This study analyses historical documents and the physical equipment to determine how Charlecote Park brewhouse was it was used and how beer was made.

When Sir Thomas Lucy (24 April 1532 – 7 July 1600) inherited the medieval house he set about demolishing the old house and building the present house from 1551 to 1558. The brewhouse is in a separate complex which includes the laundry and stables of which the National Trust has dated the laundry and brewhouse from circa 1540 (Trust n.d.). It is clear that a building existed on the present brewhouse site before Lucy’s house was built, but there is no evidence to prove that brewing took place in it. There are many similarities to Lacock, not least that the coppers, furnaces and flues look as though they could have been constructed by the same builder (or there was a common method of brewhouse construction). Pevsner has the building dating from the 16th century but most of the brewing equipment from the 18th century, of which are detailed as water pumps, coppers and stalls. Certainly, the building shows evidence of much alteration. Two bricked up doors must have been blocked before the present brewery was installed; internally we see that the coolers and gyle tun occupy the area accessed by the previous openings, indicating that the previous brewery, if in this location, was considerably smaller.

Unfortunately, there are no records of maintenance or repairs to the brewhouse, nor purchase of malt and hops. The only references to brewers are to be found in Sir Thomas Lucy’s account book detailing servants’ wages.

John Eaton Brewer and baker 1573 –
Thomas Lufkin Brewer and Baker from 1573 to 1587
John Gaddesdon Brewer and Baker from 1573 to 1576
Richard Hind Brewer and Baker from 1577 to 1578

The laundry, or wash house, through which we have to pass to enter the brewhouse, was originally the bakery; it would be a natural arrangement to have the two occupations of brewer and baker combined, they are in the same building, use large amounts of water and excess yeast from brewing was used in bread making. Brewing was not a full time job but bread making was so it makes sense to keep these servants fully occupied.

That the brewer was essential in providing drink for special occasions is detailed by CRN Routh’s translation of the feasts section of Lucy’s account book:

“1583 servants quarter wages as well at Charlcot as Sutton due at the feast of saint Jhon (sic) baptyst the 24 queene elyzabethes raigne as followeth …. payed to Jhon Smyth my brew at Charlcot his quarter wages then due Xs” [Ten shillings]”

In the next year appears the name of Hiskin, who thereafter is regularly paid ten shillings as “my baker and bruer.”

Brewing (and baking) were such ordinary everyday activities that they were not normally worthy of comment although events of significance sometimes prompted a reference. On the death of George Lucy in 1845, his estate recorded 4630 gallons of beer kept in the cellars under the house. This seemingly great volume of beer could have been easily stored in the first two beer cellars (see below).

The family were very conscious of their aristocratic status as heads of the estate and proud of their largesse to a loyal and submissive workforce. On Emily’s marriage on 21 ^st October 1847 “At three o’clock every cottage on the estate was regaled with beef, plum pudding and good ale in the new loft over the stables which holds about 300.” On 5th July 1865 after the wedding of Tina and Spencer “All the poor of the estate were feasted with as much as they could eat and drink. 600lb weight of meat was consumed, 200cwt of plum pudding, and upwards of 400 gallons of old ale, brewed at Charlecote, was drunk”’. 

Possibly state-of-the-art in the 1700s, technological progress passed the brewery by but was still able to brew 1000 gallons for the wedding in 1892 of Ada Christina Lucy and Sir Henry Ramsey-Fairfax. This was possibly the last time the brewery was used (unverified) and given the size of the gyle tun there must have been at least four brewings for that amount of beer. There is ash in copper No. 2 furnace, which must be the residue from that time!

Malt

Charlecote, appears to have been well supplied with malt. No maltings exist but a house (Grade II listed, 17 century) in the village is known as the Malthouse. Charlecote mill, also Grade II listed dates from 1752, although a mill on the site is listed in Domesday. From Domesday (or before)  until 1757 Hunt’s mill operated at the corner of the park where the Stratford Road crosses the Wellesbourne brook. Originally there was a ford at this point, the road to Stratford turning towards the house. Being inconvenient to the occupants, the road was diverted away from the house over the new stone bridge. There was also an ancient watermill the other side of Wellesbourne on the river Dene.

Hopyard

A hop yard existed before 1595. Referred to as Joyce Lucy’s ^[1]  hop-yard, it was on the other side of Wellesbourne brook. The Wellesbourne brook, now the river Dene, runs to the south of the house. The hopyard may have been as large as ten acres, as Lucy’s daughter Anne was allowed a ten acre hopyard by her husband Sir Edward Aston of Tixhall “like the one at Charlecote”.

[1]L Joyce Lucy (1532 – 10 ^th February 1595). Wife of Sir Thomas Lucy.

Water Supply

There are two hand operated water pumps in the laundry which lift water from under the floor. Previous commentators have assumed, understandably, that the water came from a well, however the 1875 plan details a rainwater tank, which we believe was underground (the outline on the plan is a blue rectangle with a dotted line), immediately outside the wash house (laundry) window, which is fed from the rainwater drainpipes from the roof at the front of the Tudor house. A pipe runs from the rainwater tank to the small pump next to the window. It would be safe to assume that the supply runs under the floor to the large brewhouse feed pump thus providing soft rainwater for washing and brewing with (it was a requirement of brewing water to be soft). The large pump has duel outlets; one at ground level and the other just under the ceiling where a wooden chute carries water through the wall to the hot liquor copper.

The cellars are directly under the Tudor house with a remote access through a long corridor to a door which opens onto gradual steps to the courtyard (figure 3) close to the laundry/brewhouse door. The 1875 plan (figure 4) details four beer cellars, three of which are approx.5.3 x 3.3 metres and the other 6.4 x 4.5 metres. There are six large casks in cellar one in various states of disrepair. Cellar 1 could easily accommodate fourteen casks and each of the other cellars around eight or ten. Four beer cellars may have been excess to requirements as cellars 3 and 4, which have the vestiges of stillage, have been used for storing bottles. All casks are non-standard sizes. I do not have the tools for accurate gauging, but I can state with confidence that the casks that I measured do not exceed 240, 270 and 400 imperial gallons. Commentators usually talk of butts (108 gallons) as being large; these are larger than a tun (216 gallons). The smallest could contain over a tonne of water; consider that beer is heavier than water and then add the weight of the wood as well, when full these casks would be immovable, so it is likely that they were filled from smaller casks that were carried or rolled from the brewhouse. From the cooper’s activities at Lacock it is evident that unheading and reheading was a regular activity. Most of the existing casks have their heads out and those that were intact displayed no obvious way of filling. A cask normally has a large hole at the widest point on the bilge called the shive hole. None of the casks possessed one, therefore it is assumed that the heads were taken out for filling and cleaning. Cleansing (progressively expelling yeast through the shive hole during fermentation) and fermenting would normally take place in the cellar, however there is some loose stillage in the brewhouse which suggests that some beer may have been cleansed in the brewhouse. The lack of a shive hole in the larger casks suggests that smaller casks (hogsheads?) were laid down on stillage for cleansing before the beer was transferred to the larger upright casks. Excess yeast and beer from cleansing fermenting beer and cleaning of the larger casks insitu, would have resulted in large volumes of potentially infective liquid; it is significant that the wine cellars which have no such waste have no drains. Each beer cellar being an active area of fermentation and cleaning was built with a drain which empties directly into an outlet leading to the river Avon.

Bottle House

The 1875 plan shows a bottle house adjoining the wash house, now in use as a general-purpose shed (figure 2). As it is also near the now non-existent dairy, was it for bottling beer or milk? Bottled beer was commonly available from the 17 ^th century, yet the first glass milk bottle was patented in 1878. As the bottle house existed well before this date we can assume that this structure was dedicated to the bottling of beer. Before filtration and pasteurization (late 19 ^th century), all bottled beer was conditioned in the bottle, that is, yeast continued to ferment in the bottle and produce wonderful flavour and carbon dioxide, which, if not controlled could be explosive!. We can now limit this process scientifically, but early bottling was hazardous to the point that Markham advised to, “set them in a cold cellar up to the waist in sand, and be sure that the corks be fast tied in with strong pack thread, for fear of rising out, …”.  The date of this extract is soon after Sir Thomas Lucy’s time but pertains to well into the 1800s.

Was the bottling house equipped with a sand pit? There is no way of knowing. It is certain that the strongest beers, such as October would have benefited from being bottled, providing a high-class beverage that was a patriotic alternative to French wine.

Vessels measured in metres. Usable volumes apart from coolers estimated at 10cm or 4inches below the rim. This may be too high; however it gives a rough estimate of usable volumes.

1.   Copper 1 (hot liquor copper) with water feed
Diameter Top 1.459, Diameter Bottom 0.99, Depth 0.928.
Total Volume 1.0977 m³, 1097.7 litres.
Usable depth 0.918, Usable volume 1.0849 m ^3,, 1084.9 litres.

A bung on a metal rod lies in the copper which I assume to be additional to the large brass tap.

2.   Copper 2 (wort copper) with pump feed from underback
Diameter Top 1.38, Diameter Bottom 1.118, Depth 1.109.
Total Volume 1.3542m³, 1354.2 litres.
Usable depth 1.009m ³, Usable Volume 1.230m ³, 1230 litres.

3.   Mash Tun with tap feed from copper 1 and filtered outlet to underback
Diameter 1.87 top 1.77 bottom, depth 0.76 Total Volume 1.9734 m ^3,, 1973.4 litres. Usable depth 0.66. Usable Volume 1.7125m ^3,, 1712.5 litres.

4.   Underback
Elliptical Top 1.52 x 1.15, Bottom 1.41×1.09, Depth 0.46.
Approx. Total Volume 0.59m³, 590 litres.

5.   Gyle Tun

Top Diameter 1.673, Bottom Diameter 1.521, Depth 0.732
Total Volume 1.4594m ³, 1459.4 litres.
Usable depth 0.632, Usable Volume 1.2577m ^3,, 1257.7 litres.
The gyle tun was replaced in 1812. An inscription on the top edge is probably the name of the cooper – “T. Walton 1812”.

6.   Cooler 1
Wooden chute from copper 2 to the first cooler is detached and underneath on the floor to the left of the steps. Sieves are placed on the cooler to collect solid matter from the copper. Cooler 1 feeds into cooler 2 along the rear wall.
Length 3.062, Breadth 1.149, Depth 0.243.
Volume 0.855 meters ³,   855 litres. Sources state that coolers should not be more than 3 to 4 inches full, but both coolers are about 9.5 inches deep. I don’t think the extra volume would have been wasted.
Going on:
8 inches deep approx. the working volume is 0.704 m ³, 704 litres 7 inches 0.633 m³, 633 litres.
6 inches 0.5347m ³, 534.7 litres.
5 inches 0.4468m ³, 446.8 litres.
4 inches 0.357 m ³, 357 litres.

Cooler 2 with tap feed into gyle tun (not shown)
L Length 2.247, Breadth 1.1, Depth 0.242
Volume 0.598 meters ³,  598 litres.
Sources state that coolers should not be more than 3 to 4 inches full, but both coolers are about 9.5 inches deep. I don’t think the extra volume would have been wasted.
Going on:
8 inches deep approx. the working volume is 0.494 m ³, 494 litres.
7 inches 0.445 m³, 445 litres.
6 inches 0.376 m ³, 376 litres.
5 inches 0.314 m ³, 314 litres.
4 inches 0.251 m ³, 251 litres.

Absolute total capacity of coolers combined 1198 litres.
For ease of cleaning, hygiene and impermeability, coolers were often lined with lead or copper. These coolers are abutted bare wood planks with caulking (possibly cotton) to fill the gaps. A sealant would have been applied to the caulking which has not been identified.

7     Handpump from Underback to Copper

A metal pipe runs vertically from the underback to the lead pump body. A hosetail in the pump body indicates an attached hose, probably leather, which went to a recess in the rim of copper 2 housing. The long pump handle is hitched up out of the way and can just be seen against the top right wall under the wooden beam.

8     Opening in the Brickwork for the Damper to Copper 1
                              See below.

Furnaces Under the Coppers.

Situated in the adjacent washhouse. Flues both exhaust into the central chimney. As with Lacock, the furnaces are built into a brick structure under the coppers with access through the wall from the adjacent laundry/bakery. Arranged almost at right angles to each other, the furnace openings converge on the area under the chimney. This design may have been quite advanced for a country brewer, as in 1758 William Ellis writes about improvements in the common brewery that “the present Contrivance excells (sic) the old one, and these two Coppers are now so erected that each Fire-place is within … Foot of one another ; so that one Stoker supplies the two Fires and Coppers, which saves the Wages of one Man, … . For maximum efficiency, 19 ^th century coppers had the fire licking up the sides; Charlecote’s coppers are exposed to the fire in a narrow channel of about 40cm above the grate and between the brick supports. The channel of copper 1 extends to the far edge of the lower rim (of which there is a gap to the brickwork) and around to the left and right, the exit flu is most likely to the left. Heat marks in the copper demonstrate that there was some heating to the side of the copper where there is a gap between the copper and brickwork. Copper 2 is different in that the heat channel performs a 90-degree bend before exiting into the brickwork. There appears to be no heating to the side of this vessel. Intriguingly, ash from the last brewing is still in the furnace! The route of the channels from the furnaces to the upper flue is not known. The flow of hot gases proceeds to dampers inserted into the flue above the coppers and close to the exit in the chimney. The efficiency of the device is in question as the smoke stain on the bricks shows that it is not airtight. In the next century Booth said that upper dampers “are more troublesome than useful…which are seldom so tight as to prevent a stream of cold air from entering the chimney, and thus disturbing the draught.” . Evidently an airtight flue was desirable for drawing air through the grates to make a hot fire. 

Figure 7a represents the coppers and flues as they might appear if viewed from the laundry without the wall and diagonal access. 
Figure 7b is a ground plan from above.

Figure 8 is a schematic of the ground plan of the wash house and brewhouse.

To see the house and park and visit the brewhouse full details are on the National Trust website.

Virtual Brew – Ordinary Beer


A real brew would be ideal to assess the capabilities of the brewhouse; in practise this is impossible. Fortunately, we can learn much from a virtual brew. As this brewhouse dates from the 18 ^th century I will use Edward Whitaker’s ^[1] recipes with the ale gallon at 4.621 litres and pale malt from mid to end of the century at 310 lbs per quarter and 231 L°/kg.

Whitaker proposes 7 bushels per hogshead ^[2] and absorption and evaporation to consume some 40% of the initial liquor. So, to make one hogshead (54 ale gals, 249.5 litres) the initial liquor must amount to around 416 litres (90 ale gallons). The capacity of the hot liquor copper is around 1085 litres, therefore the maximum predicted output of Whitakers Ordinary beer based on one full charge of the hot liquor copper is about 2.6 hogsheads of ordinary beer and 2.6 hogsheads of small beer.

Mash tun to take 1085 litres of liquor and 18.2 bushels of pale malt. 1 bushel = 38.75 lb therefore total malt is 705.25 lbs or 320 kg. If the process is efficient this will produce a possible 765 litres of wort at 1.059 sg after grain absorption of 1 litre/kg. A 60-minute boil evaporating 10% and evaporation in the coolers at 8% ^[3] leaves 633 litres (137 ale gallons) at 1.072 sg.

[1] This a suitable recipe; Whitaker was brewing in a country house and the recipe was published from 1700 to 1727 in various editions (Whitaker Directions for Brewing Malt Liquors, 1700).

[2] N.B. malt per hogshead refers to the first hogshead, subsequent worts proceeding from the same malt.

[3] From Sykes Principles and Practice of Brewing, 1907

First wort = 2.5 hogsheads of ordinary beer at 1072 sg. Apparent Attenuation ^[4] 65% gives gravity drop of 46.8, fg = 25.2, possible abv = 6.1%

Keeping the liquid output of the second mash the same as the first wort requires a further charge of 765 litres that will result in 765 litres wort at 1021.4 sg. 10% evaporation in the boil and 8% evaporation in the coolers leaves 633 at 1026 sg.

Second wort = 2.5 hogsheads of small at 1026 sg
           Apparent Attenuation 70% gives gravity drop of 18.2, fg = 7.8, possible abv = 2.3%

Note: Malt weight per quarter and extract values are taken from an extensive study which will be published in due course.

[4] Attenuation rates based on Richardson’s Statical Estimates 1798.

Comments on the Ordinary and Small Beer

The mash tun at 1712.5 litre capacity could easily handle this volume of wort and malt with 307.5 litres to spare.

The wort copper at 1230 litres was a little over half full with 465 litres spare capacity.
At between 4” to 5” depth the coolers could easily handle the after-boil volume of 688.5 litres.

The gyle tun at 1257 litres was just over half full with 624 litres spare capacity.

It would be pertinent to question the efficiency of the plant. Copper 1 providing hot liquor was full. The mash tun had spare capacity but not excessively. Copper 2 for the wort boil is only just over half full as is the gyle tun. The coolers were working at maximum optimum depth.

March, October and Strong Ale

Country houses were reputed to make strong ale and beer for special occasions. Whitaker explains that his strong drinks were more sensible (weaker) than some. It will be interesting to see how the plant performs with what is moderately strong by the fashion of the age.

11 bushels malt per hogshead (1 quarter, 3 bushels) = 426.25 lb, 193.3 kg
3 worts, second and third mashes giving 1 hogshead of middle ale or beer – the same as good alehouse drink in London, and 1 hogshead of small beer, 3 worts.
1 ^st wort boiled for 90 minutes and 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd boiled for 1 hour. Evaporation rate 16% for 1 ^st wort followed by 10% for 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd worts. 8% evaporated in the coolers.

Whitaker proposes 11 bushels per hogshead but absorption and evaporation will now consume some 48% of the initial liquor; increase in malt absorbs more liquor and the increase in boil time increases evaporation. So, to make one hogshead (54 ale gals, 249.5 litres) the initial liquor must amount to around 516.2 litres (111 ale gallons). The capacity of the hot liquor copper is around 1085 litres, therefore the maximum predicted output of Whitakers Ordinary beer based on one full charge of the hot liquor copper is about 2.1 hogsheads of strong beer and 2.1 hogsheads each of middle and small beer.

The amount of liquor consumed in evaporation for the first wort is some 22.8%, the 2 ^nd and third worts 17.5%. Malt required is 406kg, and liquor 1085 litres.

Maximum mash volume 1491 litres, Max Mash tun 1712.5 therefore 221.5 litres spare

First wort = 2.1 hogsheads of strong beer at 1.096 sg
Apparent Attenuation 65% gives gravity drop of 62.4, fg = 33.6, possible abv = 8.2%

Second wort = 2.1 hogsheads of middle beer at 1.041 sg
Apparent Attenuation 70% gives gravity drop of 28.7 fg = 12.3, possible abv = 3.7%

Third wort = 2.1 hogsheads of small beer at 1.019
Apparent Attenuation 75% gives gravity drop of 14.25, fg = 4.75, possible abv = 1.8%

Without going into the figures for vessel utilization it is obvious that although the hot liquor copper is at maximum capacity, this stronger beer with its greater volume of malt produces a lesser volume of wort and so the wort copper, coolers and gyle tun are further under-utilized.

It is possible to compute various brewing regimes to make the plant more efficient, but this test was meant to give a candid account of its capabilities. In my opinion the hot liquor copper is undersized compared to the mash tun and wort copper. Considering the amount of liquid absorption by the malt, the first copper should be larger than the wort copper. The underback should hold the whole liquid contents of the mash tun (it cannot), while the latter is recharged for the next wort and the wort copper is still taken up with boiling the previous wort. In practise, a large wort could be pumped up to the wort copper as soon as some of it entered the underback, as long as the wort copper had been emptied of the previous boiled wort. This small underback may have worked with two worts but a third could have been seriously held up in the mash tun.

The building demonstrates extensive alteration and the original brewhouse is likely to have been much smaller. The windows behind the coolers, one of which appears to have been a door, indicates that the coolers were originally elsewhere or non-existent; cooling could have been done in tubs (open vessels). Pevsner dates the coppers and pump to the 18 ^th century and considering the extensive brickwork, this was a major upgrade to the fabric of the building and may be the time when the door(s) were blocked up to take the coolers against the wall. The amount of work and cost must have been considerable. Even so, the original design is deficient in that the first (liquor) copper is smaller than the second (wort) copper and it is probable that the brewhouse after this upgrade was still undersized for the amount of beer it was required to produce. The coppers and brickwork are fixed and cannot be improved, but other items were likely replaced for increased capacity. The gyle tun is inscribed 1812 indicating that this and possibly other coopered vessels were enlarged at this time. The mash tun must be larger than the original vessel as it overhangs its masonry plinth and must be secured, inelegantly, using wooden chocks. Admittedly, some of the overhang is necessary for filling the underback but on the whole the vessel appears to be excessively large for its base. The underback is unlikely to have been enlarged, as it is constrained by occupying the space under the mash tun and between the mash tun plinth and the steps. This explains its diminutive volume compared to the mash tun. The coolers may have been replaced by larger items, as a corner leg rests in a cut made into the bottom step to the coppers. The cramped and awkward siting of the vessels is hardly the result of a well-designed brewhouse and must have been difficult and even dangerous to work in.

Getting Maximum Efficiency

Assuming that filling the gyle tun determines the desired brewlength, it will be instructive to work backwards from the gyle tun to the hot liquor copper to determine the performance of the plant at maximum capacity on a single wort.

Gyle tun 1258 litres = 272 ale gallons = 5 hogsheads.

To end up with 5 hogsheads in the gyle tun

add 8% evaporation in the coolers = 1367.39 litres
           add 10% evaporation in the copper = 1519.32 litres

Therefore the 1519.32 litres would have run from the mash tun to the wort copper. The wort copper holds only 1230 litres, therefore the gyle tun cannot be totally filled with a single wort from copper 2. In turn the output from copper 1 will not fill copper 2 even without going through a mash.

To a modern brewer both coppers would appear to be too small, but this may be a common feature of historic brewing. The Charlecote 1 ^st copper is 86% of the gyle tun volume. In the Lacock brewery the copper is only 66% of the gyle tun volume. One charge of the copper was never meant to fill the final vessel. Recipes for two or three beers of diminishing strength demand that the worts occupied the gyle tun one after the other with the unfortunate danger of a cooling mash and lactic or even rope faults. If worts are combined, the gyle tun could be quickly filled. In the above example of Whitaker’s Ordinary and Small Beer, combining the worts produces 1267 litres at 1.049 sg.

Another method is to add another charge of hot liquor to an existing mash. The anonymous “Hoddesdon” writing in 1763 to Museum Rusticum et Commerciale describes his brewing method. Whether his copper is too small he does not say, but in making a hogshead with ten bushels of malt he applies ¾ hogshead of liquor to the mash which he stirs for 30 minutes and rests for an hour. Immediately after mashing in, he refills his copper, which boils after an hour, upon which, after it cools, he applies enough liquor to make the whole gyle of one hogshead. The mash is stirred and rested for another hour. (Hoddesdon 1764) If the copper was big enough to supply the whole liquor for one hogshead this 2.5 hour plus mash is an unnecessary inefficient waste of time and energy.

Brewing in Practice

The brew day could be long and arduous. As it stands, the Charlecote brewhouse is state-of-the-art in probably 1750 with some wooden vessels increasing capacity in the beginning of the 19 ^th century. Unfortunately, those larger vessels made the brewing more difficult because they made the fixed vessels, the coppers, become undersized.

The brew day starts with filling the first copper (hot liquor copper) and making a fire in the right-hand furnace in the wash-house wall. There is a large handle to the water pump; it is not known how many pulls would fill the copper, but it could be a strenuous effort. The pump operator cannot see the filling so either he had to stop to look or another person had to call out when full. Charge the furnace with faggots and coal. Probably at least 30 minutes to workable heat and another 60 minutes or more to the boil.

It is imperative that the coppers contain liquid before the fire is lit or the copper bottom will burn out! It is debatable whether the malt or the water went into the mash tun first, but it is likely that the water (liquor) is boiled and run into the mash tun to cool. Without a thermometer the point of correct temperature is when the brewer could see his face reflected in the liquor; this is about 76°C.

The malt is then tipped into the mash tun and stirred (called mashing at this time) for at least 30 minutes. More malt will usually be put onto the top of the mash and sacks, or a covering will be placed on the mash to keep in heat (and spirit) and the whole left for at least an hour. Due to the possible deficiency of liquor to malt in the mash tun (the copper is too small), the copper may need to be refilled and more liquor be added to the mash tun after it has boiled and cooled. The first mash will always take more liquor than subsequent mashes because the dry grains soak up liquor which they do not release. The second charge of liquor will be added to the mash tun, stirred and rested for at least another hour. The first mash could easily occupy three to four hours.

In the meantime, the first copper will be recharged for the second wort. The heating of this liquor will take place during the first mash.

The first wort will be drained slowly from the mash tun into the underback in as clear a stream as possible. The purpose of the underback is to contain the liquid contents (wort) of the mash tun while the second copper (wort copper) becomes ready to receive it. In most breweries the underback would hold the entire contents of the mash tun. The Charlecote underback is seriously undersized and is unable to perform its most basic function. Therefore, the pump is a necessary item in transferring wort from the underback to the second (wort) copper as the mash tun is discharging.

Faggots and coal to the second (wort) copper to prepare for the fire. In practice this was done when the first copper was fired early in the morning. The furnaces are arranged diagonally so that both can be stoked and controlled by one man. When the wort from the first mash entered the second copper the fire could be lit and the boil commenced. Don’t forget, the fire could not be at full strength without liquid in the copper. The purpose of the second copper is to boil the hops in the wort. In this period there are numerous ideas on the duration of the hop boil, from minutes to hours, so let’s give the hop boil one hour, long enough to isomerise the hops.

When the first wort was running slowly out of the mash tun into the underback, hot water was being prepared in the 1 ^st copper and used hot or allowed to cool. This liquor will make the second wort. It may not be necessary for two lots of liquor for the second mash because once the grains are soaked by the first mash, they will not retain any more liquor, therefore the volume of liquor which is put to the second and subsequent mashes is the same as runs off..

Now we have the first wort boiling with hops in copper 2 and the second wort in the mash tun. When the boil is finished a wooden chute transfers the first wort from the second copper, through a strainer (to collect the hops) and into the coolers, where it will remain until at blood heat, usually overnight. When the copper 2 is empty it can be refilled with the second wort which has drained from the mash tun into the underback and pumped up to the second copper. The boil takes place with the same hops that were used in the first boil. It should be apparent that with the coolers full, the second wort is held up in the second copper where it will cool gradually. In the meantime, a third charge of liquor may be added to the mash for a third wort which will be held up until the 2 ^nd copper is emptied. This may be a small wort which may have been contained in the underback until it could be boiled. Letting wort cool on the grains is a classic method of making a sour mash and leaving to cool in the underback may have produced a foxed wort. ^[1]  

Back to the first wort which has cooled overnight and is now emptied into the gyle tun where yeast is added. This vessel starts the fermentation and in about 24 hours or so the fermenting wort is transferred to casks for the first fermentation. We are now into the second day and the second and third worts can proceed to the next stage. Three worts must have taken up to four days for them all to be transferred, fermenting, into casks. The casks are laid horizontally on stillage, usually in the cellar. Yeast floats to the surface of the liquid and is expelled through the bung hole. The cask is kept topped up with reserved wort, so the yeast works out in a process called cleansing, until the fermentation is almost complete. The bung is then put in with a small vent to release pressure. (The fermentation produces carbon dioxide which may burst a sealed cask.) Eventually the cask is sealed and matured, the strong beers being kept for a minimum of a year, small beer being consumed in weeks. The parti-gyle system is able to produce beers of different strengths from very strong to very weak, small beer being an everyday substitute for water. Its drawbacks being time consuming, labour-intensive and prone to infection, especially in the later worts. Many variations were tried across the country with the most practical being the combination of worts in the gyle tun. From the early 1700s we see the recommendation that small beer, instead of being the last weak wort boiled with the dregs of the hops, be made entire. That is, all worts combined in the gyle tun from a charge of perhaps half to one bushel of malt per hogshead and boiled with fresh hops.

[1]L It is possible that the coolers were supplemented by extra tubs in which the following worts were cooled.

Quality of the Beers

The first is the strongest, gets fresh hops and is not held up in the system so is the least likely to suffer from infection. The strongest specials might get laid down for decades. A special beer would be made on the birth of the heir, to be broached on his coming of age. We forget that strong English beer had a mark of quality; something to be proud of and often compared to the best wines, a French or Canary. Social beer glasses amongst the well-to-do became small and pretty, a mark of the special quality of the strong beer. (Sambrook 1996, 198); a development which may have been encouraged by tightening of wine supplies caused by wars with the French, from the War of Spanish Succession onwards and an increase in import tariffs.

The second beer is of a good strength but uses the hops from the previous boil. Maybe of the strength of a modern-day session beer but without much hop character. Not too weak that the family loses face in drinking it, a second-tier everyday drink for those not on the bottom rung of society.

The third is quite weak and held up so much in the process that it is exposed to infection. Grainy, possibly astringent, very weak with hardly any hop character, this is small beer. It is often said that beer was drunk because the water was contaminated. In fact, this judgement applied more to towns where cess pits, graveyards, abattoirs etc. drained into the wells and streams which provided the water supply. At rural Charlecote where clean rainwater was collected and sanitation was not a problem (most wastewater was ejected into the river Avon via the Main Culvert, there were separate outlets for the cellars and some other facilities), none of these dangers existed, however, much evidence exists to suggest that beer was universally preferred to water, even where clean water was available. The beer allowance for servants in country houses (small beer) was usually nothing less than a gallon a day.