Quality of Whisky in Western Australia

During the late 1800’s and into the early 1900’s, there was a growing concern about the quality of whisky being sold in WA. “It is an everyday saying that the whisky at such and such pub will kill at 40 yards, and your friends in the ‘know’ carefully remind you of it” (1). This came down to two causes, those that were ‘adultering’ whisky and a new method of distilling.

Adultered Whisky

“Sir. I would like to draw your attention to the liquor trade of this colony. It is really impossible for a person living in Perth or Fremantle to get a good whisky in any hotel. In fact, I have travelled all over Western Australia, and no matter where you go you cannot get anything like whisky or brandy”. (2)

The hotelkeepers continued to bear the brunt of the public’s criticism, often with good cause. A wine saloon in Fremantle had been put under observation because it had been selling whisky “at a much lower rate than other local vendors could sell at” (3). The saloon owner and his wife were later caught red-handed operating a copper plant used for distilling spirits and a quantity of newly manufactured whisky at their residential property.

However, fines for adultered whisky were not uncommon. For example, the licensee of the Shaftesbury Hotel was fined 13 pound 14s for “having had upon his licensed premises whisky, which was adulterated with water so that it spirit strength was thereby reduced more than 25deg., namely, 35 deg. under proof” (4).

“I crave space for the purpose of drawing attention to the necessity which exists that the Government should appoint an Inspector of Public Houses, such officer to have full power to enter a public house at any time and take therefrom samples of liquors for the purpose of getting them tested, both as to standard and purity. In South Australia such officers are called Inspectors of Distilleries, and travel all over the colony, and are in receipt of good salaries.” (5)

∙ ∙ ∙

In an effort to crackdown on the rogue hotelkeepers, an amendment to the Wines, Beer, and Spirit Sale Act was proposed in order to prosecute publicans that sell adultered liquors. It was argued that “Poisonous compounds which are sold under the name of whisky and brandy are the direct cause of filling our lunatic asylums and swelling the number of ‘drunks’ who constantly figure in the police courts of the colony” (6).

Others blamed excessive rents and the competition to provide the cheapest drink in Perth, with publicans having to water down or strengthen their whisky to stay in business (7). It was of little surprise that hotelkeepers were to complain that it was not their fault, and they should not be held accountable if they purchase contaminated whisky from a “presumably respectable Perth house”. They argued that the whisky wholesalers who are responsible for bottling and labelling are the ones that should be under scrutiny (8).

∙ ∙ ∙

Despite the many complaints (“This whisky is declared to be powerful enough to eat a hole through a Milner’s sate” – 9), in 1902 there were 18 inspectors in the state to test the liquor in public-houses, but there were no prosecutions for selling adultered liquor (10).

“It is a very rare thing indeed to hear of an analysis of any whisky or any other spirit taken from across the bar of a public-house being made at all, and prosecutions for adulterated grog are as rare as honest lawyers” (11).

There was a reason for this however, as a new type of whisky was beginning to emerge. “The liquor itself was not so much adulterated as it was of a cheap and new character. There is such a demand for whisky that the distillers cannot supply matured liquor at the rates quoted, and, consequently, send out a cheaper lino” (12). Thus began the great debate as to just what is whisky.

Defining whisky

“Years ago, 70 per cent of the whisky was malt whisky, and 31 per cent grain or patent spirit; now the proportions are reversed. Originally whisky (or, at any rate, Scotch whisky) was manufactured solely from barley malt, and this is still the case with the whisky distilled in the Highlands in pot-stills. At a ‘moderate computation’ (says the medical Journal), roughly two-thirds of the spirit vended as whisky now-a days is derived from other material, chiefly maize (Indian corn) and molasses. The spirit so obtained is (or should be) called grain, or patent, or silent spirit, the word “‘grain” referring to the materials and the qualification “patent” to the type of apparatus in which this variety of alcohol is distilled.” (13)

Not everyone initially thought this was such a bad thing, claiming that patent distilling removed impurities known as Fusel Oil from the whisky. “This could reduce the cost of a bottle of Scotch whisky in Kalgoorlie from 6s. to 2s. whilst being completely safe for consumption” (14). However, think of this as being similar to the false paranoia around permeates in milk, as they are what give the flavour and character. Just a clever attempt at marketing a new product perhaps?

This was highlighted in a later newspaper article, suggesting that the “suspected by products, once so unanimously condemned, is now regarded as the very source of good whisky flavouring. This is unlikely to content the vendors of such liquor, however, who will no doubt be aggrieved at the information that their samples have none of the characteristics of a true whisky” (15).

“…alcohol Is extracted from the fermented wort, and that is absolutely the same whether it comes from barley, wheat, rye, potatoes, maize, rice, or sugar. But along with the alcohol other things are produced in smaller quantity. They are of various character, but they are collectively called ‘fusel oil.’ In such quantity as is found in the crude product of distillation they are poisonous; in much smaller quantity they are deleterious; but in very small quantity they do no great harm, and they supply the flavor of the beverage.” (16)

∙ ∙ ∙

It all culminated in The Great Whisky Scare in 1905, when a “report provided by the Chief Inspector of Liquors to the government assembly found that 50 percent of well-known whiskies are not true whiskies, with two brands nothing more than coloured spirits” (17). The Chief Inspector of Distilleries responsible for policing the liquor trade throughout the state, even went as far as arguing for the hiring of ‘tasters’ to detect impure spirits (13). I’ll take that job.

Further samples were taken as a result of the media attention, and out of “84 brands of whiskies examined (not including duplicates), 21 were considered genuine malt whiskies and 63 were classed as blended” (18). It’s important to note that this was being discussed not just in WA, but across the world.

“The Royal Commission, which has been inquiring into the quality of whisky, reports that the evidence given failed to establish any particular variety of whisky specially deleterious. Neither the medical, hospital, or distillery evidence showed that the pot still spirit was necessarily more wholesome than that of the patent still.” (19)

The Government Intervenes

In response to concerns however, Sir George Reid, the High Commissioner for Australia, organised “Customs authorities to issue a certificate of age with all whisky exported to the Commonwealth” (20). There were also calls for whisky to “be divided into three classes only – pure pot-still whisky, blended whisky (containing not less than 50 per cent of pure pot-still whisky), and blended whisky, containing less than 50 per cent. of pot-still whisky” (21).

Despite these suggestions, Western Australia decided to take matters into their own hands. Although many argued for a Commonwealth wide approach for classifying whiskies, a WA government analyst was sent to Great Britain to investigate the best way of establishing a standard of whisky (22). His report described “the methods of distillation and the composition of practically all those whiskies manufactured in Great Britain which find their way into the liquor stocks of Australian hotels”.

However, all was to avail, as the legislative council voted to keep the original regulations in force. Whisky was to be classified in the following way: Pure Pot Still Whisky – Blended whisky containing at least 75 per cent pure pot still whisky; blended whisky – containing at least 60 per cent pure pot still whisky; blended whisky containing less than 50 per cent pure pot still whisky (23).

“Every bottle must bear a special colored label, declaring the clarification of the contents, in the terms used above, the color of the label being varied for each class. For instance, a pure pot still whisky will bear an azure blue label, and the other colors are respectively vermilion-red, light grey and black (with white printing).” (23)

∙ ∙ ∙

Further legislation was introduced in 1915. “There is not much difference between spirits sold for burning in lamps and the new, raw spirits sold for drinking purposes. The difference between old and new whisky can at once be appreciated by drinking two or three glasses of new, raw spirits and comparing effects with those caused by drinking the same quantity of spirit which is three years old” (24).

This brought about the Three Years’ Whisky Bill, which made it illegal to sell spirits that had not been kept in bond for at least three years. “When the existing stocks have been cleared out the public will get good stuff, and will probably wonder why they over submitted to drinking raw fiery spirit”.

Customs officers were in charge of certifying if spirits were of Australian standards, with fines of up to £100 for forging certificates and £50 for the false description of spirits (25). However, all this talk of whisky must’ve had the politicians eyeing potential revenue, because as the quality increased, so did the tariffs.

To Clarify

Confused about the ‘new’ and ‘old’ whisky? Well, a Mr. Hunter thought he’d demonstrate how the two differ with an experiment that doesn’t come across as all that scientific, but was well received by the public at the time. He first gave one monkey malt whisky, in which “it got peacefully and beautifully ‘tight,’ and behaved just like a perfect gentleman” (sarcasm was alive and well in 1906). Tweet

“After a little while, under the influence of this fine whisky, it began to show signs of ‘pulling round,’ and I gave it some tea, which it took very pleasantly and behaved quite well. There were no after-effects, and the monkey was quite happy. The other monkey, when given some of the patent still whisky, got drunk and went mad. It went flying about the place, and ultimately collapsed. I changed the experiment three weeks afterwards, and the monkey which had been peacefully ‘tight’ on malt got suddenly uproarious with the patent still spirit.” (26)

∙ ∙ ∙

Finally, here’s an extract from The Times in London that was published in the Kalgoorlie Miner in 1906, which might also clear things up: “Now in the primitive pot still, which has been used for thousands of years, the alcohol and the fusel oil come over together. The mixture is absolutely undrinkable and successive distillations have to be resorted to in order to get rid of the greater part of the fusel oil. On the other hand, the patent still separates the alcohol and the fusel oil as completely as can be desired at one operation. It is possible to get from the single distillation alcohol perfectly free of flavoring matters, and also free of all but 2 per cent of water. This, in fact, is what is done. The alcohol is then perfectly neutral or silent and does not matter in the very smallest degree whence the sugar came out of which fermentation has produced the spirit. To give it the flavour desired by the public when they ask for gin, or for whisky, or for a particular type of whisky, is merely a question of putting in the appropriate material. This can be done in the case of whisky by leaving some fusel oil in the distillate, or by putting back a definite quantity of what has just been taken out, or by using a definite quantity of some high-flavored whisky from a pot still. In the last case it is important that the pot-still whisky should be old, because it is age that develops the flavour due to the fusel oil. But it is of no consequence whether the plain alcohol was made ten years ago or on the same morning, because alcohol is alcohol from start to finish, and does not change by keeping.” (16)

WHERE TO NEXT: In our next article – Whisky and War in Western Australia – you’ll see how two world wars created low supply and therefore higher prices. Despite some attempts to market whisky as an important industry in the Australian economy, the government took the opportunity to maintain the increased war taxes. This only added salt to the wound for those seeking out quality whisky, as many began to be attracted to the cheaper prices of beer and wine.

P.S. If all this talk of whisky has got you thirsty, then take a look at our Western Australian distillery locator. Let them know you found them here.