Question.—"Do you believe publicans do?" Answer.—"I believe they do." Q.—"To a great extent?" A.—"Yes." Q.—"Do you believe they adulterate the beer you sell them?" A.—"I am satisfied there are some instances of that."—Mr. J. Martineau[75] being asked the following
Question.[76]—"In your judgment is any of the beer of the metropolis, as retailed to the publican, mixed with any deleterious ingredients?"
Answer.—"In retailing beer, in some instances, it has been."
Question.—"By whom, in your opinion, has that been done?"
Answer.—"In that case by the publicans who vend it."
On this point, it is but fair, to the minor brewers, to record also the answers of some officers of the revenue, when they were asked whether they considered it more difficult to detect nefarious practices in large breweries than in small ones.
Mr. J. Rogers being thus questioned in the Committee of the House of Commons,[77] "Supposing the large brewers to use deleterious or any illegal ingredients to such an amount as could be of any importance to their concern, do you think it would, or would not, be more easy to detect it in those large breweries, than in small ones?" his answer was, "more difficult to detect it in the large ones:" and witness being asked to state the reason why, answered, "Their premises are so much larger, and there is so much more strength, that a cart load or two is got rid of in a minute or two." Witness "had known, in five minutes, twenty barrels of molasses got rid of as soon as the door was shut."
Another witness, W. Wells, an excise officer,[78] in describing the contrivances used to prevent detection, stated, that at a brewer's, at Westham, the adulterating substances "were not kept on the premises, but in the brewer's house; not the principal, but the working brewers; it not being considered, when there, as liable to seizure: the brewer had a very large jacket made expressly for that purpose, with very large pockets; and, on brewing mornings, he would take his pockets full of the different ingredients. Witness supposed that such a man's jacket, similar to what he had described, would convey quite sufficient for any brewery in England, as to cocculus indicus."
That it may be more difficult for the officers of the excise to detect fraudulent practices in large breweries than in small ones, may be true to a certain extent: but what eminent London porter brewer would stake his reputation on the chance of so paltry a gain, in which he would inevitably be at the mercy of his own man? The eleven great porter brewers of this metropolis are persons of so high respectability, that there is no ground for the slightest suspicion that they would attempt any illegal practices, which they were aware could not possibly escape detection in their extensive establishments. And let it be remembered, that none of them have been detected for any unlawful practices,[79] with regard to the processes of their manufacture, or the adulteration of their beer.