Before the adoption of mechanised steam power brewing was a labour intensive industry for all motive energy was reliant upon manual labour and horsepower assisted where possible by natural elements such as water and gravity. Even where steam power had been purposefully deployed enabling a reduction in the amount of labour required, as in the case of Knottingley brewery, the workforce varied in size in accordance with seasonal demand. (1)

Initially, the production of beer was dictated by the rhythm of the harvest for the malt was made from the barley which, like hops, was harvested in September. The busiest period of the productive cycle was between November and April when apart from the dictates of the harvest the coolness of the season assisted the fermentation process and enabled retail price adjustment in accordance with harvest yields. Seasonal production was also beneficial in the context of the general climatic pattern, minimising the movement of materials and goods at a time when winter flood was likely to disrupt transport by road or waterway. (2)

The size of the basic workforce at Knottingley brewery by the mid nineteenth century was probably less than twenty. The Census of 1851 lists 13 men resident in the town as employees of the brewery to which a handful from the surrounding district may be added. Of those named, three, John Braithwaite, George Robinson and John Prokter (sic) are designated as brewers. Proctor is known to have lived in the house adjacent to Lime Grove normally occupied by the company brewer/manager and was therefore presumably the head brewer at that date. In addition, the data reveals the existence of four labourers, two maltsters and two draymen. The office staff consisted of a chief clerk and traveller, Marmaduke William Watson, assisted by a general clerk, William Bellwood White. The name of Jervis Winn (sic) is listed as an "ale and porter traveller" which may indicate his employment as a company representative in an effort to widen its sales outlets.

The Census data is supplemented by a brief series of company wage lists for the period October-December 1860. The earliest list, for the week ending 3rd November, names 19 employees in receipt of daily wages. Subsequent lists contain 18 names. No detail is given concerning the type of work undertaken by each workman nor do the lists include the names and renumeration of salaried staff. (3)

Of the day wage workers, the highest paid was William Fox, known to have been a cooper and therefore a skilled craftsman, who received a weekly wage of £1. At the other extreme is John Colverson, a labourer, with 5 shillings. Cross reference with the details of the 1861 Census Return enables some detail of wages and individual occupations to be produced, viz:-

The amounts earned should be treated with caution, however, for earnings were variable. The wage paid to John Ritson for example, was boosted by payment for work undertaken on a Sunday. Given John Carter's religious outlook such work must have been essential and may have been for security reasons.

Numerous references are contained within the company accounts in respect of payment to day labourers for extra duties such as 'nightman'. The payments seem to have been paid mainly at quarterly intervals. Thus, 12th January 1863: -

"William Moon - Night Man - extra wages, 13 weeks @ 4/- to January 1st, £2-12-0". (5)

Again, 4th April 1865: -

"Moon & Chapman as extra wages for Night Men, 2/6 each, 13 weeks, £2-12-0". (6)

One assumes that, security apart, the purpose of the nightman was to keep a watchful eye on the ongoing stages of production.

Extra wages were not, however, confined to the unskilled men for routine duties. An entry for October 1863, shows: -

"W. Fox, cooper, 13 weeks extra wages, due this day @ 2/- . £1-6-0.

And again, in July 1868: -

"£5-4-0 to Fox, cooper, 26 weeks extra wage @ 4/- to June 29th". (7)

A further entry bespeaks the seasonal nature of the trade: -

"£1 allowed to Hinchcliff for extra work at Harvest Time". (8)

This is also reflected in the payment in January 1864 to: -

"Ths. Wilson, maltster, 14 weeks extra wages to this date, £1-8-0". (9)

and confirmed by an entry in the same ledger, viz;-

"Durant, Engine Man, extra wages for 13 weeks, due 6th April @ 3/- £1-19-0". (10)

The latter entry is noteworthy in that it shows the wage of a 'mechanic', an engine tender, to be valued at less than that of a craftsman (cooper) but more than a maltster. It is also significant for being the earliest indication of the existence of a steam engine at the brewery.

With regard to security, it is of passing interest to note numerous payments to the local police for "Work done at the brewery". (11) The payments, first recorded during the 1860s, were a regular feature around Christmas time, suggesting special security arrangements to cover for the absence of the workforce during the holiday closure. On the 31st of December, 1875, is recorded,

"£1-15-0 to policemen for watching premises". (12)

while the same watch in 1878 cost £2. (13) An entry of February 1877, shows the gift of a cask of ale to the police superintendent, Mr Teamsides, at each Christmas period 1874-76. (14)

The table below shows the total weekly wage bill in respect of the day wage workers during the six weeks commencing early in November 1860: -

Unfortunately, these are the only wages data available and therefore the paucity of such material precludes comparative analysis. Examination of Census material does, however, provide some indication of the development of the brewery workforce over time.

The Return for 1861 shows 14 Knottingley residents employed by the company. The number is approximate to that recorded a decade earlier and reveals a degree of continuity with seven journeymen and labourers featured in 1851 still working at the brewery in 1861. Three company brewers are named, one being John Braithwaite, recorded in 1851. A second brewer, Matthew Moon, was recorded as a drayman at the earlier date. The promotion suggests that a degree of upward mobility appertained within the company workforce. The 1861 Census also names William Merrill as a brewer, being resident at Hill Top which may indicate that he had replaced the recently deceased William Proctor as the head brewer of the company. Four labourers are named, one of which, Mark Dobson, features in the Return a decade later as a "brewer's servant" but by 1881 was designated by the term labourer. The largest increase in the categories of workmen listed concerns the draymen who by 1861 numbered five, being, perhaps, an indication of the increase in the number of deliveries consequent upon the rising number of tied houses throughout the previous decade.

Paternalism was a noticeable feature of the brewing industry in general and although the 'in season' working hours were particularly long and unregulated the wages were fairly generous. Continuity of employment was encouraged by allowances and payment of bonuses, a traditional feature of the trade. Such features not only engendered loyalty but ensured a quiescent workforce compared to other trades. (16) One such 'perk' was payment to draymen of 'tun' or 'butt' money upon delivery of fresh stocks of beer. (17) Another was rent free or subsidised housing for the company workers. In 1857 six known employees were recorded as living in accommodation belonging to the brewery with two others living in cottages forming part of the estate of the late Edward Gaggs. (18) An entry in the accounts of George Carter refers to George Sleight, a brewery maltster who lived in a company owned cottage next to the Sun Inn, Hill Top, who is: -

"...to occupy cottage as part of wage", (19)

A further consideration was the annual subscription made by John Carter, (in common with other local organisations and institutions), to the Pontefract Dispensary in order to ensure treatment for his employees in the event of accidents arising from their workaday activities. The payment of a guinea a year represented a sound investment at minimal cost for the mental assurance afforded to an impoverished worker by this step was incalculable and therefore a strong inducement to corporate bonding. (20)

Paternalism is also evident in respect of more routine illness as shown in the case of Jarvis Winn. An entry in the company accounts dated 14th April 1866, records a gift of £3-8-0 to the 44-year-old former company traveller: -

"....as a present for faithful service and toward his doctor's bill". (21)

The gift was clearly a benevolent gesture on the part of the employer who also appears to have continued to provide work for the stricken employee in an alternative capacity for at the time of the 1871 Census Winn was employed as a company drayman.

In 1881 sixteen Knottingley residents were employed by the brewery. Joshua Hucklebey is the sole recorded brewer although it is known that the chief brewer at that date was George Hartley who although in effect the brewery manager was more commonly referred to as the company brewer in the firm's accounts. (22) The 1881 Census also refers to one John Gillot as a "brewer's journeyman" which may imply direct involvement in the brewing process but given the expansion in productive capacity by that date may, in a broader interpretation, indicate employment in a wider context, perhaps as an assistant to the long serving cooper, William Fox, who was still being paid for extra work at that time. (23) Six general labourers are also recorded in 1881, one of whom, William Reynolds, had worked for the firm for more than thirty years. The draymen numbered four and there was one maltster, a reduction of one in each group since the previous census. The numbers do not necessarily indicate a reduction in the workforce generally for the data is confined to township residence and therefore precludes employees residing beyond the parish boundaries. However, despite increased capacity some reduction may have occurred in specific areas of employment. The increased recourse to the railway as a means of out-of-town delivery may have reduced the need for the number of draymen while technological advance (which had for instance rendered seasonal production obsolete) may have accelerated production to the point where manpower reductions could be made in particular stages of the process. Indeed, some indication of an increase in mechanisation is indicated by the fact that Charles Dawrant, the sole "engine tenter" of 1871 was joined at some point during the following decade by William Earl who is similarly designated. (24)

Not unnaturally, given the heavy nature of the work, the full-time employees of the company were males. There is, however, an example of the use of female labour in a casual capacity for light duty maintenance work. For example, an item of company expenditure dated 4th December 1880, records the sum of £1-4-0. paid to six local women for pricking (unblocking) the holes in the floor of the drying kiln. Three of the women bear the surnames of labourers employed by the company on a regular basis, suggesting that the wives of employees of the firm were given preference for occasional work. (25)

Detail concerning the company's administrative staff is more profuse than that concerning rank and file employees. The company clerks in 1851 were Marmaduke William Watson and William Bellwood White, the former also serving as the company traveller. (26) Within a decade Watson, middle aged but in poor health, had been designated as the company bookkeeper at an annual salary of £64. (27) Only fractionally less well paid was Henry Lewis who earned £63 per year and whose duties, though undefined may also have been a company traveller since the accounts of the period indicate that he was provided with a pony and trap. (28) Another traveller, Henry Skelsey, seems to have replaced Lewis for the name of the latter ceases to feature in the company books in 1861. Skelsey was employed as a traveller in January 1861, at a salary of £48 per year. (29) An obvious deterioration in the health of Marmaduke Watson is apparent from the fact that from early in 1863 it became necessary for Skelsey to undertake some of Watson's duties at intermittent periods of the year. Consequently, Skelsey's salary was increased to £6-13-4. per month from February to reflect the extra responsibility. (30) In February 1864, the company accounts show the sum of £16-13-4., balance of salary paid to the: -

"...late traveller, W.Watson, we having agreed to give him three months’ salary in lieu of notice on account of his having a long illness." (31)

In April 1864, Skelsey's salary was further increased to £84 per annum (32) and this was raised to £100 in July of that year. (33) Skelsey's services seem to have been particularly appreciated for in addition to his frequent salary increases he was also allowed half the yearly rent of his company owned house,

"This is a present over his salary." (34)

as well as being afforded occasional gifts such as the money for the trip to the seaside in 1865. (35) Following Watson's departure and Skelsey's rapid elevation in status a man named Kerry was appointed as a company traveller at a yearly salary of £90. (36) In September 1876, however, a deficiency of £235 was discovered in Kerry's account and he was dismissed. The affair seems to have been settled by private agreement with Kerry's solicitor making good £100 of the deficiency. (37) Kerry's defalcation appears to have boosted Skelsey's worth for by 1877 he was earning £130 a year. Nevertheless, for unrecorded reasons he decided to quit. An entry in the accounts dated 28th February, 1877, reads: -

"Skelsey - month's wage....plus £5 on leaving having been 14 years here." (38)

An interesting comparison of status arising from perceived value to the company is seen by reference to William Peck who, in March, 1884, received £1 as a gift: -

"....on his leaving for America - worked here for 14 years." (39)

Skelsey was succeeded by S.S.Kay at an annual salary of £140. (40) However, within two years Kay was dismissed by the company for dishonesty. (41) In November, 1878, the local newspaper reported that Samuel Sprentall Kaye, (sic) a confidential clerk with Carter's Brewery, had been charged with embezzlement. As a result of evidence given by George Hartley, Brewery Manager, and Mary Ann Jackson of the Cherry Tree Inn, Knottingley, Kay was found guilty and sentenced to four month's hard labour. (42) Of Kay's successor, Thorp, (sic) nothing is known beyond the fact that his name appears in the record of cash paid weekly into the brewery's general account for a short period.

By January 1879, Edwin Lawson had been appointed chief clerk at a salary of £140 per annum (44) which was increased to £150 by the following month. (45) Thorp may have been a temporary replacement for in August 1880, a new company traveller, R.Heptinstall, was appointed at the same renumeration as Lawson. (46) Other clerks recorded in the company's employ about that time are R.Heptinstall Junior, G.L.Hartley, Thomas Green, J. Barratt and Wm. Bellwood White. (47)

The brewery workforce had increased to some 40 employees by 1870. The increased size, particularly in the clerical staff is an indication of the growing volume of trade. Whilst the increased application of steam power allied to technological advance had resulted in adjustment to the occupational pattern within the workforce, a general stabilisation in the workforce is discernible during the final quarter of the nineteenth century. The rise of the tied house system, development of systematic accountancy, legislative decree and the attendant bureaucracy engendered by these developments had increased the need for clerical workers and the accompanying degree of responsibility undertaken by the administrative staff is reflected in the size and regularity of increase in the salaries of the principal personnel, particularly from the late 1860s. An inflationary factor in the calculation of salaries following the death of John Carter may have been George Carter's lack of practical knowledge compared to that of his father. John Carter had been brought up within the confines of the business and therefore had a first-hand knowledge of all aspects of the trade born of everyday experience. George Carter, for his part, had followed academic and legal studies which had constrained his practical experience of brewing and confined his knowledge of the company's affairs to a few years shortly before the death of his father. Whilst it cannot be gainsaid that George was an intelligent, able man his ability was best exhibited in the sphere of administration and theory rather than in the practical aspects of the trade. Even with regard to company administration the period was one of increasing complexity and turbulence, making George far more dependent upon senior staff than was the case in his father's days.

At the hub of the practical side of the business was the chief brewer. At the time of the 1841 Census, John Proctor, the earliest known Head Brewer at Gaggs, Carter & Co., was merely listed as a 'brewer's labourer', suggesting that he was then in a subordinate position to that held a decade later.

By 1851, Prokter, (sic) aged 50, occupied the company house adjacent to the Mill Close brewery, customarily the residence of the Head Brewer. (48) It is clear that Proctor had succeeded to the position of chief brewer at some undisclosed point during the previous decade. Likewise, the identity of his predecessor is unrecorded.

One may conject that the post was held by William Hirst who, as stated earlier, resided at Hill Top in June 1841, at which time he was described as being 60 years old and of independent means. (c.f. Chapter 2, pp17-18) The absence of detail concerning Hirst's commercial activity as a self-employed common brewer and the close social connection with John Carter, together with the fact that Hirst and Mark Carter were near contemporaries, prompts one to speculate that Hirst was the Head Brewer for Gaggs, Carter & Co. during the early decades of the firm's existence and that he had recently retired and been succeeded by Proctor at the time of the 1841 Census. (49) Proctor appears to have died sometime before his sixtieth year for by the time of the 1861 Census his wife, Mary, is recorded as a "brewer's widow". An entry in the brewery accounts of November 1869, reveals the gift of 10 shillings made by John Carter

"....to Mary Proctor - wife of the late brewer." (50)

The identity of Proctor's successor is also unclear. The 1861 Census lists three men employed by the company as brewers. The 61-year-old John Braithwaite seems to be the most senior in terms of both age and service, being listed as a brewer ten years earlier. A further indication of Braithwaite's status is provided by an entry in the company books dated 26th May 1870, which reveals the sum of £2 as a present to one John: -

"....for trouble in getting us a brewer." (51)

As Braithwaite does not feature in the 1871 Census it seems probable that he may have died some time before, hence the necessity for the company to procure a new brewer. The attempt to find a successor to Braithwaite was apparently no easy task. for a further entry in the company records, dated 7th November 1872, states: -

"£5 present to John Smith for trouble in getting us a brewer." (52)

It would appear that the developing state of the trade at that time with its rapid expansion and technological development demanded the appointment of a person who in addition to the traditional areas of expertise could also offer an additional degree of management skills. In addition, it is not improbable that John Carter, being aware of the developing trend and mindful of his son and heir's inexperience was particularly anxious to obtain the best available person. For these reasons promotion from within the existing ranks of the company was no longer an automatic option. Exactly who filled the position pro tem between 1870-72 is not known. The Census of 1871 contains the appellation 'brewer' only in respect of John Carter himself but given his age and known state of health at that time it is improbable that he undertook the practical responsibility but more probably kept a close supervisory role.

John Smith, from whom Carter sought assistance in the recruitment of his brewer, was a Sheffield based brewer who may have formed a friendship with Carter during the latter's association with the Eldon Street Brewery more than a decade earlier. Carter seems to have had considerable respect for Smith's knowledge of the trade, having previously made him a gift of £5 in August, 1868: -

"...for advice re our new improvements." (53)

Smith cast his net quite widely as shown by Carter’s reference to expenses of: -

"19/- at Bradford engaging a new brewer." (54)

The ubiquitous Smith appears to have solved Carter's problem by finding George Hartley who was engaged by Carter in the Autumn of 1872. Hartley was apparently employed in the capacity of Brewery Manager and is frequently designated as such by outside agencies and individuals although within the company Hartley is referred to somewhat less importantly as 'the brewer', a fact which may be indicative of George Carter's attitude to his role and status. (55)

Hartley was engaged at a wage of £5 per week (56) but the job carried additional emoluments. One benefit was residence at the company house next to the brewery where Hartley appears to have lived rent free while his contemporaries who comprised the senior staff within the company although enjoying subsidised accommodation were charged a nominal rent. Thus, when early in 1882, George Carter built new semi-detached premises for the brewer and the chief clerk, Edwin Lawson, the latter paid £13 per year while the former lived rent free. (57) The company accounts also reveal additional payments to Hartley as commission for assisting in the purchase of public houses for the company (58) whilst a further source of income was obtained by collecting the rents of the cottages belonging to the company. Prior to Hartley's appointment this task had been undertaken by one Walker who received the sum of £50 annually for the work. (59) Hartley collected the cottage rents until January 1884, when he was succeeded by Edwin Lawson. (60) In addition to formal earnings Hartley also received many gratuities. Such gifts were usually given at Christmas when along with other members of the salaried staff Hartley received a token payment in appreciation of the voluntary work he had undertaken throughout the year. The company accounts for 24th December 1875, record payment of £45 in respect of nine weeks wages plus £20 for "extra work during the year." (61) Similarly, in December 1881: -

"G.Hartley - for services during the year - £40" (62)

and again, the following year: -

"G.Hartley for year's extra services. £15. (63)

The value of such services to the business is seen by comparison of the sums received with those donated to other members of the clerical staff. When Hartley received £40 in 1881, Lawson and Heptinstall were each given £1 and two other clerks 10 shillings each whilst the office juniors each received 5 shillings. (64) On an earlier occasion, Kay, the Company traveller, and the clerks had all received casks of ale as gratuities (65) but it is noticeable that Hartley's gift was always a monetary one.

How Hartley's earnings compared to those of previous company brewers is conjectural but undoubtedly his status as Brewer/Manager would ensure that he was paid well in excess of the sums received by earlier incumbents. In addition, the changed conditions of the trade doubtless imposed a far heavier workload upon Hartley than that experienced by his predecessors. However, the wide disparity between Hartley's salary and that of his nearest contemporary within the company is a reflection of his skill as well as a measure of his responsibilities. Earlier brewers had doubtless enjoyed such a differential, providing them with a degree of prosperity far beyond that of their fellow workers. Something of such prosperity and status is seen by reference to Hirst to whom John Carter was testamentary executor. (66) and when Hirst's widow died in December 1871, she was sufficiently wealthy to be able to leave a legacy in excess of £60 to Margaret Hartley, who appears to have been a domestic servant in Carter's employ. (67)

The diminution in the size of the gratuity paid to Hartley in 1882 is somewhat puzzling although there are indications of problems at the brewery between 1882 and 1884 which may offer an explanation. In October 1882, two sums totalling £2-5-0., plus £1 for railway fares was paid to Thomas Goodwin of London: -

"....for advising respecting Brewing & Co." (68)

while in March,1883, the sum of £15-15-0. was paid to Frank Faulkner Esq., of Crosswell's Brewery, Oldbury, Birmingham: -

"....for advice given respecting the Brewery and brewing for one week." (69)

Later the same month George Carter visited the Spring Lane Brewery, Sheffield, to consult a Mr Hands. (70) Unfortunately, the company records provide no details concerning the nature of the problem but the fact incidental references suggest that a serious situation had developed with which Hartley was unable to deal, though whether from inexperience or incapacity is unclear. It is known that Hartley continued in the employ of the company until early in 1884 for he is recorded in the company accounts as having paid in the cottage rents on the 7th January that year. (71) Thereafter the payee is Edwin Lawson and at the end of the year the record shows"Extra allowance to Edwin Lawson for the year 1884 (barley buying & extra work looking after the men & Co.)" (72)

There are also indications that Heptinstall Senior, who also received a gratuity of £5, assisted Lawson in undertaking the duties previously associated with Hartley. (73) Clearly, Hartley had departed from the scene early in 1884 although the reason for his departure is not known.

A new brewer, William Griffiths Forster, was appointed shortly afterwards. Forster is known to have occupied the company brewer's house in May 1884, but does not appear in the company books in January the following year. (74) The company books also record the purchase of new furniture and equipment for the brewer's office following Forster's appointment, suggesting that he held the post of Brewer/Manager, notwithstanding Lawson and Heptinstall's additional work in 1884. (75) Forster's tenure seems to have been a short one for by 1887 the office of Brewery Manager was held by Edwin Lawson. (76)

An incidental insight into one of the tasks of a social nature which it was the duty of the incumbent brewer to organise was the annual dinner provided for the workforce. The function took place during the first quarter of each year and was held at one of the company's tied houses in Knottingley, a different venue being chosen each year. In April 1877, George Carter paid for 44 dinners at 2s6d each, the meal being prepared by George Green, tenant of the Railway Hotel. (77) The following year, Mrs Jackson of the Cherry Tree Inn catered for the annual feast which was held in March. (78) Mrs Jackson had done the honours in 1875 when the gathering was held in January (79) while Mrs Bews of the Anchor Inn had prepared the function the following January. (80)

The size of the workforce is indicated by the number of meals provided and varied between 42 and 44 which, allowing for the presence of George Carter and guests of honour suggests a labour force of about 40 men, a number confirmed by the Census data of 1881. The advent of a severe economic depression is known to have had an adverse effect on the trade of some local pubs. In October, 1882, for instance, William Whitaker of the Duke of York Inn was granted an abatement of £2 in his annual rent "allowed for bad times". (81) The following year a concession of £1 was allowed to the tenant of the Anchor Inn for the same reason. (82) At such times those local inns of sufficient size to offer the requisite facilities must have welcomed the boost to trade afforded by catering for the firm's annual dinner. In this respect it is worthy of note that both John and George Carter regularly subscribed to functions held by local groups and organisations at the company's public houses. Thus, in April 1873, the company accounts show: -

" £1 - gift to the Glassblowers towards dinner held at the Cherry Tree." (83)

and similar subsidies are recorded elsewhere. (84)

Reference to the type of occupation followed by the brewery workforce has indicated that malting and brewing were both undertaken on the Mill Close site. It was common practice for provincial brewers to combine both activities in the early nineteenth century when output was relatively small and the prosperity and reputation of the brewery depended upon the personal judgement of the brewer through his selection of malt and other ingredients used in the productive process. (85)

The production of the malt on site depended upon the availability of space to enable the storage of large quantities of barley from which the malt was made. Granaries and kilns were substantial buildings with thick brick walls and long low roofs which because of their size required massive wooden beams and substantial pillars to support their weight. (86)

Unconstrained by limitations of space due to the foresight of John Carter in obtaining the land surrounding the brewery, the Mill Close site was extensive enough to enable the manufacture of malt in quantities which appear to have made the company self-sufficient until the 1860s. Apart from considerations of quality control previously mentioned, there were compelling reasons for undertaking on site production. A parliamentary Select Committee appointed in 1867 to examine the effect of the Malt Tax reported that the cost per quarter of on-site production was between 3s and 3/6d., which, even allowing for expenditure on fuel, rent and labour, compared favourably with the price of 5s per quarter commonly charged by specialist maltsters. (87) In addition, anomalies in the system of payment of Excise Duty favoured the brewer who produced his own malt. (88) Thus, even when the development of the rail network made possible the economic transportation of bulk materials and assisted the rise of specialist malting companies to cater for small and medium sized country breweries a proportion of the malt used by the Knottingley brewery continued to be manufactured on site. Even as late as the 1860s when social changes had substantially increased the brewery's output the company accounts provide little indication of the intake of malt from external sources. As the character of the brew depended upon the malt used and the size of the firm's profit was governed as much by the variable cost of malt and hops as by increased sales it is apparent that the company would strive to remain self-sufficient in malt production. (89) Such was particularly the case during the period 1830-80 when excise duty was calculated on the amount of malt used in beer production.

By the 1870s, however, the demand for beer had outstripped the company's ability to produce sufficient malt to meet its needs and the company records reveal the names of a dozen or so suppliers of malt throughout the following decades. An entry of August 1873, records the delivery of an unspecified quantity of malt from the Pontefract based maltsters, Moxon & Co., who also had kilns at Knottingley. (90) A second Pontefract firm which supplied the brewery was that of Walter Barker whose family was engaged in malting within the Borough for at least three generations. Barker supplied Knottingley brewery with 21 bushels of malt at a cost of eight guineas in 1878, but this appears to have been a casual transaction unlike those concerning Moxon & Co., with whom the brewery had an open account. (91) Other casual suppliers whose names feature in the company books are Swales, Dawson, Machin and Wass Bros. Apart from the latter who traded from nearby Brotherton, the locations of these suppliers are unrecorded in the brewery accounts.

The maltsters who supplied the brewery on a regular basis are few and were presumably carefully selected. Of the regulars the principal supplier was Stephen Chadwick of Brotherton, but the names of C.Cooper, Aberford, William Boothman, Kellington, and J.B.Coward, frequently feature in the company books. (92) It is a matter of regret that the brewery books whilst recording precise payments for malt received rarely show the quantities delivered. A payment of £145 in respect of 50 quarters made to Cooper in November 1876, records a price of 58s per qtr. (93) A further entry dated April 1876, states a price of 58s 6d per qtr for 85 qtrs purchased of Stephen Chadwick at a total cost of £248-12-6. (94) These two entries reveal the slight variation in price per qtr. which is a regular feature of the accounts even over a period as short as a week, the differential presumably being dictated by considerations of quality or scarcity affecting the local market value.

The brewery regularly paid substantial sums for malt. Moxon’s received £1,250 in August 1873, (95) and an equal amount was paid to the same firm in April the following year (96) It would seem that these payments represent the total annual settlement of the open account but payments of a more piecemeal nature are also recorded. For example, in April 1873, £467 was paid to Chadwick, he having already received £340 for malt delivered in January. (97) Between January and April 1875, Chadwick was paid sums well in excess of £350 on three separate occasions and similar sums were paid to him in both January and February the following season (98) with a payment on the same scale being made to Boothman later in that year. (99) Payment of sums ranging between £100-£300 are a common feature of the brewery accounts at this period. Coward received £292 in December 1876, (100) and the ubiquitous Chadwick received £200 in November 1877, and in January 1878. (101)

An interesting item is the payment of £27-7-0 for patent malt to the London firm of French & Jupps in September 1878. The purchase marks a departure in that it not only involves a firm from beyond the immediate district but as the entry indicates, a patented commodity and may therefore reveal an innovation in the process of production at the brewery. (102)

It is significant that the company accounts show a gradual decrease in the frequency of malt deliveries to the brewery after February 1878, with no deliveries between December of that year and March 1880, and no further intake at all after that date. (103) The decline was prompted by a twofold development. Firstly, a new maltkiln was built upon the brewery site in 1879. The company paid ×12 to C.V.Fison of Stowmarket, for 300 kiln tiles which were probably used in the construction of the new building, the erection of which may well have restored the company to a state of self-sufficiency. (104) Secondly, the reconstituted excise duty arising from the Inland Revenue Act of 1880 resulted in a shift from malt to the use of sugar for economic considerations, thereby considerably reducing the amount of malt required by the brewery. Company records provide frequent incidental glimpses of malt production at the brewery. An item of September 1874, records the purchase of six malt shovels from R.Mortimore, Leeds, at a cost of 4s each. (105) In December 1875, nine wooden malt shovels were purchased at the same price, together with three pairs of slippers at 3s6d. per pair, for use by the maltsters when turning the malt lying on the wooden drying floor. (106) A further entry dated October 1877, records 2s3d. paid to Mason for shoes for the maltster (107) whilst an item of July 1874, shows the payment of 17s7d. to: -

"....the maltster for carriage of his goods from Gainsbro." (108)

Naturally, with profuse supplies of malt, not to mention storage of oats, hay, horse corn and beans which were liberally supplied to the brewery and required storage on site, pest control was an important aspect. The role of the brewery dog (whose maintenance costs feature intermittently in the company accounts) may have extended beyond guarding the premises but additional measures were also undertaken periodically. An account of 3rd January 1874, shows 3s3d. paid to: -

"Pybus for ratcatching and journey from Kellington." (109)

Pybus is known to have been an out-of-town employee of the company and therefore appears to have undertaken the above work as an extra duty.

Malt, being an essential part of the brewer's stock in trade as well as serving more common dietary requirements, it is hardly surprising that in addition to the maltkilns on the brewery site, others were established at Knottingley. Indeed, the township had long established connections with the trade. A sketch map of Aire Street dated 1594, features a substantial kilnhouse situated alongside the river Aire at the east end of the Town's Street. (110) The existence of such a building adjacent to the river is an indication of the early use of the Aire for the transport of barley or finished malt from the corn fields of the East Riding, Lincolnshire and East Anglia and bespeaks the profitability of this trade in association with the brewing of ale.

The traditional custom of home brewing followed by the establishment of common breweries and allied to the growing population within the town and the district at large appears to have stimulated the founding of commercial maltings at Knottingley. The earliest indication of maltkilns in this context dates from 1836 when Sarah Shillito, a widow, and Thomas Shillito, maltster and limeburner, conveyed property to John Brown of the Cherry Tree Inn, Knottingley. Significantly, John Carter was one of the trustees named in the transaction. (111) A further transaction concerning the trustees of William Cawthorn, of whom Mark and John Carter are numbered is dated February 1846, and concerns the purchase of property at Knottingley, including premises which are described as being formerly used as a maltkiln. (112)

The earliest named proprietor is William Moxon whose name features in the lists of local ratepayers of May 1844 and April 1845 in respect of possession of a malt kiln belonging to Mr Long of the Old Hall, Hill Top. A contemporary of Moxon was Francis England who in 1848, occupied a maltings situated between Manor Fold and Fernley Green. (113) By the mid nineteenth century, Daniel Thorpe worked a maltkiln on the site of the Swan Inn and William Moxon was the owner/occupier of the site formerly held by England, consisting of a kiln and yard 22 perches in extent with a rateable value of £25. (114) Moxon also occupied two smaller sites, both about five perches in size, one being owned by Thomas Burton and the other belonging to Edward Tomlinson, owner and former proprietor of the Ferrybridge pottery. (115) William Moxon died in 1857 but the holdings are recorded in his name in the valuation list two years later (116) although the maltkiln and yard at Low Green is stated to be "in hand", being in the charge of Moxon's executors, suggesting that it was not operational at that date, a fact confirmed by the drastic reduction in the rateable value. (117) However, Moxons continued to use the site for in December 1876, the Select Vestry resolved to make a charge upon Mr Moxon for damage done by the firm's wagons to the footpath in front of the maltkiln at Low Green and request him to prevent his men from causing future obstruction there. (118) The firm continued to manufacture malt at the Fernley Green site for more than a decade thereafter, being recorded in rateable valuations as late as 1894. The site was in fact, retained by Moxons until early in the present century when it was then leased by Robert F. Turner. (119)

Thomas Burton's site was obviously surrendered by the Moxons sometime before 1881 for at that date it is shown to be occupied by William Addy who had recently taken the business over from a tenant named Coward, both having held the tenancy from Burton's executors, the rateable value being £17 at that date. (120) In 1884 the site was occupied by William Johnson. (121)

A further maltkiln, situated in Banks Lane and owned by James and Thomas Bentley is also recorded in 1881 and again in 1884, although no tenant is named. The rateable value suggests that its size was about the same as Burton's site. (122) Yet another maltkiln is shown to be in the possession of George Carter's arch political rival, Sydney Woolf, in the 1881 list. (123) Situated on pottery land, the site was stated to be part of the estate of Lewis Woolf in 1884, and was most probably that recorded earlier as belonging to Edward Tomlinson. (124) Another maltkiln in the ownership of Elizabeth Dickenson was listed in 1887. A valuation of £17-6-0. on the site had been subsequently erased and the sum of £3-10-0. inserted, again suggesting that the premises were standing disused. (125) The location of this maltkiln appears to be Manor Farm, a property purchased by the Dickensons in June, 1866: the deed of purchase specifically mentioning a maltkiln standing on the site. (126)

Barley, from which the malt was made, was supplied to Knottingley brewery from diverse sources. A modest amount of the overall quantity was grown within the township where despite the rapid industrial development which took place in the final quarter of the nineteenth century, small farmsteads continued to exist throughout the period. Indeed, the Common which had been enclosed to form agricultural land late in the previous century and the large tract of land which had formed the open fields of the township lay in a continuous swathe along the south side of the town (broken only by lime quarries and a few scattered houses) between its eastern and western boundaries, giving the town a rural character. Even the densest areas of population such as Aire Street and its environs (Chapel Street and Marsh End), Racca Green, with its encroachment on Cow Lane and the canalside, and Fearnley (Low) Green, were liberally studded with small farmsteads, some of which were still being worked during the early life of the writer and traces of which remain today.

The farmsteads were principally occupied by residents for whom farming was a secondary occupation; a supplementary source of income. An example of this duality is William Worfolk, a ship and boat builder whose yard and home were located near Skew Bridge. Worfolk who also owned half the former manor of Knottingley, farmed 19 acres of his holding, employing one man in its cultivation. (127) Likewise, John Curtis, landlord of the Commercial Inn, Bendles, Cow Lane, features in various trade directories throughout the century as "innkeeper and farmer". The 1871 Census records Curtis as the holder of 57 acres, a portion of which, incidentally, was rented from John Carter. (128) Other citizens with similar agricultural interests, all of whom feature in the brewery records, include Silvester Saul, John Skipworth Bentley, Benjamin Heald, Francis Creaser, Senior Steel, William Spence and Brian and David Tate. Of these a few, such as the Tates and William Spence had sufficiently large holdings to provide them with their sole means of livelihood. (129)

Not surprisingly, the quantities of barley supplied to the brewery by the part-time smallholders were limited, rarely being more than 40 quarters and more frequently half that amount. (130) More substantial amounts were produced by the farmers of the neighbouring districts who had farms of several hundred acres. It is not until the 1860s, however, that the Company accounts refer to regular supplies of barley being obtained from these outlying sources. A record of November 1860 refers to barley being delivered from Stubbs and shortly afterwards from Bentley. Thereafter regular monthly purchases are featured, sometimes from three or four different sources. (131) A random selection of names of farmers who supplied barley to the brewery within the space of a single month in 1873 reveals the following names and locations:-

Marshall & Sons, Smeaton
Metcalf, Kellington
Poskitt, Birkin
Jolliff, Kellingley
Conder, Pontefract
Lindley, Ferrybridge
Stoker, Hambleton
Hewitt, Ackton (132)

The list of suppliers, together with the Ingles and the Wiltons of the Cridling Park farmsteads (133) and numerous others from the surrounding rural area indicates the degree of involvement by local farmers but more importantly the contribution of the brewery in the economics of local agriculture. While the quantity of barley supplied from the outlying farms sometimes mirrored the small amounts received from the townsmen (and on one notable occasion actually consisted of a single sack of barley valued at 6s8d.) (134) the loads were more frequent and generally in the range of 50-250 quarters.

As with the hay and oats obtained by the brewery, the purchase of barley crops was frequently made in anticipation of the harvest. Such arrangements often involved considerable advanced payments. David Tate of Knottingley received £200: -

"on account of barley to come in"

in October 1878. (135) Similarly, John Ingle was a frequent recipient of such payments, receiving two advances of £200, one of £100 and several of between £50-£100 on various occasions during the 1870s, (136) whilst such advances were made to half a dozen other suppliers during the same decade. (137) It is of passing interest to note that several local farmers conducted ale accounts with the brewery company as shown by the fact that on occasion the sum paid by the company for barley was either wholly or partially used to settle outstanding ale accounts. (138) In this respect the transaction is redolent of an earlier age when the bulk of company's trade was undertaken via private clients.

Not all consignments of barley were of district origin, however. The accounts show a payment of £239-6-6. to Westenholtz Bros., London, for a supply of barley in October 1880. (139) This and similar deliveries from beyond the immediate area are less a consequence of the railway age and more a continuation of the waterborne trade plying the east coast and inland navigations, developed in an earlier age. A glimpse of such trade is seen in the payment of freight on 123 quarters of barley shipped from Hull with £1-14-0. paid to the Navigation Co. as dues on the same. (140)

The following table provides an approximation of the amount of barley received by the company during the period 1873-81

NOTE: The table published here records the annual figures and not the individual monthly figures as documented in Terry Spencer's original study.

In a few instances the quantities purchased have been estimated as the amount paid was recorded in the account books, but no figures were given concerning the size of the delivery or the price paid per quarter. In such cases I have applied the price paid per quarter in the nearest dated transaction in order to calculate the amount of barley purchased and the cost per quarter. On a very few occasions the price paid was for barley and a small quantity of bran or oats. As these latter commodities were relatively cheap and I had no way to differentiate the cost of individual amounts I have calculated the entire sum as being paid solely for barley. For these reasons the figures are somewhat distorted and may only be considered as being a rough guide. The amounts paid are, however, totally reliable.

The overall pattern indicates a rising intake of barley between 1873-74 and 1877-78, stabilising the following season and then declining considerably in 1879-80. The data for 1880-81 whilst incomplete may be gauged for the amounts recorded in previous seasons and shows a dramatic decline in the amount of barley purchased by the company which can only be explained as being due to a deliberate cut back by the brewery following the scope for alternative methods of brewing afforded by the Inland Revenue Act of 1880. The productive development of the company is reflected in the increase in the seasonal tonnage between 1873-79. Naturally, the increase in the seasonal tonnage is largely reflected in the total amounts paid for the same. However, natural factors such as weather and blight were contributory elements dictating the quantitative and qualitative aspects of each season's harvest and such considerations in turn dictated market prices.

The reorganisation of the excise duties in 1880 provided the conditions for the "free mash tun" by removing the onus on the brewer to use malt. The system enabled the brewer to mash how and when he pleased and was therefore the prelude to a period of experimentation and innovation. Greater recourse was made to the use of sugar and sugar substitutes. The use of this agent had been legalised by an act of 1847 but the material was used sparingly until the conditions for its use were made more attractive by the high price of malt in 1866, sugar, pound for pound, being more economical than malt.(142) Reasons of economy compounded the hiatus for in 1856 the duty on sugar stood at 6s6d. per hundredweight and although the price was drastically reduced to 3s9d. the following year, it was only the abolition of sugar duty in 1880 which provided a sufficiently good economic incentive for regular utilisation. Nevertheless, the growing public taste for sweet, light beer from the 1870s had resulted in the increased use of sugar to the beer brewed at Knottingley during that decade, albeit in vastly disproportionate amounts to the quantity of malt used. The fact is emphasised by the paucity of entries concerning sugar in the company accounts before 1880. An entry of 7th October, 1880 shows payment of £17-19-0 to S.Bernstein & Sons, Liverpool, as the outstanding balance on the existent sugar account. The most significant indication of the increase in the use of sugar is the record of duty paid in each of the four quarters of the year 1880, although the figures are less than complete as an indication of annual quantity since the abolition of the duty in the autumn of that year curtailed the sum paid in lieu of the final quarter.

The switch from malt, and indeed, from sugar itself, is clearly indicated by an entry in the company accounts dated 9th September 1879. The item shows the purchase of 95 hundredweight of saccharine from the Masbro Saccharine Co. at a cost of 21 shillings per cwt., with a discount of £2-10-0. (144) Some idea of the quantities used and the frequency of delivery may be obtained by reference to subsequent entries made within a short period following the initial purchase. The Masbro Saccharine Co. (which notwithstanding its name was London based) supplied a further 111 cwts of white saccharine on the 18th of October 1879, (145) a further 80 cwt. the following month (146) and yet another 80 cwt. in December 1879 (147) and an additional 40 cwt. the following May. (148) The total cost, less discount, amounted to £319-19-0. Simultaneously, saccharine was obtained from Bernstein & Sons through the company's sugar account. (149) Supplies from this source were even more substantial, 7 tons being delivered in two consignments early in 1880 at a cost of £136-5-0. and it is of interest to note that although, unlike their rival company, Bernsteins' offered no discount, they do appear to have included the cost of delivery in the price of the material supplied.

An essential ingredient in the production of beer was hops. Hops were introduced from the Low Countries in the fifteenth century to provide the distinctive flavour and aroma of beer. It is unsurprising therefore that the principal hop producing region should be Kent although Hereford and Worcester are also hop producing regions. Excise duty on hops was first imposed in 1710, the levy being 1d. per 1lb. The Act which sanctioned the duty also prohibited the use of substitute materials and was subject to annual review. (151) As in the case of malt, the Napoleonic Wars resulted in an increase in the rate of duty which doubled the original duty by 1805, before falling back in 1815-16, being 1d. per llb. in 1862 when the duty was repealed. (152)

The first reference to the purchase of hops by Knottingley brewery post dates the repeal of the excise duty. In October 1864 John Carter was paid £5-10-0. for

"expenses in London buying hops." (153)

Carter appears to have made annual visits to the Capital, for a similar claim for expenses incurred whilst in London buying hops is recorded the following September. (154) The purchase was not confined to a single supplier, however, for the records reveal deliveries from Story & Smith (155) and John Clark, (156) Wollinson & Co., (157) Wood & Field (158) and Wolton Son & Co., (159) all being London based companies. There is an indication of hops being delivered from southern regions by coastal shipping routes, a premium of £2-5-4. being paid to J.Sutcliffe & Sons, Grimsby, as insurance on hops, in December 1877. (160) Other companies from whom the commodity was obtained were Jacob Erenbacher & Co., Liverpool, (161) H.J.Frikins of Worcester, (162) and Kitchen & Ashworth, whose whereabouts are unrecorded. (163) Small quantities of hops were occasionally obtained from local sources. John Waller of Pontefract was paid £19 for supplying hops and casks in 1874 (164) while Richard Askham provided hops to the value of 2 guineas in 1876 (165) and E.Greenwood of Clifford, York, delivered 8 quarters 24 cwts., valued at £5, in 1874. (166) The quantities delivered are seldom recorded but the frequency and size of recorded payments indicates that large amounts were used.

Clark received £341-7-0. for a consignment in January,1874, having delivered hops to the value of £65-14-0. only three months earlier. (167) In the second half of 1875, Wollinson & Co. received respective payments of £107-12-6. and £742-6-6. for deliveries in June and November, (168) whilst in December the sum of £130-12-0 was paid to Kitchen & Ashworth and £313 to Hutchence. (169) Again, in 1876, Wolten & Co.were paid £533 and Wood & Field received a total of £332-14-6. for consignments in April and October, the latter being valued at £245-8-0. (170)

As with quantities, the types of hop used were seldom recorded. However, an occasional item provides some indication J.H.Hutchence is shown as the supplier of 25 pos [posies?] of 'Bennetts' Goldrings' and 25 pos of 'Hutchence' at a cost of £300 in November 1877, (171) with a similar quantity being obtained from the same source later that month, a fact which may indicate experimentation with a new type of hop which found initial favour, hence the repeat order. (172) However, a variety of hops seem to have been used for in December the following year Wolton, Son & Co. supplied "12 pos 'Sussex' hops" at a cost of £51-14-0 and 15 bales of 'Alost' costing £90-5-0.(173) whilst Wood & Field sent 25 pos of an indecipherable variety together with 19 pos of 'Kent' at £231-6-6. the same month and in 1880 the company received 5 pos 'Kent' and 5 pos 'Farnham' from the retitled firm of Wood, Field & Hanbury. (174)

Small amounts of additional materials were used in beer production of which yeast and isinglass are the most important. Yeast was required to assist the fermentation of each brew and was therefore purchased in relatively small but regular quantities since freshness was essential. The earliest reference in the brewery accounts refer to the period from 3rd November to 10th December 1860, and reveal six deliveries undertaken on an almost weekly basis. The amounts purchased are unspecified, but the price paid for each delivery varied from £2-16-5. to £4-1-6.with the highest amount being paid at the end of November when, presumably, the brewing of beer for the forthcoming festive season was about to take place, requiring extra quantities of yeast. In all, the sums paid for yeast during the above period totalled £16-19-11. (175)

By 1870 the principal source of the yeast used by the brewery was Beverley Bros., Wakefield, from whom batches of about 40-44 lbs. were regularly purchased at 2d. per lb. (176) A brewery workman appears to have been despatched to obtain fresh supplies approximately every month. The accounts record: - "Beverley Bros., Wakefield, 40 lbs. yeast and Chapman's expenses, 8s6d." (177)

and again,

"Beverley Bros. 40 lbs. setting on yeast 6s8d. Man's expenses fetching same, 1s9d." (178)

and this item is repeated the following month. (179)

There are indications of supplementary sources of supply, however, to which recourse may have been made at times of unexpected need. A local source was the Brotherton maltster, Stephen Chadwick, who is on record as supplying yeast in February 1878. (180)

Before the beer was despatched for consumption a small quantity of isinglass finings were placed inside each cask. The effect of this was to cause any residual yeast to settle and thus ensure that the beer was presented in a bright, clear condition. Access to the casked brew was via a spike hole into which a wooden spigot, known as a spile, was tapped. Some idea of the profuse application and indeed, the cheapness of these pegs may be gained from the fact that a firm named Thompson's supplied 27,000 spiel pegs at a cost of only £4 during the ten months from December 1875. (181)

The first mention of isinglass in the brewery books is in June 1865, when John Carter paid £1-10-0 for a cask of finings from W.J.Coleman of Bury St. Edmunds. (182) The following month saw the purchase of two more casks from the same source. (183) The transactions seem to have been part of a regular trade for a further purchase in September records the sum of £4-2-9. "as per account". (184) A more localised supplier was Richard Moxon the maltster, who obtained isinglass for the brewery from George Foster, Barnsley, at a cost of £12-5-6. in May 1866. (185) However, as this seems to have been the sole use of this source the transaction may have been one of expediency rather than regular trade. Isinglass was also obtained from a variety of London firms of which payment to J.W.Hart of £11 in July, 1867, is the earliest found. (186) By the end of the decade the principal supplier was the London firm of Marshall & Holland, trading as the London Isinglass Co. The firm supplied 28 lbs of the material for 2s.10d. in March, 1868, at which time the brewery had an open account with the supplier. (187) Thereafter Marshall & Holland appear to have been used exclusively. Throughout the summer of 1879 substantial amounts of isinglass were supplied. It is at this time that the brewery appears to have experienced problems with its well water, and this may have resulted in an increase in the use of isinglass. (188) Whatever the cause, a crisis of some kind caused the despatch of a telegram to Marshall & Holland on the 19th of July 1879, followed by the immediate delivery of isinglass to the brewery (189) The amount of isinglass recorded as purchased by the brewery during the year from May 1879, was 288.5 quarters at a total cost of £40-16-0. (190) How typical these figures are of the average annual consumption cannot be gauged for want of relevant data.

---

NOTES: (Some details incomplete in my original copy)
(1) Lovett, op cit, p18.
(2) Mathias, op cit, p406.
(3) C.A.E. Company Account Book, October - December 1860, passim.
(4) ibid. Also, Census Returns Knottingley Township, 1851 & 1861, passim.
(5) loc cit. Company Account Book, 1860-70, folios 48 & 64.
(6) ibid. folio 102.
(7) ibid. folios 64 & 187.
(8) loc cit. Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 202.
(9) ibid. folios 70 & 102.
(10) ibid. & folio 106.
(11) loc cit. Company Account Book, 1860-70, folios 42 & 99.
(12) loc cit. Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 75.
(13) ibid. folio 129.
(14) ibid. folio 188.
(15) loc cit. Company Account Book, 1860-70, folios 1-7.
(16) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp198-200.
(17) op cit, p142.
(18) K.T.R.B. 1857, folios 47, 50 & 51.
(19) C.A.E. G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1876-85, p331.
(20) loc cit, John Carter's Private Ledger, 1837-74, folio 45 & passim.
(21) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 128.
(22) Hartley is referred to as Brewery Manager in several miscellaneous sources such as bills of sale, newspapers, etc.
(23) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1879-81, folio 58.
(24) Charles Dawrant was born at Knottingley in 1837. One of two brothers, both 'engine tenters', he maintained the brewery steam engine for over twenty years (perhaps thirty, for no precise date is available for his appointment which occurred sometime in the 1850s), whilst his younger brother looked after the engine at Woolf's Pottery, Ferrybridge. Charles Dawrant left Carter's employ about 1884 and moved with his family to Halifax. I am indebted to Mr A. Dawrant for this information.
(25) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 6.
(26) W.Y.A.S. Wakefield. SU/186/315. RK/650/747 & RO/116/127 for reference to William Bellwood White, Brewer's Clerk.
(27) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1860-71, folio 1. Also, Account Book, 1870-78, folio 163, for reference to Marmaduke William Watson as Company Bookkeeper.
(28) ibid.
(29) ibid.
(30) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-71, folios 49, 50 & passim.
(31) ibid. folio 74.
(32) ibid. folio 37.
(33) ibid. folio 84.
(34) ibid. folios 133 & 147.
(35) ibid. folio 112.
(36) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 81.
(37) ibid. folio 176.
(38) ibid. folio 188.c.f. however, a deed bearing Skelsey's signature and the designation 'bookkeeper' and dated 1-5-1877. W.Y.A.S. Wakefield 780/245/263.
(39) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 79.
(40) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folios 188 & 190.
(41) ibid. folio 236.
(42) Pontefract Advertiser, 16th November 1878.
(43) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 234.
(44) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1879-81, folio 3.
(45) ibid. folio 30.
(46) ibid. folio 46.
(47) ibid. folio 2. Also, Company account Book, 1873-80, folio 21. Also W.Y.A.S. Wakefield. 890/391/488 & 868/217/263.
(48) K.T.R.B.1857, folio 47.
(49) A contemporary source is found W.Y.A.S. Wakefield OE/204/171, 10-9-1841. which indicates Hurst (sic), as the occupant of a cottage belonging to John Carter at Hill Top adjacent to the Swan Inn. Proctor, although described as a 'brewery labourer' in the Census Return occupied the Head Brewer's house.
(50) C.A.E. Company Account Book,1860-70, folio 112.
(51) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 3.
(52) ibid. folio 71.
(53) ibid. folio 193.
(54) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 68.
(55) Pontefract Advertiser 16th November 1878. Also, Pontefract Museum, Carter File, uncatalogued papers. Notice of Auction and Bill of Sale in respect of purchase of Currier's Arms Inn, Pontefract, 1880.
(56) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1870-78, folios 141, 143, & 145. Also Company Account Book, 1879-81, folio 2.
(57) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1875-1885, p53 & p109. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 41. G.W.Carter's Private Rent Ledger, 1885-1913, p15 shows that Lawson paid an annual rent on his company owned house of ×15 during the period March 1886 - September, 1905.
(58) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 218. Also W.Y.A.S. Wakefield. 890/393/490.
(59) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 172.
(60) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folios 75 & 80. Followin Carter's withdrawal from the town in 1892, the rents continued to be collected by Lawson until his death in 1914. The task was then undertaken by Walter Swain, Clerk to Knottingley Urban District Council. c.f. loc cit, G.W.Carter (& Heirs) Private Ledger, 1906-45, folios 2 & 293. After the death of George Carter in 1920, the Knottingley properties were sold piecemeal. c.f. ibid. folios 1-3, passim.
(61) loc cit Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 154.
(62) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 21.
(63) ibid. folio 48.
(64) ibid. folio 21.
(65) ibid. folio 46.
(66) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1874-80, folio 160.
(67) loc cit, John Carter's Private Ledger, 1869-73, (n.p.) entry 19-6-1872.
(68) ibid. entries 16-2-1872 & 19-6-1872.
(69) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1881-85, folio 44.
(70) ibid. folio 53.
(71) ibid. folio 55.
(72) ibid. folios 75 & 80.
(73) ibid. folio 96.
(74) ibid. folio 98. Also, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 98. K.T.R.B.1814, folio 81 names Forster as the occupier of the 'Brewer's House' but also features Hartley's name, suggesting a recent transition.
(75) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1881-85, folio 103. Also, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 223.
(76) K.T.R.B., 1887, folio 55, names Edwin Lawson as the Brewery Manager and omits all reference to Forster.
(77) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 142.
(78) ibid. folio 167.
(79) ibid. folio 80.
(80) ibid. folio 106.
(81) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 43. Also, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 142.
(82) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 67.
(83) loc cit, Company Account Book,1860-70, folio 83.
(84) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folios 115 & 136.
(85) Mathias, op cit, pp33-34.
(86) Peaty. I.P. 'English Breweries in Old Photographs' (1988) pp89-96.
(87) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp187 & 192.
(88) Mathias, op cit, p327 f/n 2.
(89) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp193 & 212.
(90) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folios 7 & 12.
(91) ibid. folio 186.
(92) ibid. passim.
(93) ibid. folios 129 & 131.
(94) ibid. folio 141.
(95) ibid. folios 7 & 12.
(96) ibid. folio 46.
(97) ibid. folio 32.
(98) ibid. folios 108 & 134.
(99) ibid. folio 124.
(100) ibid. folio 132.
(101) ibid. folios 157 & 161.
(102) ibid. folio 179.
(103) ibid. folio 217.
(104) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Personal Ledger, 1879-81, folio 28. Also, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 215.
(105) ibid. folio 67.
(106) ibid. folio 103.
(107) ibid. folio 155.
(108) ibid. folio 116.
(109) ibid. folio 31.
(110) The map is held at the Public Record Office and is reproduced as the centrepiece in Blanchard D.(ed), op cit, Volume 2.
(111) W.Y.A.S. Wakefield. MI/144/132.
(112) loc cit, PK/297/304.
(113) K.S.V.M.Book 1840-52p100 & loc cit ,1852-61,p234. Also, Slaters Directory, 1848.
(114) K.T.R.B. 1857, folio 115.
(115) ibid. folios 11 & 67.
(116) K.T.R.B. 1859, folios 21 & 148.
(117) ibid. folios 115 & 51.
(118) K.S.V.M.B. p228.
(119) K.T.R.B.1894, folio 20 Also, K.T.R.B.1900, folio 32.
(120) K.T.R.B. 1881, folio 4.
(121) K.T.R.B. 1884, folio 67.
(122) K.T.R.B. 1881, folio 75. & loc cit, 1884, folio 79.
(123) ibid. folio 80.
(124) K.T.R.B. 1884, folio83.
(125) ibid. folio, 45.
(126) W.Y.A.S. Wakefield. ZG/278/317. Also c.f. Forrest, op cit, p53.
(127) Knottingley Census Return 1871. Also Post Office Directory 1878.
(128) C.A.E. John Carter's Private Ledger, 1860-75, p101.
(129) David Tate farmed the Greenhouse Farm, land which later became Knottingley Playing Fields, referred to colloquially as 'The Greenhouse'. William Spence's farmstead was situated in the bottom of a worked-out lime quarry in Womersley Road, previously known as Racca Lane. The farm was in existence as late as the 1980s when the site was cleared and the private housing estate known as 'The Poplars' was constructed. The new estate took its name from a line of poplar trees which had stood in front of Spence's farm which had been named 'Poplar Farm'. Needless to say, the trees were sacrificed in the name of "progress", leaving only the name to identify the past history of the site. O tempera. O mores ! .
(130) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1880-81, passim.
(131) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, passim.
(132) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folios 2 & 3 passim, entries 9th - 23rd October 1873.
(133) ibid. folios 78 & 100 & passim.
(134) ibid. folio 187.
(135) ibid. folio 180.
(136) ibid. folios 127, 108, 178, 183, 184, & passim.
(137) Names of creditors include Ingle's neighbour, William Walton, º69, ibid, folio 130; B. Coward, º80, folio 130; Thomas Marshall, º30,folio 181, Thomas Brears Jnr., º100, folio 208; William Stones, º80, folio 187; Aaron Tankard, º50, folio 185; John Rishforth, º36, folio 184.
(138) ibid. folios 209 & 219
(139) ibid. folio 2.
(140) ibid. folio 3.
(141) ibid. passim & Company Account Book, 1880-81, passim.
(142) Corrant, op cit, p267.
(143) C.A.E. G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1879-81, passim.
(144) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 203.
(145) ibid. folio 206.
(146) ibid. folio 208.
(147) ibid. folio 211.
(148) ibid. folio 224.
(149) ibid. folio 223.
(150) ibid. folio 217.
(151) Filmer R. Hops & Hop Picking, Shire Publications (1982) p16.
(152) Corrant, op cit, p172, for full details of hop duties. Also, Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p195. I am indebted to Mr N. Redman, Company Archivist, Whitbread p.l.c., for drawing my attention to the latter source.
(153) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1860-1870, folio 91.
(154) loc cit, Company Account Book,1870-78, folio 40.
(155) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 1.
(156) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-81, folios 17 & 31.
(157) ibid. folios 90 & 101.
(158) ibid. folio 112.
(159) ibid. folio 185.
(160) ibid. folio 159.
(161) ibid. folio 160
(162) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 2.
(163) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio, 117.
(164) ibid. folio 44.
(165) ibid. folio 117.
(166) ibid. folio 51.
(167) ibid. folios 17 & 31.
(168) ibid. folios 90 & 101.
(169) ibid. folio 103.
(170) ibid. folios 112 & 156.
(171) ibid. folio 157.
(172) ibid. folio 158.
(173) ibid. folio 167.
(174) ibid. folios 185 & 232.
(175) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860, folios 1-7, passim.
(176) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 89.
(177) ibid. folio 147.
(178) ibid. folio 193.
(179) ibid. folio 196.
(180) ibid. folio 163.
(181) ibid. folios 102, 111 & 125.
(182) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 108.
(183) ibid. folio 110.
(184) ibid. folio 112.
(185) ibid. folio 131.
(186) ibid. folio 163.
(187) ibid. folio 182.
(188) ibid. folio 185.
(189) ibid. folio 200.