TOPIC:

I came across this interesting explanation of Porter from [i:brardclq]The vintner's, brewer's, spirit merchant's, and licensed victualler's guide[/i:brardclq] 1826

[quote:brardclq][size=125:brardclq][b:brardclq]Of Porter[/b:brardclq]
The distinguishing characters of this liquor are its deep brown colour and an agreeable flavour which it is difficult to describe our language having so few words expressive of different tastes The origin of the name is thus related by the ingenious author of the Picture of London Before the year 1730 the malt liquors in general use in London were ale beer and twopenny and it was customary for the drinkers of malt liquor to call for a pint or tankard of half and half ie half of ale and half of beer or half of beer and half of twopenny In course of time it also became the practice to call for a pint or tankard of three threads meaning a third of ale beer and twopenny and thus the publican had the trouble to go to three casks and turn three cocks for a pint of liquor To avoid this inconvenience and waste a brewer of the name of Harwood conceived the idea of making a liquor which should partake of the same united flavours of ale beer and twopenny he did so and succeeded calling it intire or entire butt meaning that it was drawn entirely from one cask or butt and as it was a very hearty and nourishing liquor it was very suitable for porters and other working people hence it obtained the name of porter.[/quote:brardclq]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="books.google.ie/books?id=w3AqcyOFlcIC&am...&source=bookclip">books.google.ie/books?id=w3AqcyO ... e=bookclip[/size:brardclq]

Refuted here[/url:e2zkm3fp].

Interesting that other version by John Tuck was published four years before this one.

...[i:3oldchtm] A different version of the start of porter was given by a brewer called John Tuck, author of the Private Brewer’s Guide to the Art of Brewing Ale and Porter, published 1822...[/i:3oldchtm]

Your book certainly doesn't seem to have been the last to repeat the Feltham myth about Harwood.

I suppose it sounds like a plausible version

The Harwood explanation is the one given in Iorwerth Griffiths book as well if I remember correctly. Or maybe it was somewhere else. I've certainly read it on more than one occasion.