Illicit Brewing

After 1880, the rules on domestic brewing changed. The most notable being that such brewers were obliged to take out a licence, something which hadn't been required before.

These rules covered both farmers brewing for their employees and those just home brewing for themselves. These rules remained in place until the 1960s. And, while you might have expected such rules to kill off home brewing, it did, in fact, survive. With licences being issued right up until the end.

You can see in the table that, in 1900, 12,734 licences for brewing beer "not for sale" were issued. Which were for those brewing as the gentleman in the article below. Note that it was only during WW I that commercial licences became the majority.

Total brewing licences 1881 - 1920
Year	not for sale		for sale		total
	number	%	number	%
1881	71,876	81.1%	16,798	18.9%	88,674
1882	110,025	87.5%	15,774	12.5%	125,799
1885	88,007	86.4%	13,799	13.6%	101,806
1886	95,301	87.7%	13,308	12.3%	108,609
1890	25,281	69.0%	11,364	31.0%	36,645
1895	17,041	65.3%	9,050	34.7%	26,091
1900	12,734	66.4%	6,447	33.6%	19,181
1905	9,930	65.2%	5,311	34.8%	15,241
1908	8,481	63.8%	4,808	36.2%	13,289
1909	7,568	61.9%	4,667	38.1%	12,235
1910	7,006	60.8%	4,512	39.2%	11,518
1911	6,855	61.3%	4,329	38.7%	11,184
1915	4,741	57.1%	3,556	42.9%	8,297
1917	5,217	61.8%	3,223	38.2%	8,440
1918	1,602	33.7%	3,148	66.3%	4,750
1919	1,879	38.1%	3,054	61.9%	4,933
1920	2,999	50.7%	2,914	49.3%	5,913
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 157.
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 117.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, page 118.

 

Illicit Brewing.
At the Sampford Petty Sessions, held on the 22nd ult, John Salmon Goodchild, of the Manor Farm, East Bergholt, was charged with brewing beer without having in force a proper licence, and whereby he forfeited the sum of £100.

Mr. S. McLean, supervisor of the Inland Revenue, Colchester, prosecuted, and said defendant resided at East Bergholt in a house assessed at £16 a year, and by reason of this he was not only liable for a licence, but also for duty. He also had a cottage about a quarter of a mile away from the house, of £2 annual value, and in this cottage he had a brewing plant. The beer was brewed and conveyed to the farmhouse.

William Shinn, Officer of the Inland Revenue, Manningtree, said that on April 6th he visited a cottage in the occupation of defendant at East Bergholt, and found him brewing three bushels of malt. He saw two coppers, one about 27 gallons, the other about nine, a barrel of about 36 gallons, and three tubs, each about 27 gallons, one full of wort. Defendant told witness he thought he had a right to brew there because he occupied the house with his brewing utensils, and a solicitor had told him that he might do so. He also said that he would sleep there one night in twelve, and comply with the law with regard to occupation. He added that he knew he was liable if he brewed at the farmhouse, so he bought the cottage and placed the coppers there.

 Continuing, witness said that supposing defendant should prove that his father occupied the farmhouse, he would still be liable for beer duty and licence as a lodger, but he admitted that he was the occupier of the house.

Mr. McLean said that the probable loss of revenue since defendant had been brewing was about £8.

Defendant said Mr. Shinn's evidence was perfectly correct, and he did not wish to cross-examine him. It was a well-known fact that he brewed at the cottage, but it had never been pointed out to him by the authorities that he was liable, and he did not know that he was. After this, of course, he should take out a licence.

The Chairman said that it was the opinion of the Bench that it was defendant’s duty to have found out his liability. There was very little doubt that he had been evading the law for some considerable time, and he would be fined £10, including costs, and in default one month’s imprisonment.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, June 15th 1900, page 362.

I think the reason that they were going on about the rateable value of the premises where ebrewing took place was on account of the exact rules. T relieve agricultural workers of the need tro get a licence to homebrew, there was an exemption from the licence requirement for those residing in property of under a certain rateable value. 

Which is why Mr. Goodchild bough a cottage and brewer there. Except that didn't count, as he really resided at the more valuable farmhouse.