Interim report.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Whiskey and other Potable Spirits.
Date:
1908-1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Interim report. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    38/884 (page 20)
    Mr. A. M. 549. I see what you mean ?—I think that indicates Bramall. what was in Mr. Molyneux's mind. 3 March ^^O. At 411 he is asked : Then this whiskey, three 1908. and four times the price of the so-called pure alcohol, is liable to be adulterated with silent spirit and German spirit. What is the meaning of the terms silent spirit and neutral spirit?—As I under- stand it, the silent spirit is called by that name be- cause it does not tell you what it is made from. If you have whiskey or brandy or rum made, as we say it ought to be made, anyone who has the least know- ledge on tasting it would know what it would be made from, but if you taste pure patent still spirit only the most expert of experts could tell what materials it had come from. Neutral spirit is called so because it is neutral. There is nothing to dis- tinguish it from any other kind of pure spirit. 551. If you eliminate the bye-products?—If you eliminate the bye-products you come down to the common denominator of all spirits. 552. That is pure alcohol?—It is not really pure alcohol, but practically pure. 553. Have you anything more to say with regard to these definitions?—Will you allow me to call atten- tion to question 469, because it rather bears out what I said, that this blending or the sale of patent still spirit as whiskey was a modern idea. The question is: That is amongst the distillers?—Yes, and mer- chants. It is a thing of comparatively modern growth, this blending. Then there is another defini- tion of Sir James Bell, the Principal of the Inland Revenue Laboratory, a very distinguished man, if I may say so of him. At question 840 he says : Under the head of pot still spirit I include whiskey, brandy, rum, and Geneva or Hollands. I do not think that is very strong. Then at 850 he says : We are inclined to the opinion that the higher alcohols remain practic- ally unaffected —that would be, I think, in the pot still. Then at 889 : Now about the patent still or silent spirit, have you made exjjeriments with that ? Then in my copy some few lines down in the answer he says : The result of the test was a negative one in nearly every instance, and the spirit was found to be practically odourless. There is a great deal there that is interesting, but I do not want to weary you by reading it. Then Mr. Cobden Samuel, who was the Analyst Principal of the Customs Laboratory at page 57, question 1316, is asked about the term British plain spirit. Does it not confound to- gether pot still whiskey made from grain, and rectified spirits made by patent stills ?—It does ; it includes the two, which, in my opinion, are entirely distinct things. 554. What includes the two?—The term British plain spirit. That is the term that the Excise and the Customs use. 555. What is British plain spirit applied to?—I think Mr. Tedder said yesterday it was applied to every kind of spirit manufactured in Great Britain and Ireland. 556. This criticism simply is that one term is applied to two classes of production ?—Entirely distinct things. He says that pot still whiskey made from grain and rectified spirits made by patent stills in- cludes the two, which are entirely distinct things. 557. That is very material. At 1317 he is asked : They are distinct articles ? and he says They are distinct articles.?—May I say this without troubling you with references, unless you wish it, that Mr. Samuel describes some very interesting experiments. 558. Who was Mr. Samuel ?—The Analyst Principal of the Customs Laboratory. All these gentlemen whose evidence I have referred to were officials. I have eliminated the trade witnesses who might have an interest in giving their definitions. I have taken gentlemen who had an official position quite uncon- nected with the trade. Mr. Samuel describes some interesting experiments he made on himself. He first of all drank the strongest pot still whiskey he could get—fusel oil, I think—and he found no ill-effects. Then he drank some patent still spirit over a number of days, and he says that headache supervened and tightness across the chest. Then he tried the experi- ment on his assistant to see if there were any idiosyncracies on his part, and the assistant became so ill that he had to discontinue the experiment in about a week. 559. Perhaps that would deter you from producing the samples?—I am not going to drink them myself. Then he drank a fairly large quantity. 560. Was there evidence given on both sides—con- tradictory evidence to this view?—Oh, yes, I think so. I am afraid I picked out naturally the parts that assisted me rather than the parts that did not. 561. What was the finding of the Committee upon it?—The finding of the Committee was perfectly colourless on this point. 562. Did they refer to it?—Yes, they did, and I can give you the references. You will find they refer to it at page 4 of the Report in the 2nd Volume. 563. This is the Report of the Committee of 1891 : There is no exact legal definition of spirits going by popular names, such as whiskey, brandy, rum, patent or silent spirits. Some witnesses desired to define whiskey as the spii-it made in pot stills, and would deny that name to spirits made in patent stills, even- though the proportions of malt and grain used in the production might be the same in both. Some of the distillers from malt desired that their whiskey should be called ' malt whiskey,' though the general name ' whiskey ' might be extended to those who mix malt with grain. On the other hand, certain dis- tillers in Belfast and Scotland urged that spirits distilled in patent stills from malt and grain were entitled to be considered as whiskey, that they are used sometimes as such directly, and are now largely employed in blending pot still whiskey ?—They do not lay down any definition. You see they say : Your Committee do not attempt a legal definition of whiskey. They would refer to the evidence of Dr. Pavy for a general and useful definition of spirits of various kinds, but this is too general for a legal definition. 564. Have you Dr. Pavy's evidence ?—Yes, I am going to call your lordship's attention to it, if I may? 565. I should like to see that ?—Your lordship knows oa this Committee there were representatives of the trades, which I am happy to say is not the case on this Commission. Therefore, you either have to have a minority report, or you would fail to get a report at all, and they seem to have chosen the safer plan of adopting a more or less colourless report to which all members of the Committee could adhere. For in- stance, there was a distiller on this Committee. Naturally, that would have some effect on the report. Dr. Pavy gives evidence in the second volume. There is rather a good diagram of Dr. Pavy's put in. He begins on page 105, question 3693. Would your lordship look at answer 3700? 566. Who is Dr. Pavy ?—He is a doctor of medicine. I do not think he was an oflScial. 567. He has written well-known works on food and diatetics, I think?—Yes. Question 3700: What would you consider that potable spirits generally may be regarded as consisting of ?—As consisting of plain spirit or ethylic alcohol, with flavouring prin- ciples constituting the bye-products. Then question 3702 : And that the bye-products which exist by different materials and processes of distillation, give peculiar character to the different spirits?—Iney give the characteristic qualities to the spirit. At question 3706 : And with regard to the method of distillation, which varies in the case of whiskeys from pot still to patent still, do you think that the method of distillation also affects the bye-products ?— It will affect the character of the spirit which is obtained from distillation. That is, in one form' of distillation, represented on the left —he is referring t j a diagram. Whether it is algebraic or not I do not know. If your lordship looks at the diagram, on the left hand side is the pot still. That has E plus X representing ethyl alcohols plus bye-products. Then on the right hand side is the patent still in which the bye-products and ethyl alcohol are separated. 568. This is rough, very rough?—Yes; it is dia- grammatic only. He is referring to that. Then he says, That is, in one form of distillation, represented on the left in that sketch on the diagram which is hanging on the wall, the plain spirit, or ethylic alcohol, will come over mixed with the bye-products ; but in the other process of distillation a separation is effected, and you get the ethylic alcohol or plain spirit running in one direction and the bye-products.