united states - When did navies stop giving out a drink ration to their sailors? - History Stack Exchange When did navies stop giving out a drink ration to their sailors? I remember reading in a newspaper article in 1970 how the British Admiralty would pay 7 cents a day to anyone who gave up their rum ration. – user8562 Nov 26 '14 at 22:58 up vote 20 down vote accepted In the United States , alcohol rationing was stopped in 1862 by an act of Congress which also prohibited "distilled liquors" from being aboard a vessel, with an exception made for medical supplies. Then Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles issued a general order requiring captains to comply. Two years later, Welles issued another general order requiring that all beer and wine and other non-distilled liquors be treated as the private stores of seamen, and required them to be stowed securely in private areas (Lockers, etc). He further specified that each sailor needed permission from their captain in order to bring it aboard.

In 1893 Article 1080 of the Navy Regulations permitted wardroom and steerage officers to form their own wine messes, that is a mess area for wine. No officers were required to be members of the wine mess. Finally in 1914, Josephus Daniels , who was the Secretary of the Navy then, issued a general order prohibiting all consumption of alcoholic beverages on-board all Navy vessels. One reason this practice was discontinued was there was no longer a need for the alcohol. Originally it was used to sweeten stale water that had grown algae in it after a long voyage, and modern storage methods precluded the need for this. Another reason it was discontinued in the US was changing attitudes about alcohol . In the UK, the beverage issued was called grog, named either for how you'd feel when you drank it (groggy), or maybe more likely, named after the Admiral who instituted the practice of using Rum, "Old Groggy". The practice continued until 1970 among British sailors.

6 I'm not sure alcohol was ever to make up for the conditions - it was more that it was a storable and safe alternative to water – none Apr 29 '12 at 14:58 2 @mgb I have only anecdotal information that it was to help keep discipline: I remember reading that somewhere. The source will come back to me eventually and I can go look at it then, and give a citation if it's an authoritative source. Eidetic memory accompanied by delayed recall of details is irritating sometimes. – Nathan C. Tresch Apr 29 '12 at 15:19 3 I only heard this anecdotally, but the British Grog ration was more to keep them in line and slightly drunk so they were easier to control. Though I never understood how slightly drunk, impressed low class men were easy to control that way. – MichaelF Apr 29 '12 at 15:27 1 The Wikipedia entry on Grog appears to be pretty credible (I haven't fully checked out the sources though).

The article concurs with mgb's assessment that the main reason for instituting the drink ration was to better keep stagnant water fresh and algae free. The interesting thing about the article is the suggestion that temperance movements had some roll in curbing and eventually ending the practice. Also apparently the US merchant marine avoided drink rations entirely. It is possible that by the late nineteenth century methods of storing water improved thus relying less on alcohol. – BrotherJack Apr 30 '12 at 7:10 3 In the RN the Queen, or the Admiralty (and possibly a few others) can still order "Splice the Mainbrace" whereby a tot of Rum is given to every sailor on board. – Kobunite Jun 6 '13 at 11:16 Rum in the Royal Navy Ceremony on the flight-deck of HMS Blake, Friday 31st July 1970. Photo: Pete Ridler Royal Marine buglers sound the 'last post' for the tot onboard HMS Blake, Saturday August 1st 1970. Photo: Pete Ridler.

Tot time onboard the submarine HMS Ambush The final tot card (below) issued to Phil Rowe of HMS Tenby, when the ship's company were billeted ashore in HMS Drake. HMS Tenby was having a refit in Devonport. The issuing officer (when he was on duty) was notably Ted Briggs of H.M.S. Hood fame, one of only three survivors. Without this card you wouldn't get your tot, which is why they were normally placed inside the back of the plastic wallet holding your Identity Card, the two most valuable cards in your possession. More photos of the 'last tot' On the back of the bottle of Pusser's Rum it reads: British Navy Pusser's Rum. For more than 300 years, from before the days of Admiral Nelson, wooden ships and iron men, the sailors of Britain's Royal Navy were issued a daily ration of rum by the ship's Purser. This tradition, one of the longest and unbroken in the history of the sea, carried forward from the year 1655 to August 1st 1970.

The superb rum in this bottle is the same rum that was standard issue aboard Their Majesties' ships at the time of the custom's termination in 1970. For centuries, British Navy Jack Tars drank their Pusser's Rum and appreciated this spirit's exceptional quality. Its distinct character is still created from six of the world's finest Caribbean rums which were discovered on their excursions at sea. Product of Guyana, Trinidad & British Virgin Islands. When the official issue of the tot of Pusser's Rum was stopped in the Royal Navy, it was then purchased by Charles Tobias, and Pusser's Rum was then sold commercially to the public for the first time. Much later Pusser's Rum was sold to the Jim Beam organisation (well known for Jack Daniels) and then after a while the white ensign was dropped from the labels. When this was known about many former sailors were understandably very upset over this and it was then pointed out to the CEO, who then had the white ensign put back in its rightful position on the label. I have it on good authority that the white ensign is here to stay on the Pusser's Rum labels.

Have also had confirmation (April 2002) that the Americans too are displaying the white ensign on their labels of Pusser's Rum. Pusser's Rum is now back in the hands of the original purchaser, Charles Tobias. The bottle and labels are only slightly different (2003) but you'll no doubt be pleased to know that the recipe is exactly the same. Same taste, same strength. The white ensign remains prominent, though now fluttering in the breeze and more yellowish with age. Note that the shoulder of the glass bottle now has an anchor embedded in the front. BBC News - Today - What did they do with the drunken sailor? What did they do with the drunken sailor? By Tom Colls Today programme Sailors in 1956 enjoyed their tot as a 'social occasion' For hundreds of years, Royal Navy seamen queued up in galleys from the poles to the tropics to receive their regulation lunchtime tot of rum. But 40 years ago, the tradition was ended. On 31 July 1970, known in the navy as Black Tot Day, the sun passed over the yardarm for the final time and free rum was retired from navy life.

Black arm-bands were worn as the Queen was toasted. Tots were buried at sea and in one navy training camp, sailors paraded a black coffin flanked by drummers and a piper. "It was a sea change. It was one hell of a change," says Commander David Allsop, who enjoyed the tot as a junior rating after joining the navy in 1955. Seamen drained their last ever tot of free navy rum on Black Tot Day "It was badly received. There was a lot of muttering below the decks." The Admiralty took away the tot because they were concerned that a lunchtime slug of rum would hinder sailors' ability to operate increasingly complex weapons systems and navigational tools. But by 1970 the rum bosun's daily doling out of an eighth of a pint (70ml) of rum at midday - diluted with water for junior ratings, neat for senior - was a reasonably gentlemanly affair. "In my era it was a social occasion," says Commander Allsop. "You paid for favours quietly, you had friends come round to share the tot." "It was just the same as going to the bar and having a pre-lunch drink.

That's all it was, at the end of the day, a strong aperitif." On the lash Sailors from the early 18th Century might have scoffed at the innocence of the 1970s tot. Beer had been the staple beverage of the Royal Navy until the 17th Century, used as a self-preserving replacement for water, which became undrinkable when kept in casks for long periods. RUM DICTIONARY Nelson's Blood - Slang name for rum, erroneously based on the story that Nelson was preserved in rum after being killed at Trafalgar. He was actually preserved in brandy Tot - Name for the navy alcohol ration Grog - Mixture of rum and water, introduced to the Navy in 1740 Splicing the mainbrace - The awarding of an additional drink on a special occasion But as the horizons of the British Empire expanded, the sheer bulk of beer - the ration for which was a gallon (eight pints or 4.5 litres) per day per seaman - and its liability to go sour in warmer climates, made it impractical to take on long voyages.

Wine and spirits started to take its place and when in 1655, with the capture of Jamaica from Spain, the navy was introduced to rum. Staggeringly, until 1740 the daily ration was half a pint of neat rum, twice a day, at a time before there were accurate methods for measuring the alcoholic content. Sailors would check their rum had not been watered down by pouring it onto gunpowder and setting light to it, from where the term "proof" originates. By volume, 57.15% alcohol has been calculated as the minimum required for it to pass the test. Even keel The onboard problems caused by a massive intake of incredibly strong rum had to be remedied, and in 1740 Admiral Edward Vernon, known as Old Grogram, from his preference for cloaks made from a fabric of the same name, issued his notorious order. "The pernicious custom of the seamen drinking their allowance of rum in drams and often at once is attended with many fatal consequences to their morals as well as their health," it states. "Many of their lives shortened thereby...

besides stupefying their rational qualities which makes them heedlessly slaves to every brutish passion." Sailors are often associated with a large intake of alcohol Rum was henceforth mixed with water, at first at a ratio of a quart (two pints or 1.1 litres) of water to each half pint ration, and "grog" was invented. It is not surprising that seamen through the ages had grown attached to their rum ration, even though the punishment for drunkenness until the late 19th Century was a public flogging, says naval historian Dr Pieter van der Merwe. "They lived in conditions that nowadays would be considered intolerable," he says. "It was the one thing that made life bearable. "You cannot imagine how tough these people were. Seamen were a race apart. They walked differently, they talked differently, they dressed differently. They were built like oxen. "They could take punishment, and they expected it. They knew if they got drunk they would be flogged, and they still got drunk." It would be wrong, however, to draw conclusions about naval sea worthiness from the fact that for hundreds of years, navy sailors imbibed a huge daily dose of rum.

"You mustn't imagine that naval ships were sailed by crews of drunken sailors," says Dr van der Merwe, general editor at the National Maritime Museum. "Everybody drowns if sailors are drunk all the time." Get in touch with Today via email , Twitter or Facebook or text us on 84844. Bookmark with: ROYAL NAVY (RUM RATION) (Hansard, 28 January 1970) (Erith and Crayford) The threat to abolish the rum issue in the Royal Navy is a matter of considerable gravity, and I make no apology for raising it in the House today. As a wartime sailor in the Royal Navy who remembers with pride and affection the comradeship of the lower deck, I am glad to have this opportunity, as a Member of Parliament, to bring before the House the views which have been expressed to me in the many letters on the subject which I have received from serving sailors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see some of my hon. Friends here to support me in this debate. I shall be more than delighted to offer them sippers or gulpers at a more appropriate moment than the present.

It is clear from the volume of correspondence which I have received and from recent reports in the Press that the decision of the Admiralty Board to abolish the rum issue has aroused deep anger and resentment in the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, I know, carefully consider the case put to him tonight. I hope that, as a result of the argument deployed, he will feel able to review the Admiralty Board's decision and reprieve the Navy's rum ration. I shall not deal with the long and distinguished part which the daily tot of rum has played in the history of the Royal Navy. The history of our Navy is the history of our nation. Our freedom and our system of democracy have evolved and developed over the centuries behind the shield of the Royal Navy, a navy manned by men of courage, skill and endurance. All are aware of the enormous changes which have taken place not only in the technology of the Navy, but in the standards and conditions of life aboard ship. But not only the ships and the weapons have changed. The men of the Navy have changed, too.

Education and the need for technical skills have contributed to a dramatic rise in the standard and the 1661 expectations of those who serve on the lower deck. The case against the abolition of the rum issue is not based upon a desire to defend or to hang on to tradition. To be fair to the Admiralty Board, it does not say that because the press gang, hard tack and the rope's end went out long ago, so ought the rum ration. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State, it was made abundantly clear to the House on 17th December that the abolition of the rum issue is not an economy measure. If were an economy measure, it would be absolutely intolerable, and the Navy would be right to make its voice heard with great vigour. For the basis of the decision, I turn to the official announcement on 17th December last year in a Written Answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr.

Mayhew): The Admiralty Board concludes that the rum issue is no longer compatible with the high standards of efficiency required now that the individual's tasks in ships are concerned with complex, and often delicate, machinery and systems on the correct functioning of which people's lives may depend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 341.] If that were true, if it could clearly be shown that alcoholic drink in the small and controlled quantities that are available to the lower deck was a danger to operational efficiency of the Navy and to the lives of those who served in the Navy, there would be a clear case for following the practice of other navies and banning all alcoholic drink from ships of the Royal Navy at sea. If the Admiralty's case is right, the Navy should be dry of all spirits, but I do not believe that the Admiralty's case is right. What is the truth of the Admiralty Board's claim? What evidence is there to support their contention? § Mr.

Wellbeloved There is some evidence from people who serve at sea in Her Majesty's ships and in the Merchant Navy that a tot of rum can have a stabilising effect upon the stomach, and this is indeed a matter of considerable importance. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Fleet about to engage the enemy in a tempestuous sea. [Laughter.] § This is a serious debate. If there is too much interruption, I may have to hang an hon. Member from the yardarm. § Mr. Wellbeloved We were about to engage the enemy, Mr. Speaker; let us proceed upon that course. A tempestuous sea is raging. Men are piped to a meal before action. If they can take their tot, they can consume their food; if they consume their food, they are able to face the coming action with greater strength and greater determination. If the medical evidence is not there, will my hon. Friend explain why the Admiralty Board took this decision? What research has been carried out into the operational efficiency of those who take rum compared with temperance ratings who take the 3d.-a-day grog money in lieu?

Is there any evidence of a careful scientific evaluation to show that temperance ratings are more efficient in the discharge of their duties than those who take the rum issue? Let my hon. Friend tell the House the facts. What evidence can the Admiralty Board offer to justify a dry lower deck stripped of its rum issue with a wet wardroom with spirits still available? Is there any evidence available to show that the rum tot affects the operational efficiency of the Royal Navy? Certainly there is no evidence readily available. My hon. Friend's Department had the greatest difficulty searching out the details to reply to Questions which I tabled this week asking for figures of men charged with and found guilty of being under the influence of alcohol while 1663 on duty in the Royal Navy. It is clear from the letter my hon. Friend sent to me and which I received today—and I am grateful for the promptness with which he arranged that reply—that no statistics spread over a reasonable period exist which could substantiate the Admiralty Board's decision. Indeed, it would be difficult, under Section 28 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1957 , to produce meaningful statistics.

Under that Section, a seaman in the Royal Navy could be drunk at home on leave and be charged. The Section says: A person is drunk within the meaning of this section if owing to the influence of alcohol or any drug, whether alone or in combination with any other circumstances, he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty or with any duty which he might be called upon to perform, or behaves in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service. That is a very wide Section. No wonder no meaningful statistics are available. The statistics available really do not mean anything. We have statistics for officers charged between 1960 and 1969 with being under the influence of drink while on duty. Only 18 cases are reported, a small and insignificant number when we consider that 10,000 officers are engaged in the Royal Navy. We would need to examine with considerable care the records of the courts-martial of these officers to see whether the offences were committed on duty or whether some were committed while the officers were on shore leave. I doubt whether any concern drunkenness while the officers were on leave.

The important thing is the cases which were brought to trial, and I hope my hon. Friend will make available the records for study. In any group of men who live closely together an esprit de corps springs up, and it is not beyond our comprehension and understanding to realise that, if an officer became intoxicated while on duty, he would be in a much better position for his colleagues to protect him, to put him in his cabin and tuck him up in his bunk, unnoticed, uncharged and unconvicted. § Mr. Wellbeloved I know that esprit de corps exists on the lower deck. I have put to bed and been put to bed myself. But the risks are greater on the lower deck, because officers and petty officers are on duty. The risks of exposure, of being caught, charged and convicted are immensely greater for the lower deck than for the officers. No wonder there is a wide difference between the statistics for the seamen on the lower deck who have been charged and the officers of the ward room who apparently and fortunately have escaped that fate. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as far as one can ascertain, very few of the ratings involved committed the offence during the course of duty. My hon.

Friend the Under-Secretary of State has acknowledged this in his letter. I believe that I have given a fair summary of it, but I can quote it if necessary. § (Gosport and Fareham) Speaking as one who cannot claim to suffer the privations inflicted upon the lower deck by the Minister through this new and arbitrary decision of the Admiralty Board, I still must tell the House, in support of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved), who has so ably and movingly set forth his case, that I represent a constituency which, more than any other, has been plunged in gloom and horror by this iniquitous decision. This has put the manning ports and the surrounding district in a state of depression which, I am afraid, must find outlets not only here, but elsewhere. I cannot understand the rationale for this decision. It is true that it is undesirable for officers or men to be drunk on duty. I have met many liberty boats coming from the shore and it is far more likely to be at that time that the definition of drunkenness is most used.

It is not the medical profession, by the way, who make the diagnosis of alleged drunkenness in the Navy: the executive decides. Therefore, this tricky decision has never fallen to my lot. § For what purposes are rum and other drinks like this prescribed medicinally in the Royal Navy? § (Portsmouth, West) It is not often that I have the opportunity to stretch my hand across the waters and to join with the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I agree with him that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made a magnificent speech this evening. In congratulating him I know that I speak not only for myself, but for many who reside permanently or temporarily within my constituency. It is a real pride and joy for any Member for Portsmouth, West in history to know that he represents the home and centre of the Royal Navy in this country. (Harrow, East) I am a little disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that you did not introduce me by my rank. You introduced the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) by his. For your information, I am Leading Aircraftman.

I am all for tradition: there is a good disciplinary reason for keeping tradition in the Armed Forces and in our national life. I was disappointed when the previous Government abandoned the title of First Lord of the Admiralty. No one knows what will come next. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will abolish port for Her Majesty's judges. If that happens, the whole nation will be sunk. The House has had a great deal of fun about this matter, but there are serious aspects, and it would be a mistake if the debate were conducted in such a manner that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was able to escape in a cloud of humour. I have seen nothing in the public statements which have been made about this decision to indicate any sound and positive reason for it. 1678 The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) gave us a most revealing glimpse of history. I hope that it was more accurate than that which we had recently from the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The hon.

Member for Gosport and Fareham told us that this decision had been in the pipeline for some time at the Admiralty and that at one time there was a Minister strong enough to resist this kind of nonsense. If so, it is a sad reflection on my hon. Friend, who represents a seafaring constituency. No wonder he has had to bring along the Minister of Defence for Administration who constantly reminds me of that character in Peter Simple, Alderman Ironside, of Sheffield City Council, to support him in this matter. Much support he will get from him. I was not sure about the course being steered by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. He appeared to start out in the right direction, but later changed course and came back to support the Admiralty. His argument was that the provision of this tot of rum would make it dangerous for ratings in a service operational rôle. But this argument was answered previously by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham, who said that this ration is given when men come off duty, not before they go on duty. No evidence has been adduced in the public statement about the harmful effect that this tot of rum is causing, as was pointed out by my hon.

Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who has such a distinguished career as a boy sailor in the Navy. One thing which has bedevilled the Services, even in modern times, is the rather preposterous class structure. This is not so evident in the Royal Air Force, where men and women tend to rise on merit. But that is not the case in the Navy. § We all find our own level. § The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen) The whole House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has made a most amusing speech. But it has also been a speech of serious content on a serious issue, and I must treat it as such. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and it has sometimes been difficult to determine the courses that various hon. Members have steered. I should like to say at the outset that I am only too well aware that the rum issue is a particular naval privilege of long standing and one which is cherished and enjoyed by a great many ratings. I could not hold my position too long without being aware of this.

I am also a Plymouthian. I represent the Sutton Division of Plymouth, a constituency with a long and proud naval tradition, so I am well conscious of this matter. 1680 I suggest, however, that certain facts must be faced. The rum issue is the equivalent of slightly more than four single whiskies—a fact which has tended to be glossed over in this debate. There is also an entitlement, introduced only since the war, to purchase a pint of beer a day on top of the rum issue. In this country, it is an offence to drive a car while one's blood alcohol exceeds 80 miligrammes per 100 mililitres of blood, and this level may be reached after four single whiskies or two and a half pints of beer. If, to an individual's naval tot, is added a proportion of another man's tot, which happens all too frequently, or, say, the two cans of beer which he is allowed, my medical advisers express positive misgivings about the results if that individual were faced with a test of his normal skill on which much might depend. To the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr.

Bennett), I can say that there is considerable medical evidence, and that a great deal of pressure has come from naval doctors on this issue. In a survey of patients admitted to the British Military Hospital in Singapore, comparing the Army and the Navy, the figures suggest that the Royal Navy has three times the rate of alcoholic casualties. Alcoholic casualties nearly always manifest themselves only over the age of 28. On this basis, it was estimated that there could not be fewer than 300 very heavy drinkers in the Fleet. Because this is in an older age group, it is obviously a higher percentage. Hon. Members have been fair in admitting that the tasks of the naval rating have changed immensely over the years. It is by no means uncommon for junior ratings to hold responsible positions in the modern Navy, and to be required to maintain and operate extremely expensive and complex missile or fire control systems in our ships. This must be something which we consider when we realise that we are giving an entitlement to drink more than four single whiskies in the middle of the working day.

I suggest also that there is a great difference between a free issue of spirits, which must be drunk at the time of or shortly after the issue, and the right to buy spirits while off duty. 1681 The unanimous advice of the Admiralty Board and, indeed, of practically every naval officer, both medical and non-medical, is that the issue of rum impairs the efficiency and is not compatible with the high standards of efficiency required now that the tasks in our ships are concerned with complex and often delicate machinery on the correct functioning of which many lives may depend. It is on this advice and other facts that the board decided to abolish the rum issue. I believe that the reaction to the decision shows that most people recognise that it is a sensible and timely one. I do not claim that it was or could have been a popular decision, but it is possible to exaggerate the feeling aroused. We have heard of much anger and resentment at this decision. But there was sensible reporting of the decision in the Press and in subsequent editorial comment. My hon. Friend asked what Plymouth thought. The very influential Western Evening Herald, in Plymouth, supported the decision.

The 15 letters which have been received in my Department or by me show that most people accept that this decision probably had to come. In my constituency, I have no wish to go down in history with Admiral Vernon, who watered down the rum, or the Secretary of the U.S. Navy, Josephus Daniels, who made the U.S. navy "dry". I am surprised that some people have almost been advocating the cause of a "dry" Navy. I am glad that hon. Members have accepted that this decision was not an economy measure. Quite the reverse. The cash value of the savings which we shall make, £2.7 million, will all be paid over to the Sailors' Fund, which should do a great deal to make life in the Navy pleasanter specifically for those men and their dependants who are losing the rum ration. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked how this was calculated. The amount paid over was obtained on a discounted cash flow calculation, involving the discounting of the annual saving at an agreed rate. This results in a figure representing the cash value now of the savings which will be realised in future.

Most people who have considered this think that it is a generous supplement. It is well known, for instance, that in the Navy they have not got the reserves 1682 which can be used for this purpose which the other two Services have. It is important for the House to bear in mind the extent of the problem. Junior ratings, the men primarily affected—we often hear the expression "the lower deck", but that usually means junior and senior ratings—form 57 per cent. of the Fleet. Of these, less than 30 per cent. in practice take the rum ration either because some of them are under 20 and not eligible, some are living out on shore and some do not like rum. In practice, entitlement of ratings to purchase drinks of any kind applies only to those serving afloat—about four in 10 of the percentage I mentioned. While serving in shore establishments anyone is entitled, officers and men, to buy drink in the mess or the N.A.A.F.I. club besides of course being able to use the facilities of the town in which they are living when they are off duty. My hon. Friend's main criticism as I understand it is the perpetuation of a distinction between officers and men.

I think he is the first to recognise that the measures we have announced are in fact a significant step toward easing the distinction between officers and men. We are in fact easing the regulations for the purchase of spirits to allow men of lower rank than at present to buy them. That is what the new rules mean. Until now, chiefs and petty officers, senior and responsible men upon whom the Navy relies, have not been allowed to buy or drink whisky, gin or vodka on board ship. Many representations have been received to relax the regulations. The only spirit they have been allowed is rum. From the date of the abolition of the issue this will change and these men will be able to purchase and choose the spirit that they drink. The criticism is that this decision while welcome does not go far enough for it will still result in junior ratings, those below the rank of petty officer, being unable to drink spirits while on board ship. This is quite true but it must be remembered that roughly 40 per cent.

of the junior ratings' mess will be under the age of 20 at any one time and not eligible for rum and that a man may, if he is exceptional, be a petty officer by the time he is 22 and that considerable proportions are being 1683 promoted petty officers by the time they are 27. I ask the House to remember that a considerable proportion are under 18. Even so the junior ratings have not been neglected. The amount of beer they are allowed to purchase is to be increased by 50 per cent. This is not such a paltry allowance as has been made out. It is worth pointing out that because petty officers and chief petty officers will be able to buy spirits the priority in respect of the purchase of beer will be given to the ration available for the junior ratings. § That has always been the case. § Dr. Owen That is true, but it will be always maintained. The decision to increase the ration of beer to junior ratings was not taken without considering the possibility of allowing them also to buy spirits. I should like the House to look at the many problems, apart from the advisability of making spirits available in messes with such a high proportion of young men.

The prime consideration is the limited accommodation available. We have recently decided to increase the amount of accommodation per man—something to which I attach immense importance—but even after this has taken place and it can be done only as new ships are built—the amount of space available will still be severely restricted. Thus, on very many ships there is nowhere where spirits can reasonably be sold in such a manner as to prevent abuse of the law of the land remembering that a high percentage are under 18 without either taking an excessive amount of time—a period of many hours was calculated—or conducting the sales in a thoroughly difficult atmosphere, for example in the cramped deck space of a frigate or submarine and in a variety of small messes scattered throughout the ship. I hope my hon. Friend will take this assurance from me that there is no question of adopting moral attitudes over this. The arguments which I have espoused have scrupulously kept aside from that. I am certainly not persuaded that there is any class difference in drinking habits, although the disciplinary 1684 sanctions against an officer found drunk on duty are much stiffer than those for ratings. My hon. Friend quoted the most recent figures of drunkenness which I gave him.

I do not wish to draw too much from them, but it is clear from the figures that there is a much higher incidence of drunkenness among ratings than among officers. in 1968, there were 3,215 offences recorded in respect of ratings, or 5 per cent., and in that same year only one officer was court-martialled. I readily accept that few of these offences take place on duty, and I wish that I was in a position to give my hon. Friend the accurate breakdown of statistics for which he asks. In fact, returns of this kind have only recently been instituted in the fleet, and it has been difficult to obtain the figures. It is not true that there is no effective limitation on the amount of drink which an officer may consume. The captain of every ship is expected to examine his officers' wine bills at regular intervals and to deal with those officers, particularly younger ones, whose bills show signs of excessive drinking. As a further check, when his ship is inspected he is required to provide the inspecting officer with evidence that he has done so. As a further check, in the case of petty officers and chief officers we are giving the captain similar powers.

The stocks held in the mess at any one time are to be equal to an average consumption of four days' supply at three measures a head. There is, thus, no great distinction here, and certainly there is no case to support the charge of discrimination against these men. Even these rules are not fixed and immutable for all time. § Mr. Wellbeloved My hon. Friend is putting a persuasive case. Will he give an undertaking that he will place in the Library the sources and results of the investigations which he says have been carried out, so that, by an examination of the facts, we may give careful consideration to the case which he puts? § Rule Britannia: The Royal Navy and Modern Drinking Culture – War on the Rocks LinkedIn As the craft cocktail movement firmly entrenches itself in the United States and abroad, people have become obsessed with recreating the “Golden Age of Cocktails.” Many people erroneously believe this to have been the “Roaring Twenties,” calling to mind images of nattily dressed sophisticates drinking in some Manhattan speakeasy whilst doing the Charleston and Lindy Hop.

Dozens of modern day bartenders wearing vests, ironic mustaches, and sleeve garters might agree with them, but in reality, the era that spawned many of today’s terrific tipples was well before the Twenties. The post-revolutionary and antebellum periods gave the world some of its most ubiquitous cocktails, and the reconstruction period only expanded the beverage lexicon. When one considers the quintessential “classics”, the Mint Julep, Sazerac, and Old Fashioned probably come to mind. And these were all created in the 18th and 19th centuries. In modern times, it’s easy to think of the characters of Mad Men knocking back eight martinis during lunch and then going back to the office to flirt with their secretaries. In reality, the first cocktails were more likely consumed by the characters in Master and Commander , who then stumbled below decks to flirt with the cabin boys. Drinking and the Royal Navy have a storied history, the quintessential representation of which is the rum ration . Originally, sailors were given a half-gallon of beer twice daily during their service.

This tradition continued through the Napoleonic Wars until rum eventually supplanted beer as the Navy’s drink of choice, thanks in large part to influence from trading powers in the British West Indies. It’s likely that the term “ proof ” (as it relates to alcohol) came from Royal Navy personnel of this time period, as sailors would supposedly soak grains of gunpowder with their rum ration. If the gunpowder still touched off, this was “proof” that the alcohol was above 57% ABV (alcohol by volume). Navy strength rums such as Smith and Cross and Pusser’s maintain their high ABV to this day. Unfortunately, the rum ration was pared down over the next two hundred some odd years, before finally being disposed of on 31 July 1970, also known as Black Tot Day . Sailors were reportedly so displeased with the cessation of the rum ration that they threw their tots into the sea, and in one case held a funeral for their fallen tradition. It’s not just officially sanctioned drinking that defines the Royal Navy’s ethos though – it’s the notion of how to officially sanction drinking while also coopting colonial cultures as well.

When the British East India Company arrived in India in the early 1600s, they took a traditional hot Indian drink known as Panj (Sanskrit for “five,” so-called because it had five ingredients: alcohol, sugar, lemon, water, and tea/spices) and made it their own. From there, the Anglicized “punch” proliferated throughout the British Empire and other European countries, and eventually shifted from wine and brandy to rum. Punch was primarily an officer’s drink, namely because it required citrus and sugar, items far too valuable to give to the rank and file. Admiral Edward Russell, the First Earl of Orford, is once said to have thrown a party with a fountain of punch so large a cabin boy was tasked with serving the punch to guests by way of a dinghy. The punch was also said to be so alcoholic that cabin boys had to be swapped on the hour, so that they wouldn’t pass out from inhalation of alcohol vapor. Eventually, punch would come to be one of the most common drinks in both the new and old worlds. In the pre Black Tot Day era, noncommissioned officers and enlisted men still received their daily liquor ration.

However, it became clear almost instantly that men drinking a pint of rum a day were generally some combination of insubordinate, combat ineffective, riddled with malaria and scurvy, or just plain drunk. Enter Admiral Edward “Old Grog” Vernon , whose grogram coat lead to his nickname (it should be noted that Mount Vernon is also named after the admiral). The common understanding is that gin and tonic resulted from the need to protect sailors and soldiers abroad from malaria. Admiral Vernon preceded the venerable G&T and created the first cocktail in an effort to protect his sailors from dehydration and scurvy (although the latter effect was unintentional). Originally, “Grog” was a mixture of semi-potable water and rum. Eventually, Vernon mixed it with citrus to make it taste better. The British Navy was quick to adopt this method of serving rum rations when it discovered the positive effects citrus had on its sailors. Little did he know it would eventually lead to the pejorative colloquialism “limey.” Grog eventually made it to shore as well, and laid the foundation for cocktail creation in the western hemisphere. To this day, the British Navy has a toast for each day of the week.

The sailors always salute the monarch first, and then commemorate their friends, family, or fellow sailors in a raising of the glass. The command to “splice the mainbrace (essentially, break out the booze)” is still given by members of the Royal Family to commend meritorious service to the crown. Drinking is still as much a part of their ethos as it is for western culture. So remember, the next time you raise your glass, look towards Britain, have yourself a Churchill-esque bow, shout “up spirits!” and drink your rum to the men who came before, drunk on seawater-laced rum and fighting privateers off the coast of Bermuda. Alex Hecht is editor of Molotov Cocktail. He works as a Security Analyst in Washington, DC. Before working for the man, he managed the Gibson, a cocktail bar in DC’s U Street corridor. Alex’s life is admittedly mellower now, but his liver probably thanks him for that. The Tradition of Rum and the Sea - Ministry of Rum The Tradition of Rum and the Sea Articles: The Garden - a night at an island still You just can't beat sharing a rum drink with friends on a boat at the end of another perfect day in the tropics.

Add the excitement and anticipation of the elusive green flash when the sun dips below the western horizon and you'll experience one of the great pleasures of life on the water. This scene doesn't end, however, when our brightest star is gone from sight. It continues to be played out westward around the globe as sailors salute the setting sun, rum glass in hand. For centuries, the close of day has been reverently acknowledged by sailors, but how rum came to be part of the choreography of this event is more than a coincidence. It's not surprising that the tradition of rum and the sea began in the Caribbean. After all, this is where rum came of age and took its place in history. Even before ships began sailing out of sight of land, a sailor's life was full of hardships. When kings and queens began to maintain fighting ships at sea, living conditions for the men who sailed them worsened. Food was notoriously bad and inadequate for the underpaid crews, and circumstances continued to decline as ships voyaged farther from home to extend the influence of the powerful monarchs. To compensate the sailors and help take their mind off their wretched existence, crews were given a daily allowance of beer or wine.

In the 16th century, ships began making regular voyages to the Caribbean where the crew's wine turned to vinegar even faster than it did in more moderate latitudes, and beer often spoiled before the ship even reached her destination. However, in stark contrast to sailors of the deck, ship's officers sailed with their own stores of luxuries, including spirits; the well-being of the common sailor was of little concern to those who occupied the aft decks. The Eastern Caribbean islands were colonized for agricultural interests in the 17th century. At that time, it was necessary for armed naval vessels to sail with the planters to defend them from pirates and the navies of their European enemies. The crews generally felt little more than contempt and resentment toward the planters whom they were sent to protect. From the sailors' point of view, shepherding planters and their merchant ships limited their chances of actually capturing a pirate or enemy prize and sharing in the profits. Deadly tropical diseases were rampant in the Caribbean, and without the hope of getting rich if they survived, sailors had little to look forward to beyond their daily allowance of drink. Not until sugar-sweetened delights made their debut in France did the situation improve in the fo'c'sle.

As demand for sugar exploded, sugar-cane plantations spread across the Caribbean islands like wildfire. In a spin-off from the sugar-refining process, skimmings and molasses were distilled to make a raw white spirit called kill devil. England forbade her colonies to export cane spirits, and planters found themselves with more alcohol than they could sell in the local market. Too many rum barrels stored around a plantation were an open invitation for trouble from pirates and other scoundrels, so plantation managers were eager to sell their rum to Royal Navy pursers, a marriage made in heaven. The availability of Caribbean spirits meant that the sailor's lot in life was enhanced, and on the other side of the aisle, the increased presence of armed ships was a deterrent to pirates. A mutually beneficial dependence evolved between the two unlikely partners. By 1650, a pint of rum had been unofficially adopted as part of the sailor's daily ration. Competition for rum sales and for the security that armed ships brought with them was fierce among the planters. Even the island governors supported selling rum to the navy, a move they hoped would help keep the pirates at bay.

Then in 1687, to appease the governors and guarantee the supply of spirits for their sailors, the Royal Navy officially adopted a mixture of rum from the English Caribbean islands as part of the crew's daily allotment. Ships were dispatched to collect and distribute this special blend that would be carried on all Royal Navy ships around the world. Thus began a statutory naval tradition that would last almost three hundred years: rum and the sea. The Caribbean spirit came out of the still at 140 proof and was a lot stronger than the beer and wine it replaced. Drinking a pint of West Indian rum every day caused such disorder among the sailors that Admiral Edward Vernon ordered that the ration be diluted with two parts water prior to issue. He also decreed that sugar and lime juice be made available as a reward for good behavior. Sailors endorsed the Admiral's order and christened the new ration grog, in honor of their hero who led them to battle wearing his finest grogam coat. Although the rum ration was diluted in an attempt to maintain sobriety on board, extra tots were commonly dispensed as rewards for exemplary service or acts of heroism.

Before going into battle, captains sometimes ordered a tot for the crews to make them more "brave and willing." And the capture of an enemy prize was always celebrated with yet more drink for the crew. Rum was a respected part of protocol on navy ships of nearly every nation, but in time the sailor's allotment was gradually reduced. In the case of the Royal Navy, the original ration of a pint of rum per day dwindled to only half a gill, about two ounces. But in spite of the shriveling measure of their daily tot, each new generation of sailors enthusiastically maintained the tradition. In the 20th century, it was finally conceded that rum was not conducive to the mental concentration needed to wage modern warfare. The cerebral demands of flying supersonic aircraft or operating sophisticated electronic equipment are much different from those needed to load or fire a cannon from the deck of a ship. In the Royal Navy, the sailors' tot became another casualty of changing times on July 31, 1970, when the last rum ration was served on board HMS Endymion, marking the end of an era in naval history. The tradition of rum and the sea lives on, however, on private vessels at anchor around the world.

Cheers to another day in paradise! Copyright © 1997-2017 Ministry of Rum, All Rights Reserved.

Question: What beverage did the British Navy stop giving out with rations in 1970?
Answer: Rum