Beer for Breakfast?

[GregBaron]

A kind of silly thought occurred to me boys and girls...With discussions of Mrs. Fiddymont and the questionable early morning sightings of Mary Kelly not to mention Blotchy and his pail of beer..........I began to wonder about pub hours? Did they ever close? If they were nearly always open I expect the proprietors would have to work in shifts and considering the criminal nature of the area.......I started to wonder about the need for bouncers or enforcers that might keep the barmen/women from getting robbed etc....Might the ripper or the unfortunates be lubing up at 3 in the morning? If anyone can give me a bit of insight in how the Ten Bells for example ran its operation in 1888, I would be very grateful...........Gracias.

Greg

[claire]

I seem to recall a similar thread quite recently--unfortunately, I'm hopeless at searching for things, so can't find it. But it is my understanding that a public like the Bells would have to shut by midnight, and would open again very early in time for the market workers. Oftentimes, staff would also live on the premises, so they wouldn't need (or get, even if they did need it) security to get them home, although I seem to recall that many pubs had a couple of chaps watching a place--although whether they had a choice in that sort of security service is another matter.

If Blotchy had a quart pot of beer at 11.45, it was probably with regard to the fact the pubs were about to shut.

[The Grave Maurice]

This topic does come up rather frequently. I don't have a particular interest in it so I don't pay much attention, but I seem to recall that the usual closing time was about 12:30 a.m. Pubs near markets (e.g., The Ten Bells, or The Prince Albert) would open about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. to allow the workers to wet their whistles before a hard morning of slogging. (Remember that the water in late Victorian London was not always to be trusted.) As for bouncers, I assume that if the landlord/lady couldn't deal with the riffraff, they'd hire a potman who could.

[Adam Went]

Not sure how the whole licencing thing worked in 1888, and whether certain establishments only had licences to serve alcoholic drinks during certain hours, etc, but no doubt there would have been some which opened earlier and perhaps some which served beer when they shouldn't have been. It would have been difficult to regulate.

"Brekky beers" weren't all that uncommon it seems - usually they are a follow-on from a night of heavy drinking previously, and essentially it's to keep on drinking so as to ward off the inevitable hangover.

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Grave Maurice]

True. But it wasn't just beer. Let's not forget that Elizabeth Prater slipped down to the Bells at 5:30 a.m. on November 9th for a tot of rum.

[GregBaron]

Rules and Regs.......?

Thank you boys and girls,

This is the sort of thing I was wondering about....it seems maybe they closed at midnight or so and opened very early............as an American I know it's almost impossible even now to get alcohol quite early in the morning........and I know this was a rough time and place and perhaps guys or gals got a hit before they headed off to work but I'm also wondering about crime around the pubs and even against the proprietors............surely the owners had some muscle.......I know it was basically pre-gun days but there had to be some desperate blokes that would attempt to rob a pub that had some onhand cash......and of course I don't know about the water quality at this time as the Grave Maurice points out.......just trying to get a feel for the rules and regulations at this time if indeed there were any..?.....was it Ok for example to be staggering about Whitechapel with an open container of alcohol......I suppose it must have been if we use Blotchy as an example....I've read a bit on the Victorian London threads but didn't find much in this regard..............?

Greg

[TomTomKent]

You should also remember that although technology may have started to allow for clean and safe drinking water by 1888, the Cultural transition from beer to water would take far longer. People drank beer at all hours as it was less likely to be infected with disease than stand pipe water.

[Limehouse]

The licensing hours were changed at the start of WW1. Before that many pubs in the east end were open very long hours - probably closing at midnight and opening in the early hours - as people have said - to cater for the market workers.

As it has been pointed out - the water in most parts of London at this time was not safe to drink. At some point in the 19th century - the poor were advised to stay away from gin and to drink beer instead because it was considered more nutritious. However - the drinking habits of many of the poor were of great concern to social reformers and philanthropists (Frederick Charrington among them - despite his family association with beer). Some charities offered free tea and daytime shelter to those who would stay away from the pubs.

The ripper's victims and those they associated with were mostly alcoholics. Therefore it is not surprising they needed a 'tot' of something first thing in the morning.

[Bob Hinton]

Beer

Also a lot of beer that was consumed was what was termed 'small beer' with a very low alcoholic content. The beer served to market porters was a much heavier beer almost like Guinness, which became known under the generic term 'Porter' - this was more like breakfast in a glass.

I believe Tescos sell a Whitechapel Porter today.

[GregBaron]

Porter or bitter or stout?

Interesting information all, perhaps I can use the excuse of unclean water to increase my beer consumption?

Does anyone know how many beers they would have had on tap? I suspect only a couple............I do remember (I think) that Mrs. Fiddymont said the bloody miscreant that came in on Chapman morning ordered a four-ales. Does anyone know what four-ales means?

Greg

[GregBaron]

Four pence...

four ale - Originally sold at four pence per quart. The four ale bar is the public bar.

I got off my lazy arse and answered my own question......good price........wonder how it tasted?

Greg

[The Grave Maurice]

It was probably delicious. When I first went to London, you could get a nice pint for pocket change (and that was before the pound coin was introduced). The way things are going, you soon won't get much change from a fiver for a Fuller's.

[Adam Went]

Not convinced all of the beer would have been a lot cleaner than the water. Dregsmen and less scrupulous barmen would often, particularly in decades prior to JTR's, pour the remaining beer slops out of the bottom of departed customers' glasses and then re-sell them. Of course not a lot of thought was given to health and safety at the time, it was simply another way to make a penny or two, but just the same, not sure this sort of "saliva cocktail" would have been particularly nice.

Cheers,
Adam.

[GregBaron]

5 for a brew?

Understood The Grave Maurice.......in America they've started to make some delicious craft brews...........what we pay for them is astonishing though.......$5 for a pint.....I used to love Fuller's but it's hard to find in America anymore mostly due to the local varieties...... Indeed I would love to taste a 1888 four ale...............


Greg

[The Good Michael]

Also a lot of beer that was consumed was what was termed 'small beer' with a very low alcoholic content. The beer served to market porters was a much heavier beer almost like Guinness, which became known under the generic term 'Porter' - this was more like breakfast in a glass.

Except Guinness is very low in alcohol and a porter is typically higher in order to 'fortify' the porters. In a way, Guinness is a bit of a scam. By adding soured mash from previous brewings into new batches, one is fooled into thinking it's stronger. Not only is it one of the weakest beers available, it is also one of the lowest in calories. I must say that I wish I could get my hands on some every so often in Kazakhstan.

Mike