From the commencement of business the public limited company sought to expand its market share through the acquisition of retail outlets, mainly in the form of company owned public houses. Indeed, the policy was a continuation of that which had commenced during the proprietorship of George William Carter. From the late 1880s Edwin Lawson had closely monitored the property market, assiduously collecting items of news concerning the sale and purchase of licensed properties within the trading area serviced by Knottingley brewery, annotating and collating this material and cross-referencing it with articles from a variety of local, regional and national print sources concerning the licensing trade. (1) The years between the end of the Boer War (1899 -1902) and the outbreak of the Great War in August 1914 were ones of general economic depression in which trade rivalry within the brewing industry intensified. Thus, the policy of obtaining as many tied houses as possible was as necessary as it was desirable since it was the obvious means of safeguarding production levels. (2)

The policy was also accompanied by thorough vetting of public house tenants and the imposition of more restrictive terms of tenancy. Between December 1892 and November the year following 21 tenancies were the subject of renewal, affecting one third of the company holdings. (3) Of those reviewed 3 tenants were given notice to quit for offences against the Licensing Laws. (4) The numbers involved indicate a purge by the newly formed company for the following year renewals of lease and notice to quit had fallen by two thirds. That the Brewery directors expected tenants to be even above suspicion is seen in the reason given for the eviction of the tenant of the Rose & Crown, Pontefract,

"...to stop gambling on the premises which the Directors suspect to be taking place." (my italics) (5)

a sign of the determination of the company to foster a responsible public image to counter temperance propaganda and safeguard the licence against an increasingly vigilant magistracy.

An indication of the need for vigilance to protect the licence of a tied house from public disrepute and the intrusive competition of representatives of business rivals is seen in an incident which occurred early in 1892, a few months before Carter relinquished the proprietorship of Knottingley brewery. The company sought an eviction order against one of its tenants, William Hood, licensee of the Bay Horse Inn, Hill Top, Knottingley, since May 1888, and part-time brewery agent, who was served with notice to quit but refused to vacate the premises.

At the hearing in Pontefract Magistrates' Court it was revealed that the tenancy agreement included a clause compelling the tenant to purchase all his beer from Knottingley brewery or be 'fined' the sum of 5 shillings for each barrel supplied by a rival company. Despite the contrary assertion by the company's legal representative the justices concluded that such additional impositions when added to the Brewery's £15 annual rent brought the income obtained by the company to more than £20, thereby placing the case beyond the legal remit of the court. The magistrates therefore declined to issue the desired eviction order and referred the case to the jurisdiction of the County Court. (6) Hood's triumph was short lived and a few weeks later he was successfully evicted. (7) The case served, however, to illustrate the increasingly complex nature of tenancy agreements with regard to the safeguarding of trade monopoly through the tied house system. The point was not lost on the incoming directors who, following the establishment of the new company, undertook a review of all tenancies as a result of which no less than sixteen changes of tenancy occurred. (8)

An important factor in the scramble for property was the value of the licence which in the case of old, defunct properties could be transferred to new premises, thus providing a hedge against the diminishment of the brewery holdings. However, mass acquisitions by contending brewery companies stimulated higher property prices requiring heavy capital outlay and placing a strain upon financial resources. (9)

By the turn of the twentieth century the growth of the temperance movement backed by the political power of the Liberal Party, had influenced the licensing justices who had begun to refuse to renew licences in an effort to curb drunkenness by reducing the number of public houses. (10) Initially, closures were undertaken without payment of compensation to the owners of licensed premises for loss of trade, a process which struck hard financially at breweries with a chain of tied houses. Compensation schemes had been suggested on three occasions during the final quarter of the nineteenth century. In 1872 and again in 1888 plans had foundered for want of a consensus within and beyond the trade and in 1890 a further suggested scheme involving payment of compensation from public funds was aborted due to public objection largely shaped by temperance propaganda. (11) To brewers the issue was of paramount importance and therefore dragged on until 1904 when the Licensing Act introduced by the Balfour administration decreed compensation payment funded by a levy within the brewing trade. By its provisions, the Act compensated all owners of on licences denied renewal other than on grounds of misconduct or structural deficiency of the property. Compensation was paid out of a specially created fund raised by contributions based upon property values ranging between £1 and £100 per licence. (12) Disbursement was undertaken by a Compensation Authority to whom all cases were referred following the refusal of magistrates to renew a licence.

The necessity to build up an effective fund restricted the pace of closure and the desired trend was exacerbated by the legislation of the 1870s which had established the concept of monopoly value whereby a premises undertaking legitimate trade acquired a value in excess of that appertaining to its value in a non commercial capacity. Thus, in the case of a public house with a nominal value of £1500 compared with say, a valuation of £900 as a domestic dwelling, the difference between the two valuations provided the monopoly value. (13)

Lawson's 'cuttings books' provide a clear guide concerning the rising value of licensed properties and the variation in value according to the location of a particular house around the time of the genesis of the new company. In March 1890, for instance, G.W. Carter purchased at auction the Burmantofts Brewery of Mitchell Bros. with six public houses and attendant properties such as stables, warehouses, etc., all going concerns and in favourable condition, for the sum of £8,950. (14) Several of the acquired houses were in prime locations such as the Queen's Head, Albion Street, Castleford, which was situated opposite the Theatre Royal and therefore ideally placed to capture the leisure as well as the labouring trade of the rapidly developing industrial town. The following year, an outlying property, the Shoulder of Mutton, Methley Road, was withdrawn from auction when bidding ceased at £2,150 (later purchased privately for £2,250 by Joshua Tetley & Son, Leeds.) By the end of the decade a freehold shop and dwelling house with a 'beer off-licence', situated at nearby Allerton Bywater, was purchased for £2,140. Nor were such increasingly high prices confined to the demographically expanding areas of urban population. The value of rural property rose exponentially at this period. The Neptune Inn, one of several in the village of Rawcliffe, near Goole, was the subject of brisk bidding at an auction in August 1899, being obtained by Hartley's a small rural brewery based at nearby Cowick, for £2,525. The value of the inn was predicated on the cycling craze then in vogue, resulting in many inhabitants of the burgeoning port of Goole pausing for refreshment at the Neptune. (15)

The policy adopted by the new company with regard to its public houses was of a threefold nature: to maintain and where desirable, refurbish existing properties; to purchase viable, well-established inns and finally, to undertake the building of hotels on greenfield sites adjacent to projected areas of population growth.

A number of company owned houses were structurally unsound, belonging to an age when little regard had been paid to finesse regarding structure, appearance or amenity, a fact particularly applicable to a number of Knottingley inns, being the principal area of acquisition by the Carter family in the early nineteenth century. Such properties obviously would not lend themselves to refurbishment. Company policy, with regard to properties such as these, was to gradually phase them out by transferring the licences to newly constructed public houses or, in a few cases, demolishing the old premises and rebuilding on the same site.

The latter aspect of company policy had commenced at the start of the 1890s when G.W. Carter commissioned an architect, J.H. Greaves to design a public house to replace the Hope & Anchor Inn, Pontefract, the earliest recorded company house. (16) The new inn which was in the process of construction when the public limited company was established, stood in sharp contrast to most licensed premises in the district, acknowledging the recognition by licensed victuallers of the need to adopt a new image if the trade was to successfully counter the challenges posed by temperance propaganda and the new forms of popular entertainment. The metamorphosis of the public house was noted by the Pontefract Telegraph

"The new Hope & Anchor Inn to be built at the junction of North Baileygate and Mill Dam, will, when completed, be one of the best fitted up houses of business of its kind in the town. All the interior work will be of the style of a first-class hotel. The design will be a treatment of "Queen Anne", introducing the parapet, gable and barge board. The walls will be perfectly damp and soundproof, having a 1/2-inch cavity filled in with "Tenex Building Rock Composition", and iron bond ties." (17)

At a cost in labour and materials at little over £1,000 the new regime therefore obtained a distinctive modern property which even allowing for unspecified expenses such as architects fees, etc., was well within the average rate of prices being paid for older, less attractive houses, as no site fees were involved. Clearly, despite some inconvenience to regular customers during the transition from old to new, provision of such properties was worthwhile in terms of prestige and marked the onset of a developing trend. (18)

For this reason, following a meeting in July 1892 the directors instructed Carter, Atkinson & Bentley (retained as company solicitors) to approach the Pontefract Licensing Justices and seek a licence enabling a new hotel to be built at Featherstone. (19) Although the first licensed premises to be commissioned by the new company, this too had its origins in the former one. An application for a licence for a public house to be constructed on land abutting the upper part of Station Lane, Featherstone, had been made by G.W. Carter in October 1891. An alternative application had also been lodged simultaneously to enable the transfer of the existing licence from the Royal Oak, Knottingley, to the proposed new hotel should the magistrates refuse to grant a new licence. The prospective tenant of the new hotel was named as Thomas Foster, the sitting tenant at the Gardeners Arms Inn, Pontefract, who had been nominated for the tenancy of the Royal Oak in October 1890 but denied occupancy when the magistrates refused to allow the licence to be transferred to him. (20) Refusal of the transfer was obviously on account of defects with the Royal Oak premises rather than any deficiency on the part of Foster and the former fact is obviously what prompted Carter to consider the transfer of the licence. In the event both Carter's applications were vigorously opposed, the principal sources of objection being Messrs Fernandes & Co., the Wakefield based brewers who owned the Railway Hotel which stood close to the site of the proposed new inn, and the Superintendent of Police. Carter's representatives presented a sound case, showing that a proposed extension of the nearby colliery would result in a substantial increase to the already expanding 4,000 strong population of Featherstone and that the needs of the projected population would not be adequately met by the existing licensed accommodation. The application was therefore granted provisionally, with the transfer of the Royal Oak licence when the new hotel was ready to open. However, upon appeal the decision was overturned despite the production by Carter of detailed plans. It was decreed that a further application could be made by Carter at a later date. Consequently, the Royal Oak was given a brief reprieve before closure in 1892 at which time the property became a common lodging house. By that time the public limited company had been established and had adopted and successfully revived G.W. Carter's Featherstone project. (21)

Enthusiasm for new or rebuilt premises did not extinguish the Company's quest for the acquisition of existing licensed premises and in July 1892 the Star Inn, Lofthouse Gate, Wakefield, was obtained by W.H. Camm on behalf of the new company and the Steam Packet Inn, Goole, was transferred to the Company by G.W. Carter following the granting of approval by the trustees of the Aire & Calder Navigation Co., the lessors. (22) The close of the year also witnessed the attempt to obtain the Potters Arms, The Holes, Knottingley, when Edwin Lawson in his capacity as manager of the brewery was authorised to bid up to £600 for the old inn. The sum, far in excess of the material value of the property, was bid in an effort to secure the licence and thus provide a bargaining counter for future property developments. However, the attempt appears to have been unsuccessful for the inn does not feature in company records and was closed down when the Licensing Authority refused to renew the licence following its expiration in July 1907. (23)

Meanwhile, the process of refurbishment was being undertaken in accordance with plans prepared by Mr T.A. Buttery for an extension to the Great Northern Hotel, Morley, which were submitted to the board of directors early in 1893. Approval was given for the architect's estimate of costs and of the land required for the implementation of the scheme and in April 1893, two tenders, one for £238 by J & J Sugden, and the other for £246-10-6 by J. Ackeroyde & Son, were selected by the board which left Buttery to select

"the one he thinks most suitable for doing the work properly." (24)

In the event, Ackeroyde & Son were awarded the contract which was signed on the 3rd May 1893. (25) Simultaneously, as the result of the successful reapplication regarding the new hotel at Featherstone, the architect J.H. Greaves, was asked to choose between Jackson Bros., Goole, and Dennison of Normanton. The tender of the latter of 2,580 was regarded with favour by the board but as Jackson Bros. was a tried and trusted firm it was decided to request the architect to write and seek an amended estimate. Jackson's original tender of £2,700 was subsequently reduced to £2,630 and they were awarded the contract, a clerk of works being appointed at 30 shillings per week commencing in May 1893. (26)

Upon completion the tenancy of the Featherstone Hotel was given to Thomas Palmer of Bridge Street, Castleford, who paid a rent of £80 per annum with the assurance that there would be no increase for two years and a discount of 5% on all ale and stout supplied by the company. (27) The agreement was sealed on the 25th January 1894. Palmer appears to have remained in residence for eight years, being succeeded in February 1902 by Thomas Jeffries Sides, a man destined to play a significant role in the affairs of Knottingley brewery in subsequent decades.

The year 1893 also saw the company's acquisition of the George & Dragon, West Haddlesey. In August W.H. Camm reported to the directors details of a contract to purchase the George & Dragon, a freehold property, for £475, all inclusive, the purchase being completed in October. (28) Early the following year Camm was authorised to attend the auction sale of the Crown Inn, Monk Fryston and given authority to negotiate a loan of £5,000 at 4% p.a. interest to facilitate the purchase. (29)

In May 1894, the agent of the Aire & Calder Navigation Co. informed the company that the Lowther Hotel, Goole, was to be let shortly thereafter and asking if the brewery was interested in the lease and if so on what terms. Negotiations were conducted By Camm but as the subject received no further consideration by the board it would appear that the negotiations were inconclusive. (30) The year 1894 appears to have been generally unsuccessful as far as efforts by the company to acquire additional licensed properties is concerned. June marked another abortive attempt when enquiries concerning the prospect of obtaining a new licence for a new public house to be located on a plot of land in Tanshelf, Pontefract, earmarked for purchase in connection with the scheme, resulted in reconsideration by the company following "substantial and unproductive delay". (31) Likewise, the projected sale by auction of the Lime Pit Inn, Brotherton, in August drew a positive response from the company following inspection by Camm. Once again, however, the company's intent was thwarted when the property was withdrawn from sale. (32) Further disappointment occurred in December when a fixed offer of £2,000 for the purchase of the Lee Brigg Inn, Altofts, was rejected. (33)

No properties were acquired during 1895 until an offer to sell the Royal Hotel, Norton, near Askern, in November of that year prompted an inspection of the premises by Camm and Harvey following which Lawson was authorised to purchase the house for as much under £3,300 as possible. In the event the purchase was completed at a price of £3,275 including the landlord's fittings. (34)

The rationalisation of company holdings also included the disposal of houses which were peripheral to the general area of trading. One such, the Yorkshire Hussar in North Street, York, was an early candidate. The inn was the sole possession of the company within the City of York, having been obtained by George William Carter in 1874 in consequence of default on repayment of a loan. (35) Any hope of expanding the company's presence within the City which Carter may have entertained at the time of the acquisition had not materialised and therefore made continued ownership increasingly undesirable in the view of the directorship of the public company. Consequently, in April 1893 the board discussed the possible disposal of the property but decided to defer any decision at that time. (36) A degree of uncertainty is clearly evident on the part of the directors for shortly afterwards a York based architect, W.G. Penty, was engaged to draw up plans for the rebuilding of the Yorkshire Hussar. The plans were submitted for consideration by the board in late February 1894 and as a result the architect was requested to "mature" the initial plans and submit them for approval by the Corporation of York and also forward as much as possible of the completed plans in order to enable the company to present them in support of a licence application at the appropriate Brewster Sessions. (37)

It was not until the following autumn, however, that the subject was considered by the magistrates held in September 1895. The plans were endorsed by the Chief Constable of the City of York who stated that the present inn was

"in a tumbling down condition."

and therefore rebuilding would improve the site enormously with the additional benefit of ridding it of the adjacent unsightly tenements. The Chief Constable was supported by the Lord Mayor who, defining himself as

"a man of business",

stated his belief that his fellow magistrates who had viewed Penty's plans, shared his opinion of the benefits of the proposed redevelopment. (38) Yet notwithstanding this endorsement, supported by the presence of Camm and Harvey who were there to 'field' any queries arising from the application, the company were unable to obtain official sanction for the scheme at that time. The company solicitor stated it as his opinion that in view of the strong support from the Chief Constable and sympathetic members of the Bench, there was little risk in carrying out the work and submitting the application for retrospective approval. The directors therefore took a chance and instructed the architect to obtain estimates to enable the work to commence. In such respect the company were on relatively safe ground for many of the public houses in York were in an appalling state and a general process of refurbishment and alteration was being undertaken at that period (39) The extent to which the proposed rebuilding was carried out is unclear but the work must have been undertaken with some despatch for in January 1896 the entry of William Dobson as the licensee was signed and sealed by the Company. (40)

In January 1896 Messrs Bentley & Sons, auctioneers and valuers of Knottingley, were requested to value the United Kingdom Inn, Methley, on behalf of the Company but no further action was taken in respect of this property. (41) Presumably the brewery was unwilling to pay the price sought by the vendor for the Board frequently placed a financial limit upon prospective acquisitions which was well below the valuation level. A restrictive element was the additional necessity to make financial provision for alterations and refurbishment of houses obtained. Nor was such provision confined to the improvement of newly acquired premises, being equally applicable to the upgrading of existing properties. Examples of both types are seen in 1896. In July plans for alterations were prepared by architect H. B. Thorp in respect of the Sydney Hotel, Goole, a property long established in the portfolio of the company and which had been refurbished in 1879. (42) In October 1896, structural improvements to two Pontefract inns, the long held Rose & Crown and the recently obtained Turks Head, were planned by the architect J.H. Greaves. (43) Work on the Rose & Crown was not commenced until 1898 and immediately upon commencement led to a dispute with George Grandidge, owner of the adjoining property, concerning mutual rights in respect of a dividing wall. The dispute was settled in favour of the plaintiff, the company conceding Grandidge's right and paying his legal costs of 10 guineas. (44) The affair was redolent of an earlier dispute concerning the same property and illustrates the hidden pitfalls which occurred occasionally when alterations were undertaken to randomly built properties erected in confined spaces. (45)

Properties, usually located in rural backwaters, could often still be purchased quite cheaply. Such a one was the Forester's Arms, Norton, a beerhouse bought in July 1896 by Camm who having recently negotiated the purchase of the Royal Hotel was alert to the opening presented to any rival brewery chain by the existence of the Forester's Arms in the same village and therefore acted to secure a monopoly for Knottingley brewery. (46)

An example of how rival brewers wooed independent innkeepers in order to obtain a competitive entry into rival territory and the consequences which could follow such action is shown by an incident in mid 1896. Mrs Bessie Dey, owner of the Jolly Sailor, Knottingley, had agreed to lease the house to Bentley's Yorkshire Brewery Co., Ltd. Having second thoughts, however, she approached Knottingley Brewery Co., with whom her family had business associations extending over the previous half century. (47) In an effort to procure the 'protection' of the local company, Mrs Dey offered to lease the premises to Knottingley Brewery Co., for the remainder of her lifetime if the company would guarantee her legal immunity from any subsequent action B.Y.B. might institute. At a meeting of the board of the Knottingley Brewery Co., on the 7th July 1896, the directors, wary of potentially protracted and expensive litigation, resolved that the proposal be not entertained. (48)

The acquisition of additional retail outlets did not automatically ensure increased sales. The shifting pattern of working class spending occasioned by rival social entertainments and the development of cheap, mass produced furniture and commodities noted earlier, was accompanied by a subtle change within the license trade. A developing trend for bottled beer promoted off licence sales while the increase in the number of workingmens' clubs and institutes, providing beer at rates which undermined public house prices, nullified the policy of public house acquisition of preceding decades. By the end of the nineteenth century a combination of cyclical unemployment and temperance activity had resulted in a fall in beer consumption which was to last until the eve of the Great War.

The acquisition of additional public houses did not, however, automatically ensure increased sales. The shifting pattern of working class expenditure occasioned by the development of mass marketed wares and an increase in rival social attractions, noted earlier, was accompanied by a subtle change in taste within the licensed trade.

The introduction of the Owens fully automatic bottlemaking machine in 1903 enabled bottles of uniform size and shape to be produced and resulted in the introduction of crown closures obviating previous limitations to effective sealing arising from slight variations in bottle mouths in manually produced wares. (49) The development stimulated the off licence trade as grocers and provisioners increasingly undertook deliveries of beer for domestic consumption. The changing pattern also promoted a shift from heavy pale ales to light ales of sparkling appearance brewed with fewer hops, so that by the advent of the twentieth century ease of delivery and attractiveness of the beverage had increased the consumption of bottled beers and the number of off licence outlets.

Naturally, hop growers deplored the burgeoning trend for more lightly hopped beers and it is perhaps, significant that Wilan & Richardson, suppliers of hops to the Knottingley brewery in previous decades began to acquire shares in the brewery Company at this time, though whether on grounds of business diversity or a conscious attempt to promote greater use of hops in the manufacture of beer is uncertain. (50)

The growth in the number of off licenses, particularly in developing urban areas had commenced in the 1860s when tradesmen, largely engaged in the grocery trade had been granted licences to sell bottled wine and spirits for domestic consumption, partaking drink on the premises being forbidden, the idea being to discourage drunkenness in public. By the 1880s three quarters of the licences were held by individuals associated with the sale of groceries and publicans were complaining about the aggressive sales tactics of grocers who, it was claimed, were undercutting pub prices and eroding their customer base, thereby endangering their livelihood. The brewers for their part were less disaffected since they supplied both outlets. However, they were brought into an alliance with both publicans and tradesmen against a proposal in 1899 to drastically reduce the number of off licence premises without compensation, making the brewers fearful of the establishment of a precedent resulting in its extension to their tied public houses. Consequently, they and their tenants adopted a more accommodating attitude toward the off licence trade which was reciprocated by the retailers. Nevertheless, further tension arose in the early years of the new century as pub tenants lost custom to the off licence trade at a time of generally decreasing consumption. The last two decades of the previous century had witnessed a rise in beer consumption of 4% but during the first decade of the twentieth century a reduction of 12% occurred. The reason for the decline is the subject of controversy, one school of thought citing a fall in living standards, another blaming changes in consumer spending. (51)

Whatever the reason, the change resulted in lower profits and generally reduced dividends, accompanied by higher levels of taxation. To an extent these losses could be absorbed by the brewers but not by pub tenants for whom loss of custom meant loss of income and who had no financial resources against which such loss could be temporarily offset.

One way in which brewers could edge against a profit slump was through capital sponsorship of workingmens' clubs which began to proliferate from the start of the twentieth century. The growth in the number of clubs and institutes providing beer at prices which undercut those charged in public houses was facilitated by a combination of rising unemployment and temperance activity which produced the decline in alcohol consumption which was to last until the start of the Great War in 1914. Thus, brewery investment in workingmens' clubs placed public house tenants at a disadvantage, particularly when pub premises were close to the new drinking clubs. (52)

Clubs were unlicensed houses, dispensing liquor at about a third of the price charged in public houses, largely due to the discounts afforded by brewery sponsorship, the brewers claiming that the costly upkeep of tied houses prevented the extension of the same concession to tenants of licensed properties.

It was not solely cheap beer which generated custom at clubs, however, but the more 'homely', congenial atmosphere and unrestricted hours, together with music and entertainment, such places being free from the licensing constraints imposed on public houses. In addition, club premises were not rated as business premises and therefore free from licence duties, while licence restriction on gambling in public houses meant a close watch was kept by the local police whereas a bookmaker could undertake surreptitious activities within a club, providing he was an accredited member. (53)

With such advantages it is unsurprising that brewers and spirit merchants were increasingly drawn to the promotion and financing of clubs, regarding them in effect as a less restrictive extension of the tied house system. According to one source at that period the number of public houses in England and Wales had diminished by 8,500 in the previous quarter century while clubs had increased from 1,982 to 6,543 between 1887 and 1905. (54) A number of such clubs were, however, bogus, being little more than premises used to facilitate unrestricted drinking, thereby casting a long shadow of irresponsibility and moral doubt over the whole movement. (55)

That the directors of the Knottingley brewery were alert to the developing trend is evident from the company's newspaper cuttings book. In applying for a licence for the new Moorthorpe Hotel in 1907, the company's representative was at pains to stress that while there were no less than eight clubs in the area with an aggregate membership of over 3,000, Carters' had never had a financial interest in one and had, indeed, never even supplied one. (56) However, considering the benefit to trade and the accompanying economic advantages afforded by the club movement it is unsurprising that in due course the company was drawn into club patronage.

The value of an off licence granted to a property in an expanding urban neighbourhood with non-existent or distant licensed premises was considerable, a fact not unnoticed by the directors of the Knottingley brewery. An example of one such located at Allerton Bywater, Castleford, has already been mentioned but the sum paid for that property was eclipsed in August 1896 when W.H. Camm paid £3,500 for a corner shop off licence and five adjacent cottages belonging to Mrs Driver of Featherstone. (57) A similar sum was paid the following month for property in Aire Street, Knottingley. The fully licensed George Hotel and two shops with dwelling space which were offered to Knottingley brewery for one day only by Bentley & Sons at the price of £3,000 with 1% commission to be paid to the agents. (58) However, complications arose in connection with the purchase when, following the signing of the contract of sale, it was found that the property was subject to the payment of an annuity of £100 to the widow of the previous owner, Mr George Greenhow. The solicitors, aware that Mrs Roberts financial position admitted payment of the annuity regardless of possession of the said property, the company solicitors suggested that the sale be confirmed subject to the execution of a bond by the vendor and two others, one party being the selling agents, guaranteeing payment of the annuity. In addition Mrs Roberts was prepared to leave the sum of £3,000 on mortgage with the brewery company at 4% per annum, to underpin the bond. The company for its part agreed to guarantee its financial commitment by submitting the deeds of the Yorkshire Hussar, York, as mortgage security. Mrs Roberts, however, declined to accept the deeds of the York public house (suggesting, perhaps, that the premises had not been rebuilt) and was therefore offered, and accepted the deeds of the Royal Hotel, Norton. (59)

In order to subsidise the cost of the properties acquired the company sought to sell off items of land and property which were regarded as surplus to requirements. A portion of land adjoining the Bradley Arms, Featherstone, some 1089 square yards in extent was sold at 2 shillings per sq. yard to Mr George Pflister in January 1896, the brewery retaining sufficient to provide an access road to its premises. Likewise, land adjacent to the Half Moon, Reedness, was sold for £40 in July 1898. (60) More significant was the sale of the King's Head, Stockton on Tees. The property was one of several obtained en mass by G.W. Carter from Mitchell Bros. in 1890. In common with the Yorkshire Hussar, the King's Head was far removed from the mainstream of distribution and therefore posed obvious problems of administration and expenditure. It is unsurprising therefore, that the Company decided to divest itself of the liability. The property was sold for £3,000 in December 1897 but the circumstances of the sale resulted in a legal action conducted by Middlesborough solicitors, Messrs Jackson Bros., to recover £50, alleging breach of contract by the brewery company. (61)

Simultaneous to the above development the Company obtained a guaranteed 20 year lease on the Greyhound Inn and adjacent cottages from the Earl of Crewe and this property was eventually assigned to the portfolio of the Debenture Trustees in place of the King's Head, Stockton. (62) The ramifications of the disputed sale lingered on until 1899 in which year the board refused to entertain a claim by one S.C.W. Richardson, arising from the sale. There are no details concerning Richardson's identity or the nature and settlement of the claim but presumably he was the client represented by the Middlesborough solicitors in 1897. (63)

Consideration had been given to the sale of the Anchor Inn, Aire Street, Knottingley, in 1896, but no decision taken. The inn, one of the oldest of the company's holdings, is somewhat curiously described in the relevant minutes as "ruined" but such a description does not accord with the facts unless applied as a term for dilapidation. (64) The reason for the postponement of any decision to sell is indicated in a public notice dated 29th July 1897 in which the licensee, James Toakley, states his intention to seek the provisional transfer of the Anchor licence to a public house about to be constructed on Brewery owned land at Hemsworth. (65) The decision to obtain the land from Mr C.W. Darley for the sum of £315 and have plans drawn up for the new premises had only been taken two weeks before and the purchase of the proposed site was not completed until September 1897. (66) However, the plan proved to be somewhat premature and the Hemsworth project was delayed for several years. Meanwhile, the Anchor Inn continued to function until 1905. (67)

January 1897 also saw the purchase for £500 of a beerhouse at Reedness, known as the Marshland Arms and in March the leasehold of the Bell & Crown, Snaith, from Lord Deramore, was renewed for a further ten years. (68) Meanwhile, the judicious purchase of land to enable extension of existing properties continued with the acquisition of land adjoining the Royal Hotel, Batley. (69) Again, however, delay occurred when the company solicitors expressed reservations concerning some aspect of the conveyance held by the putative owners, Michael Sheard & Sons Ltd., necessitating a visit to Batley by the company's legal representatives to examine the title deeds before the contract was signed. (70) In August 1898 the company purchased 75 sq. yards of land adjoining the Old Crown Inn, Great Houghton, at a cost of £20, plus legal costs. (71) About the same time, plans drawn for alterations to that inn, together with others in respect of the Anvil Inn, Knottingley, and the Lord Nelson, Methley, were approved by the magistrates on the 29th September 1899 and work commenced shortly afterwards with a tender of £220 submitted by Noble, Sons & Nephew of Great Houghton, in respect of alterations to the Old Crown Inn, being accepted by the Board on the 5th October 1899. (72)

In May 1899 the company obtained a 12 year lease, effective from the 23rd May, on the Shoulder of Mutton, Kirk Smeaton from G.S. Robson & Associates and the same month made an offer to Mrs H.M. Carter, the widow of John Carter, ×60 per year as rental fee on the Greyhound Inn, Knottingley. (73) The year concluded with the expensive purchase of another off licence, this one at Low Valley, Wombwell. The property, a shop and dwelling house with attached cottage, warehouse and other outbuildings, was bought of Mr Tom Bedford for £1,550, subject to the lease of the warehouse facility to Smith's Tadcaster Brewery Co. The purchase was completed on the 1st February 1900. (74)

The sub letting of parts of company property was a source of supplemental income and was nowhere more evident than in the home district of Knottingley Brewery Co., where in 1899, the company decided to engage either Mr J. Scholefield (sic) or Mr J.W. Bentley to conduct an appeal against the revaluation of licensed properties owned by the Brewery within the Pontefract Poor Law Union. (75) In this respect public houses such as the Sydney Hotel, Goole, the George Hotel, Knottingley and off licences such as those at Featherstone, Wombwell and Allerton Bywater, each having attached shops or warehouses were additional assets to the company. (76) No doubt this reason was a prime consideration when late in 1899 the company received an offer on behalf of Mr E.D. Atkinson to sell the Swan Inn, Hill Top, Knottingley, for the sum of £2,650. The offer was quickly accepted for in addition to commodious private apartments, a saddler's workshop and numerous adjoining buildings with leasehold possibilities, the site gave direct access to the River Aire. In February 1900 the company signed and sealed a deed of mortgage to Mr Benjamin Atkinson in the sum £1,650 as security for the Swan Inn and adjoining property. (77)

In June the Earl of Crewe (formerly Lord Houghton of Fryston Hall) signed a 14 year lease to the Company in respect of the Old Hall Inn and land at Great Houghton. The lease replaced a previous one granted to G.W. Carter which was effective until the 26th October 1899. The renewed lease was therefore made effective from the 29th September 1899. (78)

Three cottages and land next to the Bridge Inn, Castleford, were bought for £235 in April 1901, probably with a view to extending the inn at some future date for although the motor car had made its appearance some years earlier it was not yet such a public adornment as to merit the provision of parking space. Indeed, the purchase of a plot of land for £50 in June the following year to enable stables to be built at the rear of the Queen's Head Inn, Castleford, reveals that the advent of the automobile had made minimal impact at that date and was unregarded in terms of vehicular provision in the immediate future. (79) Similarly, the purchase of 1,416 sq. yards of land adjoining the Featherstone Hotel, followed by a further purchase of 456 sq. Yards from Lord Masham, in August 1902, must have been to facilitate future extension of the property if and when desired rather than the creation of parking space. (80)

The purchase of a beerhouse with brewing facilities at Rawcliffe in September 1902 cost £500 and enabled the company to profit from the trade to and from the nearby port of Goole and ultimately provided an opportunity for further development within the village. The property with its accompanying brewhouse was redolent of a bygone era which the growth of brewery chains such as Carters' had rendered obsolete. (81)

The programme of refurbishment continued apace during 1903 with structural alterations to the New Inn, Pontefract,, the Queen's Head and Bridge Inn, Castleford, the Commercial , Askern, and the Lord Nelson, Methley, being undertaken in that year. (82) In addition two plots of land at Moorthorpe, 3,069 sq. yards in extent, were purchased from Mr J.G. Allott at a cost of £831-4-0. (83)

Activity during 1904 was also hectic. On the 7th January the company drew up a memorandum of Agreement with the Aire & Calder Navigation Co. whereby the latter would purchase at a price of £600 the lease of the Steam Packet Inn and Cottages at Goole subject to the company obtaining a removal licence in respect of the premises. The Brewery sought to acquire an alternative site and prepare plans for a new inn the licence of which would be facilitated by surrender of the existing licences of the Steam Packet and the Marshland Arms, Reedness, if so desired. Following some delay the project came to fruition and the sale of the Steam Packet Inn and hereditaments for £1,425 was completed the following year. (84)

January 1904 also saw an application for conversion to a full licence in respect of the Lamb Inn, Knottingley, which was granted when the company offered to transfer the licence from the Anchor Inn, Knottingley. Following the transfer alterations and extensions were undertaken to the Lamb Inn at a cost of £342-3-10. (85)

The willingness of the company to barter and even surrender existing licences on its older properties in order to obtain transfers to new sites and premises was promoted by the desire to forestall the peremptory closure of public houses regarded as superfluous by local magistrates. Locking up money in real estate created assets which were not easily liquidated and was especially risky when properties were hastily purchased or unwisely financed as was often the case in general during the closing decades of the nineteenth century. By the turn of the following century liquor reformers were agitating for a drastic reduction in the number of public houses and this led to Balfour's Licensing Act of 1904 which proposed to curtail a significant number of licences within a seven year period. The Act recognised licenses as property and therefore proposed the introduction of a scheme to compensate the owners and tenants of public houses abolished by the justices on grounds other than disorder or structural defect. Compensation was to be based on the value of a particular house, plus the goodwill (custom) and was to be funded by a levy on the licensed trade proportionate to the number of licensed premises held by each brewer. The proposal caused some consternation amongst brewers for even at a modest average estimate a company such as Knottingley brewery with upward of 80 houses faced a potential fall in investment assets. The fact that prices in recent decades had caused premises to fetch up to 4-5 times their normal price increased the degree of loss for the magistrates would not pause to consider how prudently or otherwise such property had been acquired or financed. (86)

The introduction of the compensation levy, which one critic described as

"a costly way to help exterminate ourselves."

was accepted by the trade for fear of more stringent action otherwise. (87) The scheme was, in fact, less drastic than at first feared. Initially, the necessity to accumulate sufficient funds to implement the scheme constrained the Compensation Authority and licences decreased slowly in the early years. In addition, the sale of delicensed properties allied to compensation awards minimised contributions to the compensation fund. (88) A 'fringe' benefit was that while financial constraints governing the compensation fund limited the scale of public house closures it drew the sting out of the temperance agitation which reached its apogee in 1908. (89) Thus, notwithstanding the imposition of the levy, the differential between the gross valuation of the licences suppressed and the amount of compensation received, the Company retained financial stability and was able to continue with its existing policy.

Extensive alterations were undertaken at the Old Hall Inn, Great Houghton, at a cost of £794-12-10 with £766-7-7 being spent on the alteration and extension of the New Inn, Pontefract. The work at the Old Hall Inn was prompted when the leasehold property, together with a parcel of adjacent land, was purchased by the Company from the Earl of Crewe for £3,500 at auction in February 1904. (90) The acquisition of the Old Hall Inn was the subject of somewhat complex financial manoeuvring involving exchanges of land by several parties in order to allow consolidation of holdings and was obviously undertaken by prior arrangement prior to the public auction. (91)

Throughout 1904 rebuilding of the Railway Hotel, Askern, took place. The inn, originally purchased by John Carter in 1851 when it was named the Commercial, was considered to be beyond mere refurbishment and was therefore rebuilt by Walter Darley of Pontefract at a cost of £1,872-12-2. (92) In addition a further decision was forced upon the company when, following a devastating fire at the Milnes Arms, Fryston, on the 10th January 1904, an architectural report recommended the rebuilding of the premises.

---

NOTES:Chapter 4
1. WYW 1415-16 & loc cit 1415-17
2. Monkton A.H. 'A History of the English Public House' (1967) p10
3. WYW 1415-1 passim
4. ibid 21-4-1893 & 7-6-1893
5. ibid 27-9-1894
6. WYW 1415-16 p56
7. Pontefract Advertiser 12-3-1892
8. Holmes J. 'Pontefract Pubs Past & Present' (1992) passim & Spencer T. Knottingley Public Houses. passim. WYW 1415-1 passim
9. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, 269-70
10. op cit, pp287-89
11. Gutzke D.W. 'Protecting the Pub; Brewers & Publicans Against Temperance'. (1989) pp 48-49 & pp100-01
12. op cit, p155
13. op cit, pp47-48
14. Spencer T. Brewery History Volume I, pp113-14
15. WYW 1415-16 & 1415-17 passim
16. Spencer T. Brewery History Volume I pp22-23 & p118. For a more detailed history of the Hope & Anchor public house c.f. Spencer T. M. Norfolk (ed) Pontefract Digest, No. 5 July 2005, pp8-10
17. WYW 1415-16 p52
18. ibid. In order to minimise loss of custom temporary premises were constructed on site. c.f. Pontefract Telegraph report 9-5-1892
19. W.Y.A.S. Wakefield 1415-1. 26-7-1892
20. Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p111
21. WYW 1415-16 p50
22. WYW 1415-1. 26-7-1892 & 1-11-1892
23. ibid 15-12-1892. For details re Potters Arms, also known as Pottery arms c.f. Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p102
24. WYW 2-2-1893
25. ibid 7-6-1893
26. ibid
27. ibid 10-1-1894 & 7-2-1894
28. ibid 23-8-1893 & 9-11-1893
29. ibid 7-2-1894
30. ibid 17-5-1894
31. ibid 21-6-1894 & 23-5-1895
32. ibid 27-8-1894
33. ibid 11-12-1894
34. ibid 20-11-1895 & 12-12-1895
35. Spencer T. Brewery History Volume I pp104-5 for details of Yorkshire Hussar Inn.
36. WYW 1415-1. 21-4-1893
37. ibid 28-3-1894
38. Yorkshire Herald 28-9-1895
39. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p122 & p164
40. WYW 14115-1. 30-1-1896
41. ibid
42. ibid 17-7-1896. For details of earlier refurbishment of Sydney Hotel, Goole, c.f. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, pp117-8
43. WYW 1-10-1896
44. ibid 12-8-1898
45. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, p106 re Rose & Crown Inn, Pontefract. Also ibid pp28-9 for details of a previous case of encroachment
46. WYW 17-7-1896
47. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, pp24-5 & Spencer T.'Knottingley Public Houses....' p27 & p94 for details re Jolly Sailor Inn, Knottingley
48. WYW 1415-1 7-7-1896
49. Spencer T. 'The Development of the Yorkshire Glass Industry 1800-1940'. (2001) pp371-84 for details of machine development in the glass industry
50. WYW 1415-1 25-11-1990 for details of Wilans & Richardsons investment in C K B Co
51. Gutzek D.W., op cit, p239
52. op cit, pp26-28 for rise of off licence trade
53. Yorkshire Post 23-7-1904 p16
54. Daily Telegraph 9-11-1906
55. Pontefract & Castleford Express 21-2-1913 & 28-2-1913 for article and correspondence concerning adverse effect of clubs on local licensed trade
56. Pontefract & Castleford Express 16-2-1907
57. WYW 1415-1, 28-8-1896.
58. ibid 24-9-1896. Also, Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses...', p29 & p90 for details re George Hotel also known as the Royal Hotel/Inn
59. WYW 1415-1. 29-10-1896, 27-11-1896 & 25-1-1897
60. ibid 30-1-1896 & 4-5-1896
61. ibid 15-12-1897, 24-1-1898 7 5-5-1898
62. ibid 24-11-1898 & 12-8-1898
63. ibid 6-3-1899
64. ibid 28-8-1896. Also, Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I p25
65. WYW 1415-16 p69
66. WYW 1415-1. 12-7-1897, 23-9-1897 & 6-3-1899
67. WYW 1415-16 p69. Also, Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p16
68. WYW 1415-1. 25-1-1897 & 14-6-1897
69. ibid 24-3-1897
70. ibid 14-6-1897 & 24-1-1898
71. ibid 12-8-1898
72. ibid 29-9-1899, 21-7-1899 & 27-11-1899
73. ibid & 18-5-1899
74. ibid 11-12-1899
75. ibid 18-5-1899
76. ibid 14-6-1897
77. ibid 11-12-1899 & 19-2-1900. For details re history of Swan Inn, Knottingley, c.f. Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p60 7 pp118-19. WYW 1415-1 18-6-1900 re lease of Sculpture House (private apartment in Swan Inn building) to Mr T.P. Metcalf. Alson ibid 6-9-1906 re Mr T. Russell on the 22-6-1906
78. ibid 18-6-1900
79. ibid 11-6-1903
80. ibid & 27-11-1903
81. ibid 11-9-1902. Also, Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p19, re existence of independent publican-brewers pre 1840
82. WYW 1415-1. 11-6-1903
83. ibid 27-11-1903
84. ibid 11-1-1904, 11-4-1905 & 7-7-1905. Also, Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, p104 re Steam Packet Inn, Goole, leasehold renewal, 1876
85. WYW 1415-1. 11-1-1904 & 1415-17 p15. Also, Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p14, pp43-44 & pp95-96 re history of Lamb Inn, Knottingley
86. WYW 1415-17 p8. Also Gutzke, op cit, pp57, Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp289-90 & Brander M. 'The Life & sport of the Inn', (1973) p141
87. Brewing Trade Review 1-9-1905 cited in Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p290
88. ibid p291
89. ibid p285
90. WYW 1415-1. 11-1-1904, 21-3-1904 & 3-8-1905
91. ibid 21-3-19-1904
92. ibid 11-1-1904, 21-3-1904, 11-5-1905 & 28-9-1905. Also, Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, p27 re Commercial Inn, Askern
93. For report of fire c.f. Pontefract & Castleford Express 16-1-1904
94. WYW 1415-1.21-3-1904
95. ibid & 1415-17 p15
96. ibid p20
97. ibid p21
98. WYW 1415-1. 25-7-1904
99. ibid 21-3-1904
100. ibid 24-11-1905 & 8-3-1906
101. ibid 9-6-1906 & 19-6-1906. Also, Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, p28 re Bridge Inn, Castleford; Cross Swords Inn, Pontefract, ibid p30 & p109. Re Wagon & Horses Inn, Knottingley c.f. Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' pp21-22 & pp 47-48
102. WYW 1415-1. 19-6-1906
103. ibid 9-6-11906, 7-11-1906 7 20-11-1906
104. ibid 21-3-1907, 7-8-1907 7 30-7-1908
105. ibid 7-8-1907
106. WYW 1415-17 p23
107. WYW 1415-1. 10-8-1910, 29-9-1910 & 30-8-1911
108. 1415-1 11-1-1904, 21-3-1904, 11-4-1905 & 7-7-1905
109. ibid 30-7-1908
110. ibid 25-11-1908
111. ibid 7-1-1909
112. ibid 4-4-1912, 21-1-1910, 16-7-1913, 27-2-1914 7 1415-17 p41
113. ibid 25-11-1901 & 27-7-1903
114. ibid 11-6-1903, 27-11-1903 & 21-3-1904. For details of diverse events held at the Featherstone Hotel during the tenancy of T.J. Sides c.f. Pontefract Advertiser 1902-13 passim
115. 1415-1 27-11-1903, 21-3-1904 & 25-7-1904
116. WYW 1415-1. 21-6-1911 7 18-7-1912
117. ibid 30-7-1913, 29-10-1913, 24-11-1905, 25-11-1908 7 8-3-1906
118. ibid 30-5-1911 & 7-5-1913. For details re Lime Grove c.f. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, pp30-40
119. WYW 1415-1. 30-7-1913
120. Spencer T. 'Knottingley Public Houses....' p26 & p92
121. Spencer T. Brewery History, Volume I, p112
122. WYW 1415-1. 16-10-1913
123. ibid 19-11-1913, 18-7-1914 & 18-11-1914
124. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, p291
125. 1415-1- 25-7-1904
126. ibid 18-8-1904 & 22-9-1904 referring to memo dated 27-8-1904
127. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp292-94 for discussion of Licensing Act of 1908 and its effects
128. Specer T. 'Ubiquitous Ambassadors; Knottingley Silver Band'. (2006) p34 & p37
129. Gourvish & Wilson, op cit, pp293-94 for discussion of events
130. WYW 1415-1 1892-1914 passim.

---