The exigencies of war although not causing interruption to ongoing work at the Brewery site nor, indeed, preventing new work being undertaken when necessary, did limit the frequency of such work.

Shortly before war was declared, Arthur Hartley, the Castleford based architect was engaged to carry out a survey of the Brewery site and suggest improvements, including the resurfacing of the yard and the Brewery Lane approach road. (1) However, the directors considered the plan to be expensively ambitious and requested modification with a reduction in proposed expenditure to about £600. (2) The revised plan, together with a tender of £575 by Rogers & Sons of Castleford was approved in January 1915. (3)

Hartley's plan included reconstruction of the wine and spirit store, including replacement of the roof, the work being undertaken as a separately tendered project. (4) The alterations increased the storage capacity, prompted by the conditions of active service in which huge quantities of spirits were consumed to bolster morale and combat shock, thus ensuring continued and increased demand throughout the conflict.

Company records in respect of the necessary inspection and approval by the Excise officers indicates that the extension of the wine and spirit store was completed early in 1916 and subject to random but quite frequent inspection thereafter. (5)

The economic benefit derived by the company drew the plaudits of the directors at the conclusion of hostilities, making them fearful of a slump in sales through falling demand. (6) Careful monitoring of the wine and spirits business was undertaken and to ensure the maintenance of favourable trading in the event of price collapse following the war boom, the sum of £1,000 was set aside against departmental stock (7)

Company records provide little detail of improvement work during the war but an indication of such work is evident from the advertisement featured in the Pontefract & Castleford Express in June 1916:

" WANTED Navvies at Carters' Brewery, 7d per hour. Apply to the works foreman." (8)

The advertisement also suggests a shortage of manpower due to the effect of recruitment for the forces.

The following year the board discussed the desirability of obtaining an improvement in production through investing in more efficient plant. To this end it was agreed to seek the advice of Major Stephen A. Smith, a company director who was currently absent with his regiment on war service. Smith had considerable experience and expertise concerning the technical aspects of brewing and as the assistance sought would absorb much additional time and labour on Smith's part it was decided to appoint him as an "expert advisor" at a salary of £130 per annum, plus travelling expenses, subject to the approval of the board members, with effect from the 30th September 1916. (9) Quite how Smith's appointment fitted in with his military duties is not revealed, he being still engaged with such as late as May 1918 at which time he appears to have obtained home posting thus freeing him to undertake the appointment of a new brewer for the company later that year. (10)

It was probably at the instigation of Smith that a chilling plant utilising gas and steam engines was built in 1917, while an Excise entry dated September the same year records the recent installation of a vessel for dissolving sugar. A further reference concerns the provision of

"houses situated in the Brewery premises for the storage of sugar used in brewing." (11)

Beyond these sporadic references the only indication of ongoing or imminent plant or site work is a financial reservation in respect of

"work not yet complete"

in October 1919 which, inter alia, includes the following items and costs:

The incomplete work also included a wooden-built bottling plant and a temporary wooden structure to provide storage for bottles and crates, whilst simultaneously adaptations were taking place with regard to administrative aspects of the firm. A time-keeper's office and ladies changing room, together with the provision of separate gender toilets in part of the Lime Grove premises retained for use by the company are indications of the growing recourse to female labour made necessary by the call to arms of able-bodied men during the Great War and particularly following the introduction of conscription in 1916. The loss of life during the conflict reinforced the demand for female workers and engendered a change in social attitudes toward the employment of women in industry as secretaries, typists and book-keepers. A further indication of modernity within the brewing trade is seen in the establishment of laboratory facilities within Lime Grove by the early 1920s. (13)

In a business context, however, the effect of the war is most notable for the minor irritations and inconveniences imposed by the constraints of wartime regulations and the ensuing conditions. One such aspect is seen with regard to the distribution of Company wares. While horsepower remained the predominant feature of transportation at the brewery, and indeed of road transport in general until the 1920s, motorised vehicles had begun to make a gradual appearance locally shortly before the outbreak of the war. One of the duties inherited by Sides upon his appointment to the board in 1916 was to make arrangements for the purchase of a 4 ton lorry to facilitate company deliveries. The negotiations were initially placed in the hands of Naismith, the erstwhile head brewer who had taken over the management of the brewery following the death of Edwin Lawson in 1914. Naismith was also commissioned to supervise the erection of a shed (probably for use as a garage) and a store for petrol. (14) The decision probably marked a conscious decision on the part of the directors to adopt motorised transport and phase out horse drawn vehicles. However, no overt intention to that effect is contained within company records and given the tawdriness of the Board in adopting telephone communication some years earlier one may conject that the decision to invest in automotive transport was prompted by the shortage of draught horses and the high cost of fodder consequent upon military demand rather than the farsightedness of an ageing and conservatively minded directorship whose antipathy to technological innovation counselled caution rather than innovation, a fact which may explain why the matter was left in abeyance following Naismith's unexplained departure from the scene in August 1914.

The arrival at the brewery of Sides at that time prompted renewed action but owing to the exigencies of war the Commercial Car Co. was unable to fulfil the order promptly and Sides obtained the return of the deposit on the vehicle and transferred the order to Messrs Thorneyer of London for delivery in March 1916. (15)

The increased deployment of motor vehicles on the battlefields proved their efficiency and stimulated their commercial adoption, particularly in the aftermath of war. By 1920 the construction of a large garage for motor wagons, etc., had been completed at the brewery and the era of the slowly plodding horses left to wend their familiar way home while the drayman, befuddled by the effect of 'refreshment' at each delivery point, sat contentedly on board, was over. (16)

The proliferation of motorised vehicles also prompted the acquisition of a motor car for use by Sides in connection with his inspection of company properties, being justified for facilitating economy of time. By the mid stage of the war, however, shortage of fuel presented an increasing problem. Therefore, in June 1917, Sides, ever one for the grand public gesture, decided it was his patriotic duty to abandon his car and undertake all necessary journeys by use of a motor cycle. Sides' fellow directors resolved to pay £45 towards the cost of a Norton motor cycle and to subsidise the running and maintenance costs by the sum of £25. In November the situation was reviewed by the board and the expense allowance was increased to £65. (17)

From its inauguration the new company had experienced problems concerning the disposal of effluent produced by the brewing process. As shown in Chapter 2 for almost a century following the establishment of the brewery waste had simply been discharged into the adjacent waterways. Following the construction of the township drainage system early in the twentieth century negotiations between the company and the District Council had taken place to enable the brewery to discharge waste into the public drain. The negotiations were protracted, however, and it was not until 1914 that an agreement was reached whereby the company paid a nominal annual fee to use the town drain. Even then arrangements were less than satisfactory and as late as August 1926 a letter from Sides concerning the issue was considered by the council, the problem being eventually resolved by the consent of the brewery to pay an annual fee of £25 for waste disposal. (18)

During the deliberations of the K.U.D.C. a range of questions concerning rateable valuation and planning permission were raised. At a meeting of the Council on 1st December Cr. Hartley of the K.U.D.C. Housing Committee, reported on a recent visit to the Brewery and stated his satisfaction that no new buildings had been erected and that valuation of existing buildings was in the hands of the District Valuer. Cr. Dey, contended, however, that the whole range of buildings situated at the north-east of the brewery site had been erected since 1914. It was pointed out that any new work had been built on existing foundations and was not therefore subject to planning application. However, Cr. J. Jackson stated that he had no knowledge of any plans being submitted by the brewery for the last 10-15 years and led by Cr. Dey a clamour arose for the imposition of retrospective penalties. (19)

The antagonism of Dey and others raised the ire of Sides who responded by a letter to the council dated 8th December 1926 in which he described Dey's comments

"unfair and unwarrantable"

and challenged him to repeat them outside the sanctuary of the council chamber. Pointing out that no new buildings had been erected on the brewery site for many a year, Sides also mentioned that the council's former consulting architect and surveyor, the late Alderman Hartley, had made plans and supervised the construction of such buildings and that the late council surveyor, Mr T. Ingle, had for many years taken an approved short cut across the brewery fields so that whatever work was done the two man with K.U.D.C. associations were fully aware of it. Sides also enclosed a list of all rated property stating that the District Valuer was aware of all alterations and Sides concluded by inviting members of the council to visit

"one of the highest assessed brewery companies in the country having regard to the Company's barrelage." (20)

The alterations to which Sides alluded also included the changes to the Lime Grove premises referred to above. (21)

To reinforce his point Sides, prompted by the board, sent a second letter dated 23rd December 1926 in which he pointed out that the brewery company paid £660-9-0 per year as rates. Citing his long experience in public service as a basis for understanding the difficulty of the council in raising income, Sides claimed that there was no way that the brewery which was a 13 quarter plant could be fairly assessed at a gross valuation of £1,350, yielding rates of £700, when an (unnamed) brewery in the Pontefract Union with the same facilities (excluding their respective maltings) had a gross assessment of £280 and a rateable value of £197. (22)

Referring to the wide extent of the Knottingley Brewery Company's holdings, Sides revealed that his directors had on more than one occasion considered building new premises outside the town. (23) It seems likely that this information was supplied tongue in cheek by Sides to alarm the assembled ranks of K.U.D.C. for there is no indication, formal or informal, in the company records of such a suggestion much less proposal. Furthermore, it is questionable if the company ever had the means to finance such a project, particularly against the background of industrial unrest and impending economic downturn in trade from 1926. The statement must therefore be considered for its propaganda value rather than as a statement of intent.

To reinforce his remarks, Sides stated that there were no brewery buildings overlooked in rating valuation whilst demands for retrospective penalties in response to alleged default in planning applications were academic since under the law retrospective action was confined to an immediate 6 month period. In addition, while the company was a contributor of large rates, it was completely self-contained and did not even trouble the council to empty its bins.

Cr. Dey's comments regarding the management of the brewery were much deprecated and Sides considered Dey should give as much publicity to the fact that he was under a misapprehension as he did to his earlier comments. For his part Dey stated that he had no desire to abuse his privilege as a member of the council, having made no charge against Sides or his directors, nor questioning the rating but merely possible non-submission of building proposals. The issue was concluded by the release of all documentation to the local press in order to place the matter in the public domain. (24)

A rate reduction was a permanent quest for the company. As early as June 1924 the directors had resolved to seek a reduction and had engaged the Leeds based solicitors Ford & Wardell to effect the same with instructions to plead their case at the Quarter Sessions if necessary and Sides' second epistle also revealed an appeal was pending. (25) The outcome of both appeals is unrecorded as, incidentally, is the outcome of the board's decision authorising Sides' to appoint a new brewer, thus denying to posterity details of the circumstances prompting the decision and the identity of those concerned. (26) Similarly, an oblique series of references in the company minutes indicates the acquisition by the brewery of a mineral water works at the little village of Burton Salmon, situated a few miles north of Knottingley. The scant evidence suggests that the Company obtained the plant in the summer of 1925. Sides reported the satisfactory operation of the new bottling plant in October of that year and an Excise certificate sealed the year following indicates that permission had been granted to produce vinegar on the site. (27) A further reference in the form of a sealed document which merely records Mr J.A. Ward as Manager - Burton Salmon, is a probable indication of his appointment to take charge of the factory obtained to supplement the increase in the Brewery's production of bottled beers by the manufacture of soft drinks and allied products bearing the Brewery's brand name. (28)

The lack of information concerning the acquisition of the plant may indicate Sides' initiative in its procurement. A decision by the directors in December 1926 to award Sides a commission of 5% on all profits, to be paid retrospectively to 1st October 1925 has echoes of Sides' informal purchase of properties at nearby Monk Fryston about the same time which, following resale to the Company, resulted in recognition of Sides' role in the form of financial reward. (29)

Simultaneously with the above developments was the installation by Messrs Portman of Leeds, of plant for the drying of malt and barley on the brewery site. (30) The most significant decision of the period, however, was the resolution in November 1928 to install electricity within the Brewery.

The operation was not merely confined to lighting and allied accessories but also included the installation of electric generators to replace the existent steam engines and supply motive power to the productive processes. The company bore the expense of providing adequate foundations for the new engines but power points, plugs, switches, light shades and miscellaneous fittings were included in the estimated cost of a little under £1,000. (31)

In its recourse to electricity the company anticipated a national trend which was widely adopted during the following decade. The decision of the board may have been influenced by the construction of the first power station at nearby Ferrybridge and the erection of a myriad cable bearing pylons in the vicinity to carry the supply of the Yorkshire Power Co., which commenced generating electricity in 1929.

The ever present danger of fire which had prompted Carters' brewery to form the earliest known fire brigade in Knottingley (32) proved to be a continuing hazard when in April 1932 a fire destroyed the on site bottling store with the loss of nearly £1,000 of stock and considerable disruption of trade. (33)

The sale of disposable assets which formed an important feature of company policy in the early 1930s included elements of the brewery site. In 1933 the company sold land fronting Forge Hill Lane to K.U.D.C. who desired to erect a public convenience at the junction with Weeland Road, opposite the Bay Horse Inn and adjacent to the houses erected by the Council on land obtained from the brewery company almost 20 years earlier. (34)

At the same time moves were underway to sell Lime Grove, the former Carter residence, standing close to the brewery, to the council. The history of the house had been of a variable nature since vacated following the death of the former managing director, J.C. Harvey, in January 1905. Part of the premises had been sub-let as private apartments whilst a portion had been retained by the Company for administrative purposes.

A council deputation having viewed the house and grounds sought a sale price from the company. A survey of the site by the directors resulted in the property being offered for sale at £4,500 with provisos concerning the erection of adequate fences to separate the house and grounds from the brewery site. (36)

The reason for the interest of the council is unrecorded but may have been prompted by the desire for town offices which were larger and less congested than those within the Town Hall. Whatever the reason, the company's offer was declined and there the interest seems to have ended for both parties for Lime Grove was retained, becoming the offices of the subsidiary company formed in 1935 and retained as such until the demolition and clearance of the entire brewery site in the late 1960s.

---

NOTES:Chapter 7
1. WYW 1415-1 18-7-1914
2. ibid 18-11-1914
3. ibid 14-1-1915
4. ibid 9-6-1915
5. ibid 14-11-1918
6. ibid 2-2-1916, 30-6-1916, 29-6-1917 & 7-12-1917
7. ibid 9-10-1919
8. Pontefract & Castleford Express 9-6-1916 p4
9. WYW 1415-1 29-6-1917
10. ibid 30-5-1918 & 26-9-1918
11. ibid 4-9-1917 & 7-5-1920
12. ibid 9-10-1919
13. Pontefract Advertiser 4-12-1926 p5 & 8-1-1927 p5
14. WYW 1415-1. 8-7-1914
15. ibid. 6-11-1915
16. One Brewery drayman, Mr Charlie Bowers, was something of a local icon and many tales of his exploits in the service of the brewery were told in the childhood and youth of the writer, not least the ability of his horse to find its way along the winding rural roads of the surrounding countryside and back to the brewery
17. WYW 1415-1 29-6-1917 & 13-11-1917
18. Pontefract Advertiser 21-8-1926 p4 & 1415-2. p194
19. loc cit 4-12-1926 p5
20. ibid 8-1-1927 p5
21. ibid 4-12-1926 p5
22. The brewery referred to by Sides was probably Pickersgills' Old Church Brewery, Pontefract
23. Pontefract Advertiser 8-1-1927 p5
24. ibid
25. WYA 1415-2 p5
26. ibid p60
27. ibid p48 & p50
28. ibid p44
29. ibid p50
30. ibid p28
31. ibid p70
32. Spencer T. 'Brewery History', Volume I, pp96-97
33. WYA 1415-2 pp113-14
34. ibid p143
35. ibid p146.

---