Throughout the nineteenth century the brewing industry underwent many technical changes. Technological advance of a scientific nature had commenced in the closing decades of the previous century with the invention of the hydrometer in 1780. The new instrument enabled the amount of sugar in the unfermented liquor to be accurately measured. Also, about this time Fahrenheit's thermometer was adopted for use in controlling the temperature of the brew. These two innovations permitted greater control over the quality of the liquor and enabled brewers to attain a far higher degree of consistency than hitherto. (1) The advent of steam power assisted experimentation with the mechanisation of the different processes of the trade but the most important of these was undoubtedly Steel's mashing machine, invented in 1853 and still in use today. Other developments in cooling and refrigeration, such as the heat exchanger, took place from mid-century and were of lasting influence. (2) The pace of technical development may be judged from the number of patents concerning brewing and malting during the four decades from 1820. Between 1820-29 fourteen patents were registered. In the following decade twenty-seven were recorded and the number rose to one hundred and sixty-two between 1840-59. (3)

The above developments were mirrored, of course, in changes which took place at Knottingley brewery during its near century of private ownership. Indeed, with the intensification of competition within the trade, particularly from the 1870s, the incorporation of scientific and technological improvements became a sine qua non for business survival. A caveat should be entered here, however, for the trade was based upon the use of traditional and individual 'recipes' and practices and there was therefore a natural resistance to change engendered by the application of scientific advance. (4) Furthermore, the system of tied houses was a constraining factor in the application of science to beer production since it provided breweries with a 'captive' market and therefore, rendered less urgent the need for change. (5) The readiness of the Gaggs, Carter partnership to abandon the site of their original operations and establish a completely updated, purpose-built brewery within a few years of entering the business suggests a high degree of receptiveness to change which differentiates them from the more recalcitrant element within the trade.

Indications of change feature quite frequently within the pages of the company ledgers. Unfortunately, however, the references rarely provide more than a tantalising indication of ongoing change, such being the case with accounts. Thus, in recording payment of £5 to the Sheffield brewer, John Smith, in August 1868, the sum paid is: -

"for advice re our new improvements." (6)

but no detail is given concerning the nature of the improvements. Similarly, the payment of two guineas to J.C.Wilson of Leeds in April that year for analysis of the water from the company well may be a further manifestation of ongoing improvements but in the absence of further detail we are faced with conjecture. Thus, whilst strength was a commonly regarded factor of all beers, a developing trend in public taste from the 1830s had increasingly favoured sweet, mild beer. (7) The tendency was accelerated from the early 1850s when an increase in malt duty occasioned by the Crimean War, had resulted in the production of weaker beer. (8) Consequently, the old winter brews of vatted ales falling increasingly out of favour, may have engendered a change in the types of beer produced at Knottingley brewery, hence the "improvements". In addition, the advent of the railway system had resulted in the widespread popularity of Burton India export bitter, particularly amongst the middle classes and labour aristocracy whose living standards rose significantly post 1850. (9) In this respect it is perhaps significant that John Carter was known to have attended a conference concerning the Ale & India Bill held at Burton on Trent in April 1864, although the consequence of his attendance for his business interests is not recorded. (10)

One notable change which arose from the propensity for weaker, sweeter brews was the installation of a bottling plant at the brewery. As the preservative quality of bottled beer was much better than that of casked ale the popular tendency towards bottled beer lent appeal to the brewer and customer alike. (11) Furthermore, publicans were encouraged to promote the sale of bottled beer as the fierce competition from the mid-1870s induced brewers and bottlers to offer discounts and as bottled beer was more expensive than draught brews, obtain larger profit margins. (12) It was against this developmental trend that the company installed its new racking system. In October, 1880, the firm paid R. Loftus of London £32-18-0. for bottling machinery. A simultaneous payment of £4-2-0. to J. Brevitt of Pontefract in respect of repairs to machinery and indication of improvisation in respect of the bottling plant may indicate, however, that the purchase from Loftus was for an extension or replacement of an existing racking system. (13)

The trend towards bottled beer had stimulated the Yorkshire glass container industry and the effect was nowhere more pronounced than in Knottingley itself where, by the end of the century, four glass container firms had been established making glass manufacture the predominant industry and heralding the beginning of a new industrial era in the history of the town. (14)

The earliest of the new bottle works was established by William Bagley and his partners in May 1871, trading as Bagley, Wild & Co. (15) The brewery accounts record the purchase of bottles from the new company on a regular basis from 1880 which is perhaps an indication of the commencement of bottling at the brewery about that date. Incidentally, the local glassworks frequently supplied loads of furnace ash to the brewery, presumably used in the maintenance of the brewery roads. (16) The provision of boxes and beer crates was undertaken by G. Garver, another local tradesman. (17) Use of local suppliers ensured speedy delivery and minimised transport costs and provide a further instance of the contribution of the brewery to local trades and industries and the local economy.

A further significant change which occurred at the brewery during the 1880s was the conversion of the plant to the mains gas supply. The change took place in 1877 when a local workman, Richard Tate, was employed to undertake the preparatory work. (18) The actual connection was made by the Knottingley Gas Co. sometime shortly before October 1877 (19) although the earliest indication of the purchase of apparatus in respect of the transition is in March of the following year when a bill for gas burners was paid. (20)

Although gas was commonly used throughout the town by mid-century (21) and John Carter had installed mains gas when the Grange was refurbished in 1871, (22) the supply to the brewery and Lime Grove was produced by means of a converter plant on the brewery site until 1877. Whether the transfer was made on economic grounds is conjectural. The bill for the first quarter's mains supply was £5-10-0. (23) but although the company accounts provide evidence of the supply of cheap coal from various sources it is impossible to ascertain the amount used to generate steam and that used for gas conversion, thus negating analysis of comparative costs of gas supply. However, it seems unlikely that the expense and upheaval involved in the transfer to mains supply would have been undertaken unless economically advantageous.

It is unfortunate that brewery sources afford no more than indications of routine maintenance rather than fundamental change. A payment to Henry Pontifex of London in 1879 for malt rollers (24) taken in conjunction with the previously mentioned purchase of kiln tiles shortly thereafter may be evidence of the construction of the malt kiln known to have been erected at that time but the evidence is in itself inconclusive. Likewise, the purchase of storage vats from the London firm of J.W. Nicholson in October 1880, may be an indication of increased production or merely replacement items, we just don't know. (25) Occasional ledger entries clearly arise from aspects of routine maintenance. Items such as repairs to the boiler by Spurr & Inman, Wakefield, and insurance in respect of the same by the Manchester Boiler Insurance Co., are obvious examples. (26) A further example is the adjustment of weights and measures undertaken by the local police superintendent (27) and also the payment of £12-8-0. to Dring & Farge, London, in respect of repairs to undefined instruments. (28) Again, the installation of a new lightning conductor on the boiler house chimney in October 1874, at a cost of £2-7-11. is clearly routine work. (29) An indication of the application of standards of basic cleanliness is seen from the number of brooms purchased by the company. An entry of 31st October 1874, reads,: -

"W. Wilshaw. 1 doz. beesoms. (sic) 10/-."

and again, on the 30th of December that year: -

"W. Wilshaw 10 doz. beesoms @ 4/-. ×2." (30)

More brooms were purchased at a cost of £3-19-0. in February 1876. Ten dozen more were purchased at 4s each and a further 12 dozen were simultaneously obtained at a cost of 3s 3d. each. (31)

A significant item of expenditure is the £100 paid to Milners of Liverpool for four new fireproof safes in November 1881. (32) While the purchase may have been a response to the demands of the brewery insurers it represents a further example of the transformation to more modern practices which is a feature of the company in general at that period.

As in the case of the company's public houses, a regular programme of painting was applied in respect of the brewery buildings and family residence. The work was invariably undertaken by the Knottingley family firm of William Mowbray. In June, 1876, for instance, the brewery tower was painted internally and externally at a cost of £10-5-0. (33) Six months later the remaining brewery buildings were painted together with the peach house attached to Lime Grove and in April, 1881, the whole process was repeated. (34) Systematic repair work is recorded in connection with both properties from 1870 (35) with indications of considerable renovation to Lime Grove including extensive plumbing and redecoration in 1879. (36)

Change in the method of brewing in respect of materials used is apparent from about 1880 and reflects the changing public taste for sweeter, milder beers. The use of the hydrometer (or saccharometer) which enabled the accurate calculation of the specific gravity thereby permitting tax to be levied on the alcoholic strength of each brew becomes evident at this time. (37) In May 1881, Carter & Co. paid £4-4-6. to obtain such an instrument from Joshua Long of London. (38) The increased use of saccharine in the brewing process which was the prerequisite to the use of the instrument has already been discussed.

Further incidental expenditure of an ongoing nature concerns cooperage costs. E.B. Wood of Sheffield was paid £117 for an unregistered number of casks in December, 1875. (39) It is clear, however, that the company purchased materials to enable repair of barrels by the brewery coopers. In December 1880, for instance, E.B. Wood was paid £41-10-0. for a consignment of staves whilst simultaneously, brands to the value of £6-1-6. were supplied by the Sheffield firm of J.Fern & Co. (40) Further evidence of such activity is seen in the existence of the "Iron Hoop Account" the brewery books show to have been held with the firm of Cardingley Armstrong. (41)

In the days before mechanised transport the brewery naturally relied upon horses to pull the company drays. The increase in production throughout the century created the need for more horses and the increase in demand was accompanied by an increase in the price of horses. It has been estimated that the price of a good drayhorse, costing on average £40 in 1800 had risen to something like two and a half times that price by the closing decade of the century. With each dray carrying between a dozen and a score barrels and two draymen, making a combined weight of about four tons, it is not surprising that the pairs of draught horses were replaced fairly regularly , the average rate of replacement being about 10%. In addition to the annual feeding bill of about £40-£50 per animal, were financial considerations such as bedding, farriers' bills and horsekeepers' wages. Nevertheless, the sight of a well-turned-out team in company livery was an invaluable advertisement for the brewery and its products and therefore made a virtue of financial necessity. (42) In addition to the draught horses, lighter types were deployed for use by the company traveller and other representatives of the firm and also for the business and leisure purposes of the Carter family. Even in this more private usage the costs were not inconsiderable for apart from the routine maintenance costs were those of a miscellaneous nature as shown by the licence payments listed in G.W. Carter’s private account in January 1881,

Throughout the 1860s the company appears to have relied on the judgement of one Robert Nicholson of Womersley in obtaining the horses for the firm's use. An entry in the accounts dated June 1861, records the payment of £2 to Nicholson as commission: -

"......for buying 2 draft (sic) horses." (44)

and similar commission was earned by Nicholson at a later date, being: -

"The difference between two mares for the Traveller." (45)

Part exchange was a regular feature of equine transactions as shown by a reference to an item of expenditure dated November 1875, which shows £54 paid to: -

"Richard Radley for brown mare 6 years old and bay horse 5 years old in exchange for dun coloured horse and Black Tom - plus £4 commission to Hartley for buying same." (46)

The name of John Hartley features regularly from the 1870s and it would appear that he had replaced Nicholson as the company's horse dealer. A reference to the purchase of a mare for use by the Traveller in 1873 gives Hartley's hometown as Gainsbro', Lincs. (47)

Horses too old or worn to meet the demands of the company were disposed of by Hartley, hence entries such as: -

" £6 by sale of old brown horse." (48)

"£1 for old horse sent to kennels." (49)

which indicates the fate of those creatures with no remaining active working life.

An indication of the source of some of the horses obtained by the company is provided by an item of £22 paid to Edward Ingle in February 1870. (50) Ingle was a farmer and lime merchant of Near Park Farm, Cridling Park, who frequently supplied barley to the brewery, being both a social and business contact of the Carters, a fact which may be reflected in the apparent bargain price paid for the said horse. To what extent local farms were the source of supply for company horses is not known but such a source was not an exclusive one for a record of April, 1865, notes: -

"carriage and expenses to Nicholson for going down to Howden Fair."

from which it is clear that the renowned horse fair held annually at the East Riding town was a potential source. (51)

Prices paid for fresh horses varied, even for horses of the same type, presumably in accordance with age and condition. Thus, the sum of £41 was paid by Nicholson for a draught horse in April 1867 and £40 to J. Bailey of Burn in January, 1871 (52) whilst the highest recorded price of £64 was paid to James Burns for a bay horse in September, 1871. The sum of £55 was paid to H.C. Roberts for a brown draught mare some two years later and the same price was also paid for a cart mare bought of Robert Marshall in June 1874. (53) Prices around £50 were quite common during the 1870s. Two brown cart horses purchased in February 1876, cost a total of £95 (54) whilst a draught horse purchased by Hartley at Doncaster in February 1874, cost £50 (55) as did a brown horse obtained from one Greenwood in mid-1870. (56) Cheaper horses such as the dark brown eight-year-old purchased for £38 in May 1875, were frequently bought but these presumably were not draught animals.

It is interesting to note that the dealer's commission appears to have been based upon the number of horses involved in a particular transaction, regardless of the nature of the transaction. Thus, in the case involving Black Tom and three other horses referred to above, Hartley received £4 commission whereas a single horse deal netted Hartley £1 commission. In the scale of payment Hartley seems to have fared less well than his predecessor, Nicholson, who was paid £2 per horse. Nevertheless, undaunted, or more probably unaware, Hartley served as the company's agent well into the 1880s. (57)

The feeding and maintenance of the company's horses played a significant part in the local economy. Two Knottingley blacksmiths, George Thorp and Aaron Poskitt, presented regular bills for sums ranging between £5-£20, suggesting that they shared the bulk of the work concerning the company's horses. (58) However, other blacksmiths within the town and further afield were also engaged randomly. (59) Occasional recourse to the services of the latter is not surprising for with the widening circle of tied houses to be serviced and administered occasional mishaps were bound to occur, as illustrated by an entry in the company accounts covering the period 3rd-8th May 1880, concerning the repair of the Traveller's gig and consequent horse hire. Again, in March 1885, the sum of £3-16-3 was paid to Messrs Bland of Knottingley for cab and horse hire. (60) Not unnaturally, a saddlery account is a feature of the company's books (61) as is the horse corn account which was held for many years by the Pontefract dealer, R. Spencer, (62) who also supplied quantities of bran and meal (63) and biscuits for the brewery dogs. (64) An item of January 1879 shows payment of a bill for £2-10-0. to a tradesman named Heckingbottom for the supply of carrots for the company horses. (65)

Fodder was obtained from various farmers residing within the town or the surrounding district. Naturally, the prices paid for hay, clover and oats varied from season to season according to the annual yield. In October 1875, an oat stack and two stacks of undisclosed type were purchased by the company at a cost of £120 (66) and the following September £24 was paid for a haystack delivered a few weeks earlier. (67) Usually, stacks were purchased well in advance of requirement as shown by the payment of £100 in August 1876, to Knottingley farmer, David Tate, for a: -

"haystack to come in, situated in the stackyard at Greenhouse Farm, being the third stack from the wall." (68)

Again, in September 1878, £150 was paid for a: -

"stack of hay and a stack of clover (36 tons) in the stack-yard of the Greenhouse, Knottingley." (69)

Company accounts reveal similar transactions with farmers in locations such as Darrington, East Hardwick, Beal, Eggbrough, Haddlesey and South Milford. (70) Thus,: -

"W. Tomlinson for stack of oats to remain at the stackyard, Darrington 'till wanted."

and again,

"Wm. Cheesbrough, East Hardwick, for 10 ton stack of hay to come in, £35." (71)

A slightly more unorthodox purchase of July 1879, is that of £5-10-0 made to T.B. Coward for "a field of grass" which may represent pasture for grazing or hay making but was undoubtedly made in respect of the needs of the company horses. Once purchased the stacks were insured by the brewery even though remaining temporarily in situ. (72) The distribution of small sums of money to the labourers, grooms and horsekeepers of local farmers during the festive seasons of the 1870s and '80s doubtless reflects the company's appreciation of their services in supplying fodder as well as grain during each foregoing year. (73)

An interesting example of reciprocity concerning the brewery horses is the arrangement made with Joseph Senior of Leys Farm, Darrington, under the terms of which Senior supplied straw for the brewery stables and in return received the manure to fertilise his land, plus a nominal sum of £15 for the transport of the material. (74)

Despite the obvious concern of the company to ensure the welfare of their horses, rare examples are found in which the laxity by workmen handling the animals caused a degree of distress and accompanying expense. In March 1861, for instance, John Carter paid £1 to Mr J.R. Swift of Ackworth

"for damage done to his carriage by our drayman."(75)

More formally, in May 1878, the company incurred £1-8-0. as expenses in defending a summons before Selby magistrates for allegedly working a horse with a sore back, the firm being found guilty, having to pay £1 fine plus costs. (76) Again, the company were fined £3-6-6.at Sherburn Sessions in June 1880, for using a horse which was stated to be lame. (77)

A minor irritant frequently encountered by the brewery draymen in the course of their deliveries to neighbourhood inns were the payment of tolls. The company accounts throughout the third quarter of the nineteenth century contain regular entries concerning payment of tolls on district turnpike roads and such had presumably been paid throughout the existence of the company. By the mid-1870s, however, the existence of toll bars, if not financially burdensome was a constraint on business efficiency, occasioning inconvenience and delay. Naturally, the brewery company was not alone in regarding the imposition as irksome and it is unsurprising therefore to find an action group consisting of local tradesmen backed by prominent businessmen being formed with the aim of abolishing the tolls.

As early as April 1877, George William Carter was allied to the movement, paying an annual subscription to assist the aim of abolishing the tolls on the Doncaster and Selby road. (78) The agitation was spearheaded by William Worfolk in his official capacity as Waywarden for Knottingley township. In October 1877, Worfolk wrote to the local press stating his intended refusal to pay tolls on the Weeland Turnpike Road which passed through the town (79) and in November a petition on behalf of Knottingley and neighbouring settlements through which the road passed was presented to local magistrates. The petition sought the winding up of the Turnpike Trust which it was claimed had originally been created for a limited period the duration of which had long passed but had been extended owing to administrative mismanagement. (80) Again, George Carter was a source of financial support. (81) The agitation was brief but effective for in late December 1877, the Trustees of both the Weeland and the Leeds & Barnsdale turnpike trusts decided not to apply to parliament for the annual renewal of their trusteeship and consequently on the 1st of November 1878, tolls ceased to be levied. (82) Incidentally, there is a degree of irony in George Carter's opposition to the turnpikes as his father had previously been a prominent member of the Leeds & Barnsdale trust. (83)

In the days before local authorities assumed responsibility for fire prevention and control it was necessary for business companies to make private arrangements to counter any occurrence of fire or flood. As one of the oldest and largest establishments in the town of Knottingley it was natural that the brewery had its own fire brigade. Quite apart from the danger of fire, the necessity to move liquor in bulk made such a force essential. The expertise obtained from pumping substantial quantities of liquor within the confines of the workplace doubtless assisted the proficiency of the company fire brigade. Whilst the protection of their own premises was the paramount concern, the brewery brigade was frequently called upon to render assistance to the local community at times of emergency. As early as the 1850s the town guardians had procured fire-fighting equipment, but lack of supervision and individual responsibility meant that by the middle of the following decade the engine and its essential apparatus were in a dilapidated condition and John Carter in his capacity as Select Vestry Chairman and 'expert' in such matters was prevailed upon to make enquiries regarding replacements. (84) However, when an electric storm caused a fireball which set Dr Bywater's surgery and coach-house ablaze in 1886, it

".....the engine of Messers Carters' - the brewery, [which] arrived first and the premises being near the canal, plenty of water was available so that when [Pontefract] engine reached the spot the fire was mastered and its services were unnecessary." (85)

That the locality was reliant upon the brewery brigade is apparent from the fact that financial provision for its services was made by the Select Vestry. An unspecified sum was paid to

"Mr Carter for [fire] engine."

in November 1866, whilst sums of £6 and £1-10-0. were paid in respect of the brigade's services in March 1868, and in February the following year. (86) In November 1870, it was reported that

"A fire at Mr Bentley's Quarry Cottage was put out by Mr Carter's small engine." (87)

The use of the brewery fire engine as a first step measure to supplement the service provided by the Pontefract Borough Fire Brigade appears to have continued throughout the following decades until the establishment of a town brigade by Knottingley Urban District Council in 1898. (88) The Carter brigade may have influenced that decision for the town's first fire station was situated at Mill Close, adjacent to the brewery, on land belonging to the brewery company and with access along Brewery Lane. Indeed, many old fire stations used by early private brigades were adopted by municipal brigades and continued in use until deemed too small for their original purpose. Such appears to be the case at Knottingley where the Hill Top site was occupied by the local brigade until replaced by the present Hazel Road site in the 1960s. (89)

In November 1846, John Carter assessed the value of the brewery buildings at £451-4-11. (90) The expansion of the business during the following decades was naturally accompanied by a corresponding growth in the company's buildings, utensils and stock. The ever-present danger of fire, flood or more general forms of damage made insurance cover an absolute requirement but there is no record of such cover before 1861. In February of that year John Carter paid a premium of six guineas in respect of the buildings and a further sum of £9-18-0. as cover on their contents. (91) Thereafter annual premiums are a feature of company expenditure but although the total premium had been reduced to £12-19-10. by 1865, there are no details concerning the value of the plant and stock insured. (92)

The acquisition of public houses by the company provided an additional reason for insurance cover. The fact is underlined by fire damage to the company's house at Pollington in July 1870. (93) Carter's awareness of the risk of such damage is seen by his insurance cover on the Three Horse Shoes Inn, Knottingley, in September 1866. (94) Such a precaution became de rigueur thereafter. A premium of 12s 3d. was paid by Carter in respect of the personally owned Anchor Inn and three adjacent cottages at Knottingley together with cover on the more prestigious Royal Hotel, Batley, about the same time. (95) In the case of the latter inn and similarly leased properties, the insurance premiums were paid by Carter on behalf of the company and charged to the respective tenants. (96)

Premiums paid throughout the 1870s and '80s provide a general indication of the growth in the size of company holdings. A premium of £32-10-0. paid to Edwin Storrey, agent of the Yorkshire Fire & Life Insurance Co. in January 1876, provided cover for holdings valued at £19,111. The brewery buildings, malt kiln and Lime Grove were valued at £5,820. Stock and utensils were estimated at £5,700. and undisclosed number of public houses at £6,455. Other inns at Beal, Castleford and Pontefract had a stated value totalling £1,136. (97) Renewal of the policy in December 1877, refers to a new malt chamber, a cooper's shop and brewer's office in addition to previously recorded property. The names of four newly acquired public houses at Pontefract, the New Inn, Cross Swords, Gardener's Arms and Rose & Crown, are also listed.

By Early 1879, a premium of £36-10-0. was paid which covered public houses with a total value of £9,671. The brewery buildings had increased in value to £6,850 whilst stock and utensils had risen to £7,575. (98) The following year the same valuation applied to both elements of the business, the buildings included a quantity of malt contained within a new malt kiln. (99) The valuation of the public houses was set at £9,591, which included those privately owned by George Carter and rented by the company on an annual basis. The premium paid was £42-8-6. (100) A total valuation of £19,446. of which sum £11,871 covered the firm's public houses, the remaining £7,575 being in respect of the brewery buildings, was recorded in 1881. No mention is made of utensils and stock but a reduction in the premium paid to £27-4-9. may indicate the transfer of the brewery's insurance cover to another company for it is known that by 1883 at least part of the firm's holdings were insured with the Royal Farmers' Insurance Co. (101)

Prior to 1830, excise duty had been levied on the strength of beer but the limited technology of that period meant that it was impossible to gauge the gravity accurately leaving the system open to potential abuse.

By 1830, the authorities, alarmed by the growing consumption of gin and spirits, took steps to counter the trend by promoting beer as the traditional native drink. It was hoped that such a measure would stimulate agriculture which had, since 1815, undergone a prolonged depression, made worse by the rising popularity of tea which imported untaxed, had increasingly usurped beer as a popular beverage. Furthermore, as private brewers were exempt from taxation on their product it was considered an injustice to levy duty on the customers of common brewers. Therefore, whilst the tax on malt, hops and sugar was retained it was hoped that the restructured calculation of excise duty would produce social and economic benefits.

The preceding half century had seen considerable fluctuation in the rate of malt tax. From 4d. per bushel in 1780 the price had shot up to 10s. by 1805 due to the need to fund the Napoleonic wars. The rate had fallen to 2s 7d. per bushel by 1822 but the advent of the Crimean War by mid-century resulted in an increase to 4s. per bushel by 1855. (102)

In addition to the duty on malt, brewers paid licence duty of 1s. on each quarter of malt used. The charge was based on the calculation that each quarter of malt would produce four barrels of beer and therefore licence duty was a notional tax of 3d. per barrel. However, the yield from a quarter of malt was in fact only about three barrels. (103)

The tax on malt governed the excise duty on beer production for the following half century but on the 10th of June 1880, the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, W.E. Gladstone, presented proposals for its replacement by a beer tax. The new tax was to be a standard rate of 6s 6d. on each 36-gallon barrel, the tax being related to the alcoholic strength of beer which was set at a basis of 1.057 degrees of gravity. The stated aim of the Chancellor was to raise revenue only slightly in excess of the amount previously obtained from the payment of malt and licence taxes. In consequence of the oversights and miscalculations in respect of barley/malt yields, the new duty generated revenue substantially in excess of the former total, being equal to an increase of between 10d. and 1s. per quarter of malt. (104) The new duty was therefore an imposition on the trade at a time when socio-economic changes were already causing a decline in beer consumption (105) Despite this tendency and strong representations by the trade, the government continued to increase beer duty. In 1889, standard gravity was reduced to 1.055 degrees, equal to an increase of 2d. on a standard barrel. (106)

In a local context, a lingering element of the former system of taxation is seen in the payment of £606-2-1. to the Inland Revenue by the company in November 1880. The payment was made in respect of duty on 4,469 bushels of malt in stock at the brewery as of 12th October 1880, duty being calculated at 2s 7d. per bushel (107) Full details of the payment of excise duty by Knottingley brewery between 1847-circa 1885 are presented as Appendix Two of this volume.

As with most other aspects of the brewery administration our knowledge of the financial position of the company is constrained by limited data. The known book debts of the firm, for example, are confined to the period April 1881, to October 1884. The available figures represent a general period of severe trade depression. Nevertheless, the dual statistics for 1881 are of interest in that they indicate an increase in the number of clients and the rise in income from private sales during the half year when favourable weather would most benefit company sales. The accompanying table shows an increase of 154 clients during the half year from April 1881, with a parallel increase in nominal income of £1,291-8-10. The figures also reveal an annual fall in the number of clients on the firm's books in each successive year but the amount regarded as secure sales is in inverse proportion, rising by almost £800 over the three-year period. The fall in the number of customers may owe as much to judicious selection by the brewery staff as to natural decline arising from economic adversity. Company debt accounts contain indications of customer reappraisal and as a result a fall of 54.5% in the number of bad debts occurred between 1882-83. A 38.4% decline in doubtful payers took place during the same period, followed by a further decrease of 20% the following year. The slight increase in the number of bad debt clients in 1884 only increased the cash owed to the company by a little over £60, whilst the number of doubtful customers only represented a total debt increase in that category of less than £6. Clearly, the company's vigilance ensured a healthy financial position which doubtless mirrored its past and future condition.

The table below presents a breakdown of the book debts of the company and reveals the number of clients and amounts owing in each assessed category during the period Spring 1881 to Autumn 1884.

Consideration of membership of the West Riding Trade Protection Association is germain to any discussion of the Company's finances, particularly in respect of debt, actual or potential, owing to the firm.

Founded in 1848 as an organisation within the burgeoning industrial and commercial township of Leeds, the Association rapidly evolved into a County-wide organisation of general traders mutually combined to combat the growing incidence of fraudulence and trade debt. (109)

As early as July 1861, the Company were members of the Association, paying an annual subscription of 2 guineas for its services. (110) The Company membership therefore, pre-dates the transition from Gaggs, Carter & Co., to John Carter & Co. in 1862, and was retained throughout the remaining decades of the firm's ownership by the Carter family. (111)

The guardianship of the Association with its circularised register of insolvent and fraudulent traders and its keen scrutiny of creditworthiness provided an invaluable service to subscribers - a service it still provides today. Just how essential to small firms such as Knottingley Brewery was the financial guidance of the Association is underlined by an entry within the Company's accounts dated 14th October 1878. In noting the return payment of £1,500 by W.E. Carter, the firm's legal representative, it is recorded

"This amount was taken out of the Bank [the Yorkshire Banking Co., Pontefract.] on our account owing to some unfavourable business respecting some of the Yorkshire Banks." (112)

Even in the last quarter of the nineteenth century it would appear, there still existed the threat of a bank failure and potential crisis, or even ruin, for its customers, a fact which places the value of the service afforded by the W.R.T.P. Association in true commercial perspective.

---

NOTES: (Some information may be incomplete)
(1) Lovett, op cit, p14.
(2) op cit, pp17-18.
(3) Corran, op cit, p183.
(4) Gorvish & Wilson, op cit, pp47-48.
(5) op cit, p163.
(6) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 193.
(7) Gorvish & Wilson, op cit, p42.
(8) op cit, f/n p43.
(9) op cit, p43. 8 & 10
(10) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 78.
(11) Brander, op cit, p81.
(12) Gorvish & Wilson, op cit, p45. Also, Monkton. H.A. History of the English Public House, (1969) p115.
(13) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 1. Also, loc cit, Company Account Book, 1879-81, folios 8 & 10.
(14) Blanchard, op cit, Volume 1, pp36-46.
(15) op cit, pp37-38.
(16) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1880-81, folios 6, 112, 147 & passim.
(17) ibid. folio 3 & passim.
(18) ibid. folio, 158.
(19) ibid. folio 166.
(20) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 217.
(21) Slater's Directory, 1848, p242.
(22) C.A.E. John Carter's Private Ledger, 1869-73, (n.p.) entry 19-10-1872.
(23) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 166
(24) ibid. folio 205.
(25) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 2.
(26) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 225. Also, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 88.
(27) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 6.
(28) ibid. folio 4.
(29) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folios 69 & 70.
(30) ibid. folio 109.
(31) ibid.folios 74 & 79.
(32) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 19.
(33) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 117.
(34) ibid. folio 134. Also, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 16.
(35) ibid. folios 152, 174 & 197.
(36) ibid. folios 196,209 & 233.
(37) Lovett, op cit, pp21-22.
(38) C.A.E. G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 2.
(39) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 102.
(40) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folio 7.
(41) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 156.
(42) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp141-42.
(43) C.A.E. G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 99. Also, John Carter's Private Ledger, 1860-69 (n.p.) entry 22-41861.
(44) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 12.
(45) ibid. folio 99.
(46) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 152.
(47) ibid. folio 96.
(48) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 186.
(49) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 41.
(50) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 234.
(51) ibid. folio 103.
(52) ibid. folio 169. & Account Book, 1870-78, folio 21.
(53) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folios 39 & 87.
(54) ibid. folio 161. Also, Company Account Book, 1870-80, folio 113.
(55) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 104.
(56) ibid.folio 5.
(57) ibid. folio 195. Also, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 187981, folio 58.
(58) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 153. Also, Company Account Book, 1880-81, folios 11 & 17.
(59) loc cit, Company Accounts, passim.
(60) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 222. Also, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 104.
(61) ibid. folio 154 & passim.
(62) ibid. folio 176 & passim.
(63) ibid. folios 121 & 124.
(64) ibid. folios 152 & 224.
(65) ibid. folio 187.
(66) ibid. folio 98.
(67) ibid. folio 124.
(68) ibid. folios 121 & 153.
(69) ibid. folio 178.
(70) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 155.
(71) ibid. folio 201.
(72) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 215.
(73) ibid. folio 161.
(74) ibid. folios 19, 52, 88 & passim.
(75) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 5.
(76) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 221.
(77) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1879-81, folio 41.
(78) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 190.
(79) Pontefract Advertiser 6th October 1877.
(80) loc cit, 10th November 1877.
(81) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folio 235.
(82) John Carter was a former trustee of the Leeds & Barnsdale Turnpike Trust. c.f. Pontefract Telegraph 18th October 1873.
(83) Pontefract Advertiser 5th January 1878. In a subsequent case before Pontefract Magistrates it was stated that with a single exception, in 1875, no tolls had been collected at the Low Green toll bar since 1858. c.f. loc cit, 30th November 1878. Such was not the case, however, on other sections of the Weeland Turnpike Road.
(84) K.S.V.M. Book, 'D', 1861-81, p71.
(85) ibid. p85, p120 & p130.
(86) Pontefract Advertiser 5th November 1870.
(87) loc cit, 10th February 1866.
(88) Spencer. T. 'Knottingley Fire Brigade, circa 1860-1920', (forthcoming).
(89) I am indebted to Mr M. Williams of the Fire Brigade Society, his colleague, Mr D. Horner, Yorkshire Area Secretary of the Society, & Mr D. Purcell, Secretary South Yorkshire Fire Service Museum, Sheffield, for advice and information on this subject.
(90) C.A.E. John Carter's Private Ledger, 1837-74, folios 29 & 93.
(91) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 4.
(92) ibid. folios 28 & 120.
(93) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 7.
(94) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1860-70, folio 141.
(95) ibid. folio 120.
(96) ibid.
(97) loc cit, Company Account Book, 1870-78, folio 157. Also, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1881-85, folio 75.
(98) loc cit, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1879-81, folio 1.
(99) ibid. folio 28.
(100) ibid.
(101) ibid. folio 56. Also, G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, folios 68 & 104.
(102) Corran, op cit, pp172-75 for details of malt duties, 1780-1820. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, Table 5:4, p190 for the period 1801-1914.
(103) Company Archives, Whitbread plc, London. Statement by representatives of the brewing trade presented to W.E.Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, June, 1880. I am grateful to Mr N. Redman, Company Archivist, for drawing my attention to this source and providing me with a copy of the document.
(104) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p 195. The case for the brewing trade is concisely presented in statements submitted to W.E.Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in June 1880, and April 1882, copies of which are in the archives of Whitbread plc, London. Again, I am indebted to Mr N. Redman, Company Archivist, Whitbread plc, London, for his kind assistance.
(105) Beer consumption had risen throughout the 1860s and early 1870s but from about 1876, declined sharply before settling at a consistent but lower level. c.f. Gutzke. D.W. 'Protecting the Pub -brewers & publicans against temperance', Boydell Press, (1989)
(106) Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p195.
(107) C.A.E. G.W.Carter's Private Ledger, 1879-81, folio 53.
(108) loc cit, John Carter & Co., Book Debt Ledgers, 1881-84, passim.
(109) I am indebted to Mr White, General Manager. W.R.T.P. Association, Leeds, for information concerning the history and aims of the Organisation. Also, to Mr J.Goodchild for additional information.
(110) C.A.E. Company Account Book, 1873-80, folios 14 & 38.
(111) ibid. folios 146,170 & 194.
(112) loc cit, Account Book, 1870-78, folio 232.