The Tied House System

It’s odd the sense of déjà vu as I flick through the Brewing Trade Review. Many of the same topics as today were being discussed back in 1950. Like the tied house system.

First, let’s hear from those who wanted to abolish it:

“Tied House System (Motion)
MR. Bing (Hornchurch, Lab.) asked the following question during a discussion on the coming business of the House: Can my right hon. friend say, in view of the interest shown on all sides of the House in the tourist industry, and of the fact that this motion really was signed by a record number of hon. members, whether he can give any time at a convenient date in future for the discussion of a motion on tied houses which is at present standing on the Order Paper?

[That this House condemns the Tied Public House System, as at present operated, in that it deprives the customer of his freedom of choice of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages alike, tends to restrict the provision of food and accommodation, increases by monopolist practices the price of refreshments to the customer and does not furnish sufficient security of tenure to the publican; and that therefore this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to inquire into the Tied House system and other restrictive practices of brewers and to introduce, where necessary, remedial legislation.]

Mr. Morrison (Lord President of the Council): I am afraid I could not give any firm undertaking at this stage, but I do realise that this is a matter upon which there is fairly extensive interest among hon. members on all sides of the House ; but, as my hon. friend knows, after he and his hon. friends put down their motion, the brewers did offer to make a new type of agreement with their tenants. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends might consider whether we should not wait for a little while to see how it works out in practice and get some experience of it in a practical way.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 80.

The irony is, of course, that the tied house system was the direct result of government interference in the brewing industry. The limitation of the number of licensed premises was what prompted brewers to snap up every pub they could in the first place.

Like most Private Member's Bills, the one on tied houses got nowhere. The brewers had plenty of friends in parliament. Note from which side the Bill came: Labour. The party had a tradition of hostility to brewers, partly through worries about them taking advantage of and profiting from the working classes, partly from the non-conformist, temperance wing of the party.

This next quote comes from chairman’s report at Ansell’s annual general meeting. Unsurprisingly, he had a slightly more positive view of tied houses:

“The Tied House System.—The past year has also seen a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr. Bing, seeking to abolish the tied house, and, when that failed to get a Second Reading, a motion was put on the Order Paper for an inquiry into the tied house system. It is quite clear that this campaign is not based on any practical knowledge of the system under which the industry works, nor has any satisfactory alternative system been put forward.

At the same time, it is alarming to find that the tied house system, as it has come to be called, is so little understood not only by the public but by many Members of Parliament.

About a hundred years ago the system did not exist. Licensed houses were, for the most part, privately owned and somewhat squalid. The licensed trade did not enjoy a good repute. The licensed house was not a place in which a respectable person liked to be seen, let alone take his wife. These somewhat derogatory remarks are not, of course, aimed at the many fine old inns that existed then as they do to-day. I am speaking of the ordinary public house as it then was.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 84.

You should see some of the places I’ve dragged Dolores.  Just trying to think where the roughest ones were. Either Czechoslovakia or East Berlin.  I guess I’m not that respectable a person.

The line trotted out is also a familiar one: MP’s don’t understand the way the trade works. It’s always a good one. A timeless classic.

Note that at no point does he mention the reason breweries started buying pubs like crazy:

“As time went by brewery companies began to take over these places—at first by a system of mortgage, and later by outright purchase. The brewery companies, by thus ensuring a certain outlet for their products, were able to cut down on many overhead expenses and to spend money on the improvement of the promises. They were thus able to provide a good quality beer at a low price, and to afford to surrender licences in areas where there were too many, and also to build now licensed premises at high cost and with no chance of writing off the capital expenditure for a great number of years.

The policy of surrender and improvement of licensed premises pursued by Birmingham brewers prior to and immediately after the 1914-18 war—known as the "fewer and better scheme” - could not have been carried through had not the licensed houses been owned by brewery companies. Had such a scheme been carried through while the houses were individually owned, it would have meant ruin to many of the owners. Surely the benefit to the public that has resulted from this scheme in Birmingham and from a similar policy in other ports of the country is easily seen from the very high standard of licensed premises which now exist, many of which are owned by your company."
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", pages 84 - 85.

Ansells were one of the big Birmingham breweries. I remember the city well from visits to my mum’s family in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Driving through the city, it was clear that the pubs were relatively few in number but large in size. Partly it was due to when bits of the city were built. Birmingham was one of the few provincial cities to see substantial areas of new housing built between the wars. But even in the older districts, the pubs were few and big.

Many brewers had been keen on the “improved” public house between the wars. Somewhere bigger and with more facilities than a back-street boozer. Whitbread and Barclay Perkins in London, for example. But they had been frustrated by licensing authorities to a great extent. You couldn’t just rebuild or extend a pub. You needed permission from the licensing magistrates. And the teetotal twats amongst them didn’t want pubs to improve. They wanted them to be squalid so they had more reason to close them.

In Birmingham they were more practical. Brewers were allowed to build big, modern premises, if they surrendered enough licences. Obviously several, as councils were keen on whacking down the number of licences.

If I tell you the City of Birmingham had a population of 1.1 million in 1951 this next sentence won’t sound so impressive:

“So far as the tied house system limiting choice is concerned, in Birmingham alone there are houses owned by 11 different brewery companies all producing several different types of beer, though, with all modesty, we claim that the "Better Beer" is very popular in all districts where it is obtainable.

Fortunately the relationship between the wholesale and retail trade, both in the Midlands and throughout the country as a whole, has never been healthier nor happier than it is at the present time. It is only natural that the two sections of the trade, with similar but not identical interests, should from time to time have differing views. But it has been proved during this year that any differences within the trade that do exist can be settled within the trade to everyone's satisfaction, and without any need for outside interference.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 85.

Well, at least all eleven brewed several types of beer.

That’s a dreadful selection for 1950. Though, in the Birmingham of my youth, it was two. Pretty much. The pubs were alternately M & B or Ansells. Unless you were in Aston. Just to the West of the city, in the Black Country, there were still a half dozen small brewers. But you’d never see their beer in Birmingham.

Davenports, the other brewery in Birmingham, had sold most of its pubs to invest in its home-delivery service. I can remember just one in the city centre, on Hurst Street. Where I was served the yeastiest pint of Mild I’ve ever had.

Yes, everything is wonderful. If only the government would leave us alone. That last paragraph could have come from a pubco today.

West Midlands Mild Ales 1938 - 2004

Since I've already covered M & B and Ansell's Mild, I thought I may as well finish off the West Midlands. After all, it was a heartland of Mild.

Dare, Atkinson and Davenport were all in Birmingham itself. The other breweries are from the Black Country.

It's an odd set, this lot. I could find frustratingly few examples in the Whitbread Gravity Book. They don't seem to have analysed many draught beers in this part of the world. Which means I've only two from before WW II. Form Wall & District Clubs and Dare. Intriguingly, they're both around 1047 - quite a high gravity for a Mild in the 1930's. In London, Best Mild was only about 1042 back then.

Hang on. Why don't I work out the average OG of the Milds I have in my Mega Gravity Table? You can never have too many tables, can you?

Average values for Mild Ales 1936 - 2006
no examples	Years	Price	Acidity	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
184	1936 - 1938	5.07	0.06	1009.5	1036.5	3.56	74.20%
95	1948 - 1949	12.8	0.06	1007.3	1030.3	3.00	75.94%
170	1977 - 1979				1032.8
290	1981 - 1983				1033.4
113	1989 - 1994			1008.6	1034.0	3.30	74.50%
76	2004 - 2006			1009.0	1037.7	3.75	76.12%

That makes things clearer. The pre-war examples are more than 10 points above the average. I think that tells us something, as the Milds I used for the average came from all over Britain.

It's a similar story for the 1949 examples, two of which were 1034.6 and the other 1032. All above the 1030.3 average.

I should average out the values for the West Midland Milds, too. Make my life much easier. You can see that they remain above the average until after 2000. Fascinating, isn't it? If I didn't collect this type of information so obsessively, I'd never be able to observe this sort of regional variation.

Average OG of West Midlands Milds
Years	OG
1972 - 1979	1035.1
1981 - 1986	1035.6
1989 - 2004	1035.8

I know from browsing through the entries in my Mega Gravity Table that Milds from country districts tended to be weaker. And that before WW II London Milds were above average strength. Though they fell back to about average after the war.

Other observations? From the 1970's onwards the gravities of the West Midlands Milds are grouped very closely in the 1035 - 1036 range. Presumably because the beers were in direct competition with each other.

It's also revealing how the average gravity of Milds in general has crept up since WW II, eventually ending up higher than in the late 1930's. I find that quite surprising. But I suppose it reflects a change in the role of Mild, away from being the working class's slurper. Though note how the level of attenuation is very constant at around 75%.

As at least one person seems to have liked the stuff I've been writing recently about Mild, I'll be doing more. Possibly based on the Milds of a particular region.

West Midlands Mild Ales 1938 - 2004
Year	Brewer	Beer	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1949	Atkinsons	Mild Ale	0.07	1004.8	1034.6	2.5 + 40	3.88	86.13%
1972	Banks	Mild		1008.3	1035.3		3.60	76.49%
1977	Banks	Mild			1035.5
1979	Banks	Mild			1035.5
1981	Banks	Mild			1036
1982	Banks	Mild			1036
1983	Banks	Mild			1036
1986	Banks	Mild			1035
1989	Banks	Mild		1008	1035		3.50	77.14%
1994	Banks	Mild Ale					3.50
2004	Banks	Hanson's Mild Ale		1010.3	1035		3.2	70.57%
2004	Banks	Bank's Original		1010.2	1036		3.35	71.67%
1972	Batham	Mild		1007.1	1035.6		3.70	80.06%
1977	Batham	Mild			1036
1979	Batham	Mild			1036
1981	Batham	Mild			1036
1982	Batham	Mild			1036
1983	Batham	Mild			1036
1986	Batham	Mild			1036
1993	Batham	Mild Ale		1008.3	1036		3.6	76.94%
2004	Batham	Mild Ale		1009.5	1036.5		3.5	73.97%
1935	Dare	Ale	0.05	1013.7	1047		4.32	70.85%
1949	Dare	Mild Ale	0.08	1006.9	1034.6	4.5 + 40	3.60	80.06%
1949	Davenport	Mild Ale	0.07	1007.9	1032	4.5 + 40	3.12	75.31%
1977	Davenport	Mild			1033
1979	Davenport	Mild			1033
1981	Davenport	Mild			1034.5
1982	Davenport	Mild			1034.5
1983	Davenport	Mild			1034.5
1986	Davenport	Mild			1034.8
1989	Davenport	Best Mild		1010.25	1035		3.20	70.71%
1977	Hansons	Mild			1035
1977	Hansons	Mild			1035
1979	Hansons	Mild			1035.5
1979	Hansons	Mild			1035.5
1981	Hansons	Mild			1035.5
1981	Hansons	Mild			1035.5
1982	Hansons	Mild			1036
1982	Hansons	Mild			1036
1983	Hansons	Mild			1036
1983	Hansons	Mild			1036
1986	Hansons	Mild			1035
1986	Hansons	Mild			1035
1989	Hansons	Mild		1008	1035		3.50	77.14%
1989	Hansons	Mild		1008	1035		3.50	77.14%
1977	Holden	Mild			1036
1979	Holden	Mild			1036
1981	Holden	Mild			1036
1982	Holden	Mild			1036
1983	Holden	Mild			1036
1989	Holden	Black Country Mild		1010.2	1038		3.60	73.16%
1994	Holden	Holden's Mild					3.70
1989	Sarah Hughes Brewery	Original Dark Ruby Mild			1058
1977	Simpkiss	Mild			1034
1979	Simpkiss	Mild			1034
1938	Walsall & District Clubs	Mild	0.06	1005.4	1047.9	0.5 + 40	5.56	88.73%
Sources:
The Best of British Bottled Beer
Daily Mirror July 10th 1972, page 15
Good Beer Guide 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984,1987, 1990, 2005
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Ansell's Mild Ale 1935 - 1986

Here's a surprise for you: something that's neither about Newark nor Whitbread. What is wrong with me today?

It's weird. Since the Big Six disappeared up their own drainpipe, I've started feeling this strange nostalgia for them. Understandable with a brewery of such historical importance as Bass. But Ansell? I've rarely heard anyone say a good word about them. But me, I've a soft spot for them.

I drank a fair bit of Ansell's Mild in the past. Mum came from Birmingham and we often visited her relations there. It was a funny place, Brum. It looked as if the pubs had been allotted alternately to Ansells and M & B. There were virtually none tied to other breweries, even Davenports who brewed in the town. And relatively few pubs. Birmingham council had been enthusiastic about "improved" pubs and local breweries were encouraged to surrender the licences of small, grotty pubs in the inner city in return for licences for "road houses", enormous pubs on major roads.

I never cared much for the M & B beers from Cape Hill. Though their brewery in Wolverhampton made some good stuff, Springfield Bitter and Dunkirk Pale Ale. Unfortunately you only really saw these in the Black Country, not in Birmingham proper. A lot of the Cape Hill stuff was bright or keg, but not much cop on cask, either. Brew XI was more like a bland Light Mild than a Bitter, The Mild was a little better, but still not something I'd drink from choice.

Ansell's Mild was another matter. Not up to the standard of my beloved Tetley's Mild, but still a decent drink. Ansell's pubs could be weird. I remember several that had keg Brew XI and a handpump at the end of the bar serving Mild. Not something you saw in many parts of Britain.

Funny the things you remember. I can clearly recall drinking Ansell's Mild in the Fox on Hurst Street, a pub I revisited last year when the family was in Birmingham for a short holiday. I know. Who goes to Birmingham on holiday?

Allied closed the brewery in 1981 after problems with industrial unrest. After which their Mild bounced around several breweries, before, according to RateBeer, being discontinued in 2012. A shame, as I'll never get to try it again.

Personal reminiscences over, shall we look at the beer itself?

The most obvious point is its strength. In the 1950's even Best Mild only just stretched to a gravity of 1038º. And most standard Milds didn't get higher than 1032º. A decent gravity and a very high degree of attenuation made it very potent for a Mild, sometimes even getting above 4% ABV. You can see how after 1961 the gravity was cut - coincidentally the same year Ansell became part of Allied Breweries - dropping to around the average gravity of Mild.

The King Pin Mild is probably a keg version. The fact that it cost almost 50% more than their standard Mild certainlly suggests that. It's always been such poor value you have to wonder why anyone, given the choice, ever drank keg.

One thing that confuses me is the colour. I remember it as a dark brown beer, about the same colour as Tetley's Mild. But those colour numbers suggest a beer a good bit paler, just a tad darker than Newcastle Brown. It's a shame there are no colour numbers for the later analyses because I'd like to know if my memory is playing tricks on me or if it really did become darker.

Ansell's Mild Ale 1935 - 1986
Year	Beer	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1935	Ale	6d	pint	draught	0.06	1009.7	1047		4.85	79.36%
1949	Mild Ale	1/1d	pint	draught	0.05	1007.4	1035.4	2.5 + 40	3.64	79.10%
1950	Mild Ale	1/1d	pint	draught	0.04	1005.2	1034.8	40 + 2	3.85	85.06%
1951	Mild Ale	1/3d	pint	draught	0.07	1005.7	1038.3	45	4.25	85.12%
1960	Mild Ale	13d	pint	draught			1038
1961	King Pin Mild	19d	pint	draught	0.04	1006.7	1037.6	45	3.86	82.18%
1962	King Pin Mild	22d	pint	draught	0.04	1007.4	1035.9	50	3.56	79.39%
1972	Mild	11p	pint	draught		1010.7	1033.9		3.00	68.44%
1977	Mild		pint	draught			1035.5
1979	Mild		pint	draught			1035.5
1981	Mild		pint	draught			1035.5
1986	Mild		pint	draught			1035.5
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
Daily Mirror July 10th 1972, page 15.
Good Beer Guide 1978, 1980, 1982 and 1987.