What's in a Name? Irish Pub Signage and that 1872 Licensing Legislation...

The internet is for sure a wonderful resource for writers and researchers - it's full of books, articles and news that can be accessed at the click of a few keys. It's quite easy to lose yourself in an archive or scroll almost endlessly through social media posts relevant to your interests and hobbies, but it can also make the perpetuation of the most infamous of news - fake news - easier, quicker and more easily believed, as a so-called 'fact' can work it's way around the world at lightening speed, growing exponentially with each retweet or share.

This effect also causes issues in the world-within-a-world of beer, public house and brewing history, where a erroneous story published in one article or book gets repeated to the point where it becomes ingrained in the folklore of beer history - and we all know examples of this kind of  problem, as many have been well documented and exposed by others.

As an example of this issue from closer to home I'd like to delve into some comments I've spotted recently regarding as to how almost all Irish pubs came to have a family name emblazoned in big letters along their frontage. Here are some examples from books, articles and social media, which are often accompanied by questioning titles such as 'Why Irish pubs have family names over the doors?'

"I know the act of 1872 meant that pubs were forced to use their family names..."

"In 1872 it became a legal requirement to display the proprietor's name over the front door of the premises. The legacy of this is that often a pub today operates under a long-obsolete family name."

"... pub names in Ireland tend to bear the name of the proprietor, [...] a result of the requirement to do so  [in] the Licensing Act of 1872."

"Legislation passed in 1872 meant that it was a legal requirement for the owner of the premises to have their name over the front door. The legacy of this law has forward-rolled into something of a tradition, and a unique feature for Irish pubs around the world."

These examples could be read in different ways of course, but taken as a whole and within the context of where they appear, and combined with the images of pub fronts that accompany some of the articles it is quite easy to infer that they mean that Irish publicans after 1872 had to put their names big and bold on the front of their buildings because of this legislation, regardless of whether this was the implication of the wording of the writer in some cases.

This all seems to stem from Kevin Martin's excellent and must-read book 'Have ye no Homes to go to? - The History of the Irish Pub' where he states the following:

It became a legal requirement to display the proprietor’s name over the front door of the premises after legislation passed in 1872. The legacy of this law is often cited as one of the unique features of the Irish pub. Often, a public house operates under a long-obsolete family name – a signature feature in the boom of “Irish pubs” outside Ireland. This change in legislation limited the previous inventive array of names: in Dublin, The Sots Hole in Essex Street, The Wandering Jew in Castle Street, Three Candlesticks in King Street, House of Blazes in Aston Quay, The Blue Leg in High Street, The Holy Lamb in Cornmarket and The Golden Sugar Loaf in Abbey Street are all long since defunct. Some pubs, such as The Bleeding Horse and The Brazen Head, kept both a family name and original title.

It seems to be that this has been pulled out of context (in some cases repeated-but-twisted almost word for word) to stretch the author's meaning to fit a simplified narrative as to how we came to have pubs called McDaid's, Tully's, Kehoe's or whatever, when in fact it appears to just mean the smaller signs that you can see directly over doors (or windows as in the example at the top of this piece) and that you still occasionally see on older pubs, such as the example here below.

This image combined with the actual wording of the legislation here I think you can see what was actually meant, as compared to what is often touted as the reason for those bigger signs.

 Names of licensed persons to be affixed to premises.

11. Every licensed person shall cause to be painted or fixed, and shall keep painted or fixed on the premises in respect of which his license is granted, in a conspicuous place and in such form and manner as the [licensing justices] may from time to time direct, his name, with the addition after the name of the word “licensed,” and of words sufficient, in the opinion of the said [justices] to express the business for which his license has been granted, and in particular of words expressing whether the license authorises the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on or off the premises only, as the case may be; and no person shall have any words or letters on his premises importing that he is authorised as a licensed person to sell any intoxicating liquor which he is not in fact duly authorised to sell. Every person who acts in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence ten pounds, and not exceeding for the second and any subsequent offence twenty pounds.

The actual legislation dates back at least a few decades before this as a similar if more detailed version appears in The Excise Licences Act of 1825. Part 25 states in full:

25. All and every person or persons in the United Kingdom, required by any law or laws of excise to make entry of his, her, or their premises, in order to exercise or carry on therein any trade or business, for which an excise licence is required and who shall have taken out such licence, shall paint or cause to be painted, or shall place and fix in letters publicly visible and legible, and at least one inch long, in and upon his, her, or their entered premises, his, her, or their names respectively at full length (or where there are partners or more than one person engaged in carrying on jointly the same trade or business, the name or style of the firm or partnership), and after such name or names the word “licensed” adding thereto the words necessary to express the purpose or trade or business for which such licence has been granted; and such person or persons shall cause such letters to be painted or placed, and fixed in some conspicuous place on the outside of the front of his, her, or their said premises, over the principal outward door or gate, or entrance door thereto, and not more than three feet from the top of such outward door or gate, or entrance door; and if any such person or persons as aforesaid shall not paint or place and fix such letters as aforesaid, or shall not preserve and keep the same so painted, placed, and fixed, or shall not repaint or renew the same as often as necessity shall require, for the purpose of keeping the same in good order and condition during the continuance of his, her, or their licence, he, she, or they shall forfeit for every such offence the sum of twenty pounds; and if any person or persons not being licensed to exercise or carry on any trade or business for which a licence is required by this Act shall put or have any such letters as aforesaid upon his, her, or their premises, or any letters importing that he, she, or they does or do exercise or carry on any such trade or business, or is or are licensed so to do, all and every such person or persons shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of twenty pounds.

A much more detailed set of instructions as can be seen, even down to the minimum letter height.

-o-

Another error sometimes repeated is that this was just an piece of Irish legislation. It wasn't as we can see above, the later passages is still in the British records, although the words 'Commissioners of Inland Revenue' was changed to 'Justices' in Ireland at a later date - 1874 I believe. We don't see the same 'forced' name changes over there when they had the same law, so I think there were other more complex reasons for the appearance of these name signs and I believe that this 'Irish Pub Look' comes about because of a number of factors.

Firstly, the older names such as 'The Yellow Dragon' and 'King's Arms' were predominately used for the coaching inns in this country, especially in the smaller towns that were dotted along the coach roads between major cities. Many of these names died out with the coming of the railroads which caused many inns to close or become repurposed, as can be witnessed in my home town - and I'd imagine many others too. That is probably why we see more of these types of names, versus surnamed properties, even to this day in the larger, busier towns and cities where these businesses survived, or on old rural established properties that operated as inns for longer than those in towns and that date back centuries.

Secondly, because of this change, what remained of course, along with public houses, were the spirit grocers. These were effectively food provision shops that also sold alcohol - or perhaps vice-versa - which was supposedly for drinking off of the premises, although this wasn't strictly enforced from what I've read! These businesses by and large didn't have these older names and signage and instead relied upon the the name of the proprietor when being discussed or mentioned, and it is these establishments that eventually and effectively morphed into many of the well-known the pubs we know today - so they simply never had other inn-like names to begin with.

Another reason for change probably came because of pride, with the new owners of businesses wanting to put their names over their doors. In Britain many of the pubs were brewery owned - something that was quite limited in Ireland - so therefore the landlord or landlady could not - or would not - do the same, which might also go a certain way towards explaining the divergence in naming rituals.

Of course it is also more than possible that either the proprietors or those in charge of the enforcement misunderstood the legislation and believed that the bigger signs were needed, as per the line in the wording that says, ' ...such form and manner as the [licensing justices] may from time to time direct ...' and if one establishment did it then there may have been a copycat approach throughout an area. This is borne out in an write-up in the Ballinrobe Chronicle and Mayo Advertiser of the 19th of February 1876, where the licencing justices issued their own further directions and clarification to public houses of the, albeit with equally vague wording, some based on the earlier1825 legislation perhaps, where they direct that:

... the full name of every person person licenced to sell wine, spirits, beer, ale, or cider by retail, to be drunk or consumed on the I premises where sold, within the said County and Division, which is required by the said provisions to be painted or fixed on the premises in respect of which his license is granted: and also the following words to express the business for which his license has been granted - namely, "Licensed for the sale of wine, spirits and Beer for Consumption on the Premises," shall be in Roman Capital letters, or other distinct form of letters, not less than one inch in height and three quarters of an inch in breadth, In a back ground so different in colour as to be easily read by persons passing by, and be on the front over and close to the top of the principal door or entrance to his said premises, and as as to be distinctly seen by a person entering the said door or entrance.

The more you read the more that certain phrasing comes down to interpretation to a huge degree, perhaps giving a little credence to the belief that the name needed to be bigger than the licensing wording...

Lastly there was probably a degree of 'Anti-English' bias towards certain names with a strong royal or British connection that some of the more independence-minded owners didn't want associated with their businesses. So a simple way of showing their allegiance was ditching a name like 'The Red Duke' and calling the pub 'James P. Murphy' for example.

So that's my take on it - I believe that these reasons are why we ended up with surnamed pubs in Ireland, not one cause but a multitude. Perhaps - and probably - the legislation acted as a catalyst for change but only in that nameboards suddenly appeared on liquor sellers' storefronts, as they could  then achieve two things - advertise their business and be in line with that legislation in one fell swoop.

But they could also - and did in some cases - keep their old tavern or inn name and just put the required sign up over the door in small writing, there wasn't a need for this sudden change that appears to be implied by the above mentioned headlines and comments. Real proof that it wasn't 'forced' is how many pubs to this day still carry an old non-personal name not a family name, although in fairness in some cases they carry both.

Personally I'm a little sad we have lost this older way of naming pubs, which was based on a sign that those who could not read could identify. It gives me an unexplainable sense of nostalgia to be drinking in such places. In my home town we lost names like The Sheaf of Wheat, The Green Dragon, The Yellow Lion, The Harp, The Beehive and many more - although I can still drink in The Plough which is as far as I know the last of the drinking and sleeping establishments to still carry its pre-twentieth century name ... and its hanging sign.

Liam

1) I haven't chased up when this law was changed or removed, I don't think it ever was and I think is just ignored now and replaced with other checks and records.

2) I may have missed further legislation 'forcing' the use of surnames, I did put out a call on Twitter but didn't receive any additional information - yet!

(All written content, images and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its source and a link back to this post. Images via Dublin City Library's Digital Repository)

Cherry's Draught - An Irish Brewery's Bitter Ending?

Personally I don't remember 'The Great Bitter Widget War' that raged in the UK in 1994 and 1995, being separated from it by an actual interest and the expanse of water that is The Irish Sea, but it seems that Ireland played its part on at least one front - in the form of Cherry's Draught Bitter.

I was unaware of any of this until I came across a mention in the Drogheda Argus and Leinster Journal of the 29th July 1994 about a new canning line in Dundalk county Louth, which mentions the following:

'The plant brews its own label [Macardles] along with Smithwicks Ale and Barley Wine and Cherrys Bitter for the UK market.'

Fair enough about the Macardles, Smithwicks Ale and Barley wine, and although it is interesting - but not surprising seeing as they were part of the Guinness's portfolio - to see the Smithwicks ales being brewed in Dundalk, what really caught my attention was the Cherry's Bitter.

A little more searching didn't throw up much more information but it seems that it was a widgetted bitter budget brand launched by Guinness into the UK market in January 1994 according to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, which states:

'Tyneside's army of armchair drinkers are bracing themselves for the war of the widgets. A canned beer price war is about to come to a head after Guinness launched a new cheapie brew featuring the revolutionary little gadget. Cherry's Bitter is yet to hit the shelves but its arrival is near and the North east is licking its lips in anticipation.

Guinness claim their new ale - named after an historic family run brewery in Waterford Ireland - will be up to 20p a can cheaper than rival widget brews.

[...]

The new Cherry's beer has an ABV of 3.7 per cent and is described in taste as "refreshingly smooth"' 

So there you go, Cherry's - a brand and brewery swallowed up by Guinness, and with a ton of history behind it - became a cheap bitter to compete against the likes of John Smith's, Boddington's and others. Guinness had their own branded 'premium' draught bitter at 4.4% abv already on the market, but presumably wanted to fight the war on two fronts.

The use of 'Established in 1792'* is particularly galling as I'm sure that refers to the establishment of Strangman brewery in Waterford city that would certainly become a 'Cherry's' brewery in the 1950s under Guinness's direction - I wonder why they didn't brew it there to at least give a vague nod towards provenance? But then again, why would they when marketing comes before historical accuracy in the majority of breweries, a common problem even today and not just with the big companies...

But poor Cherry's - what a way to go.

Liam

Footnote: Cherry's did make one final appearance in this commemorative ale brewed in 2013 ...

* There were Cherry's brewing in Waterford city in the late 18th Century but I don't think this date refers to them...

(All written content, images and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its source and a link back to this post.)

'Beerikins' - A Beer Drinking Cat

I have a mild fascination and interest in the (nine) lives of brewery and pubs cats, so by chance I came across the following short tale from the late spring of 1909 while searching for same. It did the rounds of a number of newspapers at that time, where the story remained the same, although the headlines used varied a little ...

A CAT’S DRINKING HABITS 

The secret drinking habits of a cat, Beerikins, which came from brewery, are described by a correspondent who is now the owner the animal. Normally a basin of water with a lump of sulphur is the cat’s pet drink, and a saucer of beer he rejects. “But if,” writes the owner, “I chance to leave bottle beer on the table with the screw-stopper loose he takes measures of his own. I only knew it looking through the crack of the door. Two forepaws go round the neck of the bottle, the little white teeth go to work and release the stopper, then the bottle is turned over, and Beerikins mops up much as he fancies.”

Of course this might not be a true story but it does paint an interesting mental picture of what your cat may be doing when you are not watching, and it's a warning to those who might adopt a brewery or pub cat with a hidden taste for beer! Let's hope they never figure out ring-pulls ...

Interesting name for a cat too, and what about that sulphured water...?

Liam

(All written content and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its source and a link back to this post.)

Newspaper image © The British Library Board - All rights reserved. With thanks to The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk from whom I have received permission to display content here).

Our Other Bottle of Stout - No Pints or Half Measures...

One thing about the brewing industry in Ireland that I never gave much consideration to was the sizes of bottles used by Irish breweries and bottling companies in the past. Nowadays we have 330ml and 500ml for most bottling apart from the odd pint bottle used by some of the bigger companies plus the 375ml or 750ml bottle used occasionally for those who want a corked-and-caged product. This size issue came up in a previous post when wondering what exactly a 'snipe' bottle meant to a publican, so it got me looking into the beer bottles sizes of the past, which I assumed were just pint and half pint bottles, as that was all I ever heard about or saw until those newer metric sizes came on the scene.

My usual starting point for these questions are the newspaper archives and an early mention I found was regarding a bottling dispute between Cade & Sons, Ltd. and John Daly & Co. Ltd. in Cork, reported in the Dublin Daily Express on the 29th April 1910, which was about minimum pricing agreements - but what grabbed my attention was a discussion about bottle sizes. Part of the hearing was with regard to 'Mr. Beamish', where he discusses putting a new stout he is brewing which is '10 degrees stronger than Guinness' and how he wanted the bottlers to put it in 'the ordinary bottles'. The witness was surprised by this idea as Beamish & Crawford's ale was in '16 to the gallon bottles' and always had been so he suggested it would be wise to bottle his stout in the same bottles. Mr. Beamish then asked the bottler would 'the man on the street object to that sized bottle, [He] thought not as the usual consumer who looked for a long drink asked for a pint of stout.'

A '16 to the gallon bottle' is of course a half pint (284ml or 10 fl oz), so what did Mr. Beamish mean by the 'normal bottle'?

Clarification is given later in the article where it is stated that 'Lager beer and Bass's strong ale were always bottled in 16 to the gallon bottles, also Beamish and Crawford's ale. The other stouts had previously been bottled in 14 to the gallon bottles.' That '14 to the gallon' calculation works out at 325 ml (11.4 fl oz) approximately which to me is pretty close to our 'modern' 330ml (11.6 fl oz) bottle. So can we take from this that Cork bottles stouts were sold in 330ml bottles in 1910? I believe so, which is a half century (or more) before the point where I thought that this bottles size had appeared on our shores.

So where were these odd sized bottles coming from? These could in fact be 12 fl. oz. bottles, which would make sense as a rounder figure but the article goes on to discuss bottle shipments and errors in sizes and states that the bottles came from a German firm, which makes me think that these 330ml bottles came form Germany too, or at least the continent, which would also make perfect sense as I assume (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) that this was a common size over there? With that in mind and for the purpose of this article I will refer to them as '330'ml bottles.

Next we jump forward to 1923 and a report in the Drogheda Argus and Leinster Journal on the 9th of June regarding a food commission inquiry into the price of a standard bottle of stout, where we see a mention incidentally a that a 'barrel' contains 128 pints or 16 gallons, not a proper 'Barrel' size but an Irish-sized Kilderkin I believe - a warning as to how we need to be careful about what is communicated through newspaper articles. More importantly for this discussion we see this comment:

In Drogheda the licensed traders deal exclusively with the same companies the Ringsend Bottle Co, and for glasses with the Irish Glass Co. "The trade" gives 14 bottles to the gallon, or 38 doz bot[tle]s to the barrel. It did happen, however, that in Drogheda some bottles came in from other parts of Ireland - they were smaller bottles, and ran 16 to the gallon. He explained that if there were small bottles used they would get greater number of bottles of stout. The trade put down as the nearest average about 39 dozen to the barrel.

There are a couple of errors here by my maths, firstly they are now talking about proper Irish barrel sizes at 32 gallons and secondly the maths for the smaller half pint bottles is a little off, I make it 42 doz to the barrel - maybe a little less allowing for head space if the bottles themselves held a half pint to the top. Aside from the quoted maths and the implications for pricing that it may imply it is clear here that Ringsend were making '330'ml bottles for beer for stout and that this seems to be the standard with the half pint perhaps common in other parts of the country. One question it raises is to whether Ringsend were making a 330ml bottle from moulds imported from the continent, whether the had created their own, or if these were indeed 12 fl.oz bottles.

We also have this passage:

President [of the committee] - Isn't it a fact that in 1914 the bottles were larger than at present? 

Mr Tallan [Solicitor for the bottlers] - Well I believe there were twelve bottles to the gallon twenty years ago. 

President - Well, there must have been a demand for these small bottles. How did they creep into the trade? 

Mr Tallan - Oh, there must have been a demand for them somewhere. In England there is smaller bottle used in the trade. These bottles may be made for export purposes. They may be made for use in some districts, but you take it from me that there are none purchased by by the traders that I represent except the 'standard bottle.'

There are a few points to digest here, firstly we see that a '12 to the gallon bottle' - 379ml or 13.33fl.oz. -  was in use (Close to the 375ml bottle used today, another continental import?). That perhaps, the half pint bottles were used for export, which was later denied by one eminent bottler, Mr. Blood. The fact that Guinness was being sold cheaper in the UK and up north was explained away by export rebates.

That '12 to the Gallon" bottle appears to be the quasi-official 'Reputed Pint' as an advertisement in the Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier on the 19th April 1865 with regard to a discussion on tariffs - admittedly reverencing an Australian newspaper - states:

Ale; porter, spruce, and other beer, cider, and perry, per gallon, in wood, for six reputed quart bottles, or for 12 reputed pint bottles, 6d.

From this I infer that these were all the same volume so a reputed pint is one twelfth of an Imperial gallon.  The use of the reputed pint - and the reputed quart - in this country needs a separate article at some point, I also wonder if there is a connection between it and the 'Meejum', as I've seen mention of reputed pint glasses.

Then in a report in the Freeman's Journal published on the 10th Jan 1924 with regard to alleged profiteering by publicans in Dublin, where a bottle of stout went from 2d to 8d in ten years or so. This opinion piece goes on to say of the publicans

 Not content with charging the higher price, they changed the size of the bottles which gave 12, 13 and 14 fills to the gallon, reducing their capacity so as to measure out sixteen. And this state of affairs has continued since 1920, during a period when general costs, including wages, were on the downward grade.

So more confirmation of the sizes and the size change it appears. They also published the maths as to the extra profit that was being made by publicans, which I won't show here, and they go on to state that 'It is well known that in many, if not most, [public] houses sixteen bottles are measured to the gallon.' The writer references a report by the Commission on Prices where they had bought bottled stout from eight different licenced houses in Dublin and the contents of each measured. The contents were reputed to be between 16 and 17½ bottles per gallon, with just below the 14 bottles per gallon - averaging 15½ bottles per gallon - close to a half pint. That commission also rejected a statement by the publicans that 'the stout bottles mostly in use in Dublin were "14" bottles.'

The commission goes on to recommend that 'The use of a standard bottle should be made compulsory' and went on to recommend a maximum price of 6d a bottle for stout - although it does not actually state what size bottle they think should be used for the bottling of said stout, but it can be inferred from their comments that the half pint bottle now seems to be the new standard.

Next we have a piece from the Freeman's Journal on the 7th November 1924 regarding The Free State government's new Intoxicating Liquor Bills. In one debate over new legislation it is reported that Mr. O' Higgins - the Minister in charge - wished to make a statement with regard to Section 7 of the Bill, which dealt with intoxicating liquor in bottles and was regarding the  acceptance of a standard size for bottles, and that he had mentioned the adoption of the the '14 to the gallon bottles size' - our '330'ml again - but had been told that 90% of the bottles being currently used were the half pint size and that his off-hand remark about using the larger size had caused consternation amongst bottlers, publicans and manufacturers.

It is of interest that Richard Beamish weighs in with a remark that it would take 'five years to clear the present stocks' of '14 to the gallon' but that 'the trade generally would accept a standard of 16 bottles to the gallon' - the half pint bottles, so Beamish & Crawford and other brewers and bottlers seem to be using this smaller size predominantly at this point. The article goes on to state that there needs to be more discussion regarding bottle sizes.

Another newspaper report a week later shows that the the bottle question was still being debated and a Dr. Sir James Craig states that 'before the war the standard was 12 bottles to the gallon and that the commission held last year the case put forward on the behalf of the vintners was 14 to the gallon. Since then they had raised it to 16 to the gallon.' This ties in a little with what I've reported above although I don't think the 12 to the gallon was as popular as he states, although he could be speaking from a local perspective, but personally I think he was in error or misinformed. In the same article Mr Hughes from Dundalk is of the opinion that the Minister should 'now state that the standard bottle would be 16 to the gallon' but Mr. O'Higgins said that he would need to consult other departments before deciding.

That leads us nicely to the published Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924, which states the following:

9.—(1) The Minister for Justice may by order prescribe the sizes of the bottles in which any specified intoxicating liquor may be sold, and where any such order is in force it shall not be lawful to sell or supply the intoxicating liquor specified in the order in bottles of any size other than one of the sizes prescribed by the order.

And finally in 1925 the following appears in STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS. 1925. No. 56. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR (STANDARDIDATION OF BOTTLES) No. 1 ORDER, 1925..

AND WHEREAS it has been deemed expedient to prescribe the sizes of the bottles in which ale, beer, porter and stout may be sold:

NOW I, CAOIMHGHÍN Ó hUIGÍN, Minister for Justice, by virtue of the powers conferred upon me by Section 9 of the Intoxicating Liquor (General) Act, 1924 , and of all other powers enabling me in that behalf, do hereby order and prescribe as follows:—

On and from the 1st day of October, 1925, all ale, beer, porter or stout sold in bottles containing less than one standard quart shall be sold in quarter-pint, half-pint, or pint bottles as hereinafter defined:

(a) The quarter-pint bottle shall be one which when filled with liquid up to one and three-quarter inches from the top will contain not less than forty-nine two hundredths (49/200), nor more than fifty-three two-hundredths (53/200) of one standard pint.

(b) the half-pint bottle shall be one which when filled with liquid up to one and three-quarter inches from the top will contain not less than ninety-nine two hundredths (99/200), nor more than one hundred and three two-hundredths (103/200) of one standard pint.

(c) The pint bottle shall be one which when filled with liquid up to one and three-quarter inches from the top will contain not less than one hundred and ninety-nine two-hundredths (199/200), nor more than two hundred and three two-hundredths (203/200) of one standard pint.

Given under my hand and seal, this 31st day of March, 1925.

(Signed) C. Ó hUIGÍN 

BUT then on the 30th of December this was changed to read the following

(2) On and from the 1st day of January, 1926, all ale, beer, porter or stout sold in bottles containing less than one standard quart shall be sold in bottles containing one-third of a pint [my emphasis], one-half pint, or one pint.

Indeed an advertisement in the Evening Herald on 17th of December of the same year for 'New Bottles' lists 'Porters (16 to Gallon) (Standard Size) confirms that this is indeed the new norm.

(And it seems that is how it remained until this was all revoked from 1st January 1984 by Michael Noonan.)

It would appear that my larger '330'ml bottle has been superseded by the half pint, the pint and the one-third of a pint (189ml - 6.66 Fl. Oz.) bottle at this time, and perhaps I've finally found out what a snipe bottle of beer was in Ireland - a third of a pint?

So it seems that up until 1925 (and from a date I don't know) we had a number of sizes for bottles of beer and that we were possibly close to taking that '330'ml bottle as our standard, if not perhaps for the wish of bottlers or publicans to make a few more pennies on their porter. In any case the bottle sizes pre 1925 is not anything that I expected, as there seems to have been a free-for-all on sizes and not just the pint and half pint bottle that I had expected to find.

I wonder was this the norm elsewhere at the time?

Ending on another note -  I find it strange that the Imperial pint bottle (as distinct from the 'Reputed Pint' bottle mentioned above), a size that was to become ubiquitous in Irish pubs a few decades later gets no mention in any of the articles referenced until we get to the legislation itself. It features on occasion elsewhere with regard to court reports and advertisements but it seems to me that 'The Large Bottle' has a much shorter history that what we think? (I'm not saying it didn't exist in every pub or location, it's just that it's absent from any mention in the places I looked, which means only that...)

But that's a subject for another day...

Liam

(All written content and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its source and a link back to this post.)

Newspaper image © The British Library Board - All rights reserved. With thanks to The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk from whom I have received permission to display here).