{"id":6468,"date":"2025-02-25T17:55:47","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T17:55:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/?page_id=6468"},"modified":"2025-08-11T17:09:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-11T17:09:31","slug":"queens-college-brewhouse-oxford","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/","title":{"rendered":"Queen’s College Brewhouse Oxford"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Queen’s College Brewhouse, Oxford<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen’s College, Oxford.<\/h3>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 1 Brewhouse Building. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
Brewhouse Building<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Brewhouse Description<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Historical Antecedents<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Water Supply<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> First Brew<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> The Buttery<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> The Brewers<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Brewing Practice<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> The Beers<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Cuckoo Brewing<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> College Ale<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Chancellor Ale<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Attempt to Move<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Special Licence<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Last Gasps<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span> Archive Sources and Bibliography<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Extensive research informed by mining Queen’s College, Oxford Archive, coupled with wider brewing historical trends as detailed in “The Descent of Beer”, make this the most detailed and definitive study of Queen’s brewhouse.<\/p>\n

This extraordinary anachronistic brewhouse, still in operation in the 20\n th<\/sup> century, provides us with a window into the brewing practices of the 18\n th<\/sup> century. An Oxford college must maintain excellent modern academic standards, yet the brewhouse, in 1927, was still using practices in vogue from at least 200 years previous. That we know this is thanks to the visit of H.\n Lloyd Hind who reported on the brewery in The Brewers\u2019 Journal November 15\n th<\/sup> 1927 (Hind, Queen’s College Brewhouse 1927, 2018) and subsequently in his two volume work \u201cBrewing Science and Practice\u201d. Hind hoped that the brewery \u201cwill be preserved for its educational value as well as for its unique historical interest as a survival of old English domestic life.\u201d <\/em>(Hind,\n Brewing Science and Practice, 1948) The allusion to English domestic life recognises its similarity to the brewing of country aristocratic houses, but in sympathy with these venerable institutions, and all other college breweries,\n for reasons discussed below, brewing ceased in 1939 and the brewhouse was converted to a carpenters\u2019 workshop in 1958.<\/p>\n

The college was founded in 1340\/1 by Robert de Eglesfield, chaplain in the household of Queen Philippa of Hainault, wife of King Edward III, to whom he granted patronage. Letters patent were sealed by King Edward on 18\n th<\/sup> January 1340\/1\n [1]<\/a> and Eglesfield sealed his statutes on 10\n th<\/sup> February 1340\/1. The statutes stated that the College servants were to include a brewer who would make and grind his own malt, a baker who would grind his own corn, both assisted by a male underservant (garcio) who would\n mill their respective grains in a horse mill to save the toll of a commercial miller.\n [2]<\/a> Other servants were to be a butler or steward, a cook and kitchen boy, a barber\/porter, a gardener, a washerwoman and watchman. In practice the society was smaller than envisaged, these rulings were not complied with and\n the original servants were a manciple, cook and under-cook, a barber-cum-porter and a washerwoman, who served 20 people living in. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a purpose built brewhouse existed and evidence of brewing is\n sparse and tenuous:<\/p>\n

\u00b7        A roll made in 1348 states: \u201cReceived from bran<\/em>\n [3]<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (furfura) and draff<\/em>\n [4]<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (drascurn) from Michaelmas<\/em>\n [5]<\/em><\/strong><\/a> until the same feast a year later.\u201d <\/em>Spent grains were sold.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        In 1352-3 was purchased one quarter of malt (braseum<\/em>), 4s. 2d.\n
\u00b7        In 1420-1, an ale cask was purchased (pro cado pro cervisia<\/em>), 7d.\n
\u00b7        In 1427-8, three ale casks purchased (pro tribus cadis pro cervisia<\/em>) 1s 9d.\n
\u00b7        In 1457-8, one skimmer (pro uno disspumatorio)<\/em>, <\/em> 1s\n
\u00b7        In 1468-9 a strainer for the kitchen (strenor pro coquina)<\/em> 2.5d<\/p>\n

Whether the skimmer and strainer were used for brewing is not known; they could have been used to skim yeast and strain wort; later invoices suggest a hair cloth may have been used for straining. They were certainly filling casks with\n ale, and the original requirement of the college to brew its own ale and bake its own bread was likely fulfilled on a small scale in the kitchen by the cook and under-cook.<\/p>\n

At some point prior to 1571 the college decided to stop brewing on site and purchased beer from town brewers as detailed in bursar\u2019s books from 1573 and 1686. (Kaye, 1995) As the University controlled the Assize of Ale and commercial\n brewing, the brewers had to be licensed:<\/p>\n

\u00b7    Richard or Reynold Readinge was licensed by the University to brew on 6 June 1567.\n
\u00b7    Maiall (from the archives) was probably John Mayo, of Abingdon, licenced on 6th February 1572.\n
\u00b7    In 1571, the total cost of beer was \u00a313. 8s. 8d., of which \u00a35. 13s. 8d. went to Smythe, the balance to Reddinge.\n
\u00b7    John Smith licenced to brew in 1581.\n
\u00b7    1685-6 the last surviving bursar\u2019s book from the period ending in 1690 contains an account headed Computus cum Brasiatoribus which sets out the payments made to Henry Page for beer supplied between September\n 1685 and Midsummer 1686: a total of \u00a3249 6s, paid in five instalments.<\/p>\n

From 1690 in the provostship of Timothy Halton, the in-house production of bread and beer became a major source of income exceeding the income from letting rooms to commoners. After 350 years, Eglesfield\u2019s statutes regarding brewing\n were to be complied with. A brewhouse was built or converted from an existing structure (fig. 1) and a malt mill belonging to the college was in operation. The site of the mill is not known; however a bill of 1693 contains two payments\n for dressing the mill and agreements between Queen\u2019s, and New College and All Saints College in 1690\/1 and 1692\/3 respectively, both give permission for \u201cthe free use of the Brewing Utensils and Mault Mill belonging to Queens College.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> Prior to 1752 New Year\u2019s Day was on March 25\n th<\/sup>. Therefore figures before the \/ denote the year as written in historical documents; those after the slash are the year beginning January 1\n st<\/sup>.\n \n
[2]<\/a> Millers had a reputation for excessive charging. William Harrison expressed the same sentiment, his wife grinding the malt on a hand quern. (Harrison W. , 1587, p. 137).\n \n
[3]<\/a> Outer part of the grain, often floated on the heating liquor in the copper to \u201ckeep the spirit in\u201d.\n \n
[4]<\/a> Spent grains.\n \n
[5]<\/a> Accounts were settled at Michaelmas \u2013 29\n th<\/sup> September.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

The Brewhouse Building<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Brewhouse\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 2 From Loggan 1675.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Map\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 3 From Hodgkin 1949.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The existing brewhouse dates from 1690; whether it is purpose built or converted from a building already on the site is a matter of conjecture. Loggan\u2019s print of 1675 (figure 3) shows a quaint two story cottage on the site with three\n dormers in the roof and a garden fence. It has been suggested that this building was converted into the brewhouse. The present long walls (figure 3) terminate several feet south of the building and indeed, as can be seen in figure\n 1 , (the brewhouse), allow room to park a car between wall end and brewhouse. The walls in Loggan\u2019s view terminate at the southernmost of two east facing doors and unless the walls have moved (which they have not) and Loggan\u2019s\n view is accurate, this cannot be the same building. Barnard describes a \u201cwide open roof and tall windows<\/em>\u201d (Barnard, 1889-91, pp. vol 3, p. 447) and the present building has two large ventilation louvres. Judging from this\n and photographs of the interior (below), to convert Loggan\u2019s cottage would entail a new roof, ripping out the upper floor, introducing two floors or mezzanines, changing the doors and windows and introducing the Tuscan pilasters\n and wood facade to the west side. Better to knock it down and start afresh!<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Description of the Brewhouse<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The following is compiled from (Barnard, 1889-91, pp. vol III, p.447), and Hind (Hind, Queen’s College Brewhouse 1927, 2018) and (Hind, Brewing Science and Practice, 1948)<\/p>\n

The building measures 55ft by 22ft with a roof of Stonesfield stone tiles. Internally were two floors, stages or galleries possibly configured like two mezzanines.<\/p>\n

Roof<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Two large louvres for ventilation and cooling.<\/p>\n

Second (top) Gallery    <\/p>\n

\u00b7        Wooden liquor back. (Water tank)<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Coal fired open copper in a brick setting.<\/p>\n

\u00b7    Hand operated pump to lift wort from the underback to the copper consisting of a wooden bucket travelling in a lead barrel connected to lead pipes. There must have been a tradition that this originated in the\n 16\n th<\/sup> century, including Hind in his 1927 Brewers\u2019 Journal report. However, in Brewing Science and Practice he states that it bears the date 1778.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 4 The Copper. From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"FJ\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 5 F.J. Hunt at the wort pump.. From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Mashing\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 6 Mashing. . From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

First Gallery<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Four quarter mash tub made of memel oak. There is no false bottom and no way to sparge. Two spend (outlet) pipes fitted with metal strainers.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Two shallow wooden coolers made of white deal. Barnard, in 1890 numbers one, but Hind has two. Location is not given but are filled via a wooden trough (chute) from the copper. A gravity feed requires that\n the coolers are below the copper but high enough to benefit from the ventilation in the roof. Each has the capacity to take the boiled wort of up to six barrels. The second (for the second wort) utilises a removeable copper cooling\n coil; a recent addition in 1927 which uses running cold water as the coolant. Due to only one copper, the second wort will be at least two, if not three hours after the first and assisted cooling in the second cooler will reduce\n total cooling time.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Head\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 7 F.J. Hunt with mash tun and mashing rake. From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Ground Floor<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Underback.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Fermenting vessels. From the photographs it appears that fermentation takes place in a closed room. Wort from the coolers is run into the fermenting round. It is likely that the coolers\n are directly above the fermenting vessel.<\/p>\n

Miscellaneous Items<\/p>\n

\u00b7    Wooden trough (chute). Used to transmit hot liquor from the copper to the mash tub and wort from the copper to the coolers. Boiling or near boiling liquor at the beginning of the process sterilised the wood\n for later transmitting wort to the coolers. In a letter to Hind, 16\n th<\/sup> Sept 1937, Major Gore (Domestic Bursar) answered a question from Hind: \u201cIs the same wooden trough used for running boiling water to mash tub? Yes.<\/em>\u201d The practice may have been questionable to Hind but was normal\n for the early 18\n th<\/sup> century\n [1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Tun Bowl and ladle used to fill the cleansing casks from the fermenting round.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Mashing Rake.<\/p>\n

\n
\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Tunning\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 8 Tunning. From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

A quote from Wilson and Scotchman, brewery engineers in Frome, for the repair of two vessels supplies the dimensions of what I believe are the mash tun and fermenting tub.<\/p>\n

Mash Tun for repair\n
7ft 3in bottom dia., 6ft 10in top dia. x 3ft deep \u00a325.\n
220.98cm bottom dia., 208.28cm top dia. x 91.44cm deep = 3,309,281 cubic cm, 3309 litres\n
Volume 20 brls<\/p>\n

Fermenting Tun for repair\n
6ft bottom dia., 5ft 7in top dia. x 2ft 8in deep \u00a322\n
182.88cm bottom dia., 170.18cm top dia. x 81.28cm deep = 1990205 cubic cm 1990 litres\n
Volume 12 brls.<\/p>\n

These vessels were quite adequate for the nine barrel brews of 1927 which used 3.5 quarters of malt and made 9 barrels of College Ale. The mash tun Barnard saw in 1890 had a capacity of four quarters, yet the first brew in 1690 used\n 10.5 quarters of malt and produced 22 barrels of strong beer. Allowing for 25% evaporation in the boil and cooling, (which may not be enough), with a single mash for the first wort, the first mash requires at least 7744 litres of\n usable capacity. If the first wort is made from two mashes of equal liquid volume, the maximum required mash tun volume is around 5300 litres.<\/p>\n

The brewlengths were to reduce in subsequent years but even in the years 1866-69 there were brews of 6 quarters and 12 barrels which would require the mash tun to have at least 4378 litres capacity and the fermenting tun would have\n no spare room for working yeast. If the first wort is split between two mashes of equal liqiud volume the mash volume reduces to just over 3000 litres. This is clearly doable although the fermenter is stretched.  <\/p>\n

The vessels of 1927 were inadequate for brewing the volumes produced before 1820. Sometime after 1820 these two vessels must have been replaced with smaller units more convenient for brewing the reduced volumes recorded after 1861.\n It was said, in 1939, that on the old vessels only 9 barrel brews could be made; the truth is that little more could be made due to the size of the vessels.<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> \u201cHis conveying Gutter.- This serves for two Uses, one to convey Water into his Copper from his Spring Pump, and the other to convey his Wort out of the Copper into his Coolers or Backs\u201d. (Ellis, 1759, 7th ed., p. 311)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Historical Antecedents<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n

Similar technologies from source documents.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"An\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 9 A brewhouse design’d & engrav’d for the Universal Magazine Janry. 1747\/8 & for J. Hinton at the Kings Arms in St. Paul’s Church Yard London.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

Legend to figure 9: A Copper, B Pump, C Firebox, D Mash Tub, F Underback with pump pipe, H coolers with drain cocks ofer what appears to be three square fermenting tubs. Note the louvre for ventillation and external pump to the copper.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

That the brewhouse is of 18\n th<\/sup> century construction, or just before, is evinced by the striking similarities it has to the engraving of 1747 in figure 9. It is not known when the plant of 1927 was installed but when brewing started in a new or converted\n building in 1690, the plant must have been new. Certain brewing methods still practised in Hind\u2019s 20\n th<\/sup> century visit hark back to this time. Heating liquor in the copper until almost boiling and letting it cool in the mash tun to reflection temperature is exactly described by Whitaker in 1700 (Whitaker, 1700, p. 12). The\n Memel oak mash tun with no false bottom and two spend pipes covered by metal strainers is described, albeit with one pipe, by Ellis in 1744 (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer 5th edition, 1744, p. 185) The fermentation\n system with gyle tun and cleansing in casks is described by Markham (Markham, 1615, p. 206) and must have been ancient then. I would hazard a guess that the plant was improved at the end of the 18\n th<\/sup> century when the pump of 1778 was installed. Whether this is the original pump, is not known, but this arrangement of plant would be hazardous if not impossible to work without it. The copper is set in a cylindrical brick\n structure said to be more than 12 feet high. The underback is below the platform supporting the mash tun, with wooden steps to the copper. Before pumps became commonplace, liquor was manually carried from underback to copper, an\n operation not practical with this arrangement of plant.<\/p>\n

The historical significance of the brewery is that ancient brewing practices were in existence in the 20\n th<\/sup> century and were reliably documented. The method of brewing did not change apart from a token gesture of a copper cold liquor cooling coil and a thermometer was in occasional use but no mention is made of a hydrometer. There\n may have been some upgrades after Barnard\u2019s visit in 1890 when there was only one cooler (Barnard, 1889-91, p. 447), there were two in 1927.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Water Supply<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Before 1617 the City of Oxford was supplied by shallow wells and the river Thames. Considering the logistics of using water carriers for the river water and the questionable quality of wells which could be subject to the runoff and\n seepage from contaminated sources such as cess pits and refuse, it is difficult to see how a brewery could secure large quantities of potable water. The first brew produced almost 30 brls of beer and considerably more water would\n be necessary to make up for evaporation in the boil and coolers, cleaning and waste. Otho Nicholson, who had been on a Commission to consider the construction of London\u2019s New River, financed the construction of a scheme to bring\n water from the springs on North Hinksey Hill to a conduit at Carfax.<\/p>\n

Springs were channeled to a 20,000 gallon lead cistern which supplied the Carfax Conduit via a lead pipe encased in elm trunks. The conduit consisted of two cisterns, one above the other, the top one to supply the university and\n the bottom fed by overflow to supply the town. The construction was at the highest point within the town walls, thereby utilizing gravity to supply points in all directions. To facilitate supply to the colleges two more cisterns\n were built at Christ Church and All Saints church. It was the latter cistern that supplied Queen\u2019s College. The conduit became an obstruction to traffic and was removed in 1797 and replaced by a smaller cistern, the pipes remaining\n in use until 1868. The supply became increasingly inadequate to such an extent that in a report of 1866 it was stated that they supplied only the greater part of Christ Church, the stables of Lincoln College and around twelve houses\n in the High Street, the supply was gradually diminishing.<\/p>\n

The brewhouse end-of-year midsummer accounts detail \u201cconduit water\u201d costing \u00a32 2s from 1791 to 1814. In 1862 the entry becomes \u201cwater rate\u201d at \u00a32 2s which rapidly inflates to \u00a36 11s 3d in 1870, presumably to finance the developing\n municipal supply.<\/p>\n

Supply from the original conduit, although sufficient for the colleges, rapidly became inadequate to supply the growing town and in 1694 the town built a water wheel powered pumping station at Folly Bridge to abstract water from the\n Thames to a cistern on Market Hill. A new station was built in 1825-7 initially powered by water wheel and subsequently by a steam engine. In both cases water was pumped directly from the Thames downriver from a gasworks and sewage\n outlets. A third waterworks opened in 1856 pumping water from the lake at New Hinksey, which was a quarry filled by natural springs and seepage from Hinksey stream. This supply, likely to be reasonably hard, was unfiltered, containing\n a large amount of organic material. In 1880 it was demonstrated to harbour freshwater shrimps and the city fire brigade had to regularly unblock valves and clear out large quantities mussels. Filter beds were installed in 1883.<\/p>\n

From 1862 to 1883 the brewhouse must have endured a contaminated water supply containing a large amount of organic material. We wonder what that did to the quality of the beer.<\/p>\n

Sources: (Cole, 1965-5), (Woolley), (Oxford’s Waterworks, n.d.)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

First Brew 28th October 1690<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Brewing started on 28 October 1690 and continued until 1939. The first brewing, detailed below Tables 10 & 11 reveals a payment of excise tax. The 1660 Excise Act states that:<\/p>\n

\u201cColleges and Halls in Oxford and Cambridge which brewed for their own members before the excise was imposed are exempt from the duty on beer.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Numerous reports have stated that brewing was continuous from 1340\/1 to 1939. The College paid duty throughout the period 1690 to 1939 proving that a period of non-brewing existed before 1690. It must have been bad luck that any tenuous\n records of brewing before the 1660 Act could not be used as a loophole to dodge the tax. The Act establishes the 36 gallon barrel as basis of charge for beer and the 32 gallon barrel for ale. The charges below relate to beer per\n 36 gallon barrel. Yet in the Act of 1689, the first of William and Mary, a 34 gallon barrel was introduced for taxation of brewers without the bills of mortality, that is, outside London and Westminster. Furthermore, going on Monkton\u2019s\n table of duty rates, the duty for the first two brews is calculated on the 1689 rate of 3s 3d for strong and 9d for small, the 1690 rate of 6s 6d and 1s 6d respectively, being applied from November 1690; I can\u2019t explain why duty\n was paid on the previous year\u2019s rate (Monkton may not be accurate) and within-the-bills barrel size; being the first brew it would be expected that the excise officer would make sure that all is in order. We can expect the quantities\n brewed to be accurate as the plant would have been gauged by one or more of a countrywide army of gagers (sic).<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"First\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 10 Expenses of First brew 1690 from Batells and Rentals Ledger. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"First\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 11 Cellar Contents after First Brew 1690 from Batells and Rentals Ledger. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

N.B. In the guttering of the book for excise and total in figure 10 there appears to be a crossing out. If the excise is calculated on the 1689 rate the result is plus a farthing, which may have been insignificant enough to be discarded.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Table 1 First Brew 1690, Queen’s College Oxford. From figs. 10 and 11.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

In the first year from October 1690 to April 1691 (the accounting year went from Midsummer to Midsummer) duty was recorded and the whole brew declared. From then on, duty was recorded sporadically but the quantity of beer declared\n was only what went to the cellars, and as the duty, when recorded, indicates that more was made than went into the cellars it is not possible to make a technical assessment of beers, brewlength being unknown, until the strong October\n beers including \u201cChancellor\u201d, starting in 1862, were brewed because we know that all three barrels went to the cellar for maturation.<\/p>\n

Note that in the first brew duty was paid on 22 brls strong and 7.25 brls small but 21 brls strong and 5 barrels small were taken into the cellar, indicating that 4.5% of the strong and 31% of the small were taken to the buttery for\n immediate sale. Strong would need more maturation than the small, which probably accounts for so little going for immediate sale. What is unusual is that as a portion of the total brew, strong is 75.2% and small is 24.8%. At\n this rate they would soon have exhausted the small beer and for general hydration something else must have sufficed; tea?, coffee?, water? It is quite possible that the college disliked small beer. In the first year, of the twelve\n brews, the volume of small averaged 21.6% of the total amount brewed, from a high per brew of 37.5% to a low of 8.6%. Furthermore, by running a small amount of second wort\n [1]<\/a>, the small was quite strong for a normal small. Which brings me to another mystery; if the excise definition of small was <=6s per brl, why is a beer at a value of 7s 6d defined as small?<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> If two worts comprised the first beer and a third the second beer, the small beer would have been weaker. See below.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

The Buttery<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 12 The Buttery showing steps to the cellar. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The buttery is the distribution point for some of the commons\n [1]<\/a> in companion with the kitchen. The large lectern in the centre of the wall was a rest for the huge ledgers which were used to record a scholar\u2019s battels. These were, and are, accounts to be paid for provisions. The opening\n on the left progresses to the cellar steps. Beyond the opening is an external door to the left providing access to the cellar steps from the Provost\u2019s Garden. From the brewery, casks would have been rolled or otherwise transported\n along the Long Walls to the Buttery through a gate in the Walls and directly to the cellar. See figure 12.<\/p>\n

Figure 13 shows the cellar under the buttery as it was when beer was fermented and stored under its barrel vaulted ceiling. Sadly none of this is visible now as it has been boarded out and compartmentalised.<\/p>\n

Early end of year accounts and stocktaking reveal that bread and beer were the commons that were dispensed from the buttery. For example:<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 13 Cleansing. From the Brewers Journal 15th November 1927.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Later, the list of victuals extends further and at times cider appears in the accounts. One hundred years later it appears that the cellar was used to keep cheese, lemonade, hops and groceries too:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

\n [1]<\/a> Historically, commons were bread, meat and beer. Any other food provided by the College came under batells. Batells now covers all charges made to its members by the College. (Magrath, 1921, pp. 321 & 333, Vol 1)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

The Brewers<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

\u00b7 From 1690 not all the brewers are known but:<\/p>\n

\u00b7 Steven Wild first brewed for All Souls on Dec 21\n st<\/sup> 1691\n
\u00b7 John Blackwel (sic) first brewed for Queen\u2019s on Jan 18\n th<\/sup> 1693\/4 and All Souls on Feb 21\n st<\/sup> 1693\/4.\n
\u00b7 Tho. (Thomas) Keynton began to brew for New College on June 5\n th<\/sup> , 1695.\n
\u00b7 John Dean brewed from February 9 1719\/20\n
\u00b7 Entry on a loose leaf – Grub the brewer\u2019s Wages 1758.\n
\u00b7 From 1860 to 1890 the Butler Mr Owen held the office.\n
\u00b7 F. J. Hunt was employed from 1\n st<\/sup> July 1872 as Under-Butler. He must have been assistant brewer until 1890 when he succeeded Mr Owen.\n
 Hunt continued until 1928 when he retired after 56 years\u2019 service.\n
\u00b7 George White, a gardener, brewed from 1928 to 1939.\n
\u00b7 Louis Gunter from Morrell\u2019s Lion Brewery in Oxford, who joined Morrell\u2019s in 1937 as a pupil, brewed the last \u201cChancellor Ale\u201d in 1938.<\/p>\n

Payment of Brewers<\/p>\n

The first brewer was hired, with servants, for the sum of \u00a31 5s 0d per brew. Evidently this was not enough as on the fourth brew on December 18th 1690 the wage was increased to \u00a31 7s 6d; the scribe was surprised as he had to cross\n out the original 5s for a 7s. The first brewer\u2019s identity is unknown, but he probably came from one of the town brewers. This level of payment lasted until Nov 13th 1693 when it was reduced to 18s. John Blackwell started on Jan 18th\n on the same rate. This also must have been considered too much as in 1696 it came down to 11s 8d and down again to 7s 8d in 1711 where it remained until 1814. Due to inflation, the accounts display regular increases in the cost of\n purchases yet the brewer is held on a constant wage. Up until this point the brewer\u2019s pay was itemised under each brew as \u201cBrewer\u201d. This clarity is lost in the next set of accounts when the brews are itemised but the brewer\u2019s pay\n is recorded in a list of payments at the end of the year under \u201cBrewers\u201d. Dividing the headline payment by the number of brews should give an average payment per brew. By this method the amount payment is erratic going from 16s 9d\n in 1861-2, through a high of 21s in 1867-8 and down to 18s 6d in 1872-3.<\/p>\n

Until the 1860s the accounts refer to the brewer in the singular. It is not possible for one person to work the plant, for example the furnace will need attention while another person starts the mash. The photographs from 1927 show\n Hunt (head brewer) and at least two brewery workers. Hunt was posing for the camera and the other two were definitely working. The brewhouse was never in constant operation and there was not enough work for a permanent team of brewers.\n Extrapolating from sparse evidence, there may have been a head brewer who was permanently salaried in some other guise, who was assisted by an outside worker(s) or college workers on piece work basis. In the year 1869-70 Mr Owen\n was paid \u00a3150, yet he was described as the brewer by Robin Hobbs in the exhibition of 2017-18. I surmise that he was the head brewer with assistants because the accounts also detail Brewers paid \u00a310 7s 6d. F.J Hunt was also a long\n term employee having worked for 65 years and George White certainly had help from Morrell\u2019s brewery.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Brewing Practice<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

All the records from 1690 to 1877 follow the same format as above, grouped into years from midsummer to midsummer. In 1690 it was generally common to make two or three worts. If two it would be strong and small; if three, worts one\n and two combined to make strong and the third a weaker small. There are no explanations, in the accounts, of the brewing process so we must attempt to deduce practice from history and from the reported anachronistic beers of\n 1927 where two worts were combined for the College Ale, and \u201cChancellor\u201d was the first wort and a small amount of College Ale the second. Since all records to 1877 detail two beers and one amount of malt it may be safe to assume\n the first wort made strong and the second small. However, this practice produces a small beer of quite high o.g.. Making the first beer from two mashes and the second from the third mash gives a stronger first beer and weaker second\n beer more in keeping with a conventional small beer; it is also a more efficient use of malt when the small beer is of a short length. So maybe we should not make later, known practice, a template for brewing over 200 years previous.\n The single copper is an obstacle here. Boiling three worts and providing mash liquor to three mashes from one copper makes for a protracted brew day and time for worts and mash to cool enough for the liquids to become foxed\n [1]<\/a>. By the 1750s one copper was considered old fashioned, but the possibility of Queen\u2019s College enduring old technology should not be dismissed; they were even more out-of-date in 1927!<\/p>\n

There are no descriptions of the brewing process, however items purchased give some clues. In the first year from 1690 bran was purchased for every brew. I assume this was placed on the liquor in the copper as insulation. William\n Ellis describes the method:<\/p>\n

\u201cOn this Water we put half a Peck of Bran or Malt , when it is something hot , which will much forward it , by keeping in the Steam or Spirit of the Water ; and when it begins to boil , if the Water is foul , skim off the Bran or Malt , and give it to the Hogs , or else lade both the Water and that into the Mash – vat , where it is to remain ‘ till the Steam is near spent , and you can see your Face in it\u2026\u201d (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer, 1759, 7th ed., p. 26)<\/em><\/p>\n

And Edward Whitaker:<\/p>\n

\u201cAfter you have put your Liquor in your Copper, strew an handful two or three of Bran or Meal upon it, not so much to strengthen your Liquor, as to make it heat quickly, for simple Water \u2018alone will be long ere it Boyl.\u201d<\/em> (Whitaker,\n 1700, p. 11)<\/p>\n

A bill of 1693 itemised payments for a haircloth, a hop bagcloth and white salt. Occasionally there are payments for flower (flour). The haircloth is usually associated with malting. Before metal and ceramic drying floors a haircloth\n was always used as a platform for malt to be dried over a fire. Queen\u2019s College never engaged in malting so its likely use was as a filter or strainer. Kay states that in the 1930s wort was strained before being pumped back into\n the copper. (Kaye, 1995), the origin of this practice being the haircloth strained or filtered wort when draining from the mash tun into the underback. Clarity in beer was prized and a clear wort going back into the copper meant\n a quicker self-fining beer. Alternatively, or as well as, the haircloth may have been used to strain the hops from the wort going into the cooler. T. Poole describes the process:<\/p>\n

\u201cfrom the copper cock through a shoot<\/em> [chute] into a strainer, placed over the cooler, which is generally composed of a square boarded frame, closely wired at the bottom, and covered with a hair sheet\u2026<\/em>\u201d (Poole, 1783,\n p. 62)<\/p>\n

A payment for mending the bagcloth was made on June 30\n th <\/sup>1693, which obviously was beyond repair for on August 13\n th<\/sup> is a payment for a new bagcloth. It was common to put hops in a bag for boiling in the copper. We do not normally do this now but it is still practised that hops, herbs, spices and flavourings are floated or suspended in\n bags in fermenting beer or conditioning tanks. When Queen\u2019s started brewing it was a common method of controlling hop additions. William Ellis makes numerous comments on the practice:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd, according to this, one of my Neighbours made a Bag, like a Pillow – bear , of the ordinary six – penny yard Cloth, and boiled his Hops in it half an Hour; then he took them out, and put in another Bag of the like Quantity of fresh Hops, and boiled them half an Hour more, by which Means he had an Opportunity of boiling both Wort and Hops their due Time, saved himself the Trouble of straining them thro ‘ a Sieve, and secured the Seeds of the Hops at the same Time from mixing with the Drink; afterwards he boiled the same Bags in his small Beer\u2026<\/em>\u201d\n (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer, 1759, 7th ed., p. 36)<\/p>\n

Salt may have been used as a simple water purification treatment. Ellis again on liquor in the copper:<\/p>\n

\u201cLet it be soft Water to brown or amber Malt, covered with three or four Handfuls of Malt or Bran, if the Water is thorough clear; if not , put as much Salt , and nothing else , as will lie on a Crown – Piece, into a Copper that holds at least one Barrel, containing thirty – six Gallons, and as it heats and the Scum rises, take it off before it boils\u2026\u201d<\/em> (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer, 1759, 7th ed., p. 267)<\/p>\n

Usually, flour, and more specifically wheat flower, is prescribed for fining and preserving finished beer or to cure unhealthy\/faulty stages in the brewing process and to correct tardy fermentations. Ellis:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo cure bad Yeast. – Add to it a little Flour, Sugar, Salt, Brandy, and Beer, and it will bring it into a Fermentation ready to work new Beer or Ale Wort with. This Mixture will also improve strong Drink Grounds, and make it fit to brew or bake with, in- stead of good Yeast.\u201d (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer, 1759, 7th ed., p. 294)<\/em><\/p>\n

George Watkins:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf by neglect, or any other accident, the wort in the working-tun be in such a state of low fermentation , that this mixing and stirring in the yeast will not bring it to be right, the expedients already mentioned, under the head of common brewing, are to be used. The sifting a little fine flour over the surface, should be the first tried ;<\/em>\u201d\n (Watkins, 1773, p. 91)<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> FOXED is a technical term, used by brewers, to indicate beers in a putrid state. (Combrune, 1762)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

The Beers<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Throughout, the ingredients in Queen\u2019s beer were always the same, being malt ( pale) and hops. Even when amber and brown became available in the 18\n th<\/sup> century and patent black malt in the 19\n th <\/sup>century, the malt stayed the same.<\/p>\n

Where total brewlength is declared it is possible to assess for OG using projected malt quality from the malt analysis in \u201cThe Descent of Beer\u201d and IBU from an estimated Alpha %. The variables are so fluid that we will never get exact\n figures, but an educated projection will give a realistic view of the beers. The hop has been set at a Fuggle of 4.4% alpha merely because that is a recent hop that I have used and likely close to a historic hop. There is no way\n to know what the bitterness of hops were, but application of a constant alpha provides a relative assessment of brews through time. Where brewlength is not known we have to resort to the traditional metric of hop weight to malt volume\n as pounds of hops to quarters of malt (lb\/qtr). This method was not usually a measure of bitterness but a guide to the quantity of hops necessary to preserve the beer. Strength was measured as a product of the volume of malt against\n the brewlength as barrels of finished beer to quarters of malt (brls\/qtr), e.g. according to Michael Combrune common small beer should be 4.25 to 5.25 barrels per quarter and strong Burton Ale 1 to 1.25 brls\/qtr. (Combrune, 1762,\n p. 179)<\/p>\n

Up to the 1860s the nomenclature of the beers is fairly loose in that the same type of beer was given different names. The excise had redefined strong and small by value in 1660, so it was not surprising that the first brew used those\n beer names. Two months later in December the beers were recorded as double and middle, reverting to strong and small in February. For whatever reason, entries for 1703 were duplicated in different hands; a disregard for exact beer\n names according to type was evident that strong and small in one hand were dubbel and middle in the other. Queen\u2019s College was known to be a strong beer college\n [1]<\/a>. Perhaps they did not like their weaker second beer to be called small, hence middle beer; in any case their small (if one mash for the first wort) was not small by the standards of the time. The use of middle as a term is\n the least logical of all the beer names for a second wort. In 1615 Gervaise Markham (Markham, 1615) had used middle to describe the second of three beers, the other two being strong and small. In 1717 ale was introduced with small\n and from 1790 to 1819 double was more logically paired with single: it is difficult to see any difference in the beers when adjacent brews have different names and very similar malt and hop quantities.<\/p>\n

The 19th century saw the development of a true October Ale specially named initially as Extra then Extra Strong, Strong and finally \u201cChancellor\u201d. This three barrel brew was aged for at least a year and consumed on special occasions.\n It went straight into the cellar, so we know the brewlength and are able to do a proper analysis. The second brew was always bitter, no doubt because of the enormous quantity of hops which were reused from the first wort. The other,\n standard brews, after the 1860s were ale and small, bitter and small. As before, it is difficult to see much to distinguish between ale and bitter. If the types were true, ale should be more lightly hopped than the bitter, but that\n does not always hold.<\/p>\n

Brewing commenced in 1690 with a degree of standardization; malt at 10.5 quarters in the first brew reducing to 10 quarters until 1695 when brewlengths were reduced and malt came down to 7 quarters, holding mostly at this volume until\n the 1740s. Hop weights varied right from the beginning, changing continuously, sometimes from one brew to the next. The first six brews used 18lbs, continuing with 22lbs, 32lbs, 24lbs and 40lbs. Calculated IBUs went from a moderate\n 24, dipping to 15 and ending the season at a robust 53. Hops can vary in bitterness from different farms and naturally become less bitter as time goes on so some adjustment is necessary, but such a dramatic increase would suggest\n that the brewer is experimenting.<\/p>\n

Table 2 is a selection of brews over the life of the brewhouse chosen to reflect changes in practice or names. Calculated OGs and IBUs where possible give an idea of the character of the beers. IBUs of the 2\n nd<\/sup> wort are not attempted because the hops would have been reused from the 1\n st<\/sup> wort and there is no reliable way to estimate them. From 1862 to 1874 only the strong October beers are shown to clearly track the increase in strength and bitterness. Calculations were made using the calculators at tdo-beer.com,\n IBUs calculated using the Tinseth algorithm.<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> James, son of Sir Daniel Fleming wrote in the 1690s \u201cOur beer [the College beer] is too strong, as several say\u2019s, but I do not find it. (Hodgkin, 1949, p. 120)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Table 2 200 years of Selected Brews.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Queen's\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Brewing\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Chart 1 Brews Based on 1st Worts From 1690 to 1927\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Chart 1 displays the erratic nature of the brewing from 1690 to 1927. Wild swings portray standard brews interspersed with very small brews, e.g. in July and August 1809 1 quarter of malt and 1lb of hops resulted in only 0.5 brls of\n single beer going to the cellar. At first sight the graph appears confusing; there are 325 records, and some are omitted from the original data where a run of very similar brews occurs, yet trends are visible. The largest swings\n were in hop weights, however a trend from below 20lb circa 1695 to a band of about 30lb to 50lb beginning in 1861 demonstrates the increasing bitterness in the progression to 19\n th<\/sup> century beers. Although not a reliable measure of bitterness, the Malt volumes and Hops as pounds per quarter invert in 1861 indicating an increased hop rate against malt volume. For most of the sequence the volume of 1\n st<\/sup> wort is not a true measure as for most of the time only the amount going to the cellar is recorded, but again a trend is visible of a reduction circa 1695, and a further reduction in 1861.<\/p>\n

In the first year of brewing, from October to April, twelve brews, sometimes two per month and three in March, made the most beer of any year with 278.65 brls of Strong\/Double and 59.6 brls of Small\/Middle. After this year the stated\n volumes must be less than the total declared as the amount for immediate sale is not recorded, but the volume of malt stayed the same at 10 qtrs until 1695. Even so, first worts were as much as 26 brls in 1692-3.<\/p>\n

From June 1695 to June 1740 sees an almost unbroken run of standardized 7 qtr brews, first worts averaging 14 brls and second worts averaging 3.7 brls and sometimes none at all of the second wort reaching the buttery cellar, if indeed\n a second wort was actually made.<\/p>\n

October 1740 sees the lowest grist up to that point of 3.5 qtrs, heralding a phase of erratic brewing using from 0.75 qtrs to 8.5 qtrs to September 1790. Within this phase the college buy beer in. Whether it be lack of staff or sudden\n increases in the number of consumers, it is difficult to see why a brewery that was capable of producing 338 total brls in the first year could not ramp up production. Between May and June 1757 2 brls of small beer were bought from\n Magdalene College. From Midsummer 1757 to Midsummer 1763 large volumes were purchased from Mr Anderson.<\/p>\n

N.B. College brewed is what went to the Buttery – the total brewed is unknown.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Table 3 College Buys Beer\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

From 1790 a new phase of stability begins with the majority of brews using 7.5 qtrs of malt reducing to 7 qtrs in June 1813 to May 1819 when the records break. Beers taken to the cellar are 14 to 15 brls Double and 4 to 5 brls Single<\/p>\n

The old format of two worts, and despite some name changes, essentially the same beers as were made in 1690 must have begun to pall. Demand for something different reflects the general innovation in brewing during the 19\n th<\/sup> century and the end of year accounts midsummer 1862 included Bass and Stout in quarts and pints, most likely in bottles. The two wort format is retained into the next century but new beers appear. In September 1861, Ale\n is accompanied by the new beer Bitter. Both of 8.5 brls in the cellar but 50 lb hops in the Bitter to 40 lb in the Ale in keeping with the old rule that Bitter beer should be greater hopped than Ale. This convention was not to be\n adhered to in later brews. In January 1862 a form of strong October makes its debut, being a 3 brl special brew which developed into \u201cChancellor\u201d. To 1877 malt volumes were between 3 and 10.5 quarters and first worts were often 10\n or 12 barrels of Ale and Bitter; second worts were very short at 1 or 2 barrels of Small except when a strong October was the first wort and here a Bitter was drawn which could be up to 10 brls after a \u201dChancellor\u201d.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Cuckoo Brewing<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Adjacent colleges were keen to take advantage of a new brewhouse close by; New College obtaining an agreement on 16\n th<\/sup> Feb 1690\/1 and making their first brew on 20\n th<\/sup> Feb. All Souls started to brew on March 6\n th<\/sup> of the same year yet had no agreement until two years later on 16\n th<\/sup> March 1692\/3. Both agreements were similar, the later version for All Souls benefiting from two years\u2019 experience.<\/p>\n

Articles:<\/p>\n

\u00b7        For free use of the plant and malt mill New College pays \u00a325 per annum, All Souls pays \u00a31 1s 6d per brew.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Both colleges in the first instance are to supply their own barrels, malt, coal, hops and other necessaries but until they made their own arrangements. Queens to supply ingredients etc.\n at cost price. Payment on account to be made at the beginning of every quarter to be assessed at the end of every quarter: New College \u00a340, All Souls \u00a330.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Both colleges to pay their own excise duty.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Both colleges to use the same brewers as Queen\u2019s and pay them accordingly. Little is recorded but All Souls paid the same as Queen\u2019s for the early brews at \u00a31 7s 6d. A summary for eight\n brews over the same period for New College gives \u00a36 5s which allows only 15s 7 1\/2d per brew.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        Any college may recede from the articles giving six month\u2019s notice.<\/p>\n

\u00b7        All Souls, being the other side of the wall to the brewhouse, was allowed to make a lockable, secure passage through the wall. [There is no evidence that this was done]<\/p>\n

\u00b7        New College restricted to not more than two brews in a fortnight without leave from the provost of Queen\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The last clause arose from the fear that New College might over-brew to the inconvenience of Queen\u2019s: caution in this respect was relaxed and the clause is absent from All Souls\u2019 agreement. None of the colleges were brewing intensively,\n however the concern was valid. Modern breweries easily brew every day and sometimes multiple times a day in the most advanced plants. Queens\u2019 plant with one copper and slow evaporative coolers would be hard pushed to brew on consecutive\n days. In practise this never happened, brewing taking place usually once in a week or at a three day interval. In the first year the closest brews were by New College on 27\n th<\/sup> and 29\n th<\/sup> February, and this is open to question because 1690\/1 was not a leap year!<\/p>\n

It is not known why these arrangements were terminated. New College stopped brewing in April 1697 but according to (H.E. Salter (Editor), 1954), did not construct its own brewhouse until 1699. All Souls finished in January 1697, reverting\n to purchasing from the town brewers before establishing their own brewhouse in 1702\/3. New College had ceased brewing by the 20th century and All Souls was still brewing, albeit tenuously, in 1930.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

College Ale 1927<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Descended from Ale or Bitter of the previous century, sthis was the usual drink in hall, made once a month, but due to a lack of attemperation (cooling), not in the summer. The brewing process was described by F.J. Hunt, head brewer\n in 1927. Ten barrels of liquor (water) from a wooden back (tank) are heated to almost boiling point in the copper and moved via a wooden chute to the Memel oak mash tun where it is allowed to cool to reflection temperature\n [1]<\/a> of approx. 168\u00b0F (75.5\u00b0C). 28 bushels (3.5 qtrs) of pale malt were tipped in and mashed with a rake and oar (figure 6) before a stand of two hours. The wort is pumped [via the underback] into the copper with the lead pump\n (village pumping\n [2]<\/a>) and boiled for 2 hours with 26lb of hops. The boiled wort is run down the same wooden chute to one of two coolers. Six more barrels of liquor are heated to 90\u00b0F (32.2\u00b0C) for the second mash. Stand time is not given. This\n is boiled with the same hops for two hours and run down into the second cooler. Cooling time is between two and six hours according to the weather (the building is equipped with louvred roof panels for ventilation) until the temperature\n cools to not less than 66\u00b0F (18.9\u00b0C), when both coolers are emptied into the fermenting round thereby mixing both worts. Yeast is pitched and the temperature of this approx. nine-barrel brew rises to about 75\u00b0F (23.9\u00b0C) overnight.\n Now in its most vigorous fermenting phase, the wort is transferred to casks for cleansing\n [3]<\/a>. The only way to get liquid out of the fermenter and into casks is by ladle and tun bowl (see figure 8). The casks are then rolled to the cellar where they are positioned over a trough with their bungs out. The fermentation\n would be slowed by the lower temperature of the cellar (approx. 55\u00b0F, 12.8\u00b0C); however yeast and beer would flow out of the bung hole into the trough; beer to be returned to the cask and yeast collected\n [4]<\/a>. Any further topping up to be done with retained wort (figure 13). It should be noted that this ancient practice of wort and yeast running down in unsterile conditions over a wooden cask and into a wooden trough was a significant\n source of infection. After three to six days the beer was transferred to butts\n [5]<\/a> where it was expected to self-fine in two or three weeks when it would be ready to drink. Practice at this stage changed after the butts became decrepit. A newspaper article in the archives, undated but sometime in the 1930s,\n describes 12 cleansing casks venting for a week which are racked into ten fresh casks and rolled to the cellar. Although not mentioned, the casks may have been dry hopped. Considering the survival of ancient practices and the regular\n use of dry hops in the 19\n th<\/sup> century it would be unusual not to do so: there are entries in the accounts from 1761-2 for \u201chopping the barrels\u201d.<\/p>\n

College ale was described as a 25lb brew. That is 25 pounds per barrel original gravity, which equates to an o.g. of 1069.44, effectively 1070. Hind\u2019s analysis of College Ale gave the o.g. as 1068.2 and pounds per barrel gravity at\n 24.6. An ABV calculation from Hind\u2019s alcohol percent by weight of 5.22 equates nicely with the gravity drop calculation of 1068.2 to 1017.8 of 6.6% abv with apparent attenuation of 73.9%. Results from the parti-gyle calculator at\n tdo-beer.com reveal more data about the brew.<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a>i So the brewer can see his face in the liquor.\n \n
[2]<\/a> Described in a newspaper article of the 1930s.\n \n
[3]<\/a> Forerunner to the Burton Union system.\n \n
[4]<\/a> Yeast collected in a busy brewery would be repitched in the next brew but would not keep between brews of low frequency i.e. once a month.\n \n
[5]<\/a> 108 gallon, 3 barrel upright bell-shaped cask popular in the early to mid-18\n th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

College Ale Specification<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

28 bushels = 3.5 quarters @ 332 lb\/qtr = 1162 lb = 527 kg\n
ldk = 275\n
Hops 4.4% alpha Fuggles, 26lb = 11.8 kg<\/p>\n

To make 9 brls = 1470 litres beer \u2013 using the 1824 gallon<\/p>\n

Mash 1, 10 brls of liquor (1633 litres) yielded 6.7 brls (735 litres), 1093 sg\n
Mash 2, 6 brls of liquor (980 litres) yielded 6 brls, (735 litres) 1043 sg\n
boil 2 hrs, estimate 25% evaporation<\/p>\n

Combined 1470 litres, 1068 sg with 87% conversion efficiency<\/p>\n

IBU = 51.2 Tinseth, abv 6.6%<\/p>\n

I assume that the hops were boiled in the first wort and reused in the second as was standard historical practice. The method had changed by 1937 as Major Gore (Domestic Bursar), supplying information to Lloyd Hind in a letter dated\n 16\n th<\/sup> September, stated that 10lbs of hops (fresh) were used in each boil. Major Gore was concerned that his secrets would be used by the competition. Hind\u2019s high-handed thankyou letter of 20\n th<\/sup> September was dismissive of the brewhouse\u2019s technological state, assuring him there was no need to fear competition:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe second mash is usually carried out at a higher temperature than the first and yeast is never added at so high a temperature as 68 degrees. I am afraid most brewers would have a fit if asked to use these temperatures.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n

Hind has a point about the second mash temperature. A higher temperature would more readily dissolve the remaining sugars. Denigrating the pitching temperature is a little disingenuous. In Science and Practice, he recommends 65\u00b0F and\n a maximum of 69\u00b0F for pitching yeast in a wort of this specific gravity. (Hind, Brewing Science and Practice, 1948, p. 809 Vol 2)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Chancellor Ale<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Before the introduction of temperature control for maturing beer, March and October were deemed the best months to make the best and strongest beer. Both months are between extremes of ambient temperature, however October was considered\n best of all due to the length of time for steady cool fermentation before the summer. It should be remembered that after cleansing there were still plenty of remaining sugars to supply a gradual fermentation which in the heat of\n summer could \u201cfret\u201d and burst a wooden cask. Hind tells us that \u201cChancellor Ale was and is still made in October or March<\/em>\u201d (Hind, Brewing Science and Practice, 1948, pp. vol 1, p.2). Available accounts from 1862 to 1874\n never brewed in October. Traditional ale, with little or no hops was always made strong to counter infection. Markham\u2019s strong ale of 1615 had brls\/qtr of malt at 0.77. The initial forerunner to \u201cChancellor\u201d had brls\/qtr of 0.75\n decreasing (increasing strength) to 0.48 brls\/qtr from 1867 to 1874. In the 19\n th<\/sup> century few beers were made this strong. Burton Ale may be the template that the Queen\u2019s brewer had in mind when formulating \u201cChancellor\u201d; Amsinck\u2019s No 1 Burton Ale (Amsinck, 1868) had 0.8 brls\/qtr of malt. These strong\n beers with high final gravity were able to support a prodigious hop charge; Amsinck\u2019s Burton Ale had 13.75 lb\/qtr, and from 1862 to 1874, \u201cChancellor\u201d hovered around 13 lb\/qtr.<\/p>\n

There is no doubt that \u201cChancellor\u201d is a high status name for a beer that started as \u201cExtra\u201d and recognised as something very special. When the new name was decided upon, existing stocks were renamed. The midsummer stock-take never\n mentioned Extra, Extra Strong or Strong which all may have been written as \u201cOld Beer\u201d. \u201cChancellor\u201d was first brewed in Feb 1867 but only the value of cellar stock was declared in June of that year. Chancellor was not brewed again\n until Dec 1868 yet the stock at midsummer 1868 included 150 gallons of \u201cChancellor\u201d. As only 108 gallons had ever been brewed, all the previously brewed Extra must have been renamed.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Table 4 “Chancellor” and Forerunners.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

A calculated o.g. of 1.123 for the first Extra rose to 1.151 and stayed at that level through the four recorded brews of \u201cChancellor\u201d. If the apparent attenuation was the same as the 1927 \u201cChancellor\u201d of 60.98%, the abv would have\n been approaching 12.5%. There was a tradition that this beer had been triple brewed, that is, wort from the previous mash used on fresh malt for the next. In this case wort from three mashes highly concentrated. It is a method of\n making a strong beer if the mash tun is too small to take all the malt in one mash. A double mash would be more likely as in Anglo-Saxon \u201ctwice brewed\u201d. In the late 1800s \u201cChancellor\u201d was using 6.25 quarters of malt and brews of\n 6 quarters were common so the mash tun ought to have been large enough without a double or triple brew. This practice is not evident from the accounts and the first reference appears to be by R.H. Hodgkin:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe new buttery and Common Room retained a more obvious ascendancy. Queen\u2019s beer and <\/em>triple-brewed \u201cChancellor\u201d<\/em><\/strong> increased in reputation, and Queen\u2019s men tended to boast about their brew-house on the west, rather than about its contemporary building the library <\/em>[begun\n 1693, finished 1696] on the east, of the Fellows\u2019 Garden\u201d.<\/em> (Hodgkin, 1949, p. 160)<\/p>\n

The new library was finished six years after the brewhouse started brewing and \u201cChancellor\u201d did not appear until 1867!<\/p>\n

Barnard sampled \u201cChancellor\u201d aged for six years, brewed in 1884, claiming that it was of brandy strength (16 bushels to a barrel\n [1]<\/a>) and \u201cblazes up like whisky when thrown on the fire<\/em>\u201d (Barnard, 1889-91, p. 448). He drank from a liqueur glass, which may have been an ale flute as described by Sambrook (Sambrook, 1996, p. 243). A description in\n the archives dated 1939 says of \u201cChancellor\u201d: \u201cit is drunk only on special occasions, and as a liqueur in tall thin glasses<\/em>\u201d. Sadly, the glasses have not survived to the present.<\/p>\n

The hop rate rose steadily to 80 lbs and calculated IBUs of 333.4. It is difficult to see why the brewer required such a prodigious hop charge, but aside from the bitterness factor, hops were used as a preservative and \u201cChancellor\u201d\n was meant for keeping. Barnard reported that the beer was kept in a specially excavated cellar under the buttery and never tapped until its second year. Even so, that quantity of hops was unnecessarily extravagant and must have taken\n a lot of volume in the copper. Various commentators have stated the amount of wort absorbed by hops, from 3.6 to over 6 litres per kg of hops will retain a minimum 130 litres (26%) of wort in a 490 litre brew. The hops, which may\n have been boiled in a bag, must have been pressed to release this precious sweet wort, although there was no mention of such a thing.<\/p>\n

Described as a 50lb beer (1138.8 sg), Hind\u2019s analysis gives an original gravity of 1135.3 derived from an alcohol content of 8.46% by weight (10.72% abv) and a final gravity of 1052.8. Interestingly, the gravity drop calculator gives\n 11.06% abv. Apparent attenuation is 60.98%. In 1927 the original \u201cChancellor\u201d of 3 barrels had reduced to 2.5 barrels made from the first wort of college ale, which was boiled for three hours with 20lb of hops. The hops were then\n boiled with the second wort for college ale. Initial fermentation was in a small round, racked into casks and moved to the cellar for cleansing, after which it was racked into butts to mature over the next year or more.<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a>L In 1874 6.25 brls make 3 brls \u201cChancellor\u201d, 16.6 bushel per barrel.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Chancellor Ale 1920s Specification<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

28 bushels = 3.5 quarters @ 332 lb\/qtr = 1162 lb = 527 kg\n
ldk = 275\n
boil 3 hrs, estimate 35% evaporation\n
Hops 4.4% alpha Fuggles, 20lb = 9 kg<\/p>\n

To make 2.5 brls = 408 litres beer, using the gallon of 1824<\/p>\n

Mash 1 \u201cChancellor\u201d, evaporation 35% 7 brls of liquor (1154.7 litres) yielded 3.8 brls (627 litres), 1085 sg, 79% conversion efficiency boiled 3 hrs evaporating 35% to finish 2.5 brls at sg 1136\n
IBU = 113.6 Tinseth<\/p>\n

Mash 2, College Ale, evaporation 25%, yielded 3 brls of liquor (500 litres) @ 1050 boiled 2 hrs to finish 2.3 brls, (375 litres) @ 1068 sg<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Hind’s Report<\/h3>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

In addition to the laboratory analyses of the two beers, Lloyd Hind gives the following sensory analysis:<\/p>\n

\u201cHow good the ale is may be judged from the following analyses of samples. The College ale was drawn from the casks now on tap. The Chancellor ale examined was three years old and in bottle. Its flavour, though acid, was wonderfully vinous and pleasant, the acidity being hidden by the buffering colloids of the beer. Both beers were bright though the sample of College Ale threw a deposit of secondary yeast, with scarcely any bacteria. The College Ale had a fair condition and had a very good malt and hop flavour. The Chancellor Ale was bright and poured out like port wine.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is used on special occasions in Hall, among these being the great event when a man receives a “blue,”<\/em>\n [1]<\/em><\/strong><\/a> on which occasion a “plate ” is filled for his table and handed round. The plate <\/em>Loreferred to is a valuable two-handled silver mug, containing about a pint, of which the College owns a dozen, for the use of scholars and Fellows<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a> A blue is a high sporting honour.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The two-handed mug is an example of a \u201cloving-cup\u201d, traditionally sent round the assembled scholars and fellows. Up to the 1920s the College was still using an elaborate buffalo horn (figure 15) presented by the founder, Eglesfield.\n The metal bands are repeatedly inscribed with \u201cwacceyl\u201d which means \u201cwacht heil\u201d, good health \u2013 the origin of wassail. (Magrath, 1921, p. 22 Vol 1)\n
\n <\/p>\n

Note that \u201cChancellor\u201d \u201cpoured out like port wine<\/em>\u201d. We could infer that it was sweet, full bodied and brown or ruby in colour. The description refers to a full-bodied and possibly high coloured beer, but October beers were\n made with pale malt. If this was a standard strength beer it would be pale. A high concentration of pale malt with a long boil can make a deep coloured beer. Extensive boiling will make melanoidins, which manifest in the darkening\n of colour and richening the flavour. So pale malt could make a beer of port colour. Famously, Eldridge Pope\u2019s Thomas Hardy Ale was made from pale malt and a small percentage of crystal malt boiled massively to make a rich, dark beer.<\/p>\n

It may be expected that years in the wood might produce traditional brettanomyces characteristics, however the high final gravity would refute this; brett typically ferments residual sugars so the beer would be quite dry.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Founders\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 15 Eglesfield’s Wassail Horn.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Table 5 Hind’s Analysis from The Brewers\u2019 Journal 1927<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Acid was a big concern of early brewers due to their methods and maturing beer in the wood. Beer is naturally an acid medium but when acetic and lactic concentrations reach the flavour threshold, vinegar and sour become perceptible.\n The threshold for lactic acid is 400 ppm. A low concentration of lactic acid is a normal product of fermentation and is said to round out the flavour. Hind\u2019s analysis (Table 5) shows that both beers were above the flavour threshold.\n College Ale must have been normal but at 2100ppm, \u201cChancellor Ale\u201d is in Lambic territory and described as acid. As a beer matured in old wooden butts it very likely benefitted from generations of previous brews and contained the\n depth of flavour contributed by brettanomyces. The historical perception of acid is ambiguous; some would counter it with chalk and others promoted it as desirable in aged \u201cstale\u201d beers such as October. William Ellis relates a method\n used by a brewster to turn ale into stale beer. After a month in a hogshead she would open the bung and put in a handful of pickled cucumbers and after a week or two would draw the beer \u201cthat always had a pleasant Taste and Smell, like old October Beer staled through time.<\/em>\u201d\n (Ellis, The London and Country Brewer, 1759, 7th ed., p. 311)<\/p>\n

\u201cBoth beers were bright<\/em>\u201d This I can believe would be true of the bottle-conditioned \u201cChancellor\u201d. College Ale threw a yeast sediment and contained bacteria. Any beer that has yeast in suspension cannot be bright by today\u2019s\n standards. Hind was extremely knowledgeable about beer and termed himself an analytical and consulting chemist, however his definition of \u201cbright\u201d leads me to be sceptical of clarity in any beer that has not been fined or filtered.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Chancellor Ale Recreated<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Chancellor\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Figure 17 Chancellor Ale.\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

This was twice brewed in a 50 litre Braumeister.<\/p>\n

Aim for 26 litre final volume to allow for waste in the fermenter and absorption by the hops to fill a 19 litre cornelius keg.\n
21 kg pale malt \u2013 Chevalier.\n
500 gms goldings hops \u2013 this is a large volume of hops which will soak up a lot of wort. Feel free to substitute a higher alpha English hop. Target comes to mind.\n
23 gms (two small packs) Fermentis S-33 yeast.\n
\n
Method\n
The 3 hour boil necessitates more liquor than usual and the lower efficiency of the mash with such a strong beer requires a generous amount of malt.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

1\n st<\/sup> Wort. 50 litres of liquor and 11kg pale malt at 75\u00b0C. Mash for 90 minutes without sustaining the heat. The malt will retain at least 11 litres of liquor so drain the mash and sparge to 45 litres. The temperature over\n the mash time will have dropped to about 65\u00b0C so put the heater on to bring the wort back up to 75\u00b0C<\/p>\n

2\n nd<\/sup> Wort. Mash in 10 kg pale malt for 90 minutes. Drain and sparge to 41 litres. At this point the specific gravity should be around 1093. Turn on the heater to boil.<\/p>\n

The boil. It is important for the beer colour and melanoidin production to have an extended boil. Boil from 41 litres to about 27 for a gravity of 1135.3. With so many hops the volume looks bigger than it is and the hops retain wort\n at transfer so you need to aim for 26 litres. The boil was faster than anticipated finishing at sg 1.140 and about 25 – 26 litres, and that in 2.6 hrs. That is 38% evaporation. If I was to boil for 3 hrs I would need another 5 litres\n sparge in the second mash.<\/p>\n

Fermentation. Chill to 24\u00b0C and pitch twice the normal amount of yeast.<\/p>\n

OG 1.140 FG 1.058 giving an apparent attenuation of 58.6 and abv of 11%.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Tasting<\/h3>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

<\/strong>Intense bitterness is offset by the sweetness of the high final gravity. A large amount of residual sugar makes a high viscosity, a thick syrupy pour and a long lasting tight head. Despite the use of only pale malt,\n the colour is of rose red due to a long boil. Flavour is of brown sugar and caramel, hopped whisky and slightly nutty. Aroma is of higher alcohols with sweet malt. Had this been brewed under the questionable hygiene and aged in an\n old wooden cask of the original, it would have developed more complex flavours and a refreshing lactic quality that would complement the cloying sweetness in this modern brewed beer.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Attempt to Move the Brewhouse 1929<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

A letter of 6\n th<\/sup> May 1929 from the Domestic Bursar, Major Gore, to Customs and Excise is the first indication that the College was planning to use the brewhouse land for other purposes, initiating a period of indecision that was to last\n for 29 years. The proposal to the Inland Revenue, in two parts, wondered if the Domestic brewing licence held by the College permitted the brewhouse to be moved out of Oxford, the beer to still be consumed only in the College. Part\n two of the proposal mirrored the arrangements of the 1690s, asking if the current licence would extend to two or three other colleges brewing on the plant for beer to be consumed only in their own colleges.<\/p>\n

The only colleges brewing at this time were Queen\u2019s and All Souls. Both breweries were old and in need of renovation and modernisation. Barnard reports that All Souls\u2019 brewhouse was below par even in 1890. (Barnard, 1889-91, pp. 446,\n Vol III) The desire to consolidate and share costs and brewing with other colleges is understandable given that volumes of beer consumed had been diminishing. Major Gore thought that in the first year of a communal brewery only 200\n barrels would be made. Between three breweries that would amount to an average 5.5 barrels each per month.<\/p>\n

Hind\u2019s report in 1927 contained two beers of 1068.2 and 1135.3 gravity, College Ale and Chancellor Ale respectively. Customs and Excise, apparently from their own records in 1929, had the two colleges brewing two beers \u201cat about 90\u00b0 and 60\u00b0 original gravity<\/em>\u201d.\n I take this to mean 1.090 and 1.060 sg. So something about College Ale strength and another stronger, but not \u201cChancellor Ale\u201d. Records are not detailed enough from the last Brewhouse Book ended 1877 to the 20\n th<\/sup> century for any certainty, but some time from then to 1927 the brewhouse stopped making small beer. The market and tastes had changed because it was proposed that \u201cThe lighter beers (which are at present bought) would also be brewed.\u201d <\/em>(In\n the new brewhouse)<\/p>\n

To anybody of a practical nature the proposal makes indisputable sense, to a bureaucrat mired in technical points of acts of parliament the situation is more complicated. The Bursar was clear that he held a licence \u201cfor Domestic use only, for consumption in this College<\/em>\u201d.\n Yet the Excise could find no record of private brewers\u2019 licences to Oxford colleges. The excise officer quotes the 1880 Act:<\/p>\n

\u201cA brewer, other than a brewer for sale, shall only brew beer for his own domestic use, or by consumption by farm-labourers employed by him in the actual course of their labour or employment\u201d, <\/em>and \u201c the brewer shall only brew on premises occupied by him\u201d. <\/em>The\n conclusion being that the conditions of the licence do not apply to the conditions existing in the College. \u201cThe holder of the licence cannot be regarded as the occupier of the premises, and the beer is brewed for consumption by & sale to members of the College.\u201d <\/em>The\n conclusion to this is that as the colleges of Queen\u2019s and All Souls hold a licence as a \u201cBrewer not for sale<\/em>\u201d the matter is extra-statutory and for decision.<\/p>\n

Despite the Excise having no record of the licence, the Bursar held, under section 6 (2) of the 1919 Finance Act, a 4\/- licence with beer duty chargeable, for the occupier of a house exceeding \u00a315 annual value. Interestingly,\n duty paid by a brewer other than a brewer for sale was charged \u201con the quantity of worts by relation to materials as aforesaid<\/em>\u201d rather than on specific gravity. (1880 Revenue Act 13,2) The Act expected that one quarter of\n malt (pale) should produce four barrels of beer at 1.055 gravity. Excise was charged on what should have been made per quarter of malt rather than what was actually made.<\/p>\n

Inland Revenue had at some point in the distant past made a special provision for the colleges of Oxford and would not be in favour of altering the existing arrangements. It was stated in the 1880 Act that anything in the Act should\n not affect any rights and privileges contained in the Charters of any University of the United Kingdom. It was decided that there was no objection to moving the brewery to a location outside Oxford as long as the College was in rateable\n occupancy. Sharing the brewery with other colleges, would however, negate the current licence and entail a brewer for sale licence with its yearly charge and payment of full beer duty.<\/p>\n

Suffice it to say that the proposal to start a communal brewery with other colleges was dropped.<\/p>\n

Source Cust 49\/1108, National Archives<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Special Licence 1932<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

In 1932 All Souls\u2019 brewery was in such bad condition that a costly renovation was necessary should they continue to brew. They had decided not to invest in new equipment as the consumption of beer was diminishing, but desired to have\n a supply of college brewed strong beer (Audit Ale), which they preferred not to buy from a public brewery due to the perception that public brewed Audit Ale was of inferior quality. Major Gore\u2019s proposal was to brew for All Souls\n and pipe the wort through the wall to their cellars not more than 20 ft away, costs and duty to be paid by All Souls. There is no evidence that this was done.<\/p>\n

Excise records demonstrate that neither brewhouse made very much beer and All Souls brewed only in December of the recorded year.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"Excise\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n Table 6 Excise record for year ending 30th Sept 1931\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The initial assessment referred to restrictions under the 1880 Act. Both colleges held a private brewing licence which primarily was for the individual\u2019s domestic use only on premises occupied by him or lent him gratuitously by a brewer\n not for sale with a rateable value not exceeding \u00a310. Both colleges held a 4\/- licence for a house with an annual value exceeding \u00a315 which allowed brewing for purposes outside domestic use and paid duty. The fact that the colleges\n sold their beer under batells meant that they had for years been in contravention of the spirit of the Act. The proposal to brew for somebody else was a further contravention. The initial conclusion was to refuse the application\n \u201cas being for the extension of a very questionable privilege\u201d. <\/em>There was no objection to the colleges jointly or individually taking out licences as brewers for sale. Surprisingly, the final decision allowed, as a special\n concession, the proposal to go ahead as long as both colleges held a private brewing licence. There is no record that the proposal came to fruition.<\/p>\n

Source Cust 49\/1375, National Archives<\/p>\n

Note: Audit Ale\n
A strong beer brewed for the special occasion of the feast of the annual audit. That All Souls wanted Queen\u2019s to brew an Audit Ale is not surprising as \u201cChancellor Ale\u201d, although of different appellation, is of the same genre. Public\n breweries were quite capable of brewing beers to the required strength and did so, at least, for the colleges from the 1920s to 1960s\n [1]<\/a>, but I doubt if the character of a commercial brew had the quality of a beer matured in old oak casks for a number of years.<\/p>\n

\n [1]<\/a>r See Audit ale – a short history, John A R Compton (Compton-Davey)<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Last Gasps<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

By 1935 the butts had been discarded due to age. These may well have been the casks that Barnard claimed to be 100 years old in 1890. The last \u201cChancellor\u201d was brewed by Louis Gunter, destined to become head brewer of Morrell\u2019s Brewery,\n in 1938, a year after being taken on as a pupil by that brewery. A loose leaf page in the archives entitled \u201cThe Queen\u2019s College, Oxford. Its Brewing and Some Other Customs\u201d, bemoans the fact that only 30 barrels of College Ale a\n year are now made and are supplemented with commercial beer. Due to the age of the \u201cold wooden vats and tubs<\/em>\u201d only nine barrels can be made at a time. So many writers expressed the hope that this historic, anachronistic\n brewery would function for many years to come \u201cas the result is so fine. It is indeed fine, especially the extra-strong \u201cChancellor\u201d Ale\u2026<\/em>\u201d Brewing ceased in that same year.<\/p>\n

It has been claimed that the state of the plant was the reason to stop brewing, and that may have been the main factor, but the brewer being a gardener and Gunter brought in for the \u201cChancellor\u201d points to a lack of staff. The brewery\n was still capable of functioning and the looming war probably influenced the decision to mothball the plant. It was a mistake to allow the wooden parts to dry out. A coopered vessel is held together only by hoops of iron or wood\n compressing curved and shaped wooden staves. Moist wood expands to press the sides together, making a sealed vessel; allow it to dry out and the seal fails. The decision to halt production was short-lived, for Morlands Brewery Abingdon\n had advised the Domestic Bursar to write in a letter dated 27 August 1941 to Wilson and Scotchman of Frome:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs you may be aware, it is a very old plant, and for the past two years has not been in use. I have had it inspected and find that two vats will not hold water owing to shrinkage, and that they will require re-hooping<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wilson and Scotchman responded on 29\n th<\/sup> August that it might be best to send the vessels by rail for repair. Significantly, the war was constraining manpower:<\/p>\n

\u201cOwing to the abnormal conditions now prevailing we are very short handed but will do all we can to assist you<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The same conditions meant that Queen\u2019s College was also short staffed. The response from the Domestic Bursar:<\/p>\n

\u201cFurther to your letter of 29<\/em>\n th<\/em><\/sup> ultimo, I am afraid it is not possible to remove from the brewery the plant which requires repair<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wilson and Scotchman agreed to send a Vat-maker to assess the vats on-site with the conclusion that they were beyond repair and the cost to replace with new vessels in English oak would be:<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

The work could be done in January but on 4\n th<\/sup> December the College decided they could not decide what to do and in another letter of 16\n th<\/sup> January informed Wilson and Scotchman that they would wait until the end of the war. They did propose purchasing materials and storing them until they could be \u201cput up\u201d. Nothing came of this and the next communication\n is from the Bursar on 22\n nd<\/sup> May 1945 asking if the quote still holds and please look at the rest of the plant which might also need repairing.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the decision to postpone was a mistake. Inflation during the war and a scarcity of seasoned English Oak caused the price to rise from 4s 6d per cubic foot to 13s 6d and Vatmakers wage had increased 6d per hour since\n 1941.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

            A College assessment of 30\n th<\/sup> May 1945 estimated the cost would be from \u00a3250 to \u00a3300.<\/p>\n

The son of C.K. Mill, (managing director of Guinness, Dublin), a student at Queen\u2019s, reported to his father in 1949, that college brewed beer was no longer available, whereupon Mill kindly offered in a letter of 10\n th<\/sup> November 1949, to rebuild the vessels. A reply from the Bursar, referring to the increased quote from Wilson and Scotchman, stated that the Committee decided that the cost was so expensive that they would wait \u201cuntil prices got easier<\/em>\u201d.\n It was thought that a new boiler would be required and the College building policy had not been resolved, therefore any decision was still on hold. C.K. Mill wrote an understanding reply on 28\n th<\/sup> March 1950 that the offer could not go further and until the building programme was arranged he would wait to hear from the Bursar again.<\/p>\n

It was noted in 1954, that around the time of the increased quote in 1945, that Mr Mill had offered to put the equipment in order. There was some doubt about the fate of the stable yard (site of the brewhouse) and the offer could not\n be accepted until it was certain that brewing would be restarted. The Committee were of a mind to demolish the brewhouse whilst acknowledging that it was a scheduled building under the Town & Country Planning Act 1947.<\/p>\n

Assessments on the cost to brew were made between 1939 and 1956 of the cost to brew and projected retail price. Costs of materials were supplied by Morrell\u2019s Brewery and duty by Customs and Excise. It was noted that the retail price\n must cover buttery costs and wastage. Over that time inflation was taking its toll; excise is particularly exceptional, increasing from 80s per standard barrel in 1940 to 286s 5.5d in 1945, an almost 260% increase. Excise further\n increased and settled at 321s in the 1950s. It is not known how this affected excise payments connected to ingredients as paid by the College, but it is clear excise was the major cost to brew. The following is an example costing\n from 1954.:<\/p>\n

Present day brewing costs (17\n th<\/sup> November 1954) are estimated as follows:-<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \"The\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Profit is in the region of \u00a362. In the interim, the skills to brew had been lost. It was noted that no staff were available to brew and doubtful if anyone had the requisite experience. Entrepreneurial nouse is lacking. A brew of perhaps\n once a month does not require a full-time brewer, so train an existing employee or employ a part-time brewer from a local brewery as was done from 1690!<\/p>\n

The committee thought that the offer from C.K. Mill was still open in 1954 but did not act. The brewhouse was eventually converted to a Carpenter\u2019s Workshop in 1958.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Queen\u2019s College Archive Sources<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Batells and Rentals Ledger 1689-90\n
Brewhouse Book 1691-1742\n
Liber Camerarii – Chamberlain\u2019s Book – Brewhouse Book 1703-15\n
Brewhouse Book 1728-1773\n
Brewhouse Book 1861-1877<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n \n
\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n

Bibliography<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n \n
\n

Amsinck, G. S. (1868). Practical Brewings: A Series of Fifty Brewings in Extenso.<\/em> London: The Author, 15 Meclenburgh Square.\n
Barnard, A. (1889-91). The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Four Volumes.<\/em> London: Sir Joseph Causton and Sons.\n
Cole, C. (1965-5). Carfax Conduit.<\/em> Retrieved from oxoniensia.org: https:\/\/oxoniensia.org\/volumes\/1964-5\/cole.pdf\n
Combrune, M. (1762). Theory and Practice of Brewing.<\/em> London: J. Haberkorn.\n
Ellis, W. (1744). The London and Country Brewer 5th edition.<\/em> London: Printed for T. Astley at the Rose in St Pauls Churchyard.\n
Ellis, W. (1759, 7th ed.). The London and Country Brewer.<\/em> London: Printed for T. Astley.\n
H.E. Salter (Editor), M. D. (1954). New College’, in A History of the County of Oxford: Volume 3, the University of Oxford, ed. H E Salter, Mary D Lobel( London, 1954).<\/em> Retrieved September 26, 2024, from British History\n Online: https:\/\/www.british-history.ac.uk\/vch\/oxon\/vol3\/pp144-162\n
Hind, H. L. (1948). Brewing Science and Practice.<\/em> London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.\n
Hind, H. L. (2018, July 29). Queen’s College Brewhouse 1927<\/em>. Retrieved from www.breweryhistory.com: http:\/\/www.breweryhistory.com\/wiki\/index.php?title=Queen%27s_College_Brewhouse_1927\n
Hodgkin, R. H. (1949). Six Centuries of an Oxford College; a History of Queen’s College, 1340-1940.<\/em> Oxford: Basil Blackwell.\n
Kaye, J. (1995). Brewing at Queen’s Part I. The Queen’s College Record<\/em>, 22-31.\n
Magrath, J. R. (1921). The Queen’s College.<\/em> London: Oxford University Press.\n
Markham, G. (1615). The English Housewife.<\/em> London: Roger Jackson.
Oxford’s Waterworks<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from Local History in South Oxford: https:\/\/southoxfordhistory.org.uk\/interesting-aspects-of-grandpont-and-south-oxford-s-history\/oxford-s-waterworks\n
Poole, T. (1783). A Treatise on Strong Beer, Ale &c.<\/em> London: R Ayre, Brideges-Street, Covent-Garden.\n
Sambrook, P. (1996). Country House Brewing in England 1500 – 1900.<\/em> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n
Watkins, G. (1773). The Complete English Brewer – Editions from 1760 to 1773.<\/em> London: J. Cooke.\n
Whitaker, E. (1700). Directions for Brewing Malt Liquors.<\/em> London: Printed for F Nutt near Stationers Hall.\n
Woolley, L. (n.d.). Oxford’s Waterworks.<\/em> Retrieved from Local History in South Oxford: https:\/\/southoxfordhistory.org.uk\/interesting-aspects-of-grandpont-and-south-oxford-s-history\/oxford-s-waterworks.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg><\/span> Top of Page<\/span><\/a>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Queen’s College Brewhouse, Oxford The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen’s College, Oxford. Figure 1 Brewhouse Building. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford. Brewhouse Building Brewhouse Description Historical Antecedents Water Supply First Brew The Buttery The Brewers Brewing Practice The Beers Cuckoo Brewing College Ale Chancellor Ale […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-templates\/full-width-page.php","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-6468","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated "Chancellor Ale".\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated "Chancellor Ale".\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Descent of Beer\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-11T17:09:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Brewhouse.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"67 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Brewhouse.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-25T17:55:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-11T17:09:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated \\\"Chancellor Ale\\\".\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Brewhouse.jpg?fit=827%2C684&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Brewhouse.jpg?fit=827%2C684&ssl=1\",\"width\":827,\"height\":684,\"caption\":\"Figure 1 Brewhouse Building. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford.\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/index.php\\\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Queen’s College Brewhouse Oxford\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Descent of Beer\",\"description\":\"Beer History Brought Alive\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/79923c95f33f7700c1a0b464dc53c8f1\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/79923c95f33f7700c1a0b464dc53c8f1\",\"name\":\"Steve\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1\",\"width\":128,\"height\":128,\"caption\":\"Steve\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/tdo-beer.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/03\\\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/tdo-beer.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer","description":"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated \"Chancellor Ale\".","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer","og_description":"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated \"Chancellor Ale\".","og_url":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/","og_site_name":"The Descent of Beer","article_modified_time":"2025-08-11T17:09:31+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Brewhouse.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"67 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/","url":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/","name":"The Definitive Study of the Brewhouse at Queens College Oxford - The Descent of Beer","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Brewhouse.jpg","datePublished":"2025-02-25T17:55:47+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-11T17:09:31+00:00","description":"The definitive study of the brewhouse at Queen's College Oxford. An in-depth account of brewing from 1690 with recreated \"Chancellor Ale\".","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Brewhouse.jpg?fit=827%2C684&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Brewhouse.jpg?fit=827%2C684&ssl=1","width":827,"height":684,"caption":"Figure 1 Brewhouse Building. Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Fellows of The Queen\u2019s College, Oxford."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/queens-college-brewhouse-oxford\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Queen’s College Brewhouse Oxford"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/","name":"The Descent of Beer","description":"Beer History Brought Alive","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/#\/schema\/person\/79923c95f33f7700c1a0b464dc53c8f1"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/#\/schema\/person\/79923c95f33f7700c1a0b464dc53c8f1","name":"Steve","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1","width":128,"height":128,"caption":"Steve"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/tdo-beer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Brewcon-icon-5.png?fit=128%2C128&ssl=1"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/tdo-beer.com"]}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6468"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6468\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7189,"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6468\/revisions\/7189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tdo-beer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}