Beer history london

It Is Even Worse in England: Mild, Bitter & Lager, 1933

Detail from the cover of The American Mercury.

In 1933 the conservative American journal The American Mercury published an article on the state of British beer and pubs by English journalist H.W. Seaman, who lived and worked in the US and Canada for some years.

We stumbled across it looking for contemporary accounts of ‘improved pubs’ but in its 15 or so pages there’s plenty of other gold to be mined. We’ll let you explore the rest for yourself but wanted to put the bit specifically about the state of our beer under the microscope.

First, Mr Seaman makes clear that he found no evidence of British beer being adulterated:

Hop substitutes are used, I regret to say, but the roots of duodenal ulcers are not there. English ale is probably as clean and as honest as ever it was. But it is unhealthily weak.

Then he says something which counters the romantic view of English session beer:

Ale to be wholesome must be strong. The German- and Bohemian-type beers which America favored in the old days and will now favor again exert their humanizing influences not violently but gradually, and the patient passes through an infinity of pleasurable states before attaining the final, beatific anesthesia. Ale, however, is intended by the Almighty to deliver its message at once. Its appeal is unsubtle.  Three half-pints, and you know you have had it. If it is strong, it has vastly sweetened you and your surroundings. If it is weak, it has soured your stomach and your outlook.

In other words, chilled lager chills you out while British ale ought to knock you out.

Another startling statement comes next though perhaps we might write it off as pandering to an American audience:

My present homesickness, in fact, is less for good ale, on which I was weaned, than for the softer, kindlier brews that were later revealed to me—the light American beers of the Pilsner and Munich varieties, that came up cold and clear, with a creamy collar that clung to the glass. Their going down was as lovely as their coming up.

Yes, American beer, which even now some British drinkers take to be uniformly awful with Lite Lager in mind, was more enjoyable than British mild or bitter. He reckons that’s partly because it was cold but points out that British ale doesn’t work when chilled — it just turns ‘thick and flat’.

Patzenhofer Lager advert, 1937.

Next, he mentions the availability of Continental lager beers in London, providing further evidence for our argument that lager was the ‘craft beer­’ of its day:

It is true that Münchener Lowenbrau and Pilsner Urquell, perhaps the noblest brews of their respective orders that are obtainable today, are on tap, in good condition, in certain dispensaries of the West End of London, but their high price, thanks to the tariff, puts them out of reach of more than nine-tenths of the people.

(Consider the trajectory of lager in the decades that followed and think for a moment about what that might mean — moral panic over Hop Hooligans off their faces on licence-brewed American IPA in 2086?)

PUB SIGN: 'Public Bar'.

He also provides a handy key to the class status of the various styles, as well as some telling tasting notes (our emphases):

Call for ale in the saloon bar of a London pub, and the barmaid will say, ‘Other side, please,’ jerking her wet thumb in the direction of the public, or four-ale bar; for ale in London is a vulgar word. The middle-classes there drink bitter, a pale, golden beer so sharply hop-flavored that foreigners find it undrinkable. Burton, in London and certain other cities that have come under the Cockney blight, is a generic name for a dark ale of standard strength or less, whether it is brewed in Burton-on-Trent or elsewhere. Its social status is above mild and below bitter; although its price is that of bitter, it is rarely seen in a West End saloon bar. In the North, beer of similar character is called strong mild. Bitter is unpopular in Scotland; the ale of that country, dark and sparkling as Miinchener, is excellent, and is commonly kept and dispensed at a lower temperature than English ale.

Seaman, being a professional man, drank bitter, of course. There’s another nugget there for those of us tracking the evolution of golden ale, and sharply hop-flavoured sounds very appealing. It would be good to find later comments from him — he died in 1955, as far as we can tell, so would certainly have had chance to try the earliest keg bitters, for example.

Finally, there is this statement which seems to be spoken directly to 2016 through some kind of Time Tunnel:

[The] words can and growler, in the American sense [are unknown in Britain]. Nobody above the rank of chimney sweep could afford to be seen carrying home the supper beer.

There is a red herring here, which has caught out a couple of people lately: mentions of cans in sources from the 1930s and earlier often refer not to sealed tins as we know them but to small pails or jugs, i.e. canisters. That mention of growlers still works though, except that nowadays carrying a takeaway container of draught beer is an almost exclusively gentrified behaviour, isn’t it?

N.B. After World War II The American Mercury ceased to be merely conservative and became ‘virulently anti-Semitic’ so watch where you step if you go wandering off through the archive.

One reply on “It Is Even Worse in England: Mild, Bitter & Lager, 1933”

Good find. Some remarks.

This idea that lager somehow was a better form of beer had taken deep root in pre-Prohibition America. But it was largely nonsense, being propaganda to promote a drink that happened to be a folk beverage of the people who made it. Even the British were influenced by it, as comments by Graham and others in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing show. In their case, it was a sign of lack of confidence.

So this writer was simply repeating the party line from before Volstead.

Some Americans were capable of resisting it and appreciating the best of the ale tradition and places that purveyed it; I discussed one such case recently on my blog.

As to anti-Semitism, unfortunately Henry L. Mencken himself was afflicted with the animus. Numerous published writings, some in the Mercury, show clear evidence of that. And so do a number of his books and essays published in the 20s and 30s. Were further proof needed, his posthumously published diaries show an advanced case of the prejudice. Perhaps his German background explained part of it and/or his family background: he recounts in one of his essays that his father announced to business prospects that he wasn’t a Jewish German, or to that effect…

At the same time, Mencken worked with Jews most of his life, famously his co-editor George Nathan and also the publisher Knopf. Mencken drew unpleasant distinctions in his social relations, one might say. Finally some of these were marred by his animus. An old beer drinking friend, surnamed Goodman (he was Philip Goodman I think) broke with Mencken when he refused to denounce Hitler’s anti-Jewish measures of the 1930s.

Mencken was a great stylist, and will be remembered for that. But his ideas were a caricature of social Darwinism. Incidentally there is a recording of him on youtube, late in life, the only one that survives. He talks about drinking a bit (not Jews, except impliedly probably when he criticises Hollywood), and rather oddly states he wasn’t really a great fancier of beer.

Nonetheless he wrote the Omnibibulous Mr. Mencken (or a name like that) which is well worth reading – once again he could be very funny when not talking about Jews and blacks. He disliked the British in similar measure by the way, and disagreed with American entry into both world wars, which tells you something about him, too.


Comments are closed.