Mr. Howe takes over the Royal Oak

The Taylor family had come to the end of their time at the Royal Oak. A pub they had run for at least 40 years and probably for most of the 19th century.

It seems that Samuel Taylor, young and inexperienced, had run the business into the ground within five years of taking it over. And look who was offering to pay £500 for the goodwill of the pub - a certain Mr. Howe. Isn't that funny. Howe had taken on the pub before his daughter married Thomas William Alexander - that wasn't until 1882. Odd then that they should have said that the father was living with his daughter and son-in-law when it was really the other way around. When the Duke of Newcastle sold the Royal Oak in 1888, the newspaper reports stated that Howe was the tenant, paying £70 a year rent.

"Re SAMUEL TAYLOR, of Newark. — An adjourned meeting of the creditors of Samuel Taylor, licensed victualler and wine and spirit merchant, Newark, was held at the George Hotel, Nottingham, on Tuesday afternoon, when Mr. Leman, accountant, Nottingham, occupied the chair. — Mr. Hodgkinson (Messrs. Pratt and Hodgkinson, Newark) represented certain large creditors; Mr. Cockayne (Nottingham) appeared for the debtor; and Mr. F. Lees (Nottingham) for the debtor's wife. — Mr. Cockayne repeated the offer of a composition of 6s. in the pound made at the last meeting, and added that further than that he was powerless. It rested with the creditors to say what they would do in the matter, and whether they would have the debtor turned out of his place. — Mr. Hodgkinson read a letter from Mr. Tallents, the agent of the property occupied by the debtor, under the Duke of Newcastle's trustees, with reference to the matter, and also one from Mr. Howe, which contained an offer to take the Royal Oak public-house (held by the debtor) at the usual valuation and paying £500 for good-will. — Mr. Cockayne, on behalf of certain creditors, proposed and seconded that the composition of 6s. in the pound be accepted, but to this an amendment was moved by Mr. Hodgkinson, and seconded by Mr. Lane, that the affairs be liquidated by arrangement, and that the composition be not accepted. — In reply to a question, the Chairman said that according to Mr. Howe's letter they would get £500 for goodwill besides the usual valuation. — Mr. Davis, provided that a tenant would be accepted other than Mr. Howe, said he would give £600 to keep the place in the family. He urged upon the attention of the meeting the youth of the debtor, and the fact that he ought to have had some supervision.— The Chairman asked Mr. Davis whether he thought there would be any difficulty with the owners if his offer to take the house was made. — Mr. Davis said that was a difficulty remaining to be solved.— The Chairman said it seemed to him that if the estate was to go into liquidation it was for the trustee to do the best he could for the creditors. — A Creditor asked whether, if the composition was accepted, the present tenant would be discharged.' — The Chairman remarked that in Mr. Tallents' letter it was stated that the financial position of the debtor was such that he would not be able to remain in the place. It was his opinion that the estate would not realise more than 5s. in the pound, and that was why he wanted a definite understanding as to the offer for the goodwill. He added, in reply to another question, that they would not get 6s. in the pound unless they got the bonus referred to. — Mr. Cockayne, after some delay, said it was quite clear that the question was one of bankruptcy or liquidation, and he hoped that the offer he had made would be borne in mind. He objected to the introduction of Mr. Howe's name into the matter at all; it was simply a question for the Committee of Inspection as to what should be done. If the creditors decided to turn the debtor out then if another person came forward with a better offer, he ought to be allowed to take the place. — Mr. Hodgkinson only wished for what was best for the creditors to be done, but with regard to the house they must consider whether any would-be tenant would be accepted by the landlord. — A Creditor stated that he should be very sorry to see the family out of the house, for they had been in it many years, and had spent a great deal of money on the property. — It was eventually resolved that the affairs should be liquidated by arrangement; that Mr. William Hirst of Newark, accountant, be appointed trustee, with the following committee of inspection : — Messrs. Beard (Nottingham and Notts. Bank, Newark). Pink, Radford Messrs. Bass and Co.), Ironmonger, and J. Mc Naught Davis; that the discharge of the debtor be granted; and that Mr. Cockagne be entrusted with the registration of special resolutions."
Nottinghamshire Guardian - Friday 23 September 1881, page 11.

I'm not sure why Taylor's lawyer wasn't keen on Mr. Howe's offer. It sounds like an easy extra 500 quid for Taylor. As Howe did indeed take over the pub, I can only assume that his offer was accepted.

I'm starting to think that the pub was cursed. In the 1880's things turned out badly for all the tenants.

Cromwell Brewery tied houses

I sometimes I take a step back, pull in a deep breath and look hard at what I'm up to. Is it totally crazy? If the answer is yes, then I carry on. I had such a moment when researching this post.

I you remember, the Cromwell Brewery traded as Howe & Alexander for a few years in the 1880's, before Mr. Alexander went crazy and attacked his wife. An act that ultimately led to the demise of the brewery. It finally fell into the hands of Warwick & Richardson in 1892, though I'm fairly sure brewing had ceased a couple of years earlier.

I'm looking at the tied houses of a brewery that hasn't existed for more than 120 years. Is that crazy? I think you know the answer to that, so I'll continue.

I've managed to identify seven pubs in Newark which were once Cromwell Brewery tied houses. I won't claim that it's a complete list. I've taken most of the information from "Newark's Inns & Public Houses" by Rodney Cousins the revised edition published in 1991. He'd missed the Royal Oak in Stodman Street, a pub I definitely know was owned by the Cromwell Brewery, because that's where Mr. and Mrs. Alexander lived.

Of the seven, only the Queen's Head is still open. It's now a Wychwood pub. Not sure that tells us anything.

It's a shame that the Royal Oak has disappeared. The original building was from the 17th century, though it was rebuilt in the 1930's before being demolished in 1962. I think it was next door to Marks & Spencer, where there's now a pretty dismal 1960's thing. According to Cousins (page 18) it was sold for £2,450 in 1888. Was that part of the fallout of Alexander's attack on his wife? That happened in March 1888 and the brewery was sold in May that year. It sounds as if the two were sold separately as the brewery went for just £948 (Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 07 March 1890, page 4.).

Here are the Cromwell Brewery's pubs on a map:



And here's a table of their pubs:

Cromwell Brewery tied houses
Name	location	date opened	date closed
BLACK BOY	Chatham Street	1841	1911
BLACK HORSE	Bamby Gate	1842	1895
OLD CASTLE (Newark Castle)	Mill Gate	1792	1966
OLIVER CROMWELL TAVERN	Barnby Gate	1865	1931
QUEEN'S HEAD	Market Place	1560
ROYAL OAK	Stodman Street	1780	1962
TEN BELLS (Royal Dragoons)	Carter Gate	1851	1906
Sources:
"Newark's Inns & Public Houses" by Rodney Cousins, 1991, pages 27 - 29.
Some stuff I know from growing up in the town.

Just did a bit of digging. It turns out that the freehold of the Royal Oak was held by the Duke of Newcastle, who owned big chunks of Newark. It was only leased by Mr. Howe (misspelled Hoe in the article) for £70 a year. (Grantham Journal - Saturday 30 June 1888, page 6.) The sale had nothing to do with Alexander's attack on his wife. The Duke flogged off a variety of properties at one auction, including several pubs.

The same article tells me that this is when the Queen's Hotel came into the ownership of the Cromwell Brewery. Mr. Bastow, the new owner of the brewery, snapped it up for £1,000. Most of the pubs were either bought by Joseph Richardson or James Hole. The former buying the Royal Oak in Stodman Street for £2,450. Only the Saracen's Head and the Clinton Arms, two big coaching inns on the Market Place, sent for more.

Thomas William Alexander goes bankrupt

Like I said, the fallout from Mr. Alexander's moment of madness rumbled on for years. The settlement he made with his wife was the problem. It ate up all of his money.

In May 1888, just two months after the court case, the Cromwell brewery was bought by Lionel Charles Bastow for £948. Not a huge amount of money, especially when you consider that Alexander had sunk £5,000 of his own capital into the business.

It turns out he didn't really leave town. He just moved to Balderton (a village on the outskirts of Newark) and went into the dairy business. At least until he went bust.

"CREDITORS' MEETINGS IN NOTTINGHAM.
A first meeting of creditors the case Thomas William Alexander, Balderton, near Newark, formerly brewer, now milkseller and cowkeeper, against whom a receiving order was made on the 7th inst., was held this morning at the offices the Official Receiver (Mr. H. R. Thorpe), St. Peter's Church-walk, Nottingham. The summary of debtor's statement of affairs showed liabilities of £674 10s. 4d. owing to unsecured creditors. The assets were returned £1,200, leaving, according this, a surplus £525 9s. 8d. The causes of failure were thus set out by the debtor :— "Through having settled property on my wife about two years ago. Bad debts." The Official Receiver's observations in the case were as follow :— The receiving order was made on a creditor's petition, the act of bankruptcy alleged against the debtor being his non-compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice served upon him on the. 12th day of June last. The debtor was adjudicated bankrupt the 7th inst. The debtor states he commenced business as a brewer at the Cromwell Brewery, Newark-upon-Trent, about four years ago with a capital of £5,000, and that he sold this business about 18 months ago to Lionel Charles Bastow, recently bankrupt. The debtor states that in March, 1888, he settled certain property, consisting of a freehold house, in Crown-street, Newark, and £700 in cash or invested mortgage on his wife, Mrs. Almeida Alexander. The debtor states that was under the impression that he was solvent at the time he made this settlement, but that he has subsequently discovered that without the aid of the property included in the settlement he was insolvent at the time of making it. I have not seen the settlement or any copy of it. If the bankrupt's account of his position, at the time of making the settlement, is accurate, it would seem that there is ground for an application to the Court to declare the settlement void under Sec. 47 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. The only asset shown in the debtor's statement affairs is £1,200, the estimated value of the property so settled upon his wife, and from which, after paying his existing liabilities, set down £574 10s. 4d.", he estimates a surplus of £525 9s. 8d. There are, therefore, no funds in the bankruptcy with which to contest the validity of the settlement. It is open to the creditors to appoint a trustee at the meeting, but whether the estate is administered by the Official Receiver or by a trustee, if litigation is intended to be commenced on behalf of the estate, it will be necessary that the creditors should make some provision for meeting the expenses incident to such litigation. The debtor states that he kept a proper set of books in his brewery business, and that they were handed to the purchaser when that business was sold. The debtor was examined by the Official Receiver, to the circumstances under which the settlement was made upon his wife. Mr. White, chartered accountant, Newark, was appointed trustee, with Mr. J. Crossley, Newark Mr. T. H. Robinson, Newark, and Mr. G. S Penfold, Southwark, as a committee of inspection."
Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 25 July 1890, page 4.

As it turned out, he didn't actually have the assets to give his wife £700 and a house. In a couple of years his £5,000 had evaporated and the £1,200 he had given his wife had in fact been all that he had. So technically the settlement probably wasn't valid. Oh dear. But as there weren't enough funds to contest it, nothing could be done.

Had Alexander deliberately bankrupted himself to get the settlement with his wife undone? I think it's a possibility. But it didn't work.

Though he must have scraped some money together, because he eventually paid back most of what he owed:

"Thomas Wm. Alexander, Balderton, near Newark-upon-Trent formerly brewer, now milk seller and cowkeeper. First and final dividend 15s. in the pound, payable July 27, at 52, Castle gate, Newark." Sheffield Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 15 July 1891, page 8.

15 shillings in the pound is 75%. Not all that bad. And which means that he must have found £430 17s. 6d.

We'll be moving on to another bankruptcy next. You can probably guess of whom: Lionel Charles Bastow, the purchaser of the Cromwell Brewery. Who was bankrupted even before Alexander. And it seems that Alexander played a role in his bankruptcy.

Thomas William Alexander turns violent

They certainly rattled through justice in the old days. Within a week of attacking his wife, Alexander was in court.

He was a lucky man - the charge was considerably reduced in seriousness before the trial kicked off:

"Serious Charge.—At Newark on Monday, before the Mayor (Ald. Pratt) and other Justices, Mr. Thomas William Alexander, of the firm of Howe and Alexander, brewers, Newark, was brought up on remand charged with attempting to murder his wife.—Mr. C. W. HAIGH prosecuted, and Mr. W. H. NORLEDGE defended.—Mr. HAIGH asked that the charge of feloniously wounding with intent to murder might be withdrawn and one of aggravated assault substituted, as there was not sufficient evidence to support the graver charge. — The Bench consented to the charge being reduced to one of cutting and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm."
Stamford Mercury - Friday 06 April 1888, page 5.

I'm sure that the potential sentence would be much higher for attempted murder than aggravated assault.


First the doctor who had treated Mrs Alexander gave evidence.

"Dr. Lucas said on the 26th March he was called to see Mrs. Alexander soon after ten in the morning. Her face was very swollen, her eyes blackened, and her neck marked with contusions or bruises. A very shallow incised wound was on the left cheek. That, in his opinion, was caused by a knife or sharp instrument. There was a deeper incised wound the base the index finger the left hand. The only other injuries were slight bruises on the left side and knee. The bleeding had stopped before he saw the wounds. There was no wound on the throat of any kind."
Stamford Mercury - Friday 06 April 1888, page 5.

The fact that her injuries were relatively minor and that there was no wound on her throat are probably the reasons why the charge was reduced.

Next it was Mrs. Alexander's turn to take the stand.

"— Mrs. Almeida Alexander said : I am the wife defendant. On a week last Sunday night I had been with my brother and husband to the Midland station to see the former off on the mail train. After that I came back to the Royal Oak in My husband came home about ten o'clock. After we had closed I went into the dining-room, and he asked me if I would go the smoke-room, where he had some workmen sitting. I refused to go. There had been no quarrel, and I said nothing else, but went to bed. My husband was perfectly sober. I next saw him about twelve o'clock, when he came to bed. I had been to sleep. He locked the door after him. The first words that he said were, "I will murder you," and he had an open pocket knife in his hand, and the gas was alight in the room. He got hold of me and dragged me out of bed, and I struggled. I felt the knife first against left ear, and put up my hand to save me. My hand was then cut. I managed to get the window. I wanted to get out of the window, and up to that time he had the knife his hand. He pulled me away from the window by the hair, and in doing so broke the fastener. Afterwards he kicked me, and hit me with his fist about the head and face. He did not knock me on the floor, but the bed, where I struggled with him. He mentioned about my saying that I would go away to a situation. My hand was bleeding, and I put a towel round my hand. There was blood on my night-shirt, and he told me to take it off. He took the night-shirt off, and said if he were taken up I should not have the clothes to give in evidence against him. My child, aged four, was in the room. He took the towel away also. This continued till after 3 o'clock. I went to the door, but the key was taken out of the lock, and he refused to give it me. Shortly after three he got into bed, and kept kicking and pinching me. This went on till I fell asleep. Before I got into bed I asked be allowed to lie on the floor, as I said I had no strength to get up. Defendant woke at seven o'clock. Asked for the key, he said he did not know where it was. I asked him a second time and he gave me from between the bed and the mattress. I was partly dressed, and went to the barmaid's room after unlocking the door. In the barmaid's room he called for me. He asked me to get his working coat. I refused to go alone, except the barmaid went with me. He asked to speak to me privately. In the presence of the barmaid he asked me to forgive him, but I was very frightened and went downstairs. The housemaid washed the blood off my face. He left the house, and soon after I left and went to some friends. On the Wednesday night previously we had had a quarrel my father, who was living in the house. I have had occasion to remonstrate with my husband for his treatment of my father. That night father was drunk, and my husband had locked him in a bed-room. I remonstrated with my husband about this."
Stamford Mercury - Friday 06 April 1888, page 5.

I'm not sure I understand why Mr. Alexander came into the bedroom and threatened to kill his wife. It all seems rather random.  Unless it was something to do with not going into the smoke-room full of workmen. Why did he want her to go there and why did she refuse?

"He mentioned about my saying that I would go away to a situation." What does that mean? Had she threatened to leave him? Is that why he lost his rag?

It must have been a terrifying experience for Mrs. Alexander. What's even weirder is that all this happened while their 4-year-old son was in the room. I don't think I'd be able to fall asleep after having someone put a knife to my throat. Especially if the were still kicking and punching me.

Or was it connected with her rather? It sounds as if Alexander didn't care for his father-in-law. Were they partners? As Mrs. Alexander was born Almeida Howe, I suspect that they were. Though I haven't unearthed any actual evidence.

The barmaid corroborated Mrs. Alexander's account:

"— Miss Mary Jane Hill, barmaid, said: A week on Sunday night I saw defendant at ten minutes past twelve, when he was sober. My bed-room is some distance from where Mr. and Mrs. Alexander sleep, and I did not hear any noise. About seven next morning Mrs. Alexander came to my bed-room and was bleeding from the hand. Defendant asked Mrs. Alexander to forgive him in their bed-room."
Stamford Mercury - Friday 06 April 1888, page 5.

At which point the case rather irritatingly came to a halt. A shame, as I'd like to have heard Mr. Alexander's evidence.

"—Other evidence having been taken,

Mr. Haigh said there was evidence to justify a charge of aggravated assault, but Mr. Norledge had suggested that an arrangement should to come to by which the defendant would undertake to leave the district, that a separation order be drawn up, and defendant should settle upon his wife £700 and certain property. It was a matter between husband wife, and it would be better for all concerned if an agreement could be come to, and if defendant was allowed out on bail for a month it might carried out — Mr. Norledge for the defendant, consented. — The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Wallis) said he should have to report the case to the Home Secretary, that the Public Prosecutor might take up if he liked .— Mr. Haigh thought he would not interfere. — The Mayor replied, but supposing the Home Secretary and the Public Prosecutor set to work it would be a slur on the Magistrates after they had allowed the case to drop. — After some further discussion the case was adjourned for a month, pending the depositions being sent to the Public Prosecutor and the agreement and deed of separation being drawn up. Subsequently defendant was liberated on the recognisances of himself and brother in £100 each for his re-appearance in month."
Stamford Mercury - Friday 06 April 1888, page 5.

In return for buggering off and paying a considerable sum to his wife, the case would be dropped. On the face of it, Alexander got off pretty lightly. I say on the face of it because the story doesn't stop there. But we'll be getting to that later.

Another newspaper report includes some details omitted from the first. Mrs. Alexander must have been quite a sight in court:

"The prosecutrix [Mrs. Alexander] was then called into court, and signed a fresh information on the minor charge. Both her eyes wore blackened, the fingers of her left hand were bandaged up, and she bore other signs of brutal treatment."
Grantham Journal - Saturday 07 April 1888, page 3.

There's a little more about their son in this report:

"The ill-treatment went on till a little after three o'clock in the morning. When witness went to the bedroom door to try to get out of the room, she found it locked, and the key taken out. Witness asked the prisoner for the key, but refused to give it to her. Shortly after three o'clock prisoner got into bed, and witness took the child (four years old) out of the cot and put it in the bed between the prisoner and herself. After prisoner got into bed he kept kicking her with his knees and pinching her. Prisoner fell asleep about four o'clock, but before doing so he took the child out of the bed and put it back in the cot. While prisoner was asleep witness searched for the key of the door, but could not find it. When he awoke, about seven o'clock, she asked him for the key, and he said at first he did not know where it was, but afterwards got it from between the bed and the mattress."
Grantham Journal - Saturday 07 April 1888, page 3.

And I can't help wondering what Alexander meant by this:

"Sergeant Free said he apprehended defendant, and read over the warrant to him. Prisoner replied, "Free, there are faults on both sides."
Grantham Journal - Saturday 07 April 1888, page 3.

Next we'll be looking at the continued fallout from the case,  which rumbled on for another couple of years. And had a big impact on the brewery itself. And we'll be seeing Mr. Norledge again.

The Cromwell Brewery

I still find it odd having a brewery with the name of Cromwell in Newark. Because his men spent most of the Civil War firing into the town. Newark was a Royalist stronghold and spent most of the war under siege.

But its inappropriate name isn't the only exceptional thing about the Cromwell Brewery. Through the newspaper archive I've managed to dig up quite a lot about the brewery, or rather the people who owned it. Surprising for a brewery that wasn't in operation for much more than 20 years.

According to Brenda M. Pask in "Newark: The Bounty of Beer" (1999, page 15) the brewery was founded in 1869 by James Hooton. It was on Baldertongate and attached to the Oliver Cromwell pub. By the early 1880's, the brewery had passed into the hands of the Smith family and was operated as Smith & Son (Pask page 16).

In 1883 the Cromwell Brewery Company, a partnership of William Moss and Joseph William Smith Sen., was dissolved after the death of the latter.(London Standard - Saturday 03 November 1883, page 6, Sheffield Independent - Saturday 03 November 1883, page 7.) I'm not quite sure what happened next, but by 1887 Moss was no longer associated with the brewery and it was operating as Howe and Alexander (Grantham Journal - Saturday 17 December 1887, page 4.). These are the people that interest me.

The first mention of them I found is this marriage notice:

"July 4, at Christchurch, Thomas William Alexander, to Almeida Howe;"
Stamford Mercury - Friday 14 July 1882, page 1.

It looks very much like Alexander had married a relative of his future partner, most likely his daughter. A few years later, in 1886, Alexander became a partner in the brewery, bringing with him £5,000 capital. (Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 25 July 1890, page 4.)

He seems to have been involved in the brewing trade before that, because a T. W. Alexander is mentioned in a report of Caparn, Hankey, and Co. annual fishing competition. (Grantham Journal - Saturday 18 August 1883, page 8.) Caparn, Hankey, and Co. would become Hole & Co. in 1885.

The business was more than just a brewpub, as there was also an off-licence:

"TO be LET, SHOP, with Off Beer License, situated at Fulbeck, doing a good trade in all branches. Apply to Howe & Alexander, Cromwell Brewery, Newark-on-Trent."
Grantham Journal - Saturday 17 December 1887, page 4.

As well as at least one more pub, the Royal Oak in Stodman Street. Which is where Alexander lived with his wife Almeida and her father. It wasn't the happiest of households.

This is the article that really got me interested in the Alexanders:

"At a special sitting of the Newark magistrates yesterday morning, Thomas William Alexander, Of the firm of Howe and Alexander, of the Oliver Cromwell Brewery, Newark, and the Royal Oak Hotel, Stodman street, was charged with having caused grievous bodily harm to his wife, Almina Alexander, with intent kill and murder her, on the night of Sunday, the 25th March, or early on the morning of Monday, the 26th.—- Mr. Wallis (deputy clerk to the magistrates) said the prisoner had been apprehended on a warrant, which was then read. — Mr. Norledge applied for an adjournment, and named Monday next as a suitable day for the preliminary examination. — The Mayor said remand would be granted till Monday, at 12 o'clock. — Defendant was then removed custody, and subsequently taken to Lincoln."
Sheffield Evening Telegraph - Thursday 29 March 1888, page 2.

Notice that they got the wife's name wrong.  This really piqued my interest. I've not come across a brewer being charged with attempted murder before. I wanted to know what exactly had happened and what became of Alexander and his wife.

At first I had no luck. But with a bit of fiddling of the search terms, I managed to find a pretty full account of what went on in the Royal Oak on the 25th and 26th March, 1889. You'll find out next time.