I, Arthur Buckridge

From 1830 to the 1980s there were two types of pubs in the UK: fully licensed premises and beer houses. The latter being a product of the 1830 Beer Act, which allowed just about anyone to open a pub that didn’t sell spirits.

Beer house licences were initially issued not by the local licensing authorities, but by the central excise authorities. Though that changed after 1869. Beer houses weren’t generally liked by licensing magistrates, who were always trying to close them down.

Brewers and licensees, on the other hand, were very keen on converting beer licences to full licences. The latter being more profitable. A beer house converted to a full licence immediately became more valuable.

Which explains why Arthur Buckridge made this application.

The Licensing Acts 1910 and 1921.
In the County of LONDON 
Petty Sessional Division of WANDSWORTH.
To the Rating Authority of this Pariah of Battersea Borough in the said County, to the Superintendent of Police of the Parish of Battersea in the County of London, to Thomas Baines. Esq. Clerk of the Licensing Justices for the said Petty Sessional Division, and to all whom it may concern.

I ARTHUR BUCKRIDOE, now residing at 71 Rawson-street in the Parish of Battersea. in the County of London., Beerhouse Keeper, DO HEREBY GIVE NOTICE that it is my intention to apply at the General Annual Licensing Meeting for the said Division to be holden at the Town Hall, Lavender Hill, Battersea, in the said Division and County, on Friday, the 3rd day of February, 1939, for a grant to me of a Justices Licence authorising me to hold an Excise Licence to sell, under the Licensing Acta, 1910 and 1921, the following intoxicating liquor, viz., WINE by retail, to be consumed either ON or OFF the house or premises thereto belonging situate at No. 71 Rawson-street in the Parish of Battersea, in the said Division and County, known by the sign of the "PRINCE ARTHUR,” of which premises Young and Company’s Brewery, Limited, of the Ram Brewery. Wandsworth, are the Owners and which premises are now occupied by me as a Beerhouse Keeper.

GIVEN under my hand this 10th day of January, 1939,
ARTHUR BUCKRIDGE.
South Western Star - Friday 13 January 1939, page 4.

I wonder if the Prince Arthur ever got its full licence? I’ve tried looking on old OS maps, but can’t find one with enough detail. The pub itself no longer exists. Most of the street seems to have been destroyed during the war, It’s currently post-war flats.
 

Beerhouses

In 1830, in a rare attack of liberalism, beerhouses were created. Intended to usher in an era of free trade in beer, licences were issued for beer-only pubs directly from the Excise, outside the control of local licensing magistrates. This was changed in 1869, when such licences came under control of the justices.

However, beerhouse licences which had existed before that date were given some protection. And couldn't be revoked as easily as full licences (ones allowing the sale of all alcoholic drinks).

Two Classes of “old On-Licences."- Beerhouse licences, beer and wine on-licences, and cider on-licences which were in force on May 1, 1869, and have since remained continuously in force, were specially protected as regards the grounds upon which their renewal might be refused by the Wine & Beerhouse Acts of 1869 and 1870. The protection so given to them was preserved in a modified form by the Act of 1904. Licences so protected are hereinafter spoken of as protected or ante-1869 beerhouse licences. Old on-licences of the same kind which either were not in force on May 1, 1869, or, having been in force at that date, have not since remained continuously in force, do not enjoy this protection, and are herein after spoken of as unprotected beerhouse licences. Full licences are also outside this protection, and must be deemed to be included whenever in the following paragraph is unprotected old on-licences are spoken of.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 257.

There was a specific list of circumstances which allowed for the removal of beerhouse licences:

(2) Ante-1869, or Protected Licences. In the case of protected beerhouse licences--that is to say, of beerhouse licences, beer and wine on-licences and cider on-licences--which were in force on May 1, 1869, and have since remained continuously in force in respect of the samepremises, the justices may not refuse to renew without compensation on any ground other than the following:

 1. That the applicant has failed to produce satisfactory evidence of good character.
 2. That the house or shop in respect of which the licence is sought, or any adjacent house or shop owned or occupied by the person applying for the licence is of a disorderly character, or frequented by thieves, prostitutes, or persons of bad character.
 3. That the applicant, having personally held a licence for the sale of wine, spirits, beer, or cider, the same has been forfeited for his misconduct, or that he has through misconduct been at any time previously adjudged disqualified from receiving any such licence or from selling any of the said articles.
 4. That the applicant or the house in respect of which he applies is not duly qualified as by law is required.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 258. 

The licensing authorities really didn't like prostitutes and thieves.

Reid tied houses and free trade 1830 - 1875

Still not done with tied houses. This time we're looking at another of the big London Porter breweries: Reid.

I used to think that Reid's brewery had totally disappeared. It was situated on the junction of Clerkenwell Road and Leather Lane. The site is currently occupied by a block of housing. But there was another part of the brewery on the other side of Leather Lane and part of that survives.Though the name Reid lived on for several decades as a Stout brand of Watney's.

I really should do more with the Reid brewing records I have photos of. I've not gone through them all properly yet. Not sure why, as they were the first ones I collected around ten years ago.

Back to their tied houses. If you remember, Barclay Perkins went from 51 owned pubs in 1830 to 29 in 1875. But for a large part of the period inbetween the numbers were quite stable. At Reid, there was a fall pretty much throughout and resulted in them owning less than a third as many pubs as when they started.

It's frustrating that the table doesn't extend a little later. Because I'm sure the trend towards sales rather purchases would have been reversed. I think the trends in pub ownership can be accounted for by licensing legislation.

Why would a brewers start selling off pubs after 1830? It must surely be connected with the Beer Act of that year. The thing that established beer houses and led to a big increase in the number of pubs, especially in London. As a consequence, they were more outlets for a brewer to choose from, meaning there wasn't such a big need to own pubs.

The beer house provisions in the Beer Act were mostly reversed by the 1869 Licensing Act. This made it nigh on impossible to obtain a new pub licence and even actively tried to reduce the number of licensed premises. Making outlets scarcer and more difficult to obtain. Leading to a mad rush to buy pubs.

Here's the table:

Reid tied houses and free trade 1830 - 1875
Year	Owned	%	Loan	%	Free	%	total	barrels brewed	barrels per pub
1830	168	27.3	355	57.7	92	15	615	127,220	206.86
1835	142	23.7	338	56.2	121	21.2	601	181,187	301.48
1840	122	19.7	360	58.3	136	22	618	195,169	315.81
1845	120	18.2	406	61.6	133	20.2	659	227,306	344.93
1850	120	17.2	391	55.9	188	26.9	699	213,345	305.21
1855	107	15.7	378	55.4	197	28.9	682	179,217	262.78
1860	96	12.8	384	51.2	270	36	750	288,597	384.8
1865	76	9.2	394	47.8	355	43	825	277,757	336.68
1870	55	6	407	44.7	438	49.3	900	264,753	294.17
1875	52	6	391	44.8	430	49.2	873	235,596	269.87
Sources:
The British Brewing Industry 1830 - 1980 by T.R. Gourvish and R.G. Wilson, 1994, page 131.
Whitbread brewing log, document LMA/4453/D/09/023
"The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980" T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611

Bolton in 1854

Funny the way you stumble across things you aren't looking for. I came across this when scouring government papers for statistics. It's about Bolton's pub scene in the 1850's.

Before we start, an important observation. The man being interviewed, Mr. Cunliffe, was a temperance campaigner. Which is fair enough, as he doesn't sound like someone you'd like to share a pint with.

"2414. Sir G. Grey,] Are informations more frequent in Bolton against the keepers of public-houses than against the keepers of beerhouses ?—About the average. I have a return of the number of convictions of public-houses and beerhouses.

2415. Does it show how often the same person has been convicted ?—It does not show that; in that respect it is defective.

2416. You are not able to inform the Committee whether the cases of second and third convictions are frequent in Bolton ?—I think not; I think they rarely come in the same year; it is allowed to pass over, and they are allowed to begin anew the following year.

2417. The recommendation which you gave just now would apply to any conviction subsequent to the first conviction ?—Yes.

2418. Chairman.] You have no doubt that the offences are more frequent than the convictions would show ?—No doubt.

2419. Sir G. Grey.] What is the number of public-houses in Bolton?—One hundred and eighteen.

2420. How many beerhouses are there ?—Two hundred and eight.

2421. What number of convictions were there last year?—Convicted in penalty and costs, 11 public-houses and 30 beerhouses; convicted in costs only, five public-houses and 18 beerhouses.

2422. Chairman.] Was any licence taken away ?—No.

2423. Sir G. Grey.] Is there an efflcient police force in Bolton ?—Yes.

2424. What is the number of the police ?—About 30.

2425. Is that a sufficient force to exercise a vigilant superintendence over the public-houses and beerhouses ?—Yes.

2426. What is their motive for informing against these public-houses; are they directed to watch them, to go into them, and give evidence against them ?—They are directed to watch them; frequently the offences are so glaring and notorious that they cannot overlook them.

2427. What are the offences chiefly; Sunday trading?—Chiefly for selling at unlawful hours on Sunday.

2428. You do not doubt that that is done to a considerable extent?—No.

2429. Sir G. Grey.] What is the population of Bolton?—About 64,000.

2430. What is the number of persons who were convicted of drunkenness out of that population last year?—Eight hundred and fifty-eight.

2431. Chairman.] Do you know whether those cases of drunkenness are of people incapable of taking care of themselves ?—They are divided into two classes: the Return gives, "Persons drunk and incapable, males, 312, females, 81; persons drunk and disorderly, males, 376, females, 89." The two make a total of 858 ; but I apprehend there is a class of offences called " assaults," which is really often drunkenness.

2432. It is not classed as such ?—It is not classed as such. If a person gets drunk, and commits a violent assault, he is brought up for an assault, and the drunkenness is merged in the assault.

2433. You do not get an idea of what is the whole conviction for drunkenness from those returns?—By no means from the return of persons convicted of being drunk and incapable, and persons drunk and disorderly. There are hundreds who are really drunk and staggering along; but if they will pass at all peaceably on, they are suffered to go.

2434. You have come to some conclusion generally, have you not, with respect to the effect of this drunkenness upon the habits of the people as to their moral conduct and general demeanor?—Yes.

2435. Do you consider it is the root of all the demoralisation which exists ?— I think it is the great curse of the working classes especially, and the great incubus which keeps them in debasement and wretchedness.

2436. You think if. chiefly arises from the facility to get spirituous liquors w hich is presented to them ?—It largely arises from the easy way they can get drink, and the proximity to temptation.

2437. Do you believe, if the temptation were out of their way, they would be less gross, and their habits would generally improve ?—I have no doubt that drunkenness would decrease 50 per cent.

2438. Do you know many instances in which people have given up drinking; where you have seen their habits totally change?—Great numbers; a most decided change.

2439. Have you any doubt that at the present time numbers would get intoxicated, not in a public-house?—There are a few; there are some "hush-shops" in Bolton, but not nearly so many as in other towns.

2440. Should you apprehend a great increase of those houses, supposing the public-houses were closed on Sunday ?—I have no doubt there would be some increase.

2441. How would you reach those houses ?—I would do all the law could for reaching them, for selling a wrong article.

2442. You think the inspection is not sufficiently vigilant now ?—It is not sufficiently vigilant; a conviction is too difficult.

2443. Would your remedy be to appoint a person whose distinct duty it should be to watch those houses, and inform against them when they are erring ?— I have no distinct opinion upon that subject; it must rest with the police authorities, or with the corporation; but I think that the conviction should be of the easiest kind possible.

2444. If you were to close these public-houses on Sunday, would it not require some person whose duty it should be specially to discover whether persons were selling spirits in other houses ?—I have no doubt that the lessened duties of the police consequent upon the closing of the public-houses on Sunday would leave them more at liberty to do this.

2445. You have no doubt that the habits of a vast number of people in Bolton are those of drunkenness ?—None whatever; I divide drunkenness into voluntary and involuntary ; voluntary drunkenness I attach to those who are deliberate and settled drunkards, and who will have drink if they can get it.

2446. You do not suppose, do you, that by merely closing the public-houses on Sunday you would really reform those persons ?—No.

2447. "What would be the case with those persons if the public-houses were closed on Sunday; they would get drink ?—There would be some clandestine drinking ; the law would be evaded, as all laws more or less are.

2448. You do not consider it would be a complete cure?—No; it is not a complete cure that we expect, but a very great abatement; and that is the whole that we can expect the Government can do.

2449. Have you any further suggestions to make with respect to restricting the licences to those houses ?—I think with regard to the Beer Act, if I might be allowed to refer to it, that the Beer Act itselt has been an immense curse to the country, and ought to be gradually repealed.

2450. Do you think that the people drink more beer than spirits ?—In Lancashire they do; but the Beer Act has multiplied the temptations, and brought them nearer to the people.

2451. Do confirmed drunkards drink chiefly spirits, or beer?—They vary; you cannot classify them; some of them are inveterate spirit drinkers, and others drink nothing but beer.

2452. The greatest temptations are in those houses where they stand and drink, and go out again immediately ?—The greatest temptation is in those houses where the beer is cheapest.

2453. Chiefly the spirit vaults ?—No ; we consider that they sell cheap beer where they stand to drink at about 4 d. per quart, and as low as 3 d. per quart.

2454. That is very weak beer, is it not ?—I suppose it is strong for mischief, although it is weak for anything good.

2455. If they drink plenty of it, it would have the same effect as strong beer : —Perhaps the alcoholic power is not so much derived from the presence of malt as from the presence of other sugary matters which they put in, such as treacle and so on, which will produce alcohol by fermentation."


. . . . . . .



"2475- Sir G. Grey.] This paper, which contains a copy of the memorial which you have stated was signed by 2,000 ratepayers, praying that no additional licences might be granted, was printed at Ipswich ; how do you account for that ? — It was a copy of our memorial; we generally print the proceedings of the licensing-day ; we have opposed it the last eight years.

2476. Why is it printed at Ipswich and not at Bolton ?—Mr. Alexander, at Ipswich, prints temperance tracts, and seeing some good in that, he adopted it.

2477. Chairman.] Do the public-houses at Bolton belong to respectable people in the town ?— Generally.

2478. They would not go with you in closing them ?—I do not suppose they would venture their character upon opposition.

2479. -Are they brewers and distillers ?—Not generally.

2480. Sir G. Grey.] How many public-houses, if any, have been licensed by the magistrates since this memorial was presented in August 1848?—Only one to a railway station, for the last eight years ; there have been no licences granted since that memorial was adopted.

2481. Are the magistrates acting in accordance with the prayer of that petition ?—For the last eight years they have done so.

2482. Chairman.] Do you know what the increase of beerhouses has been since that time ?—They have fluctuated from 180 up to 210 and 213 ; they change hands very much."



. . . . . . . . .



2506. Chairman.] Have you any statement of the number of persons found in public-houses in Bolton, on the Sunday evening?—Yes, in 12 public-houses there were 231 persons present, and in 12 beerhouses 195 persons present; that was on the 4th of June 1854, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'clock p.m. (The statement was delivered in).

2507. I understood you to be of opinion that the Beer Act should not be repealed immediately, but only by some gradual process ?—By a gradual process.

2508. Have you ever presented to this House a petition to that effect ?— Numbers have been presented with that view, this is a copy of one of the petitions. (The same was delivered in.)

2509. Mr. Gregson.] You have stated that at Bolton the beer was all consumed by tippling at public-houses, and not by families at their meals ?—Principally so.

"The Sessional Papers of the House of Lords in the session 1854; Reports from Select Committees ogf the Hous of Commons, and Evidence; Public Houses" "Minutes of Evidence Taken by the Select Committee on Public Houses, etc." pages 132 - 136.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=FB9cAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR13&dq=Parliamentary+Paper+beer&hl=en&ei=KtoeTsXiJpDpOfDcqZkD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=beer&f=false

What a bastard, eh? Quite happy to deprive the working classes of their only bit of fun. The theme of saving the working class from themselves isn't new in Britain. It's the common thread linking this text from the 1850's, 1930's Bolton and the modern British media, with their obsession about chavs and binge drinking.

The whole point of this discussion is that the local magistrates had no control over beer house licences. Beer house licences were issued directly by the Excise and were granted pretty much automatically, as long as a few basic conditions were fulfilled. Fully-licensed public houses, on the other hand, were at the mercy of the magistrates. In some towns, temperance campaigners got themselves onto licensing committees and refused to grant any new licences. This may have been the case in Bolton.

Mr. Cunliffe told us that in 1854 there were118 fully-licensed pubs and 208 beerhouses. By 1869 it was 123 pubs (the prayers of Mr. Cunliffe and his chums must have stopped working) and 329 beerhouses.

The situation changed in 1869, when the law was changed to allow magistrates to refuse beer house licences. The number of beerhouses immediately went into decline. In Bolton, that meant the immediate closure of 69 beerhouses. They were gradually whittled away over the succeeding decades and by 1935 there were only 169 left. Fully-licensed pubs fared much better, and there were still 102 in 1935.

Limited drinking hours on Sunday clearly weren't popular. Serving outside hours on Sunday was the commonest offence of publicans. I can understand why. You work like crzay all week, then the one day you have off the pubs are shut most of the time. Enough to drive anyone to crime.

What an odd expression, "tippling at public-houses". It makes drinking in a pub sound like some seedy activity. Which I guess was the idea.

Suggestions for checking the Hurtful Use of Alcoholic Beverages by the Working Classes

 Bit of a mouthful, that title. It's not of my invention, I might add. It came with the article I'm about to quote.

I cringe whenever I read one of these condescending pieces about the working classes. About the need to protect them from themselves. Like children. Educationally sub-normal children. I'm sure the motives of the posh blokes writing this guff were good, but they seem to have little understanding or empathy with those at the other end of the social scale. Probably because they rarely ever spoke to anyone working class, save to give them orders.

See what you make of Mr. Andrews proposals for stopping the plebs drinking themselves to death.

"Suggestions for checking the Hurtful Use of Alcoholic Beverages by the Working Classes. By Thomas Andrews, M.D., F.R.S.

It is not my object to discuss fully in this paper the question whether alcoholic beverages, taken in moderate quantity and properly diluted, are on the whole useful, or injurious, or simply innocuous. The high value of human life among the upper and middle classes of society in Great Britain, who are unquestionably large but not immoderate consumers of alcohol in one form or another, may perhaps be regarded as affording a strong presumption that such beverages taken within due limits are not very, if they are at all, injurious to health. It is difficult, indeed, to refuse assent to the opinion that a certain allowance of beer or cider or genuine wine cannot be otherwise than useful to the hard-worked man. But the ruinous consequences of the abuse of alcohol admit of no doubt. Among the working classes three causes especially aggravate this evil—insufficient food, impure air, and strong forms of alcohol. Even the skilled artizan of intemperate habits is rarely able, or, if able, inclined to purchase proper food ; and during a drinking carouse he usually takes no food whatever. In this way, intoxication and subsequently disease are produced by an amount of alcohol which would be comparatively harmless in the case of a well-fed man. The impure air of the confined apartments in which many trades are carried on acts, to some extent, like deficient nourishment, and by depressing the tone of the system renders it less capable of resisting the hurtful action of an excess of the alcoholic stimulant.

The third source of aggravation, or the use of undiluted alcoholic beverages, is even more important than the others to which I have referred. Alcohol, taken in the form of brandy, gin, or whisky, unmixed with water, all of which contain about 50 per cent, of pure spirit or absolute alcohol, is a great deal too strong. It produces, when habitually used of this strength, a morbid craving which cannot be resisted, a state of disease from which recovery is hopeless.

No one will be inclined to dispute that the public-house and gin palace, as they now exist, are an outrage to society and a disgrace to the country, and that the mischief they do to the working classes, as dens of intemperance, is incomparably greater than any advantage they afford as places of refreshment. With the view of abating this great evil, I propose, in the first place, to have them changed into places truly of refreshment, the only purpose for which they ought to be licensed. No house should, according to my view, be licensed as a public-house for the sale of alcoholic beverages, unless it be provided with ample appliances for cooking and serving food, and the licence should be withdrawn, if it be found that these appliances are not made use of, and that the public house is devoted solely to the sale of stimulants.

My second proposal rests on the assumption that no one should be allowed to sell, for consumption on his premises, anything which is positively ruinous to the population. Gin, brandy, or whisky, taken undiluted, are fatal to a town population, very hurtful to any population. They contain, as commonly sold, from 50 to 55 per cent, of pure alcohol, and few men take them for any length of time undiluted with water, without falling eventually into intemperate habits. Madeira, sherry, and port, as they occur in this country, contain from 17 to 20 per cent, of pure alcohol; burgundy from 12 to 12.5 ; claret, from 9.5 to 10.5; and bitter ale and porter, about 6.75 per cent. Claret is, therefore, one-half stronger than ale or porter; burgundy nearly twice as strong, and madeira, sherry, and port, about three times as strong. No alcoholic beverages ought to be used habitually of greater strength than burgundy ; but they may be taken without injury of the strength of sherry, if the quantity be very moderate.

My second proposal is, that no licensed publican should be allowed to sell, or keep in store, any liquor containing more than 17 per cent, of alcohol. I have taken the limit of 17 per cent, as being the strength of sherry, but 1 should hope to see the burgundy standard, or 12 per cent., eventually adopted. The police ought to have power to seize any spirit or wine of greater strength than 17 per cent, found in the public-house, or in any store-house connected with it.

It may be right for me here to state that it is to alcohol, and not to its adulterations, that nearly all the mischief arising from the use of stimulating beverages in these countries is due. Nor is it important whether the alcohol has been formed in the process of fermentation, or has been subsequently added.

The object of my last proposal is not to put any undue restriction on the enjoyment or gratification of the working classes, but to prevent others from placing before them a dangerous beverage—one unfit for human use. No one, it appears to me, would have any valid ground for complaint, because he was restricted in the public house to the use of a beverage of the strength of sherry, or even of burgundy. I have little doubt that the skilled artizan, as well as the poor labourer, would soon give a hearty assent to such a measure.
"Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science", 1868, pages 659 - 661.

Looking at it positively, at least he didn't recommend banning alcohol altogether and converting pubs into temperance tea rooms.

"No one will be inclined to dispute that the public-house and gin palace, as they now exist, are an outrage to society and a disgrace to the country" I'm sure there were plenty of people who would have argued that point. Amongst regular pub-goers. But I don't get the impression that Mr. Andrews spent much time in pubs. I suppose he was getting pissed on claret over an agreeable dinner.

I don't share his confidnce that the working man would welcome the banning of spirits from pubs.  It's another demonstartion of how out of touch he was with the labouring classes.

But there's something, not mentioned, that makes the whole article seem a little ridiculous. There already were pubs that sold nothing stronger than beer: beerhouses. In some areaes these made up as much as 50% of the pubs. Yet the author talks as if all pubs sold all strengths of drinks. And do you what the general opinion of beerhouses was? That they were dens of vice, full of criminals, prostitutes and drunks. But I guess that scuppers his argument. So no surprise he doesn't mention beerhouses.

Pub names

Bolton again, I'm afraid. This time a detailed analysis of pub names in the town.

The continued efforts of the authors to find quantifiable differences between full licences and beerhouses is commendable. Ultimately futile, I suspect, for reasons explained in the last post. The lines between the two had been blurred over time.

The majority of pub names have a suffix, such as the --- Arms, Hotel, Tavern. The following, compiled from a list of pub names, shows the relative frequency of these suffixes.

	Inns	Hotels	Arms	Taverns	No suffix
Beerhouses	32	16	50	11	60
Full licences	3	47	19	0	33
Total	35	63	69	11	93

Although the function of the full licence as a hotel has practically ceased, yet traces of it can be found in their names—over a third of full licences are called Hotels, and only 10 per cent of them Beerhouses. Similarly, the suffix "Inn" is almost restricted to beerhouses, only three full licences being so entitled. And eleven beerhouses, but no full licences, are called Taverns.

An article on "Inn Signs" in the Worktown Evening News, March 5th, 1937, says:

In every town or village one expects to find the names of old families perpetuated, and thus inn signs are a valuable adjunct to local history. Worktown's inns do not disappoint us. . . .

And the writer goes on to quote a number of Worktown pubs called after important families, such as the Earl of Bradford, Lord Derby, the Duke of Bridgwater, and so on. In fact, the majority of pub names are connected with dead Lords, Dukes, Kings, and members of the artistocracy. As well as the 69 pubs named the so-and-so Arms, there are 37 aristocratic names or names of kings. Queen Victoria is reflected in two pubs called The British Queen, one called the Victoria British Queen, and another The Old Original British Queen, as well as two Victoria Hotels and one Victoria Inn. Three pubs are called after Nelson, and there are others, such as The Gladstone and The Napier, named after historical national figures.

The next largest category of pub names, is that of animals, the names of which appear in 49 pub titles. Some of these, such as the Ox Noble and the Blue Boar, are connected with the crests of noble families; and indeed, the connection between the hundreds of Red Lions and Black Bulls found on pub signs all over the country, and the families whose totems these were, has Jong been severed.

We have seen, earlier, the reasons for this connection between the arms of the nobility and the arms of the pub; the later historical connection of the trade union movement with the pub has not, in Worktown, shown itself in the form of many trade names for pubs—there are only 14 of these, and it is interesting to note that 13 of them are beerhouses. Of Worktown's 75 Trade Union branches today, the 40 still meeting in pubs do so without exception in pubs without trade names.

Another type of name, of which there are only a few in Worktown, is the pub called after some place in the neighbourhood. Examples of this are: The Gas Works Tavern, Forge Tavern, Tramways Hotel, Cattle Market Hotel, The Four Factories (this one is now closed down), Recreation Tavern (opposite the Recreation Ground).
"The Pub and the People" by Mass Observation, 1943 (reprinted 1987), pages 87 - 89.

Places called something Hotel that didn't offer accommodation. There's something that rings a bell. Newark had plenty of pubs with Hotel in the name that were really just pubs. I'd never associated the suffix with full licences.

I'd also never made the connection between the trade union movement and pubs with names like the Brass Moulders (a favourite pub of mine in Hunslet, when I lived in Leeds). I suppose it's obvious enough. Just never reall thought about it. Like so many other things.

That's sort of what the whole book "The Pub and the People" is about. Analysing everyday things which you usually pay little heed.

The 1930's pub

Yes, we're back in Bolton again. This time looking at the physical nature of the pub.

I'll be honest. I've never analysed pub architecture this way. Perhaps that's because the distinction between a fully-licensed pub and a beerhouse had become pretty irrelevant by the time I frequented pubs. As we saw the other day, by the 1970's there were only a couple of hundred beerhouses left. I can only remember drinking in one: The Roscoe in Leeds. I may well have drunk in others, but, only drinking beer at the time, I probably wouldn't have noticed.

The two types of pub gradually converged during the 20th century, as beerhouses were either closed or improved and given full licenses. WHich probably explains why the authors failed to find universal distinctions in the physical nature of the two types.

"A pub is a house. Certain exterior characteristics differentiate it from other houses. All pubs have displayed outside, painted on the wall or on a wooden sign, the name of the brewers to whom they belong. Most, but not all, also have the name of the pub itself similarly displayed. Many have on the windows either painted or engraved the name of the room within or the brewer's name. And many have fixed on either side of the main entrance rectangular tablets with the brewer's name on them. There is no specific pub architectural style. Though false pilasters, porticoes and other stucco neo-classical trimmings are common, many pubs do not have these, and are simply ordinary houses.

The following table is the result of an analysis of the frontages of 12 pubs, 6 of them beerhouses (A) and 3 each of large (B) and small (C) full licences:

Characteristic	A	B	C	Total
Sign with pub name	5	3	3	11
"       "     brewer's name	6	3	3	12
"       "     both	5	3	3	11
Tablets on door	2	1	2	5
Name of room on windows	6	1	1	8
Name of brewer on windows	-	-	1	1

Pub signs have never been universal in Worktown; tendency to general decline was recently counteracted by a special exhibition in London, signs by R.A.'s and speech by the Chairman of Whitbread's Ltd., who said:

"Expression in art must be within reach of the ordinary fellow. If this is so it will meet with an enthusiastic and ready response. Art for art's sake is a noble ideal but it must not be allowed to develop into a selfish thing which does not touch the hearts and emotions of the ordinary fellow"—(News Chronicle 7.4.38).

In Worktown the pub facade offers no art-appeal. The only feature common to all is the brewer's name. Tablets on the door generally denote a higher class of pub, and name of rooms on windows a beerhouse. More than half the Worktown pubs are beerhouses ; there are 19 beerhouses licensed to sell wines; and the rest are fully licensed. This may seem to correspond to the Inn-Tavern-Beerhouse trinity. In fact it does not. Though 35 of the pubs are called Inns, and 63 hotels, only 6 are listed in the directory as providing accommodation. A tour of 19 pubs, of all kinds, asking for accommodation, proved fruitless. The ancient function of the Inn as a place for people to stay at has died away. The ordinary Worktown pub, whatever its title, is not an Inn or Hotel.

All large pubs (i.e. with 5 or more rooms and/or seating accommodation of 150 or more) are full licences; but all full licences are not large pubs, and as far as size, architecture, and general appearance, some small full licences are indistinguishable from beerhouses. The beerhouse licensed to sell wines has a separate legal status, but this status is not reflected in any differentiation in the pub itself (beyond, of course, the fact that you can buy a glass of wine in it)."
"The Pub and the People" by Mass Observation, 1943 (reprinted 1987), pages 86 - 87.

The names of rooms on the windows signifies a beerhouse? That's an interesting claim. It was pretty common in the pubs I drank in during the 1970's. Common in all types of pubs, backstreet locals and gin palaces. Maybe Bolton was different.

Now there's a funny thing. All 12 pubs had the name of the brewer on a sign. But only 11 had the name of the pub. Shows where the priority lay: in identifying the brewer, not the name of the pub. I can remember coming across the opposite in Salford in the 1980's. I cam across a pub with no brewery name on the outside and no pump clips. I had to lean over the bar and peer at the bottles beer to work out that it was a Holt's pub.

One last quote before I finish:

"The licensing laws of 1869, already referred to, besides restricting the number of pubs, presumably resulted in their gradual improvement, since the consumption of drink went on increasing, which meant that a smaller number of landlords were doing better business.

From this date onwards all types of pubs were "institutionalized". Our knowledge of what the inside of pubs were like at this time must be gathered from contemporary fiction. Dickens' descriptions in Barnaby Rudge and other works give us a picture that is not very different in essentials from most present-day pubs. The greatest change must have been brought about by the introduction of the beer engine (on which historical data is obscure), which, besides tending to lower the quality of the beer, made it possible for the landlord to keep his barrels all in the cellar, away from the bar, and so serve a larger number of drinkers from a smaller space and with a smaller staff. "The Pub and the People" by Mass Observation, 1943 (reprinted 1987), pages 85 - 86."

I'm trying to work out why beer engines would have caused beer quality to get worse. Surely keeping the beer in a cool cellar rather than behind the bar would have had the opposite effect?

I've more, yes it's true, more about 1930's Bolton pubs to come.

Pub numbers decline in Bolton

Pub numbers. Pub closures. A very topical topic. But one that's been kicking around for longer than my lifetime.

This is a very specific look at pubs in a particular Lancashire town. In particular, how many of them there were. I'm bringing this quite specific account because it's typical of the developments in pub numbers across the UK in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. The same pieces of legislation had much the same effect everywhere. Principally, a sharp reduction in the number of pubs and virtually now new licences ever issued.

At the time this piece was written in the late 1930's, there were 304 pubs in Bolton.

"In this book historical material is only being used to illustrate facts about the contemporary pub, and not for the sake of trying to include a "history of the pub" as such. Now, in order to understand more fully the factors of pub distribution, and to deal with the basis of the different types of pub that are examined later, we require some relevant history.

Some Worktown pubs can be traced back from before the Industrial Revolution. There is a list of 61 names and addresses of pubs existing in 1824. Nineteen of these are still in existence, same names and addresses.

Mackies Worktown Directory and Almanack for 1849 gives the following list:

Inns    117
Beerhouses    188
Beerhouses supposed to exist without a licence    15
Inns and Beerhouses where thieves and prostitutes resort    20
Inns and Beerhouses where gambling is practised    13
Inns and Beerhouses having musical entertainments    14

That is, ignoring the pubs without licences, Worktown had one more licence in 1848 than in 1937. Only, then there were 170 inhabitants per pub, now 559.

Said Mr. Taylor, Coroner for the Borough, 1848, in a speech to the licensing magistrates:

These ale and beerhouses would hold every man, woman, and child in the Borough . . . there is a drinking place for every 25 houses . . . such are the present resources for selling drink — or poison — some called it by one name, some by the other.

By 1854 there were another 25 beerhouses in existence, though the number of full licences had remained the same; and the absolute number of pubs continued to rise, until in 1869 there were 452 of them.

By then there was also a powerful and militant temperance movement in existence. At a packed meeting of 2,000 people in the new Temperance Hall the Rev. C. Garrett declaimed "No working man in Lancashire need be without clothes, but if he will insist in clothing the landlord and landlady in purple and fine linen, he must be content to remain in poverty and rags". Since 1830 there had been no restrictions whatever on the issue of beer licences; this policy remained the same for 39 years, when the Act of 1869 empowered the magistrates to refuse to grant the renewal or issue of beer licences; and another Act of 1872 still further restricted the conditions of issue and renewal of licences. The general basis of the present day licensing system had been established. From that time it is possible to trace statistically the ratio between pub and population variation.

Though in 1869 there were nearly half as many pubs again as there had been in existence twenty years earlier, the amount of full licences had only increased by 6, from 117 to 123. Next year, when the Act came into force, 69 beerhouses were abolished right away. The diagram opposite shows that the population: pub ratio has never subsequently decreased, steadily rising from 210 people per pub in 1870 to its 1935 figure of 559.

For nearly thirty years after the new act came into force, the absolute number of pubs continued to fall, while the population was still rising. In 1898 the borough boundaries were enlarged, which besides adding to the population increased the number of pubs by 61. (The break in the curves on the diagram, that are joined by dotted lines, indicate this.) For a few years the absolute number of pubs increased again slightly, but after 1903 began a long, steady fall, decreasing on an average by about three pubs every year. And in 1928, after a period of stagnation, the population too began to fall."
"The Pub and the People" by Mass Observation, 1943 (reprinted 1987), page 73.

The Beer Act of 1830 ushered in an, historically considered, untypically liberal licensing regime. Basically anyone could open a beer house, that is a pub that only sold beer and no spirits. Unsurprisingly, the number of pubs rocketed. From the 1869 Act mentioned onwards, increasingly strict legislation was introduced, mostly designed to close beer houses. It was a task that continued into the 1980's. Sometime around then beer houses finally disappear from the licensing statistics, having fallen to just a couple of hundred in the 1970's. As you can see from the table below.

You'll notice that Bolton was very close to the national average for the number of pubs per head of population in the 1930's: 1 per 559 people, when in 1938 the average was 519.

Pubs in England and Wales
Date	fully-licensed pub	beer house	Total Pubs	clubs	Total on Licences	Off Licences	On and Off licences	population	pop. per pub
1900			102,189			..	..	30,515,000	299
1905			99,478	6,589	106,067	25,405	124,883
1910			92,484	7,536	100,020	24,438	116,922	33,651,600	364
1915			86,626	8,902	95,528	23,202	109,828
1920			83,432	8,994	92,426	22,198	105,630	35,230,200	422
1931	57,072	19,814	76,886	14,377	91,263	22,105	113,368	39,988,000	520
1938	56,173	17,747	73,920	16,951	90,871	22,052	112,923	38,348,400	519
1941	56,961	17,249	74,210	15,864	90,074	21,756	111,830	41,748,000	563
1951	59,757	13,664	73,421	19,511	92,932	23,669	116,601	43,815,000	597
1961	64,570	4,366	68,936	24,418	93,354	23,934	117,288	46,196,000	670
1965	65,353	1,217	66,570	23,598	96,157	26,352	122,509	45,870,100	689
1971	63,640	447	64,087	26,548	101,863	28,166	130,029	49,152,000	767
1976	64,666	361	65,027	28,203	108,905	32,595	141,500	49,184,500	756
1982			68,373	30,269	121,232	39,362	160,594	49,634,000	726
1985			70,331	30,277	125,871	42,646	168,517	49,763,600	708
1991			74,299	28,999	134,404	47,944	182,348	51,099,000	688
1994			75,522	28,520	135,451	47,735	183,186	41,620,500	551
1995			75,392	28,277	133,711	45,986	179,697	51,820,600	687
1998			77,934	26,461	134,174	45,425	179,599	52,421,400	673
2000			77,876	25,032	131,682	45,450	177,132	52,942,800	680
2001			78,540	25,785	132,293	44,696	176,989	52,211,000	665
2003			81,933	23,912	135,307	47,478	182,785
2004			81,455	23,664	133,283	46,582	179,865
Sources: Statistical Handbook of the British Beer and Pub Association 2005, page 62 Statistical Handbook 1974, page 48