teaching marketing research, marketing strategy, and consumer behavior at Ryerson University in Toronto.
Jim Kuhr is brewmaster and director of operations for the Matt Brewing Company in Utica, NY, and has been in the industry since 1984. Jim graduated from Saginaw Valley State University with a bachelor’s degree in business, specializing in production and inventory control. He founded the Brewery Safety Committee for the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA) and has served on its executive committee and as the MBAA president in 2015–2016. One of Jim’s prime responsibilities at Matt Brewing is to manage the safety program and safety culture.
James W. Larson is senior process engineer at Alltech, Inc. He has worked as a chemical engineer in breweries, distilleries, and corn-ethanol plants throughout the United States and has been responsible for the installation of fermentation equipment and other process systems in Brazil, Serbia, Belgium, Mexico, and Canada, as well as the United States. Before joining Alltech, he worked in both engineering and production functions in the brewing industry and taught at a prominent US brewing school. He holds an MSc in chemical engineering and an MSc in brewing and distilling from the Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, and is an instructor at the Alltech Brewing and Distilling Academy.
T. Pearse Lyons is a “scientist, salesman, marketer, and entrepreneur” all rolled into one and is widely regarded in the agribusiness sector as an innovator and industry leader. He is the founder, CEO, and president of Alltech, a top-ten animal health biotechnology company. Alltech employs more than 4700 people and conducts business in 128 countries with annual sales in excess of US $2 billion. He is also the owner of Alltech’s Lexington Brewing and Distilling Company, which includes a line of beers and spirits that are exported globally, as well as the Pearse Lyons Distillery, which is opening in the summer of 2017 in Dublin. His doctoral degree is from the British School of Malting and Brewing (University of Birmingham, England), and in recognition for his contributions to science and industry he has been awarded a number of honorary doctorates, including one from
Heriot-Watt University in Scotland. He has authored more than 20 books and numerous research papers in scientific journals on yeast and fermentation.
Michaela Miedl-Appelbee, originally from Austria, holds a Master’s degree in brewing and beverage technology from the Technical University of Munich/Weihenstephan and a PhD in brewing from Heriot-Watt University, Scotland. She was awarded the IBD “Young Brewer of the Year Award” in 2008 and the “IBD Cambridge Prize” in 2010 for outstanding academic achievements. After internships and academic exchange programs at UC Davis (California), Griffith University, and CUB (Australia), she started her industry career at Molson Coors as innovation manager and then Europe export supply chain lead before moving to Switzerland for SABMiller Europe to lead the regional technical innovation agenda. In January 2017, she joined AB InBev as global director in product technology development.
Scott Millbower is a certified safety professional with 31 years of experience in occupational safety and health, a hearing conservationist, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outreach trainer in general industry/construction courses and has a specialty in ergonomics. He is self-employed, assisting companies in developing, improving, and sustaining health and safety programs. He has been inspected by OSHA, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the US EPA. He is a founding member of the Mohawk Valley Safety Professional’s Consortium (MVSPC), which twice signed an alliance with OSHA, and sits on the board of the Mohawk Valley Environmental Information Exchange (MVEIE).
Sir Geoff H. Palmer is an emeritus professor in brewing and distilling at Heriot-Watt University. He migrated to London from Jamaica in 1955. He gained an honors degree in botany from Leicester University in 1964, a PhD from Edinburgh University in 1967, and a doctor of science degree from the Heriot-Watt University in 1983. He worked at the Brewing Research Foundation from 1968 to 1977 and at Heriot-Watt University from 1977 until his retirement in 2005. His research work on barley, malt, and sorghum produced the abrasion process, scanning electron microscopic descriptions and chemical analyses of endosperm structure, the asymmetric pattern of endosperm modification, concepts regarding average analysis and factors that limit endosperm modification (endosperm compaction), and factors that promote endosperm modification (enzyme distribution and action). He has received various honorary doctorate degrees, was an early recipient of the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Distinguished Research Award, and is one of the original fellows of the Institute of Brewing.
Charlie Papazian is the founder and past-president of the American Homebrewers Association (1978) and Brewers Association (USA). He speaks and writes about the beer and brewing industry at numerous conferences, events, and in many publications throughout the world. Charlie has five bestselling books and his Complete Joy of Homebrewing has sold more than 1.3 million copies worldwide. He is also known for founding and continuing his work with the World Beer Cup, the Great American Beer Festival, Craft Brewers Conference, BrewExpo America, Brewers Publications, CraftBeer.com, and the magazines Zymurgy and The New Brewer
Deborah Parker manages the sensory laboratory of Marketing Sciences Unlimited, which specializes in the profiling and reformulation of consumer goods and foods. As a sensory scientist for more than 15 years, she uses her knowledge to generate and deliver high-quality value-added sensory information. She has an honors degree in biochemistry, a doctorate in brewing science from Heriot-Watt University, and a postgraduate certificate in sensory science, and is an Institute of Food Science and Technology accredited trainer. She has extensive experience and has worked with many companies globally. She is one of the few women who are accredited as a Beer Academy sommelier.
She and her sensory team have been featured on several BBC television news and consumer interest programs, including Test House, Watch Dog, and Food Unwrapped.
Michael Partridge graduated from Heriot-Watt University in 1978 and became a diploma member of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD) in 1984. In 1995, he became a member of the IBD examinations committee acting as examiner and moderator of the Diploma Master Brewer 3 Packaging qualification. His career in the brewing and spirits industries spans more than 35 years during which he has developed a wide knowledge of all types of packaging and operational processes necessary to efficiently maintain product quality and safety.
George Philliskirk is a former director and CEO of the Beer Academy, an educational trust dedicated to helping people understand and appreciate beer. After completing a PhD on yeast research at Birmingham University’s Brewing School in the mid-1970s, he has spent almost all his working life in the brewing industry. Before joining the Beer Academy in 2004, he was head of Carlsberg’s UK Technical Department. He is a fellow of the Institute of Brewing (IBD), a past chairman of the board of examiners of the IBD, and an external examiner for the brewing degrees at HeriotWatt University. He has lectured for the IBD, the Beer Academy, and the Scandinavian Brewing School. He is a member of the British Guild of Beer writers and the advisory board of the Oxford Companion to Beer. In 2015, he was presented with a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA) for “outstanding contribution to the UK brewing industry.”
Fergus G. Priest is a professor emeritus of microbiology at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, where he was head of life sciences (2001–2007) and a member of the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD). He was chief editor of FEMS Microbiology Letters (1997–2002) and publications manager for the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (2005–2011). His research focused on the taxonomy and physiology of bacteria in beverage fermentations. He was awarded the Bergey Medal in 2008 in “recognition of distinguished achievements in bacterial taxonomy.”
Trevor Roberts is a 1969 graduate of Nottingham University. He obtained an MSc in brewing science from Birmingham University in 1973 and the diploma of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD) the following year. For the first 20 years of his career, he worked for a number of UK breweries in a variety of senior posts, finally as a head brewer and director of a large regional brewery. In 1993, he joined the UK subsidiary of one of the world’s largest, international hop growing, processing, and trading groups, S.S. Steiner, Inc. He became managing director of Steiner Hops Ltd, based in the United Kingdom, retiring in 2013. He is a fellow of the IBD.
David S. Ryder has recently retired from MillerCoors LLC where he was vice-president of brewing, research, innovation, and quality. A native of England, he obtained his undergraduate degree in biological sciences from the University of London and subsequently received his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Cape Town in Cape Town, South Africa, and the University of Brussels, Belgium. He began his brewing career in England at Associated British Maltsters. He then joined the South African Breweries Beer Division in South Africa, Artois Breweries, S.A. in Belgium, and J. E. Siebel Sons’ Co. Inc. in Chicago, Illinois, before joining Miller Brewing Company (now MillerCoors) in Milwaukee in 1992, where he remained until his retirement in December 2015. He is a past-president of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD), past-chairman of their international section and a fellow of the IBD. He is past-president of the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) and is also a member of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA). He is a member of the Brewing Science Group of the European Brewery Convention (EBC), where he was past-chairman of a subgroup for studying immobilized cells and emerging fermentation systems. He is current chair of the Scientific
Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and is an adjunct professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, in the Department of Food Science.
James Stricker is the safety manager of the Odell Brewing Company, Ft. Collins, CO, and a member of the Master Brewers Association of the Americas (MBAA) Safety Committee. Jim has worked with brewery-specific safety for the past eight years. He is OSHA 30-hour and 10-hour certified and holds certificates in specific safety programs including hazard communication, personal protective equipment, hearing conservation, and many others. He is also a certified powered industrial trucks/ forklift trainer and a first aid/cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/automated external defibrillator (AED) instructor via the American Heart Association.
David G. Taylor has many years of experience in production, quality assurance, and product development in UK brewing and has practical experience in the area of “production under license” for a number of international brewing companies. He is well known on the international brewing conference and symposium scene and has published and lectured worldwide on a variety of brewing technology topics. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling (IBD) in 1995 and was the institute’s deputy president from 2002 to 2004. He was chairman of the institute’s board of examiners from 2004 to 2011. He has been a frequent contributor to the IBD’s training program and, although now retired, still maintains an active interest in the industry’s research and development activities and, especially, in education and training initiatives.
Frank Vriesekoop is a senior lecturer in food biotechnology at Harper Adams University in the United Kingdom. He specializes in brewing and associated technologies. He began his career as a baker and subsequently concentrated on a range of biotechnologies in the food industry. After obtaining his PhD in yeast physiology from the University of Melbourne, he joined the food and brewing group of the (now) Federation University in Australia. In the past, he was employed at the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD) at Heriot-Watt University, and he has been involved in malting, brewing, and distilling education in a number of countries. His current brewing-related research and interests focus on topics that can provide improvements and clarity in production processes and training opportunities.
Raymond G. Anderson
History of Industrial Brewing
1.5.2
1.1 INTRODUCTION
For most of its history, brewing was a domestic or small-scale commercial activity supplying an essential element of the diet to a primarily agrarian population. Over the course of the twentieth century, it became an industry dominated by a few large companies striving for global supremacy in the supply of branded recreational alcoholic beverages.1 In the last couple of decades, this hegemony has been dented by the rapid proliferation of brewers operating at the other end of the scale.2 This chapter outlines the complex changes in the organization, economic importance, scale, scientific understanding, and technology of brewing, and attitudes about the social function and nature of beer that these changes
across the world.
1.2 BREWING IN AN AGRARIAN WORLD
Brewing is generally considered to have originated as a by-product of the development of agriculture, although minority opinion holds that the cultivation of cereals originated as a consequence of man’s desire for alcohol rather than vice versa.3 Whatever brewing’s exact origins, surviving historical artifacts allow us to trace it back to the Mesopotamians around 6,000 or 7,000 years ago. The Ancient Egyptians were brewers, and beer, brewed from the indigenous cereal sorghum, is still integral to the politics of African tribal life. The historical development of brewing and the brewing industry is, however, linked with northern Europe, where cold conditions inhibited the development of viticulture.4 The Romans commented in derogatory terms on the drinking of barley-based beverages by the Germans and the Britons.
From the tenth century, the use of hops in brewing spread from Germany across Europe to replace, or at least supplement, the plethora of plants, herbs, and spices popular at that time. The introduction of hops was met with resistance, but the pleasing flavor and aroma they provided and perhaps, more importantly, their action in protecting the beer from being spoiled by the then unknown microbes, eventually led to hops’ wide-scale adoption. Brewers of unhopped beer depended upon high alcohol to preserve their beers, but this was relatively inefficient, and such beers generally had poor keeping qualities. Although brewing with hops was a more complicated operation, requiring extra equipment, it did allow the brewer to produce a weaker beer that was still resistant to spoilage and thus to make a greater volume of product from the same quantity of raw material. Hops were introduced to Britain in the fifteenth century and reached North America in the early seventeenth century.
For a time, the terms ale and beer were applied to distinct beverages made by separate communities of brewers. Ale described the drink made without hops, whereas the term beer was reserved for the hopped beverage. By the sixteenth century, ale brewers had also come to use some hops in their brews, but at a lower level than was usual for beer, and an element of distinction remained. Ale was recognized as a heavy, sweet, noticeably alcoholic drink characteristic of rural areas. Beer was bitter, often lighter in flavor, and less alcoholic—but frequently darker brown in color than ale, and was popular in towns.4 Unhopped ale virtually disappeared from Europe during the seventeenth century, but there remained a vast variety of different beers available. Each region offered its own favorite brews influenced by availability and quality of raw materials and climate. The dominant cereal in use was barley, the easiest to malt, although it could be supplemented or even replaced by other cereals, particularly oats and wheat. In some regions, notably in parts of Germany and Belgium, wheat beers became a specialty. Taxes on beer became a growing feature along with a degree of consumer protection over serving measures and prices enforced by local authorities to regulate sales in taverns. In 1516, the Reinheitsgebot, literally “commandment for purity” was introduced in Bavaria. This early consumer or trade protection measure (outside Germany, views differ)5 decreed that only malt, hops, and water were to be used in brewing. Yeast was later added to the list when its necessity (if not its identity) became clear, and wheat was allowed for specialty beers. Beer was integral to the culture of the agrarian population of northern and central Europe in the medieval and early modern period. The weaker brews were accepted as an essential part of everyone’s diet and the stronger beers as a necessary source of solace in all too brief periods of leisure in a harsh world. There is no reliable information on the level of consumption except for the frequent assertions that it was “massive” and “immense.”4 Also, alcoholic strength cannot be estimated with any accuracy without any data apart from general recipes. It was often the practice to carry out multiple extraction of the same grist in order to yield beers of different strengths. “Strong beer/ale” was fermented using wort drawn from the first mash, with weaker beers derived from the second and third mashes. These latter brews (table or small beer) were everyday drinks consumed by all classes and ages at meals in preference to unreliable water and were an important source of nutrients in a frequently drab diet. The strong brews were particularly favored to celebrate church festivals and family events. Only the elite
ever saw wines or spirits. Brewing was restricted to the period roughly between October and March; attempts at summer brewing often led to spoilage as a result of contamination.
The scale of brewing ranged from a few hectoliters (hL) annually in the average home to hundreds, or occasionally, thousands of hectoliters in the largest monasteries and country houses. Domestic brewing still accounted for well over half of the beer produced at the end of the seventeenth century. Commercial brewing was generally confined to taverns and small breweries. The latter produced a wide selection of beers of different strengths, light to dark brown in color, predominantly for local consumption. The biggest of these breweries could run to tens of thousands of hectoliters, but true industrialization of brewing did not begin until increased urbanization and concentrated population growth provided a ready market for beer produced on a massive scale.
1.3 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
In general, brewing changed little during the eighteenth century, with a mix of domestic and small-scale commercial production still the norm. Trade in beer remained predominantly local everywhere, whether by the tens of thousands of European brewers or the less than 150 breweries that existed in the fledgling United States by 1800. What little regional or national trade that took place was distributed by canal. International trade was exceptional and confined to the most enterprising merchant brewers who could defray the cost of moving a bulky low-value product with reciprocal deals in other goods. Benjamin Wilson of Burton upon Trent, who traded extensively in the Baltic in the second half of the eighteenth century, is a prime example, but even here, quantities were small at around a few thousand hectoliters per annum at best.6
The growth in population of Europe’s cities was to prompt step changes in the scale of operation of breweries. London, capital of the first industrialized nation and the world’s biggest and fastest growing city, provided the earliest example of this phenomenon.7 Even at the beginning of the eighteenth century, beer production in London was dominated by “common brewers” who distributed beer to a number of public houses, many either owned or otherwise tied to them. Output from this source exceeded that of “brewing victualers,” who brewed beer only for sale in their own taverns, by a factor of more than 100 to 1. In the country, as a whole, the output ratio at the time was 1 to 1. By 1750, the average output of London’s top five common brewers was an impressive 80,000 hL, and by 1799, it was 240,000 hL.8 The breweries of Thrale/Barclay Perkins, Whitbread, Truman, and Calvert were wonders of the age! The product of these mammoth breweries, which far outstripped in size any others elsewhere, was a vinous, bitter-tasting, inexpensive brown beer commonly known as porter.
1.3.1 Porter: The First Industrial Beer
The origins of porter, and indeed its very name, have long been unclear and controversial.9 The most likely etymology is that the name derives from a contraction of “porter’s ale,” a nickname for a local brown beer popular among London’s laboring classes, and may be found in print as early as 1710 in a poem by Johnathan Swift.10
But what to me does all that love avail, If, while I doze at home o’er porter’s ale, Each night with wine and wenches you regale?
Claimed first-hand evidence as to its origin comes down to little more than a pseudonymous letter published in the London Chronicle in 1760 from “Obadiah Poundage,” who said he was an 86-year-old brewer’s clerk with 70 years of experience in a London brewery.11 Embellishments on the story have it
that porter was “invented” in 1722 at Ralph Harwood’s Bell Brewhouse in Shoreditch in East London to provide a more convenient form of “three threads.” This drink was a mix of three beers, most usually given as: fresh brown ale (mild), matured pale ale (two-penny), and matured brown ale (stale).12 One explanation of why Harwood’s beer had the contemporary name “entire butt,” or just “entire,” is because it was served as a single product from one cask rather than by the then practice of filling a glass from three separate casks containing different beers—a task that publicans found irksome.
The reality of porter’s origin is almost certainly more complex than the mere result of a move to lighten the potman’s workload. A “reconstruction from the fragments of contemporary testimony” by Oliver MacDonough makes a case for the origins of porter lying in the reaction of London brewers to the increased cost of malt and the relative cheapness of hops as the eighteenth century dawned.13 H. S. Corran builds on this and links the emergence of porter with the earlier tradition of brewing strong “October” beers.14 The science historian James Sumner questions whether porter was a discrete invention at all or rather a “retrospective construct that telescopes a century or more of technical change.”15 Sumner’s scenario is that London brown beer brewers, in seeking a beer that became “spontaneously transparent,” adopted longer aging, which necessarily required higher hop rates (to keep the beer sound) and more storage space. This in turn led to an unprecedented change in production scales and a rise in giant porter breweries. The size of these spectacular new breweries became part of the mythology that built up around porter’s “enshrining of large-scale production as a ‘secret ingredient’ in its own right,” allowing porter and its highly capitalized brewers to become dominant. Alan Pryor stresses the leading role played by Humphrey Parsons, owner of the Red Lion Brewery, Wapping, in the development of porter brewing in the 1720s. Parsons’ crucial innovation was to increase the storage capacity in his brewery by the installation of an aging cask of the unprecedented size of 160 barrels.16 Parsons’ master stroke as seen by Pryor is not so much in the adoption of such a large vessel but in the marketing of his beer as having been drawn entirely from this great butt, thus obviating any suspicion of mixing/adulteration when such practices were common by the brewery and by the publican. The drinker could therefore expect consistency and quality from Parsons’ beer. The name he gave to this improved version of porter was “Parsons intire butt.” “Intire” increasingly became “entire” and the terms porter and entire butt beer soon became interchangeable terms; the former was used by the drinker and the latter by the brewer for the same beer.
These recent publications by Sumner15 and Pryor16 do much to clarify the technical and commercial success of porter, but they do not fully explain why porter was such an immensely successful product that appealed so much to the drinking public. To understand this, one needs to consider how this change in the strategies of beer production in the early eighteenth century interacted with the biochemistry and microbiology of the brewing process and beer flavor. It is clear that the crucial technical change that turned ordinary London brown beer into porter was storage for many months in giant wooden vats before consumption. It is now recognized that storage in this way would promote secondary fermentation by strains of the alcohol-tolerant yeast genus Brettanomyces. This yeast is capable of metabolism on the remnants of complex sugars left behind by the primary yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Among other flavor compounds, Brettanomyces produces very high levels of fatty acids and their ethyl esters.17,18 It was this extreme ester level—perhaps as much as ten times the flavor threshold—rather than just the level of alcohol that gave the narcotic effect characteristic of stock English ales right up to the end of the nineteenth century.19 The fresh brown beers produced in London were thin by comparison—hence, the popularity of “three threads,” which incorporated matured beers in the mix. In a similar manner to strong ales, some brown beers were also matured. Nevertheless, the lower alcohol content of the latter encouraged the metabolism of other organisms in addition to Brettanomyces, and these beers developed a distinctly tart acidity in addition to an estery fullness. A third type of matured beer arose accidentally when, as described earlier, London brewers experimented with longer aging and higher hop rates in their beers and ended up with a mellow, fuller-tasting version of porter. The breakthrough was the discovery that a beer—even one made with cheap brown malt and significantly weaker than a strong ale—when brewed using a high enough level of hops, became much less tart during storage than was usual for
matured brown beer. Porter now developed the vinous, heavy, narcotic aroma and flavor associated with expensive strong ales. We can deduce that this is what happened because we now know that the high hop rate would have kept the lactic acid bacteria at bay through the antibacterial properties of hop bitter acids20 but would have had no effect on yeasts such as Brettanomyces. Hence, Obadiah Poundage’s observation11 that porter “… well brewed, kept its proper time, became racy and mellow, that is, neither new nor stale …” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “racy” in this context as “having a characteristic (usually desirable) quality, especially in a high degree” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ racy). In more modern brewers’ parlance, porter “drank above its gravity” because of its ester content. The combination of relative cheapness and desirable flavor made porter irresistible to the urban laboring classes—a taste eagerly exploited by what were to become the behemoths of the brewing industry.
Even porter’s dark brown color, typical of London-brewed beers, was to its advantage as it disguised any defects in clarity. This robustness and cheapness made it suitable for mass production and amenable to distribution far and wide. As sales took off, the need for long storage, often for a year or more, prompted the use of large vessels. Five thousand hectoliter capacity and greater storage vats eventually became commonplace in the larger establishments,21 and porter brewers could undercut on price their ale-brewing competitors, none of whom had the economies of scale or ability to use cheap materials in their more delicate products. Porter’s retail price was 25% less than that of rival pale ales.13 Sumner is right that porter was not “invented” in the sense that it stemmed from a “flash of inspiration” or even by targeted technical development. It was still an entirely new beer that, to an extent, mimicked the attributes of mixed beers but also delivered an enhanced mellowness. It came in a convenient single serving, was easy to make on a large scale, and sold at a competitive price. Thus everybody was happy—the publican, the brewer, and the drinker. No wonder porter was a success!
1.3.2 Mechaniz ation and Measurement
Mass-produced porter arrived on the scene prior to mechanization of brewing; man and horsepower achieved large-scale output a generation before mechanization eased the burden. When Whitbreads became the second London brewery to install a steam engine in 1785, they were already producing 300,000 hL of beer per annum. Nonetheless, when it became available, the larger brewers were quick to make use of efficient steam power, purchasing the new improved engines of Boulton & Watt. It has been estimated that at least 26 steam engines were installed in breweries by the end of the eighteenth century, with use spreading to relatively small regional breweries thereafter.22
The first record of in-process quantitative measurement in brewing operations is the use of the thermometer by the London ale brewer Michael Combrune in the 1750s. Combrune experimented with drying temperatures required to produce malts of different colors and recorded observations on mashing and fermentation temperatures. A big step forward came in 1784 when John Richardson, a Hull brewer, introduced his saccharometer for the measurement of wort strength. For the first time, the relative value and efficiency of using extract-yielding materials could be quantitatively assessed with consequent economic benefit to the brewer.23 By 1800, many of the larger brewers had adopted the instruments that were promoted in treatises on brewing science and practice. From the writings of Richardson and his contemporaries,24–26 which recorded original and sometimes present gravities, it is possible to roughly calculate the alcoholic strength of beers at the turn of the eighteeenth century. The data show wide variations but tend toward the following approximate bands for percent alcohol by volume: Strong beer: 7% to 9%, porter: 6% to 7%, ale 5% to 7%, and small/table beer 2% to 3.5%.
1.4 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Industrialization, population growth, urbanization, and increased consumption are the linked themes of nineteenth-century brewing. In the leading European beer drinking countries, the UK,
Germany, and Belgium, there was a two- to fourfold increase in output between 1830 and 1900.4 In 1800, the United States had a total commercial output of less than that of Whitbread’s brewery in London; but by 1900, it was the world’s third largest producer of beer. The development of railway networks beginning in the 1830s transformed distribution, prompting the larger-scale producers to make their regional beers available nationally to a growing population. The new breed of urban workers may have only exchanged the near serfdom of the countryside for the drudgery and grime of towns and cities but, with the novelty of relative prosperity in the blossoming Industrial Revolution, they drank heroic quantities of beer in the growing numbers of retail outlets! Levels of per capita beer consumption increased by up to 50% in some European countries. This rise in consumption was accompanied by a rise in commercial brewing and the decline of domestic brewing—indeed, some have questioned the extent of the overall rise in consumption for this very reason. Statistics on commercial production are liable to be more accurate than are those on domestic production.4
There was a vast range in the size of breweries, with outputs from a few thousand to millions of hectoliters per annum. Breweries became highly capitalized businesses and major employers of labor. As the economic importance of brewing increased, so did government interest in the industry, particularly as a generator of revenue. Brewery proprietors became more prominent socially and politically and welcomed the attention, stressing the importance of their industry to farming and the exchequer. In Britain, the industry’s long-established links with agriculture gave brewers a head start over other industrialists on the social ladder, and their growing wealth and widely heralded philanthropy boosted their position.27 Adulteration of beer, both innocuous and harmful, which had been rife at the beginning of the century, petered out as breweries grew bigger and their owners aspired to join the gentry. With prosperity and social standing, the temptation to debase their products—as the brewing victualer (purveyor) and small producer of earlier generations had done—was easily resisted, although publicans continued to show less restraint.
Between the 1870s and the 1890s, the majority of leading European brewing concerns became public companies. This rush to incorporation had little immediate influence; but over time, a bureaucracy of salaried managers gradually replaced the original partners and took over the running of the companies.28 As so often in brewing history, Bavaria differed from the norm. Only 1% of breweries had become public companies by the end of the century there; but even in Bavaria, these were the biggest companies and they comprised 17% of total beer production.
1.4.1 Porter versus Ale
As a first approximation, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the British beer market was characterized by the dominance of porter in London and the bigger cities and numerous strong, regionally variant ales in the rest of the country. In 1830, the 12 leading London brewers produced around 10% of England’s beer; through the influence of the great metropolitan brewers, Britain stood preeminent as a brewing nation. “We are the power loom-brewers,” Charles Barclay, one of the partners of the country’s largest brewers, Barclay Perkins, boasted.29 However, 1830 was to be the peak of porter’s popularity. Over the next 50 years, its position was usurped by the rise of mild and pale ale.30 Why this change came about is impossible to say with any degree of certainty. One influence was the Beerhouse Act of 1830, which led to a great expansion in the number of outlets for beer and encouraged competition. Another important factor may have been changes in porter itself. The ability to measure accurately the extract yield of malt with a saccharometer led to the discovery that porter brewed with pale malt and a small amount of very dark malt was actually cheaper to produce than porter brewed with traditional brown malt. By the 1820s, roasted barley was freely available and this also came to be used. Porter became ever darker, ultimately black. The consumer could hardly have failed to notice.
Victorian mild was well-hopped, but noticeably sweet—a strong dark brown beer that was drunk young and unaged. It grew in popularity with the laboring classes, first in London and then
in the big industrial areas of the Midlands and Northwest England, at the expense of matured porter. With the linking of Burton upon Trent to the railway system in 1839, the London brewers also began to seriously lose out to the readily available quality pale ales brewed in that town. Although relatively expensive, these beers appealed to the aspirations of the growing band of lower middle class clerks and shopkeepers. Pale malt, dried over coke rather than wood or charcoal, had been available since the late seventeenth century, and pale ale was a favored premium-quality beer. The London brewer George Hodgson and his son Mark built up a respectable trade in the export of this type of beer for consumption by the British in India and the Burton brewers followed the Hodgson’s lead in the 1820s. The hard Burton water proved particularly suitable for this type of beer. Consequently, Burton-brewed India pale ale (IPA) soon captured the export market and, from the 1840s, built a considerable home trade. The major Burton brewers—Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, and Samuel Allsopp & Sons—led the field. Each decade their output trebled and, by the mid-1870s, Bass was briefly the biggest brewer in the world, with an output of nearly 1.5 mhL, with Allsopp & Sons not far behind. At the turn of the century, Burton’s 21 breweries (the peak number was 31 in 1888)31 were brewing around 10% of the beer produced in the United Kingdom.
Burton’s star faded toward the end of the century as its products became more difficult to sell. Rival brewers increasingly bought up or provided loans to pubs and so tied them to selling that brewery’s own products to the exclusion of those of competitors. The market for Burton beers was also eroded by a shift in public taste away from matured, complex, stock winter-brewed beers like IPA to more easily produced lighter beers. Following advances in technology and technique, from the 1870s onward, these “running ales” could be brewed year-round, and they required minimal maturation. Burton brewers could, of course, brew good examples of these beers but so could many others. By the early 1900s, classic, double-fermented IPA had virtually disappeared. In Scotland, large brewing firms, notably the Edinburgh brewers William McEwan and William Younger, had developed their own version of pale ale that, like the Burton brewers, they sold primarily through the wholesale market as Scottish licensing laws did not permit brewers to acquire pubs directly. Because of this, Scotland itself remained largely untouched by the surge in tied houses that distorted the English market (where 75% of outlets were tied to a brewer by 1900). However, the Scottish brewers were heavily involved in exporting to England and suffered similarly to their Burton rivals.32 Bass continued to prosper through wise management even in adversity and was producing 2.2 mhL of beer by 1900; but the title of “world’s largest brewer” had fallen to Guinness, the Dublin brewer, by the 1880s.
Arthur Guinness had started as an ale brewer in 1759; but in response to the success of imported London-produced porter in the Irish market, his company had switched entirely to porter by 1799, swiftly expanding its business through the new canal system.33 The Irish had come to porter later than the British but remained loyal to it for much longer. In common with other brewers, two strengths of porter were brewed by Guinness, and by 1840, the stronger version—known as stout porter and then just stout—accounted for 80% of production. Guinness was the biggest brewer in Ireland by 1833 and underwent massive expansion after the 1860s, brewing 3.8 mhL in 1900. By then, with an established export trade to Great Britain and the empire, one-third of Guinness’s output went overseas. Total production represented 8.5% of all United Kingdom-produced beer; nearly twice as much as was brewed by all the Scottish brewers put together. This success was achieved without having to enter the increasingly expensive property market as Guinness, uniquely among major brewers in the British Isles, remained entirely as a wholesaler, not a retailer, of beer.
1.4.2 The Rush to Bottom Fermentation
Attracted by the scale and prosperity of the British brewing industry, brewers from other countries came to Britain in the early 1800s to learn the latest practices. The most historically significant of these visits was that made by Gabriel Sedlmayr, Jr., and Anton Dreher, who traveled around
England and Scotland in 1833, picking up whatever information they could from breweries.34 On their return home, these men were quick to make the most of their experiences and instituted reformed practices in their breweries, including the use of the saccharometer. Sedlmayr at the Spaten brewery in Munich and Dreher at his eponymous brewery in Vienna and later in Michelob (Bohemia), Trieste, and Budapest would build up important brewing empires and become instrumental in the spread of bottom fermentation techniques across the continent. Although little known outside the state, bottom-fermented beers had been brewed in Bavaria since at least the 1400s. Their defining characteristics were the utilization of yeasts that sank to the bottom of the vessel toward the end of fermentation and the use of low fermentation (4°C to 10 °C) and maturation ( 2°C to 4°C) temperatures. The rest of the world used yeasts that floated up to the surface of the fermenting wort and were accommodated to higher fermentation (15°C to 25°C) and maturation (13°C) temperatures.35 The adoption of the description “lager” (from the German verb lagern, meaning to store) for bottom-fermented beer in anglophone countries has encouraged much misdirected comment. It is often stated, or at least tacitly accepted, that storage was a unique aspect of lager brewing. In reality, until the spread of artificial refrigeration in the 1870s made reliable summer brewing possible, it was necessary to store beers fermented in the cooler months for consumption in the warmer months, whether they were top-fermented “ales” or bottom fermented “lagers.” That England and Bavaria adopted different techniques for preserving beer during storage was something generated by climate and geography. Conveniently, for the Bavarian brewer monks, the foothills of the Alps provided cool caves for the storage of beer. When it was found that storage under these conditions led to the production of stable, bright, and sparkling products, commercial brewers mimicked the procedure, using ice taken from frozen lakes and rivers to cool the cellars of their breweries. In England, no such geographical advantage was available near brewing centers, and heavy hopping and high alcohol were used as the preservatives rather than cold storage. London porter and Munich lager were the result of these differences. Both were stored or vatted beers; porter was regularly stored for a year, lager rarely for more than six months.
Bavarian lager was brewed with malt dried at relatively high temperatures, leading to rather dark-colored beers. The malt was also less well modified than the malt used in the production of top-fermented beers and thus required more intensive mashing to yield acceptable levels of extract. A “decoction” mashing system, involving extraction of the malt at three or so different temperatures by withdrawing and then heating a portion of the mash and adding it back to the bulk to give a step rise in temperature, came to replace the single temperature “infusion” system used for ales. Later, “programmed upward infusion” mashing would achieve the same process more conveniently by gradually increasing the temperature of the bulk using steam-heated coils in the mash vessel.
Political changes in Germany, culminating in eventual unification, were instrumental in fostering the opening of trade among the German states. Bavarian brewing practices became more widely known and some North German, Austrian, and Czech brewers adopted bottom fermentation in the late 1830s.36 The first example of a straw-colored lager produced using lightly dried, low color malt seems to have been brewed with the soft water of Pilsen by a Bavarian-born brewer named Josef Groll in October 1842. Both light-colored, pilsner-style lager and dark lager based on the Bavarian Münchner swept the world over the next 50 years, with the pilsner variety proving the most popular by the end of the century. Jacob Christian Jacobsen brewed the first Danish lager in 1847 using yeast he brought to Copenhagen from Munich. It was a dark lager. The pilsner style did not reach Denmark until it was brewed by Tuborg in the 1880s. Gerard A. Heineken switched from ale to lager brewing in Amsterdam in the 1870s after seeing the demand for Anton Dreher’s Vienna-brewed product at an international exhibition.28
The first lager brewed in the United States is credited to John Wagner in Philadelphia in around 1840. Wagner used yeast from his native Bavaria. However, it was Frederick Lauer, who established a small commercial brewery in Pennsylvania in 1844 and was later called “the father of the American brewing industry,” who was to be an influential brewing figure.37 The wave of
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Major Baddeley, being among the killed. The three battalions of the 126th Brigade should have rejoined the Division on the 5th, but they, too, had been fiercely attacked, and, though suffering severely, were upholding the credit of the Lancashire Territorials. As the 29th Division could not spare any of these three battalions, the Chatham Battalion of the R.N. Division was attached to the 42nd Division at noon on the 6th, and held in reserve.
By 1 p.m. the situation had improved, and the number of Turks in and around the nullahs had greatly diminished. The 5th and 7th L.F. were now ordered to take the offensive; the small redoubt near to the bifurcation of nullahs, which had been captured by the enemy, was attacked and retaken. By the evening of the 6th the enemy’s attack, which had been made in great strength and with much bravery, had been repulsed. His losses had been considerable, and his only gain was the small indentation by the Krithia Nullah. For three days the fight had raged without intermission. Worn-out, hungry, thirsty, sleepless men had fought and dug and fought again until the line had been firmly established and held by the physically exhausted remnants; and the battalions that had suffered most had time to rest and lick their wounds.
On June 7 counter-operations were undertaken after dark with the object of straightening the line from the Vineyard towards the nullah. The attack was divided into three parts, the right being entrusted to 100 men of the 9th Manchesters, and 20 men of the 1st Field Company; the centre and left each to a company of the Chatham Battalion. The 9th Manchesters succeeded, but the left and centre failed to attain their objective. On the night of June 8-9 the 127th Brigade was withdrawn to Corps Reserve, and its place in the firingline taken by the 126th Brigade, the three detached battalions having rejoined.
The casualties in the 42nd Division during the four weeks amounted to—
Killed. Wounded. Missing. Officers 68 121 6 Other ranks 610 2691 688
Total, 4184.
In his Official Despatch, General Sir Ian Hamilton made special mention of the part taken by the 42nd Division in the action of the past few days.
“The Manchester Brigade of 42nd Division advanced magnificently. In five minutes the first line of Turkish trenches was captured, and by 12.30 p.m. the Brigade had carried with a rush the line forming their second objective, having made an advance of 600 yards in all. The working parties got to work without incident, and the position here could not possibly have been better.”
After describing the withdrawal of the R.N. Division, Sir Ian proceeds—
“The question was now whether this rolling up of the newly captured line from the right would continue until the whole of our gains were wiped out. It looked very like it, for now the enfilade fire of the Turks began to fall upon the Manchester Brigade of the 42nd Division, which was firmly consolidating the furthest distant line of trenches it had so brilliantly won. After 1.30 p.m. it became increasingly difficult for this gallant Brigade to hold its ground. Heavy casualties occurred; the Brigadier and many other officers were wounded or killed; yet it continued to hold out with tenacity and grit. Every effort was made to sustain the Brigade in its position. Its right flank was thrown back to make face against the enfilade fire, and reinforcements were sent to try and fill the diagonal gap between it and the Royal Naval Division.... By 6.30 p.m., therefore, the 42nd Division had to be extricated with loss from the second line Turkish trenches, and had to content themselves with consolidating on the first line which they had captured within five minutes of commencing the attack. Such
was the spirit displayed by this Brigade that there was great difficulty in persuading the men to fall back. Had their flanks been covered nothing would have made them loosen their grip.”
In a private letter from Sir Ian Hamilton to the Divisional Commander the following sentence occurs: “As a matter of fact I never saw any finer piece of work than that performed by the Manchesters that day.”
Later on the evening of June 4 this message from the Divisional Commander was conveyed to all ranks—
Appreciation
The following message from Lieut.-General A. G. HunterWeston, C.B., D.S.O., received at 8.33 p.m. on June 4, is published for information—
“Please express to the 42nd Division, and particularly to the 127th Brigade, my appreciation of the magnificent work done by them to-day. The 127th Brigade attacked with gallantry, and held on to the objective ordered with tenacity It was a very fine performance. Please convey this to all the troops of the Division when possible, and tell them that I deeply appreciate their gallant conduct and devotion to their duty. The renown they have gained for the Division will not only reach the ears of all in Lancashire, but throughout the British Empire. I feel sure that the same tenacity will be maintained to-night and throughout the Campaign.”
On the night of June 12-13 the 127th Brigade embarked for a period of rest and reorganization on the island of Imbros. Any who fondly imagined that the term “rest” implied a period of repose and pleasant recreation were soon disillusioned, for fatigue parties were much in request at the Imbros base, and guards had to be provided for the various stores. While there, the men were inspected and addressed by the Commander-in-Chief, who assured them of his
appreciation of the Brigade’s gallantry on June 4. Its place in the line was taken by the 155th Brigade, which with the 156th Brigade had arrived at Helles in advance of the Headquarters of the 52nd (Lowland Territorial) Division. When the 127th Brigade returned on June 22 and 23, Brig.-General the Hon. H. A. Lawrence (later Chief of the General Staff in France) took over the command. The 5th and 6th Lancashire Fusiliers and the 10th Manchesters next had their period of rest; the first-named at Mudros and the others at Imbros. When they returned on July 9 and 10, the 7th and 8th Lancashire Fusiliers and the 5th East Lancashires took their turns, the Fusiliers’ period of recuperation being cut down to four days. On July 13 Brig.General Viscount Hampden assumed command of the 126th Brigade.
Though there were many minor operations during June and July no action on a large scale took place after June 8 on the divisional front. Enemy activity was kept down by local counter-attacks and bomb-raids. In one of the former the 126th Brigade’s attack between the Vineyard and Krithia Nullah on June 18 was anticipated by the enemy, and the 10th Manchesters suffered severely. The first trench raid of the Division was made about this time. Lieutenant Bennett Burleigh, 7th L.F., with six volunteers, crawled up an old communication trench and bombed a small redoubt held by Turkish snipers. The party returned without a scratch, though several men of the 8th L.F., who were giving supporting fire, were killed or wounded. This raid was the more notable in that it took place an hour before noon, and, as was hoped, the Turk was caught asleep. On July 2, the same officer (who was killed in action a few days later) accompanied by two men, went out twice by daylight and once after dark along the Turkish communication trench which ran through the Vineyard, and brought back valuable information. On the 5th the 7th Manchesters helped to repulse a fierce attack on the 29th Division on their left, and the battalion wiped out about 150 of the enemy. On the night of the 10th, Lieutenant O. J. Sutton and Sergeant Grantham, both of the 9th Manchesters, made a daring and successful reconnaissance of a new Turkish trench, and on the following night went out again and ascertained by measurement its exact position.
About the middle of the month the first Monitors arrived, each carrying two huge guns, and before long other strange marine objects appeared—the “blister ships” and the “beetles.” The former were cruisers which even at anchor could ignore the submarine menace, and the latter were motor-lighters with a drawbridge at the bows, and they could carry 500 men to the landings, protected from bullets and shrapnel by the iron decks and sides. The need for such protection increased with the daily evidence of the enemy’s improved supplies of guns and ammunition. On one morning seven hundred shells dropped on Lancashire Landing alone. On July 23 the Division had been reinforced by 47 officers and 1500 other ranks from the second line in England, but these did not nearly make good the losses. The 18th Battery, R.F.A., and the 1/4th E. Lancs (Cumberland and Westmorland) Howitzer Brigade had also arrived from Egypt during the month, and with them Brig.-General A. D’A. King, D.S.O., who was given the command of all artillery in the righthalf sector of the Corps. The 5th Battery under Major Browning, and the two guns of the 6th Battery had been continuously in action, and had firmly established the credit of the Territorial Artillery. On July 24 Major-General Douglas had assumed temporary command of the 8th Corps until August 8, the command of the Division during that period being taken by Major-General W. R. Marshall.
Battle of the Vineyard, August 6-7, 1915
On August 6 the period of comparative inactivity came to an end. The primary purpose of the Gallipoli campaign was to obtain possession of the Narrows, and thus secure command of the Dardanelles and cut off communication with the Asiatic shore. It had been hoped to achieve this by pushing forward from the south, but the original force had been far too small for the purpose. During May, June and July the Turkish garrison had been much increased, and also the supply of guns and shells, and the defences on Achi Baba greatly and most ably strengthened, whereas the British reinforcements and drafts to fill the gaps had been relatively small. There was little prospect of success by a frontal assault from Helles, and the loss that would be incurred by a futile attempt would cripple the Allies and remove all chance of ultimate success. The Commander-in-Chief decided upon an attempt to reach the Narrows at Maidos, five miles across the
peninsula from Anzac, the formidable Sari Bair range intervening. A new landing was to be made on August 6 and 7 at Suvla Bay, a few miles to the north of Anzac cove, and it was hoped that the force landed here would seize the northern slopes of the Sari Bair range, while the troops from Anzac would storm the central and southern heights. On August 6 an attack was to be made from the right of Anzac in order to divert attention from both the landing and the true objective; and a vigorous offensive was ordered at Helles, with the object of containing as large a Turkish force as possible within the southern area and of drawing their reserves from the north. There appeared to be good prospects of a decisive success, and hopes were high.
The line of trenches from the Achi Baba Nullah to the Krithia Nullah (both inclusive) was held by the 125th Brigade on the right and the 127th on the left, the 126th being in reserve. The French were on the right of the 125th Brigade and the 29th Division on the left of the 127th. The 5th Manchesters, who were acting in conjunction with the 88th Brigade (29th Division) had for objective a Turkish trench on the right of that Brigade. The bombardment began at 2.30 p.m. on the 6th, and soon H.E. shells could be seen bursting in the trench which the 5th had been ordered to take. At 3.50 p.m. they attacked, but on reaching the objective, found that they had been enticed into a dummy trench, without cover, and exposed to enfilade fire. To prevent the right flank of the 29th Division being left “in the air,” Captain Fawcus, commanding the first line of the 7th Manchesters, was ordered, about 8 p.m., to get into touch. Arriving at a trench which he expected to find occupied by the 88th Brigade, he called out: “Are the Worcesters there?” and was heavily fired upon. Moving to the left he still found the enemy in occupation of the trench, and fell back. On his way to rejoin the second line he came across a small party of the Worcesters and took them with him. The two lines regained the firing-line in the small hours of the morning, having lost 40 men out of 200. That Captain Fawcus returned safely was amazing, his clothes being riddled with bullets.
A few hours later the Battle of the Vineyard began, the bombardment by British and French batteries opening at 8.10 a.m.,
and increasing in intensity at nine o’clock when the naval guns joined in. The fire on the trenches south-east of Krithia Nullah was both heavy and accurate, but the trenches within the triangle formed by the fork of the nullahs suffered but little. Half a battalion of the 126th Brigade was attached to the 125th Brigade on the right, and another half-battalion to the 127th Brigade on the left. One battalion of the 126th Brigade was to hold the original line. Two batteries of machine-guns assisted by bringing a cross fire to bear on the enemy’s trenches.
At 9.40 a.m., the troops went forward with their usual dash, wearing tin back-plates that could be seen by the artillery “spotters.” On the right the Lancashire Fusiliers gained their first objective, but the 5th and 8th found that their portion was merely a very shallow trench raked by enfilade fire. Parties of the 6th and 7th reached their second objective, but enfilade fire and superior numbers compelled them to fall back. One of the few officers to reach this objective was Major W. J. Law, 7th Lancashire Fusiliers, who took part in all the subsequent fighting in the Vineyard. Soon after 11 a.m. portions of the first objective were retaken by a strong Turkish counter-attack, but the Vineyard remained in our hands. The 5th and 7th L.F. made a gallant effort to recover what had been lost and were partially successful. At 1.30 p.m. another enemy counter-attack in close formation was caught by our guns and brought to a standstill. The Turks suffered severely in counter-attacks upon the Vineyard, and for some hours gave up the attempt in this quarter, but resumed it late at night with no more success. The 5th and 8th L.F. reoccupied a portion of their first objective in the evening. Parties of the 4th East Lancashires and 10th Manchesters gave great assistance both in attack and defence. On the left the Manchesters showed similar dash and determination, but owing to the greater difficulties of the ground between and about the nullahs and to the intricacy of the Turkish trench system, which, with the nests of machine-guns, had escaped our shells, they were unable to hold any of the trenches taken in the initial assault, and their losses were grievous, the attacking lines being mown down by the enemy’s machine-guns.
The casualties during the two days were—
The result was that a tactical point of some importance had been won and held by the tenacity of the 125th Brigade, and that a large Turkish force had been pinned down when urgently needed in the north. The Turks had, indeed, been massing troops in front of the Division as they had intended to attack our lines in force, on the 6th or 7th of August. Sir Ian Hamilton telegraphed to the Corps Commander: “Your operations have been invaluable, and have given the Northern Corps the greatest possible help by drawing the main Turkish effort on yourselves. I was sure you were ready for them tonight. Well done, 8th Corps.”
But though the sacrifice had not been altogether in vain, the advance from Suvla Bay and Anzac had failed, and the conquest of the Dardanelles seemed more remote than ever. And yet for one half-hour it had seemed so near! Of all the many lamentable tragedies of the campaign surely the most dramatic, the most appealing, was that on Chunuk Bair, at dawn on the 9th of August, when companies of the 6th Gurkhas and 6th South Lancashires had stormed the cliffs and driven the Turks headlong before them. From the top of the saddle they looked down upon the promised land. Below them the goal—Maidos, and the Narrows! The way lay open and victory was in sight—was already achieved!—and the Turkish Army in the south would be cut off! But these four hundred men alone of all the Allied troops that landed on the peninsula were destined to view the promised land. Flushed with triumph, Gurkhas and Lancastrians intermingled raced down the slopes after the fleeing Turks. And then the blow fell—truly a bolt out of the blue—a salvo of heavy shells crashing with infernal accuracy into the midst of them, mangling and destroying the exulting victors. Where that salvo came from will probably never be known with certainty, but there can be little doubt that the shells were British. The remnants of the little
The first V.C. force could only make for shelter; there was no shelter in front, and the chance had gone, never to return.
To return to the 42nd Division. In and about the Vineyard held by the 6th and 7th Lancashire Fusiliers, the fighting surged and swayed for several days. The Turk fought gamely, with grim determination, and the casualties on both sides were heavy. The C.O.s of the two battalions had been ordered to remain at their Headquarters in communication with the Brigadier, and the Adjutants, Captains Spafford and Gledhill, held on tenaciously. Spafford was killed, and the order to retire was sent, but Gledhill’s pertinacity got this order withdrawn, and the Vineyard was held. A successful and very gallant stand against great odds was made by “A” Company, 9th Manchesters, on the night of August 7-8, when the first V.C. awarded to the Division was won by Lieutenant W. T. Forshaw, who was in temporary command of the company. Two M.C.s and two D.C.M.s were also won by the company. Forshaw was holding the northern corner of this small oblong with a bombing party when he was attacked by a swarm of Turks who converged from three trenches. For the greater part of two days he kept them at bay, and even threw back, before they had time to explode, the bombs they threw at him. In the words of the Official Report—
“He held his own, not only directing his men and encouraging them by exposing himself with the utmost disregard of danger, but personally throwing bombs continuously for forty-one hours. When his detachment was relieved after twenty-four hours, he volunteered to continue the direction of operations. Three times during the night of August 8-9 he was again heavily attacked, and once the Turks got over the barricade; but after shooting three with his revolver he led his men forward and recaptured it. When he rejoined his battalion he was choked and sickened by bomb fumes, badly bruised by a fragment of shrapnel, and could barely lift his arm from continuous bomb throwing.”
On the 8th and 9th the 126th Brigade relieved the 125th and continued the struggle, and Lieutenant S. Collier, 6th Manchesters, gained the M.C. for a good bit of work on the right of the Vineyard. A trench held by a group of men of the 126th Brigade was fiercely attacked by enemy bombers, and its capture appeared certain. Collier, however, organized and led the defence, and though he had never before handled a bomb, he displayed much aptitude with this weapon; and in spite of persistent attacks, continued throughout the night, the Turks were beaten off. On the night of the 12th the enemy attacked in mass and captured the Vineyard, but the next day were bombed out of it, and it was finally consolidated and held. Throughout the operations the Divisional Engineers had worked and exposed themselves as fearlessly as ever. Their services were continuously in demand, and they had never been found wanting. The bulk of the work on this occasion had fallen on the 1st Field Company. The Signal Company, too, had proved how competent all its branches were. Much of its work is not done in the limelight, and it may be mentioned that the average number of messages passing through the Signal Office daily had been about three hundred. In times of stress this number was greatly increased.
On August 13 the 42nd Division was relieved in the trenches and went into Corps Reserve. The following 8th Army Corps Special Order was issued next day—
“The 42nd Division has now been withdrawn into Reserve after having been in the firing-line for three months without relief. During this time the Division has taken part in three big attacks, and has been subjected to the continuous strain of holding, improving and extending our line and communications under constant fire.
“Though some units have distinguished themselves more than others, the Division has, throughout this arduous period, displayed a dash in attack and a spirit of determination and endurance in defence which is worthy of the best traditions of the British Army. The persistence with which the enemy were held off during the recent determined attack, and part of the
ground lost gradually recovered in face of strong opposition, was a fitting conclusion to the period during which the Division has been in front line.
“The Lieut.-General Commanding wishes to express to Major-General Douglas and his staff, as well as to all ranks of the Division, his appreciation of their good work, and he looks forward to seeing them again display the same soldierly qualities in active operations against the enemy at an early date.”
CAPT. FORSHAW, V.C., 1/9 BN. MANCHESTER REGT.
GULLY BEACH.
The Division, however, was not destined to enjoy a long period of rest, as orders were received at noon on the 19th to take over the trenches of the Left Section in relief of the 29th Division which had been ordered to Suvla. This was completed by 8.30 p.m. More than a thousand officers and men had rejoined from hospital in Alexandria, and small drafts arrived from England, but the Division was still much below strength; and as reinforcements for the Division practically ceased after August, it is indeed amazing that the units held together in view of the terrible losses through fighting and disease. The second line, from which alone drafts for the Territorials could be obtained, was formed into a Division (the 66th) for employment in France. To all intents this meant that battalions must dwindle into companies and companies into platoons or even sections. But there was no corresponding reduction in responsibility. For instance, a Field Company of twenty or thirty sappers, most of whom would be worn out by overwork and sickness, must still do the work of a hundred fit men. The sappers had not enjoyed even the brief period of rest accorded to other units.
Enemies more insidious than the Turk, and regarded with far greater detestation, had appeared during the past two months. The ravages
Sickness and Pests
of sickness had reduced the fighting strength of the Division more than had the bullets of the enemy. Dysentery and jaundice were rampant, and an epidemic of septic sores ran through the Division. The seasoned veterans fared better than the new reinforcements, who succumbed at an appalling rate. There had been no break in the hot, dry weather. Many of the wells had gradually become defiled, others had run dry, and this no doubt contributed greatly to the amount of sickness. The insanitary conditions inseparable from the type of warfare waged in so confined and exposed a space, the continuous strain exacted from all, the lack of sleep, the tropical heat, the monotonous and unsuitable food, the lice, and, above all, the plague of flies, with which no sanitary measures and precautions could cope, all were in their degree responsible for the deplorable results. The country was one huge grave-yard in which hundreds of corpses of friends and foes lay unburied, and the air was heavy with the stench. Flies clustered in noisome masses on everything that attracted them, on the food and in the mess-tins as these were carried to one’s mouth, on sores, on faces and hands—blue and green monsters too lazy to fly or crawl away, and to kill fifty was but to invite five thousand to attend the funeral. Under such conditions men lived and moved, and even kept a stout heart. Weak and emaciated, they crawled about the trenches, but when work or fighting was to be done they never shirked, and did not give in until compelled to do so. They had by now absorbed some measure of the philosophy of the East, and, borrowing a phrase from the enemy when things seemed at their worst, they encouraged one another with the remark: “Never mind; there’s always to-morrow.” In these days the small “band of brothers” who had come safely through the fighting were drawn closely together, and the rest of the world seemed very remote. The personal inspiration of certain officers and men counted for much, and the memory of the example of zeal and energy and good courage when the prospect was most dreary, set by officers of the Indian Army, in temporary command of units that had lost their senior officers, is gratefully preserved by those who survived. Many officers who left England with the Division gained in no ordinary degree the admiration and affection of their comrades, but the name of Philip Vernon Holberton stands out pre-eminently.
His repeated acts of gallantry, his constant thought for others and entire disregard of self, his genial presence and cheery words of encouragement when these were most needed, stimulated weary comrades to carry on hopefully, and made him an inspiration to officers and men alike.[5]
The amalgamation of battalions was put off as long as possible, but later, in October, there was no alternative. The 5th and 8th Lancashire Fusiliers were then combined under Lieut.-Colonel F. W. Woodcock, and the 6th and 7th under Major Alexander; the 5th and 6th Manchesters under Lieut.-Colonel C. R. Pilkington (Lieut.Colonel Darlington having been evacuated with fever), and the 4th East Lancashires and 9th Manchesters were split up among other battalions.
ENTRANCE TO GULLY RAVINE AT GULLY BEACH
GULLY RAVINE HEADQUARTERS OF SIGNAL CO AND 2ND FIELD CO R E
In the new area, which had previously been held by the 29th Division, now at Suvla, there were many changes, on the whole for the better. The men were not sorry to see the last of Krithia and Achi Baba Nullahs, of the Vineyard and other scenes of carnage. Yet the names conjure up other memories, not wholly painful—of heroic attempt and gallant performance, of courage, self-sacrifice, and devotion to duty unsurpassed in any theatre of war, of cheerfulness in adversity, of enduring friendships, of doggedness and determination, of great pride in the comrades who had fallen, whose graves, marked by biscuit-box crosses, lay thick in the Krithia Nullah beyond Clapham Junction. The Eski, Australian and Redoubt Lines, Wigan, Stretford, and Oldham Roads, Burlington Street, Greenheys Lane, Ardwick Green, Clapham Junction, Cooney’s corner (where it was wise to make good speed), Romani’s Well, which could always be relied upon for a supply of deliciously cool water, the olive-grove beside it, most peaceful and popular of bivouacs—these were seen for the last time, but the memories that cluster about them will never be wiped out. The mention of the names brings back the scene, the sounds, the smells —the gullies thronged with men and animals, the R.A.M.C. carrying
New Ground
the wounded down to the dressing stations, the transport toiling up with rations, the linesmen of the Signal Company coolly and efficiently laying lines and repairing wires under shell and machinegun fire, the despatch riders driving furiously over ground that no motor-cycle was ever meant to negotiate, those good men of the Zion Mule Corps, the Hindus driving their well-cared for, well-trained and (to them) docile mules, or at rest making chupatties, the smell of wood-fires—and of manure incinerators—the lines of animals, neighing or braying, the dumps, the incessant crack of rifles, and, above all, the flies and the mud.
A new nomenclature had now to be learnt and to be created. Fusilier Bluff, Geoghegan’s Bluff, the Gridiron, the Birdcages, Border, Essex, Hampshire, Lancashire, Douglas, Frith, Ashton, Burnley Streets or Roads soon became familiar signs. The derivation of most of the names is sufficiently obvious, but the “Eski Line” puzzled the men until some genius among them propounded the brilliant theory that “it’s the pet name of one of the Staff-officer’s wives.” As it was understood that he meant “of the wife of one of the Staff-officers,” the illuminating suggestion was adopted as satisfactory, and men were heard to murmur the name Eski ecstatically. Gully Ravine took the place of Krithia Nullah as the main road to the firing-line. The bed of the gully in September and October was deep in loose red sand which made very heavy going for tired troops, but when the mud came one sighed for the vanished sand. The transport was frequently thigh-deep in liquid mud in those evil days. On both sides stretched the horse and mule lines, and stores and dumps were placed at suitable spots. At the last bend of the gully a wag erected a cairn and labelled it Third Tower. This was hailed with delight by parties changing over, as all men who had trained on the Cairo— Suez Road understood that the end of their journey was close at hand. A thirty-yard rifle-range was constructed in the ravine for the training of the reinforcements from the third line, who had had little or no experience of the service rifle, and the modest beginning of a Divisional School came into being in one of the small offshoot gullies where Major Fawcus held his bombing-class.
A “rest” was more of a reality in the new area, and it was comparatively safe, but in Gallipoli the word rest held a very different significance from that attached to it at home. It had now become too closely associated with hard work to be really popular, and the dolce far niente illusion had been quite dispelled. It meant heavy fatigues day and night, much digging, the unloading of lighters and the carrying of heavy loads; but a Beach Fatigue had its compensations, for it was possible at times to get a bathe if one was not too fastidious to object to coal-dust and refuse from lighters, nor to the close companionship of the dead horses and mules that floated around. These were constantly being towed out to sea, but the homing instinct, or the current, brought them back again. “W” Beach even boasted a canteen (run by enterprising Greeks), and men who had time to spare and were possessed of patience might, after waiting for hours in a queue, come back with a bit of chocolate and a tin of fruit—rare and precious luxuries. One day would-be purchasers found the military police in possession. The Greeks had been arrested as spies, and were not seen again. In due course the Division ran its own popular canteen on Gully Beach.
As a rest-bivouac Gully Beach was a great improvement upon all previous resorts, and its attractions read like a holiday advertisement. A sea front, excellent bathing in the Mediterranean, superior accommodation on ledges cut in the cliff face—not unlike a colony of sea-birds—and those who applied early enough even got first-class quarters in a hole in the rock. Inside the ravine, where the bends gave complete protection from shell-fire, caves had been dug in the cliff sides, one above the other up to forty feet, and even more in places, above the bed of the gully. By night the illuminations in these irregular tiers of dug-outs, with the black outline of the cliff-tops beyond the highest tier of lights standing out distinct against the starlit sky, gave the ravine an effect of glamour and romance—almost of sentimental prettiness—that contrasted strangely with the grim reality of day. “Doesn’t it remind you of Belle Vue?” was a comment frequently made by the men, all of whom were familiar with the chief attraction which Manchester provides for strangers. It was possible to walk upright along the coast road (or Marine Parade) past the little colony of the Greek Labour Corps to Lancashire Landing, but this
shore road could not be used for wheeled traffic. The sunsets seen from the beach, or, better still, lying among the heather on the cliffs above, were at times gorgeous. Perhaps it was the peace of twilight, the red sun sinking behind the hills of Imbros or snow-capped Samothrace, that turned one’s thoughts and conversation homewards at the evening gatherings, and sharpened the longing for the good times that must surely be coming. Prime favourite of all items at the jolly sing-songs arranged by the various units was “Keep the Home Fires Burning,” and this was generally kept back for the closing chorus. These entertainments were excellent and they did good. Much hidden genius was brought to light, and a store of original and topical humour tapped.
Gully Ravine
In October a start was made with the construction of winter quarters, in the lower end of the ravine, for the Brigade in reserve, the R.A.M.C., etc. The supply of sandbags had improved and a minute quantity of corrugated iron sheets was rationed out to units.
The Divisional Commander naturally took an interest in the construction of his own quarters, and, among other questions to the sapper employed thereon, he rashly asked about the composition of the mortar used. It is here necessary to disclose a trade secret and state that the mortar depended upon the horse-lines for one of its components. This secret was revealed without any attempt at concealment, and thenceforward the sapper worked unhindered, while the General in the distance wondered what other horrid secrets had been hidden from him.
A certain corporal of the R.E. who was engaged on D.H.Q., had achieved an enviable reputation as one who could deal effectively with both officers and men. To him infantry officers—not merely second-lieutenants, but even field officers—were as clay in the hands of the potter, but when confronted with the Divisional Staff he met his Waterloo. He found that the Staff Officers’ Union demanded —
(a) That each officer’s hut should be completely rebuilt without any inconvenience to the officer concerned.
(b) That each officer should be treated better than any other officer.
(c) That every one’s hut should be begun at once and finished forthwith.
Reluctantly he admitted defeat, and applied to be transferred to work as close as possible to the firing line, “for the sake”—as he put it—“of peace.”
The Staff Officers of the Division could relish a joke at their own expense, and they were as much tickled as any one by the libellous report that the following official scale of rewards paid to Turkish snipers had been discovered: For killing a private, 5 piastres; N.C.O., 10; lieutenant, 25; captain, 50; field officer, 100; Red Tab, courtmartial and execution for “assisting the enemy.”
In August there had been a fair supply of vegetables and raisins, but as a general rule the onion was the only vegetable obtainable. A small consignment of strawberry jam actually reached the trenches. By one of those lucky accidents that occur all too rarely the labels had been removed from the tins, and as the happy warrior enjoyed the unaccustomed treat his fancy toyed with the picture of the anguish and indignation of the profiteer and the conscientious objector on learning that their strawberry jam had been sent in error to the brutal soldier, and on being asked if they would take “plumand-apple” instead. Plum-and-apple was now anathema. No longer would the poilu proffer his delicacies in barter, and even the Senegalese declined to trade. The flies were less fastidious. Cookhouses were now established in Gully Ravine; the battalion chefs made the most of the ingredients at their disposal; and as the nights grew chilly the hot, well-cooked meals were more and more appreciated. Improvization was the crowning art of that weird-looking soldier, the cook, and one essential qualification for the job was the ability to “win” wood. In justice to him it must be admitted that he generally possessed this qualification, and he did good work.
