Bribes by brewers

Time from another fleeting break from North Britain. We're moving south to the North of England, Manchester to be precise.

Police corruption in nothing new. It's been around since, well, there have been policemen to corrupt. Our cosy nostalgic view of the honest 19th-century copper is far removed from the reality. The police had a strange relationship with public houses. Especially those on the beat. Drawn from the working classes, constables were often reluctant to impose the law on pubs. And quite liked a drink themselves.

Despite it being very much against the rules to drink on duty, it did occur:

"With regard to the police - Any policeman who looks as if he would like it is sure to get it, "there can be no question about that". Doubts if it amounts to very much but it would be better if it were not done. Publicans do it wherever they can because they know they will get help in turning out drunken men more easily if they do. A man who makes a noise drives away trade, therefore the publican is only too anxious to get rid of him. A policeman who takes drink is more likely to be near and to come quickly if he is called. "Well at any rate the publicans think so.""
5th October (1897)
Mr. Bramham. Surveyor and Valuer to the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union. 115 Bow Road on an introduction from Mr. Young a member of the above committee.
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b347/jpg/221.html

"Policemen sometimes get treated to beer but this is less common than it used to be. Public houses are so much more strictly kept. There is so much money at stake in them that it is not worth the publican´s while to run any risks. Beerhouses are much more likely to offer beer than Publics. He admitted that any man who looked as if he would not mind a drink would get it. He has seen potmen bring it round to constables in the urinal at the side of the Public. But policemen are a more sober lot than they used to be."
Nov 11th. 1897
Interview with Inspector Thresher, retired after 26 years service in the London police corps. of which 12 years were spent in Whitechapel.
He keeps a sweet stuff shop in the Upper Clapton Road. Address Swanley House, The Pond, Upper Clapton Road. (Booth B348, p189-193)
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b348/jpg/189.html

Policemen were also sometimes given money by publicans:

"The first had been in place a year. He is now doing a business of £50-60 a month (13 months to a year). Before he took it the house only did £42 and was very rough in character. He determined to get rid of the rough ones, refused to sell to noisy customers. Got the policeman on his side - gives him about 6d per week so that he should always be there when wanted and more important than that should clear the neighbourhood of his door of loungers and rough characters."
October 1897
Interview with manager of public house, in Red Lion Street, Holborn, public house owned by Truman, Hanbury and Baxton's Brewery , 22 (Booth B348, pp70-73)
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b348/jpg/70.html

"It´s most important that your house should be conducted respectably. Therefore you must serve no drunken man. His potman fetches the police and he turns out anyone they see has had too much. He sends for the police in preference to letting his potman turn them out because of the remarks that would be made. "Look at him turning a man out and treating a man like that after he has made him drunk." The police are not always near. He has tried for years to get a point placed opposite his door but unsuccessfully the Commissioner always says he cannot spare any more men.

Every week he pays 1/- per week to the police as "call money". Nominally it is for calling the servant just before 1 o´clock."
Nov 10th 1897.
Interview with Mr. T. Cox, manager of 5 Public Houses at the Pembury Arms in Hackney, Amhurst Street.
(Booth B348, p179-187)

All relatively small potatoes  - 6d here, a pint of beer there. This was rather more serious:

"BRIBES BY BREWERS.
MANCHESTER POLICE SCANDAL.
Further disclosures in connection with the police administration were made yesterday at a mreeting of the Manchester City Council.- The Chief Constable reported that a deplorable state of affairs had existed in one of the divisions since the appointment of a certain ward superintendeat in 1894. This surperintendent, who had resigned, was frequently seen drunk. and he had allowed alterations to be made to public-houses without permission of the Justices, and had been in receipt of presents from brewery companies, so that it is impossible for him to carry out his duty properly. Depositions from other officers showed that they also had been in receipt of presents, among those who had given these presents being two aldermen now deceased.- The Superintendent's resignation was accepted at a reduced pension, and other officers were censured. A general warning was also issued to the force.- The Chief Constable said he was satisfied that the system of accepting presents had since the disclosures ceased to exist. "
Northern Echo - Thursday 05 October 1899, page 3.

I'm amazed at how lightly everyone got off. Even the main culprit only got early retirement on a reduced pension. Surely this serious case of corruption deserved more severe punishment? The others invoved only got a slap on the wrist. Would they be treated so leniently today? That probably depends on whether it was a national newspaper coughing up the cash and presents.

The London pub trade in 1897

I thought that you might be interested in this transcript of an interview conducted by sociologist Charles Booth. It provides fascinating insights into the workings of the pub trade in London in the late 19th century.

5th October (1897)
Mr. Bramham. Surveyor and Valuer to the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union.

During the last 35 years houses have gone up enormously in value. It began by the loan of one million made to the Cannon Brewery by Mr. McCalmont. With this money the brewery set to tie houses. The brewers looked on without minding until they found that their trade was being touched and affected irrecoverably. Then they set to work to buy also. Prices went up with a run. Then came the Death Duties act and increased difficulties about the subdivision of property held by partners jointly for the purposes of taxation. So that brewers found themselves at the same time wanting more money and a simpler method of recognizing their own personal property.

They turned their businesses into Companies in consequence.

Mr. Bramham gave as an example a public house in the parish of St. John´s Hackney. In 1892 this house with a lease of 49 years at a rental of £105 per annum was bought for £9500.

In 1895 £8,700 was stated to Mr. Bramham as the price that had been paid for it.

This year 1897. It has been resold for 23,000.

Another house he mentioned as being sold in 1895 for £20,000 and resold this year for £32,000 in addition to which the buyer paid £4,000 in its redecoration and internal alteration. These are only two out of many instances Mr Bramham could give.

Public houses meet a real want: by some they are needed as a refreshment house, by others as a club, by others as a place of business. The `poney` glass or small half pint glass is the outcome of the use of public houses as places of business. Come and have something is the regular prelude to doing business with some people. Neither side wants to drink much but they want an office. They ask for a poney glass, they get their apology for drink and they get their office. the publican charges the same for a `poney` as for an ordinary half pint and so recoups himself for wear and tear of premises.

One man may not by law hold more than one license, but one man very often is the real proprietor of several houses. But the license is issued in the name of the manager or of his wife or his son.

He confirmed the evidence of others in saying that all classes became publicans and that the best were found in the largest houses and that one man who managed two houses well was more likely to see that 3 or four were well kept. He thought the publican as a rule was a little above the generality of his customers socially but at once gave the instance of a man who found his clientele too rough for him, wanted to get men of his own grade into the house as customers and straightway proceeded to make things very uncomfortable for those below it. At the same time the higher the class of trade the more profitable the business.

The number of licensed houses is undoubtedly very large but "they must meet a want otherwise they would fail". Said there were two policies that might be pursued. Either the number of houses should be increased and very great strictness be used with regard to them or they should be decreased by making several houses in one district combine to buy out a few recouping themselves in so doing by the increased trade that would result. In the first instance you would bring down prices a be able to regulate the rate at which they fell by the rate at which you granted the increase. In the second you would increase the the value of those that remained but at the same time reduce the number of temptations to drink. Some will hesitate to go at all when it is a question of going a hundred yards further.

Wet weather is the worst for drink. Especially wet Mondays and Tuesdays, when working men will make their wives give back to them some of the money they have given them for housekeeping.

With regard to the police - Any policeman who looks as if he would like it is sure to get it, "there can be no question about that". Doubts if it amounts to very much but it would be better if it were not done. Publicans do it wherever they can because they know they will get help in turning out drunken men more easily if they do. A man who makes a noise drives away trade, therefore the publican is only too anxious to get rid of him. A policeman who takes drink is more likely to be near and to come quickly if he is called. "Well at any rate the publicans think so."

I was shocked to see the prices paid for London pubs in the 1890's. £20,000 or £30,000 was a huge sum of money in those days. With beer at just 2d a pint (so £1 = 120 pints) it's hard to see how breweries could get a reasonable return on their capital. This is the period when licensing authorities were starting to actively reduce the number of pub licenses issued. The result was panic buying by the breweries which greatly inflated the price of pubs. Breweries that spent too much later got into financial difficulties.

I can understand the attraction of the pub on a wet Monday. Though there's no way I would get any housekeeping money back off my wife.

Paying the local policeman or giving him free drinks appears to have been standard practice for landlords. It comes up repeatedly in Booth's interviews with publicans. Strangely, the policemen he talked to denied that it happened. Who do you believe?