The Long Pull (part two)

Not everyone in Birmingham was happy with the abolition of the long pull. As it seems that, in some cases, overmeasure had been attracting customers. Who disappeared again once the long pull ended.

The Long Pull and Co-operative Brewing.
As a result of the abolition of the long pull, the trade at a number of 'tied' houses in Birmingham and district has declined so seriously that one brewery firm, it is stated, has changed the management in no fewer than thirty-two of their houses. The men in charge of these houses were given a week’s notice, the complaint against them being that the trade and profits were unsatisfactory. On the other hand, the men complain that with the abolition of the long pull the customers finding there was no advantage to be gained from continuing their patronage visited those public-houses where the beer was more to their liking. This sort of thing has led it is said to an appreciable depreciation in the trade of the tied houses, and as a result wholesale changes have been made in their management. The "long pull" question has brought the free licence holders, upwards of 500 in number into specially close relation. Comparatively few of these have facilities for brewing their own ales, the remainder obtaining their supplies from the large breweries. The attitude towards the free licence holders of the Brewers’ Association has led to the suggestion of the formation of a co-operative brewery similar to that in operation at Blackburn; and at a meeting recently held it was decided to take preliminary steps in this direction.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, December 15th 1900, page 691.

I'm guessing that the brewery in question was Mitchell & Butler. As they were notable for mostly having managers rather than tenants. Was the loss of trade really due to abolishing the long pull? Given the number of pubs, I suspect that it could be. The implication is that a certain proportion of customers weren't that keen on the brewer's beer. And only drank there because it was good value for money.

You can understand why some publicans might have wanted to hang onto the long pull. Which led to the brewers' trade organisation making a rather alarming threat to those landlords still holding out.

The Birmingham Licensed Beer Trade.
A section of the licensed trade at Birmingham have received notices that the renewal of their licences will be objected to at the annual licensing session. The great majority of the licence-holders in the city have abolished the "long-pull” and have adopted a uniform standard of overmeasure to outdoor customers of 25 per cent. A small number, however, refused to adopt this course, and continue to give their customers the usual extra allowance. The Wholesale and Retail Protection Society, at whose instance the “long pull” was abolished in consequence of the increased beer duty, have served notices on the minority that the renewal of their licences will be objected to on the following grounds:— 

“(1) That you are guilty of unfair trading in that you give excessive overmeasure of beer retailed by you; 
(2) that that practice is carried on by you in order to obtain trade and custom by unfair and improper competition; 
(3) that this practice is contrary to public order and morality, and calculated to increase drunkenness; 
(4) that the giving of such excessive overmeasure is contrary to the wishes and views of the Trade Association of Birmingham; 
(5) that you have ceased to be a fit and proper person to hold such licence." 

Many traders have intimated since the receipt of the notice their readiness to abolish the “long pull,” but others resent the tactics of the Protection Society, and a defence fund is to be raised.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, August 15th 1900, page 457.

Threatening to object to their licences was the nuclear option. And very unlike the usual behaviour of a brewers' trade organisation. Who were usually objecting to licence removals. It seems to be a rather dangerous tactic.