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.

    39/884 (page 21)
    —which give rise to fusel oil—in the other direction. That is to say that, in pot still spirits, the bye-pro- ducts remain all through without separation ?—They remain with the ethylic alcohol; the two go together. But in the case of the patent still spirits they are separated to a large extent, and do not accompany the spirit afterwards ?—That is so. Then, 3725: Now, would you give us a definition of the potable spirit known as whiskey?—I would define whiskey to be a spirit consisting of plain spirit or ethylic alcohol, mixed with the bye-products derived from malt. Then he qualifies that, I think, a little in the next ques- tion. 569. I would define whiskey to be a spirit consist- ing of plain spirit. Does that mean after it has been passed tHrough the process at all ?—This process ? (Beferring to the patent still.) 570. Yes?—No. 571. What does plain spirit mean? — He means ethylic alcohol. He says so. 572. (Dr. Horace T. Brown.) Pure alcohol?—Pure alcohol. 573. (Chairman.) That is obtained by passing it through a process?—If you,^ass it through the patent still you eliminate the bye-products. 574. I want to get what plain spirit means. Plain spirit is alcohol produced by passing through this process?—Alcohol produced by passing through the patent still. 575. Would it if passed through the pot still?— Yes ; you get the plain spirit—the ethylic alcohol— there. 676. Why do you say you do not get the plain spirit from the patent process?—You do get it. I mis- understood the question. I thought you meant that in this definition he meant plain spirit, which had, as a matter of fact, been passed through the patent still? 577. Yes. I do not quite see why you should assert he does not mean it?—I think if you read the whole of Eis evidence you will find he is distinguishing between the two. He says : I would define whiskey to be a spirit consisting of plain spirit or ethylic alcohol, mixed with the bye-products derived from malt. He does not mean that if you have eliminated them in the patent still you are then going to mix them up again mechanically. It would be an extraor- dinary liquor if you did. 578. It must mean the bye-products?—Yes ; it has been tried to make an artificial whiskey by, after passing through this patent still, getting the plain spirit and putting the bye-products in again, and you get a most awful concoction. 579. I quite see the difference ?—He a little qualifies that in 3726. 580. Will you just read that?—I should say in the case of pure malt whiskey only the bye-products de- rived from malt; but if you use the word ' whiskey' without saying ' malt whiskey,' I would say the bye- products coming from both malt and raw corn. 581. What does he include in raw corn, do you think ?—I think he includes barley and wheat and oats. 582. Maize ?—No ; I think not. 583. Bran — why not? — You asked me what he meant. 584. So far as it is put down here ?—I think so far he had not been dealing with maize. I admit it is a little indefinite expression. 585. (Dr. Adeney.) You do not think he means un- malted grain?—I think he means unmalted corn. Raw corn means unmalted in this sense as distinguished from malted com. (Dr. Horace T. Brown.) It is a well-known defini- tion ; raw corn means unmalted corn. 586. (Chairman.) What would it include?—It would include all cereals, unless specified. 587. Why would it not include Indian corn ?—If you take it literally, it does. 588. (Dr. Horace T. Brown.) In the United States, when you speak about corn you mean Indian corn?— The answer to that would be that if you include Indian corn in a pot still you would certainly not pro- duce Irish or Scotch whiskey. You would produce something with a totally different flavour. If you were to use Indian corn in a pot still you would not eliminate these secondary products. You would pro- Mr. A. M. duce something which no one would think was Scotch Bramatl. or Irish whiskey. 3 March 589. He does not mention pot still there?—No,; he does not there. He is defining there the materials. 590. (Mr. Guillemard.) The inference is against it, is it not, in view of his reference to unmalted grain ?— Against pot still? 591. Against his wishing to limit it to pot still onh\ I do not want to take it too far. You would not admit that?—I should not admit that, I think, taking the general tenor of his evidence. If you take those words by themselves, I think it would be open to that con- sideration. 592. I do not want to press it ?—He has been talking before about the pot still. 593. (Chairman.) Just to solve this question, just read 3730: Would you consider that patent still spirits deserve the name of whiskey?—Patent still spirit, if you look upon it as whiskey, stands in the position of the play of ' Hamlet' without the character of Hamlet in it; that is to say, it has nothing of the character of whiskey about it. Nothing as regards the flavour or the taste, or the qualities which make these other spirits potable?—No. It does not contain the bye-products which give character.?—I think I am right in saying that if you take it in connection with that it is clear what he meant. 594. Then I will read 3732 ?—I was going to ask you to be good enough to do that. 595. You are aware probably that the patent still spirit made from whiskey and grain, according to the evidence before us, contains, though not a large quan- tity, a small quantity of bye-products?—The amount is so small that persons are not able to distinguish it. I have been carefully through the minutes of evidence, and I glean from the evidence which has been given that there has been no person yet before you who has said that when the spirit is perfectly clean he could distinguish the spirit coming from one source or from another. The witness has said that, he thought an expert might do it. If it is not char- acterless it is almost characterless. At 3734: That is the case, is it not, with regard to plain spirits, whether they are got from malt or from malt and grain, or from molasses, or from potatoes, or from any other source ?—Yes, it does not signify from what source the plain spirit is obtained ; if it is perfectly clean it is simply ethylic alcohol, without any character beyond that belonging to ethylic alcohol. According to 3,735 it all seems to depend on the bye- products : Bye-products give the flavour and the odour, and make the spirit, instead of being insipid, relishable ?—Makes it palatable instead of being insipid. 596. That is what is meant, I think ?—I do not tliink I need trouble you with any further extracts. I think they support me in some way at any rate. May I mention this while I think of it. At the trial —I only mention it as a fact—there were some very distinguished men who were called as witnesses for the- defence, and who said that patent spirit might be whiskey. We gave them two samples without any labels on them, one of patent spirit bought from a patent still distillery, and the other of pure alcohol bought from a chemist, and we asked them which was. which and they nearly all said, if not all, that the chemist's spirit—rectified pure alcohol—was patent still spirit. They fixed on the wrong one. They could not tell the difference. I do not mean to say that they were expert tasters, but Professor Sir James Dewar was one, I think. 597. I do not know whether there is anything more you wish to say in support of your claim, as I call it, that all whiskey shall be pot still whiskey before it is called Scotch or Irish whiskey ?—No, I think not. 598. One or two questions more. Did you from 3'our enquiries find whether the retail sellers of the whiskey did make a material difference in price on account of the difference in the wholesale price, or do you think they took advantage of getting the cheaper whiskey to sell?—Do you mean the retailers like public-house retailers ? 599. Yes, and like off-licensees ?—I do not think they knew. GOO. Do you think they took advantage of the lower price of the patent still to sell it equally with