In 1810 there were in operation in Pennsylvania 48 breweries with an aggregate annual output amounting to 71,273 barrels; New York had only 42 breweries and an annual production of 66,896 barrels. The output of all the other States of the Union amounted to but 44,521 barrels. Pennsylvania remained in the lead during about 20 years, when it had to yield first place to New York. The marvellous growth of brewing in the West did not change the relative position of these two States in point of production, but it changed completely the status of the industry, as we shall presently show. CHAPTER V. BREWING IN THE SOUTH. In the Southern provinces, unfavorable soil and climate conspired with other unpropitious circumstances to exclude brewing almost entirely. Sporadic attempts to introduce it were quickly frustrated, no less by reason of a lack of suitable raw material than on account of a want of skilled brewers; and also, perhaps, because domestic spirits could be had more cheaply. [Sidenote: VIRGINIA] In Virginia, as early as 1652, one George Fletcher had obtained the exclusive right to “brew in wooden vessels, which none had experience in but himself;” but his product evidently found little favor, for we read no more of him or his wooden vessels. From the instructions given to the governors of Virginia by the London Company and from other equally direct evidences, it is to be inferred that the repression of excesses in drinking, and the creation of agricultural conditions favoring the home-production of wine and beer were the two principal objects of the government’s care. The latter project, for reasons already indicated, failed of realization. The common beverages then used by the people were imported wines, strong beer and ardent spirits, and domestic beer, of which latter an inconsiderable quantity was brewed in the households of the colonists. The former drinks were retailed not only by keepers of ordinaries (taverns), but also by victuallers and merchants. Debts for wine and ardent liquors were excluded from the obligations pleadable in court. No mention is made of beer in this connection, and from the exception thus made it is fair to conclude that a discrimination in favor of malt liquors was intended. Without further corroboration this inference might be exposed to the reproach of being far-fetched; but, fortunately, such corroboration is not wanting. It is contained in an act, passed in 1644, which provides, among other things, “that no ordinary keeper or victualler _be permitted at all to sell or utter any wine or strong liquor_ BUT STRONG BEER ONLY. And that, according to order of the first of August, 1643, no debts made for wines and strong waters, shall be pleadable or recoverable in any court of justice in this Colony.”