Glen Mhor Logbook 26th December 1966

It was inevitable that some wrongdoing would occur on the Glen Mhor premises. The actual astonishment is that it wasn't until 1966 that such an event occurred.

A thorough examination of the distillery logbook has discovered no past instances of theft until now, which is a considerable span of time from the 1930s onwards. The only suggestion of opportunism occurred earlier in February 1952 when outer defences were potentially evaluated.

Over a 30-year period, recorded incidents reveal that the sole losses occurred on the distilling floor due to reported accidents. This indicates the utmost loyalty and professionalism of the distillery team towards Mackinlay and Birnie. Alternatively, it is possible that any on-site pilfering was conducted in an exceedingly subtle manner, as all losses were attributed to the angels.

The only other mention I've discovered around looting, was a chat with a resident, who recalls the distillery's final years. During the period when closure was imminent, staff discipline understandably weakened and opportunities were seized upon:

'Always a game of Cat & Mouse being played between the Distillery boy's and the customs and excise 😁 I witnessed cases and cases being passed out the back of the Mash Room doors onto the Canal and Muirtown Basin and being put on a boat which took it further afield!'

My research has shown that the distillery rarely used the Caledonian Canal. However, towards the end it seems fitting that Glen Mhor staff took advantage of the canal as an escape point to liberate boxes of whisky. These may have reached shores further afield, or perhaps just along the coast being a more likely landing point.

However, let us move on from the difficulties of the 1980s and revisit December 1966. Perhaps some of the same workers were employed in 1966, as it was considered a lifelong occupation, with many individuals reaching the age of retirement in the 80s. I have not been able to establish the findings of any investigation into the 1966 whisky theft, or whether it was an inside job or a well-planned operation. 

Is it purely coincidence that we are aware of certain warehouses being the focal point of upgrades in September only a couple of months beforehand? Could warehouse #1 have been part of these works, as the oldest and least accessible warehouse on site? An Excise officer was appointed to prevent any loss of whisky during the September upgrades. However, it is entirely possible that these external contractors observed the layout of the warehouses and any specific weaknesses in the security. A slip of the tongue in a pub could have planted the seed or opportunity for someone daring enough to take on such a task.

We know that the 1966 work lasted for less than a week. From incoming research, the fire alarm system was upgraded and warehouse floors were strengthened in 1967. If I were to make an informed evaluation, I would deem the task to be internal, possibly the replacement of the warehouse racks or the implementation of a system enhancement to facilitate the removal and relocation of casks. Glen Mhor remained actively engaged in filling and maturing casks for several independent bottlers and retailers. This frequent cask movement would have increased pressure on the internal workings and was identified as a problem as far back as April 1943.

Warehouse 1 in red at the edge of the distillery site - note this is the largest warehouse but referred to as numbers 1 and 2, because it was extended in the 1890s

The oldest and most conspicuous warehouse at Glen Mhor was eventually infiltrated through a skylight, breaching our favourite whisky sanctuary. However, the actual date of entry remains uncertain, due to a gap between Tuesday 20th and the subsequent Friday morning. The logbook summary reads as follows...

'Dear Sirs

At 11am on 23/12/66, W. Hogg, one of two warehousemen on routine cask examination, reported to me that there had been a break-in through a skylight in the sediment of No.1 Warehouse. See sketch in the enclosure envelope.

I went at once to the section and found that the entry had been made by removing slates to expose the metal frame of the skylight which, held only by nails to the working, had then been lifted out leaving on the perforated gauge and then iron bars ??? across the opening. The gauge was burst open, and iron bar cut by hacksaw near its base and the centre bar forced out probably by jumping on it. The frame, the cut bar and the centre bar were left in the gutter outside the skylight. The exact time of entry is not known but I was in this warehouse section on the afternoon of 20/12/66 and there was then no sign of a break in.

By thorough visual examination and by check dipping a number of casks in the break-in area, I was satisfied that one cask only was pilfered. This was cask 1958/2042 C544 standing on its own ??? 12 feet away in the storage adjacent to the break in point with its bung removed. I took ??? of this cask and also of two remaining casks of the same parcel which were in different parts of the same warehouse section. Details are as follows: date of warehousing 1/11/58.

Cask 2042 at had ??? stave ends, 2043 was sound, and 2044 had ??? stave ends and leaking end joints. Pilferage could be any quantity up to about 12 proof gallons and is probably not less than 10 proof gallons ??? leaving regard to the fact that there has been some small leakage from ??? stave ends it may not be unreasonable to limit the charge for duty to 5.9 proof gallons and allow 4.9 as a special deficiency.

Officers of Inverness C.I.D. were quickly on the scene and after their examination the warehouse was made secure by nailing close fitting boards across the opening and slating overall in conformity with the rest of the warehouse roof. I am satisfied that this repair has enhanced the security of the warehouse and the traders intention is to leave it as it now is if approved by you. I checked all fire exit points and found them secure before locking the warehouse.

Approval for the action to secure the warehouse and instructions regarding the quantity for duty charge are requested please.

Your obedient servant.

G.S.H. Dawson

26/12/66

Result,

Duty charged 10.8

B.O. 142/67'

Thanks to excise records, we have a detailed synopsis of the point of entry, the method and the barrel chosen by the thieves. 

What's interesting is that they chose an 8-year-old whisky. We know that Glen Mhor would have had older casks on site, but possibly not in this warehouse. Once inside, they chose a nearby cask for ease and a quick getaway if needed. Convenience is key, rather than seeking out the most valuable pour from a cask.

The following image, taken after the break-in, also shows that the skylights in Warehouse 1 have been replaced. Security has been increased to prevent a repeat of the break-in.  

As always, I am fortunate to have Alan Winchester's insightful comments on these entries.

'The design of the then security required by Customs and Excise, was that any enforced entry could be clearly seen.

Yes, some distillery Duty Free Warehouses, had secret hatches, but this was clearly a damaging break in.

What's interesting is that the maturing casks were with cork bungs, common at the time, but now normally fitted with a hard bung (poplar), also the thieves knew a good dram.

With the sites becoming increasingly urban with the spread of the town, risk was increasing.'

What we do know is that the thieves did not attempt to repeat their successful raid. This remains the only recorded break-in at Glen Mhor. Had they had some of the 1960s/70s cask strength whiskies from the distillery, they would have been rewarded with a powerful orchestra of aromas and flavours. If only they'd kept a bottle of their nocturnal raid, I'd have loved to try it straight from the cask.

And we shouldn't over the look the festive timing, as it seems a reasonable assumption whatever amount of whisky was stolen, it was consumed over Hogmanay, just a few days later.

This Log Book comes from the Highland Archives Centre and is watermarked for its protection. As with any images on this website, please ask first before using and always give credit. 

The design of the then security required by Customs and Excise, was that any enforced entry could be clearly seen.

Yes some distillery Duty Free Warehouses, had secret hatches, but this was clearly a damaging break in.

Was interesting that the maturing casks were with cork bungs, common at the time, but now normally fitted with a hard bung (poplar), the thieves knew a good dram.

With the sites becoming increasingly urban with the spread of the town, risk was increasing.