Why were there few tied houses in Ireland and Scotland?

I used to wonder why almost all the pubs in England were tied, but those in Scotland and Ireland mostly free. Why didn't brewers rush to own pubs in the late 10th century like those in England had. Surely the same forces were operating in all parts of the UK?

Evidently not.

Does any one doubt that if the conditions under which the Irish and Scotch publicans have carried on their business had been the same as they are here, they would not also have sold their licensed houses as they have in England?

In England a licensed house is a valuable monopoly, requiring capital and possessing a substantial saleable value.

In Ireland, owing to the ease with which licences have been granted, the monopoly has no comparison with that in England, and the capital required and the saleable value are correspondingly small.

In Scotland the licence is personal to the publican, and does not attach to his premises.

The English publican, therefore, has had most to fear from the organised hostility of the teetotal party, which is largely responsible for the tied-house system in this country, and it is not surprising that the old-fashioned English publican has long ago sold out his business.
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, page 415.

By the time this was published, the rules had changed in Ireland. Totally reversed, really. With iy becoming virtually impossible to issue a new licence. And in Scotland, while brewers owned few pubs, there was an extensive system of loan ties, which achieved a similar effect.

The article was prompted by a massive increase in license duties for pubs. This was based on the rateable value of the premises. In England, the price of pubs had been greatly inflated by the rush to buy pubs by brewers. In Ireland and Scotland, where this price increase hadn't occurred, the rateable value of pubs was far lower and hence the increase in license duties was much smaller.

It's a good demonstration of how legislation can distort the beer market. And have consequences not foreseen by those draughting it.

As I've said many times before, beer in a country is shaped by the local environment. Some of this environment - such as climate and available raw materials - is the result of geography. But mush comes from the legislative environment, such as taxation and the rules concerning pubs.

This is why beer styles in the USA gradually diverged from the British originals: they existed in a different environment. And this persists today. Why are American beers stronger than those in the UK? Taxation. The US system of a flat-rate tax encourages the brewing of stronger beer. While in the UK it's discouraged by the higher rate of tax it attracts.

New local update

Checkpoint Charlie it is. Our new local. That seems to be settled. For the time being, at least. Despite the prices going up. Twice. (When I were a lad, prices only went up in Amsterdam once every couple of decades.)

Outside Checkpoint Charlie.

I feel quite at home there now. Which I should do, after more than a year frequenting the place. Some of the barstaff seem to recognise us. Which, again, they should do after a year. Lucas has chatted with a couple of the other regulars. It would be more of a surprise if he hadn't, sociable beast that he is. Alexei plays the pinball. Which is probably the main reason he turns up.

It's not the same as Butcher's Tears. Yet. All those layers of interactions need time to build up. Like layers of paint. I'll give it a few more years.

Tears II garden.

We've visited Tears II, the Butcher's Tears shop, a couple of times. And had a couple of beers in their massive garden, which was pleasant. But it's not a pub. Ruling it out as our local. 

Hard work building up a local. But it's work I'm prepared to put in.

Lost pubs

There's much lamentation nowadays when a pub is lost. A sad day when last orders really are the last orders.

Pubs are seen as community assets. Generally, a good thing. Worthy of protection and preservation.

But that wasn't always like that. Go back 120 years and there were many who considered pubs so irredeemably evil that they needed to be stamped out. Unfortunately, many such men served as licensing magistrates. With the power to arbitrarily refuse or remove a licence. A power they weer only too happy to abuse.

In 1902, Farnham licensing magistrates decided to refuse the renewal of the licences of nine of the town's 45 pubs. For no other reason than that they thought there were too pubs. Not then they were dens of crime, unsafe, insanitary, insolvent or anything else. Just some magistrates wanted to eliminate as many pubs as possible.

A delicensed pub was worth a fraction of its value as a pub. Especially a fully-licensed pub (one that could sell both beer and spirits). Meaning a destruction of capital for the brewer. This threat led to a fall in the price of a pubs. As a big chunk of a brewer's capital was tied up in pubs, this fall in the value of their tied estate led some to being overcapitalised. Some marked down their shares from £10 to £1. The economic impact of closures was greater than just the loss of pubs.

Between 1870 and 1914 there was a 25% fall in the number of on-licences in England and Wales. Despite a considerable growth in the population, which rose from 31.5 million in 1871 to 46 million in 1914.
 
I'll finish with some numbers. 

Number of pubs in England and Wales 1879 - 1914
Date	Full	Beer / wine	Total Pubs
1870	68,789	49,396	118,185
1875	69,184	43,884	113,068
1880	69,112	49,597	118,709
1881	68,632	38,309	106,941
1885	67,822	37,278	105,100
1890	67,315	36,498	103,813
1893	67,028	35,809	102,837
1895	66,750	35,351	102,101
1895			103,341
1900			102,189
1905			99,478
1910	64,129	28,355	92,484
1914	62,104	25,556	87,660
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 162.
Brewers' Almanack 1971, page 83.

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part eight)

A whole load of official functions weren't allowed to be performed in pubs. This list includes most legal and local government activities.

Licensed Premises not to be Used for certain Purposes.—No room in any licensed premises may be used as a justices' room by the council of any borough having a separate commission of the peace.

No room in any licensed premises may be used for a parish meeting or meeting of a parish council, or of a district council or of a board of guardians, except in cases where no other suitable room is available for such meeting, either free of charge or at a reasonable cost.

No meeting of justices in Petty or Special Sessions may be held in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or in any room, whether licensed or not, in any building licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors; nor may any coroner's inquest be held on such licensed premises where other suitable premises have been provided for such inquest.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, pages 317 - 318.

If you're wondering what a board of guardians is, that's the committee overseeing the operation of the local workhouse. And, from reports I've read in newspapers, they were mostly a right bunch of miserable, self-righteous gits.

The one about inquests is interesting. Because I've seen reports of inquests being performed in London pubs in the 19th century. Which quite surprised me at the time. Though it doesn't say that they were totally forbidden in pubs. Just that they weren't allowed when there were suitable unlicensed premises.

And that's it for this series. I hope you've enjoyed reading it as much as I have writing it. What will I use to fill up my blog now that I've exhausted this source? I don't know, but Im sure I'll find something.

 

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part seven)

It's a pretty long list of inadmissible activities. And it will continue to get longer.

There were several activities relating to elections which were forbidden.

Elections.—Any licensed person who knowingly permits any part of his licensed premises to be used in any Parliamentary election as a committee room for the purpose of furnishing or procuring the election of a candidate, or in any election held under the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, either as a committee room or for holding a meeting for such purpose is guilty of an illegal hiring.

If a licensed person is convicted of bribery or treating in reference to any election, and it appears that such offence was committed on his licensed premises, the conviction must be entered on the register of licences, and if it appears to an election court or election commissioners that a licensed person has knowingly suffered any bribery or treating in reference to any election to take place on his licensed premises, they must report the same, and the report must be entered on the Register of Licences.

Licensing justices are directed to take such entries on the register into consideration in determining whether they will or will not grant a renewal of the licence as to which the entry is made; and it is specifically provided that such entry may be a ground for refusing the renewal.

No poll at any Parliamentary election may be taken on any licensed premises unless by the consent of all the candidates expressed in writing.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 317.

So no election meetings and no bribery. The latter, I assume, relates to electors being given free beer to encourage them to vote for a specific candidate.

Those sort of rules didn't apply everywhere. For example, Austro-Hungary. Where Jaroslav Hašek, author of the Good Soldier Švejk, held meetings for his joke political party in a pub. A specific pub being selected because he fancied the landlord's daughter.

Why insist on all the candidates agreeing in writing to having a poll in a pub? Because in large number of elections one of the candidates would be a temperance twat and obviously object to the use of a pub. Meaning that rule pretty much excluded the use of pubs.

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part six)

Still not finished with activities which were expressly forbidden in pubs.

This is an interesting one.

Payment of Wages on Licensed Premises.—Any licence holder who permits any wages to be paid to any workman (not being a workman bond fide employed by himself) upon his licensed premises, or in any office, garden, or place belonging thereto and occupied therewith, incurs a penalty not exceeding £20.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 316.

There was a simple reason for this. It was to stop workmen getting paid in a pub and spending all their wages before going home. Of course, this didn't apply to barstaff.

There were also strict rules about child performers in licensed premises. Though it was allowed under certain circumstances.

Employment of Children.—Any person who causes or procures any child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, to be on any licensed premises, not being premises licensed according to law for public entertainment, for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., renders himself liable to a penalty not exceeding £25 or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than three months. The local authority may from time to time by by-law extend or restrict the hours above mentioned.

Any person who causes or procures any child under the age of eleven years to be at any time on any licensed premises for the purpose of singing, playing, or performing, or being exhibited for profit, or offering anything for sale, renders himself liable to a penalty not exceeding £25, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than three months.

But it is provided that, in the case of premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, a petty sessional court may, under certain conditions, grant a licence permitting children over ten to take part in such entertainments.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, pages 316 - 317.

It was allowed to have child performers in places licensed for public entertainment. Which would, I suppose, include places like music halls. I wonder why there was an age difference between boys and girls? Seems a bit odd. The punishment is even harsher than for other offences, what with the possibility of three months hard labour. That wouldn't be any fun.
 

The police and pubs in 1914 (part two)

The police had pretty wide-ranging powers when it came to pubs. For example, they had the power to enter pubs whenever they felt like it.

POLICE SUPERVISION. —Entry on Licensed Premises.—Any constable may at all times enter on any licensed premises, or premises in respect of which an occasional licence is in force, for the purpose of preventing or detecting any of the offences against the Licensing Act. But this right of entry only arises when there is reasonable ground for suspecting that circumstances exist, or are about to exist, constituting a violation of some provision of the Acts.

Every licence holder, who by himself or by any person in his employ, or acting by his direction or with his consent, refuses or fails to admit any constable in the execution of his duty demanding to enter for the purpose above stated, is liable to a penalty on the first conviction not exceeding £5, and on a second or other subsequent conviction not exceeding £10.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, pages 311 - 312.

Once again, these are hefty fines.Especially when you consider it's just for not letting a policeman into your pub.

The police also had the right to demand that anyone in a pub identifies themself. 

Persons Found on Licensed Premises.—Any constable may demand the name and address of any person found on any licensed premises during prohibited hours, and, if he has reasonable ground to suppose that the name or address given is false, may require evidence of the correctness of such name and address, and may, if such person fail upon such demand to give his name or address, or such evidence, apprehend him without warrant, and carry him before a justice of the peace.

A person found upon licensed premises during prohibited hours may, unless he can prove that he was an inmate, servant, or lodger on such premises, or a bond fide traveller, or otherwise that his presence on such premises was not in contravention of the law relating to closing hours, be fined 40s.

If being required by the constable to give his name and address he has failed to do so, or has given it falsely, or has given false evidence with respect to it, he may be fined £5.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 312.

Not exactly sure how you could provide proof of your name and address back then. It's not like people carried around driving licences or passports. 

Just being pissed up in a pub was a crime.

A person found drunk upon licensed premises may be fined 10s., or on a second conviction within twelve months, 20s., or on a third or any subsequent conviction within twelve months, 40s.

If the person so found is himself the occupier of such licensed premises, he will not be liable to the penalty unless at the time when he is so found his premises are open for the sale of intoxicating liquor. But if the person so found is an ordinary member of the public, it is no defence that he was so found after closing time.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 312.

But, it was OK for the landlord to be plastered in his own pub. Just as long as it wasn't during licensing hours.

A fairly stiff fine, that, just for having a pint or two too many. Ten shillings was the equivalent of 60 pints of Mild.

Publicans also had to be prepared to show their licence on demand.

Production of Licence.—Every holder of a licence or of a general or special order of exemption as to hours of closing made by a local authority and every holder of an occasional licence must, by himself, his agent, or servant, produce such licence or order within a reasonable time upon the demand of any justice of the peace, constable, or officer of Customs or Excise, and deliver the same to be read or examined by him. If he fails to do so, he is liable to a penalty of £10.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 312.

I think that's about it for coppers in pubs.

 

The police and pubs in 1914

There were some things a publican was allowed to do in a pub. And some things that the police were obliged to do.

But first, something about people pretending to be travellers to get a drink outside licensing hours.

IN AID OF THE LICENCE HOLDER.—Falsely Pretending to be a Traveller, &c.—A person who, by falsely representing himself to be a traveller or a lodger, buys or obtains, or attempts to buy or obtain, at any licensed premises any intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours is liable to a penalty of £5.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 311.

Not exactly sure what is meant by a "traveller" here. Opening hours didn't - and still don't - apply to anyone lodging in a pub. Something I've taken advantage of a couple of times myself.

A publican could get some use from the police. For example, with help in chucking out a customer who was causing trouble.

Calling in the Police.—All constables are required, on the demand of the licence holder, or his agent or servant, to expel or assist in expelling from the licensed premises any person who is drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, or any person whose presence on the licensed premises would subject the licence holder to a penalty. Such force may be used in the expulsion as is required for that purpose.

Any such disorderly person who, on the request of the licence holder or his servant or agent, refuses or fails to quit the licensed premises is liable to a penalty of £5; but it is necessary that he should have been actually disorderly at the time that he was requested to leave.

This remedy is in addition to and not in derogation of the licence holder's ordinary right as a householder to expel from his premises any objectionable person who will not leave when requested.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 310.

And, of course, publicans could refuse to serve anyone and ask them to leave. The fine, £5, for failing to leave when asked, was a considerable sum. The equivalent of 600 pints of Mild. Which was probably more than a year's worth of drinking. Even for a committed pisshead.

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part five)

Yet more stuff that you couldn't do in a pub. Pretty much anything that was fun.

Though this one doesn't sound that unreasonable: you couldn't be open during a riot.

Riots.-Any two justices of the peace acting for any county or place where any riot or tumult happens or is expected to happen may order every licensed person in or near the place where such riot or tumult, happens or is expected to happen to close his premises during any time which the justices may order; and any person who keeps open his premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors during any time at which the justices have ordered them to be closed is liable to a penalty not exceeding £50; and any person acting by the order of any justices may use such force as may be necessary for the purpose of closing such premises.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 310.

Not only could the justices tell you to close, they could physically force you to. I wonder when pubs were last forced to close on account of a riot? My guess is that most landlords wouldn't open anyway if there was a riot going on around them.

Next, it's the turn of children.

Children in Bar of Licensed Premises.—Any person who causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure a child under the age of fourteen years, not being a child of the licence holder or a child who is resident but not employed in the licensed premises to go to or be in the bar of any licensed premises (not being railway refreshment rooms or other premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for a purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary), except during the hours of closing, or except for the purpose of passing through to some other part of the premises to which there is no other convenient means of access, is liable to a penalty not exceeding £2 for a first offence, and £5 for any subsequent offence.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, pages 310 - 311.

Note the wording. It doesn't say that children weren't allowed on licensed premises. It's just the bar they couldn't go in. Meaning it was fine for kids to be in a room which didn't have a bar.

Note the exceptions: children of the landlord or children who were resident. And then the one that surprised me: railway refreshment rooms, I wonder if that still applies?

You weren't allowed to sell to children, either. 

Sale to Children.—Any person who knowingly sends any person under the age of fourteen years to any place where intoxicating liquors are sold or delivered, for the purpose of obtaining any description of intoxicating liquor, except in the manner permitted by law, is liable to a penalty not exceeding £2 for the first offence, and not exceeding £5 for any subsequent offence.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 311.

Note the age: 14. The drinking age was only raised to 18 during WW I. You weren't allowed to send anyone under 14 to fetch beer for you. But there's a very important proviso: "except in the manner permitted by law". Because it was still common for people to send their kids to fetch beer. It was OK, as long as a seal was placed on the container. My mum used to fetch beer for her mother in the 1920s. (Mild Old Ale mixed, if you're wondering.)

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part four)

More forbidden activities from before the First World War.

The first is a surprising one. Not sure why billiards was singled out for particular attention.

Billiards.--The holder of a full licence may keep on his licensed premises, without any further licence in that behalf, a public billiard table, bagatelle board, or instrument used in any game of the like kind. But he must not allow any person whatsoever to play upon it at any time when such premises are not by law allowed to be open for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or before eight o'clock in the morning, or at any time on Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday. No other person may keep on his premises a public billiard table, bagatelle board, or instrument used in any game of the like kind, unless he is the holder of a billiard licence. Billiard licences are granted by licensing justices at Brewster Sessions in the same way as justices' liquor licences or certificates. The holder of a billiard licence is subject to the same restrictions with regard to the use of the table as the holder of a full licence who keeps a public billiard table, except that if he holds no liquor licence the hour at which play must stop is fixed at 1 a.m.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 308.

Not totally forbidden, then, billiards. Just restrictions on when you could play. Even in places where no alcohol was served.

In London, music and dancing needed a licence.

Music.—A licence holder whose premises are situate within the County of London, or within twenty miles of the Cities of London or Westminster, or within the jurisdiction of any urban sanitary authority which has adopted Part IV of the Public Health Act, 1890, may not permit his licensed premises to be used for public dancing, music, or other entertainment of the like kind, unless he is the holder of a music and dancing licence, or, as the case may be, a music licence in respect of such premises.

Outside the areas above specified music and dancing licences are not required. 

Music and dancing licences are granted in the County of London by the London County Council in October; outside the County of London, but within the administrative county of Middlesex, by the Middlesex County Council, at any meeting convened with fourteen days’ previous notice or to any adjournment thereof; elsewhere outside the County of London, but within twenty miles of London or Westminster, by the Quarter Sessions at Michaelmas; in other places, by the licensing justices at Brewster Sessions or at any adjournment thereof, or at any Special Session convened with fourteen days’ previous notice.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 308 - 309.

It's unclear as to how music and dancing could be legal outside London. Because . . music was forbidden without a licence.

Public Music.—As to music, the thing which is forbidden is the using of the house for public music without a licence. The use contemplated is an habitual or periodical use, not the mere permission of public music on a solitary occasion. The kind of music forbidden is public music which means a musical performance which members of the general public are admitted to hear, whether upon payment at the doors or on production of tickets purchased elsewhere or gratis. The mere keeping of a piano which customers are permitted to use is not keeping a room for public music.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 309.

At least a singsong around the piano was legal.

As was music in a private room, if you didn't let the public in.

Private Music.—But if the music is private — that is to say, if members of the general public are not admitted to hear it, as, for instance, if persons who have hired or have been permitted the exclusive use of a room on the licensed premises provide or execute music there for their own entertainment — such music is not unlawful, though the occupier of the premises has no music licence.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 309.

What punishment did the publican risk?  

Penalties.—Any person who keeps or uses any premises for public music or dancing or other entertainment of the like kind without being duly licensed in that behalf is liable to a penalty if the premises are within twenty miles of London or Westminster, but not within the administrative county of Middlesex, of £100, and if the premises are situate within the administrative county of Middlesex or in any other place where music licences are required, of £5 for every day on which such premises are so kept and used. In addition, such premises will be deemed to be a disorderly house.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 309.

Massive fines again. £100 was a massive sum back then. It's an amount even a wealthy publican might struggle to pay. And being labelled a disorderly house could lose you your licecnce.

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part three)

More stuff that wasn't allowed in pubs.

Starting with gaming. Haven't we already had betting? No. Evidently, gaming and betting were two separate things.

(10) Gaming.—Suffers gaming or any unlawful game to be carried on on his premises. Note.-This offence is not committed unless the unlawful game or gaming is carried on with the knowledge or connivance of the licence holder or of the person left by him in charge of the premises. As all unlawful games will be found to fall within the definition of gaming, it is unnecessary here to enumerate them. Within the meaning of this provision the playing of any game, whether lawful or unlawful, whether of chance or of skill, for money or for money's worth is gaming. But there must be some element of wagering in it; that is to say, each of the players must have a chance of losing as well as of winning. Playing a lawful game for a prize given by non-competitors is not gaming. The offence is committed if a single act of gaming is permitted. There is no sort of exemption from the rule; no game however innocent which may be permitted to be played for any stake however small ; no class of persons, whether lodgers or personal friends of the licence holder, or anyone else, who may be permitted to play for any stake on licensed premises. Nor is it any defence that the gaming is among friends or lodgers after closing time. But simple betting is not “gaming” within the meaning of this provision.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 307.

You couldn't gamble on any sort of game. Not even with your mates after closing time.

And you definitely weren't allowed to run a brothel.

Permitting Premises to be a Brothel.-A licence holder who permits his licensed premises to be a brothel incurs a penalty of £20, and if he is convicted of permitting his premises to be a brothel under the Licensing Act or any other Act, he forfeits his licence, and becomes disqualified for ever from holding any liquor licence.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 308.

The authorities really weren't keen on brothels. Disqualification for life was pretty a pretty harsh punishment.

Harsher than the punishment for allowing thieves hang around in your boozer.

Harbouring Thieves.—A licence holder who knowingly lodges or knowingly harbours thieves or reputed thieves or knowingly suffers them to meet or assemble on his licensed premises, or knowingly allows the deposit of goods on his licensed premises having reasonable cause for believing them to be stolen, is liable to a penalty of £10, or in default to imprisonment for four months with or without hard labour, and may be ordered to find sureties for his good behaviour for a year and to forfeit his licence, and on a second conviction forfeits his licence and becomes disqualified for two years from holding any liquor licence; and if two convictions for this offence have taken place within three years in respect of the same premises, whether the persons convicted were or were not the same, the premises may by order of the court be disqualified from being licensed for a year after the second conviction.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 308.

Interesting that you could have been sent to prison, but were only disqualified for a couple of years.

This is a really weird one.

Permitting Seditious Meetings.-A licence holder who knowingly permits any meeting of any society or club declared to be an unlawful combination, or confederacy, or any meeting for a seditious purpose, to be held on his licensed premises, may by order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction have his licence forfeited.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 308.

I wonder what counted as a seditious purpose? It seems pretty vague. But you could trust the authorities not to abuse it. Surely?

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914? (part two)

More things that you weren't allowed to do in pubs before WW I.

Starting with ladies of the night.

(5) Harbouring Prostitutes.—Knowingly permits his premises to be the habitual resort or place of meeting of reputed prostitutes, whether the object of their so resorting or meeting is or is not prostitution, but it is no offence for him to allow any such persons to remain on his premises for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment for such time as is necessary for the purpose.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 306.

Who were allowed to nip into a pub for refreshment, but not to hang around with colleagues or tout for business.

The next section is all about police constables.

(6) Harbouring Constables.—Knowingly harbours or knowingly suffers to remain on his premises any constable during any part of the time appointed for such constable being on duty, unless for the purpose of keeping or restoring order, or in execution of his duty.

(7) Supplying Liquor to Constables on Duty.—Supplies any liquor or refreshment- whether by way of gift or sale to any constable on duty unless by authority of some superior officer of such constable. Note.—This offence is not committed if at the time the liquor or refreshment is supplied to the constable, the person supplying it, after taking every reasonable precaution, has reasonable cause for believing, and does in fact believe, either that the constable is off duty, or that he has the authority of his superior officer for being supplied with liquor or refreshment.

(8) Bribing Constables.—Bribes or attempts to bribe any constable.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, pages 306 - 307.

So, no hiding police in the pub or giving them free drinks.

Next it's the turn of betting.

(9) Betting.—Opens, keeps, or uses his house or suffers it to be opened, kept, or used for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, or for the purpose of receiving any money or valuable thing for betting on any horse race, or other race, fight, game, sport, or exercise. Note.-The offence here contemplated is the habitual and persistent encouragement of betting on the licensed premises—e.g., by permitting a professional bookmaker to take up his station regularly in the bar, and there make bets with the customers. To permit one single bet to be made on licensed premises is not a legal offence. To permit licensed premises to be used for the purpose of paying bets which were made elsewhere, is not an offence. The holding of a Derby sweepstake is not “betting" within the meaning of this provision; but it is an illegal lottery, and the licence holder can on that ground be convicted for permitting it.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 307.

I love that a sweepstake didn't count as betting. But was still illegal, just in a different way.
 

What wasn't allowed in a pub in 1914?

Quite a lot of things, as it turns out. Some of them pretty understandable.

The first set mostly refer to pissed-up punters.

2.—As to Public Order.
Offences.-Any licence holder is guilty of an offence against the Licensing Acts and renders himself liable to a penalty not exceeding on a first conviction £10, and on a second or any subsequent conviction £20, who by himself or by his servants acting within the general scope of their employment does any of the following things:—

(1) Selling to Drunken Person.—Sells any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person. Note.—If the person to whom the liquor is sold is in fact drunken the offence is committed whether the person by whom the liquor was sold knew him to be drunken or not.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 305.

To put those fines into context, a pint of Mild cost 2d. Ten quid, then, was the equivalent 240  1,200 pints of Mild. Quite a sum.

More about drunks.

(2) Selling to Habitual Drunkard.-Knowingly sells or supplies any intoxicating liquor to or for the consumption of any person, notice of whose conviction has been sent to the police authority under Section 6 of the Act of 1902 within three years of the date of such conviction.

(3) Permitting Drunkenness.-Permits drunkenness to take place on his licensed premises. Note.—Where a licensed person is charged with this offence, and it is proved that any person was drunk on his premises, the presumption will at once be raised that the fact of the drunkenness was known or connived at by the licensed person or by the person left by him in charge of the premises, and that presumption cannot be rebutted unless the licensed person proves that he and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises.

If the drunkenness is on the part of a lodger on the licensed premises, or of a private friend of the licence holder, the licence holder will still be liable to conviction; and it is immaterial whether the drunkenness takes place before or after closing time.

(4) Permitting Disorder.—Permits any violent, quarrelsome, or riotous conduct to take place on his licensed premises.
Brewers' Almanack 1915, page 306.

You get the idea. The authorities really didn't like the plebs getting pissed up and causing trouble. Those killjoy bastards.
 

The Death of the English Pub

When Christopher Hutt give his lament that title in 1973, he didn't fear the pub's total extinction. Just the disappearance of pubs as they had been before the 1960s. It seems pubs now face a more existential threat. At least, if my recent visit to the UK is anything to go by.

Me and Mikey regularly pop over to Folkestone in his car. To drink beer, east fish and chips, have a curry, buy cheese and crumpets to bring home. I've drunk in the town's pubs pretty often. Believe me, pretty often. I have a point of reference.

It had been a while since our last trip. Two and a half years. But it was quite a shock to see the changes in pub life.

First night there, Thursday, we went to the Royal Cheriton on Cheriton High Street*..Three customers. A mother and her ten-year-old daughter, dressed for Halloween, and an old chav in a corner nursing a pint. When we left after a couple of pints, we were the last customers. I've never seen the pub that quiet at any time of day.

The interior of the Royal Cheriton with empty seats and a sigh saying "Blackheath".

Next day, Friday, we're in Dover for some shopping. (At Iceland, don't judge me.) A new shopping centre close to the docks. I notice a pub right next to it and think "That's a bit of luck for that boozer, having a load of shops built right next to it.

Mikey has something to do, so I think what I always think when I have a free moment and there's a pub nearby: "Let's give that pub a try."

Totally deserted.

A pub bar with empty chairs and only a barman behind it.

That evening, 8 PM in the East Kent Arms. A down-to-earth sort of place that's usually pretty busy. A dozen drinkers, clustered around the bar.

The bar of the East Kent Arms with Halloween decorations.

Harvey's an hour later: ten customers, at most.

The bar in Harveys with an old man watching football on TV.

This was a Friday night in a town centre. The lack of punters was truly scary. What's it like on a wet Monday?

I fear for pubs as an institution. As a part of everyday life every where in the country.

Only one pub we visited that night was busy. You can probably guess which. Wetherspoons. Where the beer was 1.99 a pint.

Yet more sadness. None of the pubs mentioned (other than 'Spoons) had any cask beer. While they had before, except the East Kent Arms. I'm guessing a sign of falling sales generally.

London and touristy spots like York will doubtless keep a reasonable number of pubs. Maybe even mostly sustained by visitors.

What about less fashionable towns? How many pubs will survive in them?

* We also ate Sunday dinner here. Under nine quid for a proper home-cooked roast. Dead good. I can totally recommend it. There were a fair few other customers, but on our previous visit we struggled to find a seat. I feel very sorry for the landlady because it's a well-run pub.

Handling public-house beer

More about how beer intended for pubs was handled.

Faulkner thought that the temperature pub beer was stored at in the brewery was really important. One clarification: why does he talk about cask beer specifically for the pub trade? Because a lot of casks were sold to private customers, to be served in their homes.

"In coming to the actual treatment of beer in store we have to consider for what purposes it is intended: if for stock it is naturally lowered into the basement, while if mild and for public-house use it remains either in racking-room or in store on ground level, since as the cellars of the publican are not, as a rule, of the best, with temperature restricted by their natural position, it is useless paying particular attention to such beers if at the end of a few hours they are to be moved away to the consumer. It has always seemed to me a point of extreme importance that such beers as are brewed expressly for public-house use should, during the colder months of the year, be kept at a moderately low temperature on the premises of the brewer, so as to escape those constant chills which frequently result in the cellars of the smaller publicans, which are mostly exposed to atmospheric influences. During the warmer months of the year we have to keep such beers as cool as possible so as to ward off a secondary fermentation, which is common to all beers alike, and which comes on sooner or later according to their exact quality, degree of fermentative capacity at the time of racking, and the variation of heat that may take place directly after racking."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 250-251.

It wasn't advised to store casks at too cool a temperature, because the pub cellars were likely to not be that cool. Except in the winter. I guess the idea was to store the casks in the brewery at as close a temperature to pub cellars as possible.

And what about in the summer?

"All beer, as I have said, contains carbonic acid, and in the case of such qualities as necessarily have to undergo fining it is important to prevent the collection of free carbonic acid in cask prior to the fining being carried out. For instance, if we happen to rack beer on a warm day, and the temperature of the racking-room facilitates rise of heat, a certain amount of carbonic acid is set free from the beer in cask, and if the bung or shive be out it readily passes off, while if the cask be tightly bunged or shived, the gas set free by the rise of heat accumulates, creates pressure and a variety of motion that acts very energetically in bringing on secondary change; and it is for this reason that beers of fermentative capacity require carefully venting immediately the casks are filled, when the temperature of the store naturally causes an increase in heat. If this is neglected it will be found that in many cases a determined secondary fermentation will set in at the end of a very few hours."
"The Theory and Practice of Modern Brewing" by Frank Faulkner, 1888, pages 251-252.

When it was warm and CO2 was coming out of solution, then you needed to vent the casks immediately after filling. Whichh makes sense.

A new local

The closing of Butcher's Tears was a sad day. And not just because I wasn't there for the last day. Swanning off to Brazil.

Once the sobbing subsided, a question was voiced: where to next?

There weren't many options. With these criteria:

- reasonably priced
- easy to get to
- decent beer
- not overrun with fucking tourists

That ruled out anywhere in the centre. Pretty much. We gave Siouxie's Saloon a try. Not my sort of place.

Soundgarden was suggested. Ticking many boxes. But, from some reason I can't recall, we decided to go with Checkpoint Charlie instead.

Last Saturday was or third time there. Not really giving me a local vibe yet. But that takes time to build. Harder to bear is the lack of draught Mild and Stout. Especially Headroom. A beer that took me closer to the 19th century with every sip. Weihenstapher Dunkles Weissbier is OK. But three of four pints is enough. And Checkpoint Charlie does sell korenwijn. Drinkable jenever. Not like the industrial cleaner called jonge jenever.

The presence of a pool table and pinball machine mean Alexei is much more likely to come along. And reminded me of a previous local.

"We always used to play pool in Rick's Cafe. And pinball. During Happy Hour, at the weekend. Drinking De Koninck."

"And?"

"That was our local for several years. Me, Lucas, Will and Mikey."

"Can you just take your shot?"

I surprisingly potted two balls in fairly convincing fashion. Then totally missed the 8-ball. I did win, though. Unlike at pinball. Where he thrashed me.

Rick's Cafe was our local for quite a while. At least five or six years Probably more. Drinking half-price, happy-hour De Koninck.I had a couple of Guinness breakfasts there, too, after a night of clubbing.

 I can't remember why we stopped going there.

Then there was Cafe Belgique. We hung around there for a few years. I had my 40th and 50th birthday parties there. Where the beer tokens were miniature Czech 50 and 100 crown notes. Mikey worked there for a while. Lucas DJ'd once.

Even earlier, back in the early 1990s, me, Lucas and Will often hung around in the De Pijp. Like Centurion on the Ceintuurbaan. Or the odd little place close to Sarphati Park where we'd play pool. And heard cumbia for the first time.

Both are long gone.

Late drinking started at Korsakoff. A bar/club sort of thing that looked like it had started as a squat. It stretched through several floors of a pakhuis - an old, narrow warehouse. They had some OK beers: witbier, De Koninck on draught. Duvel and a Trappist or two in bottles.

When Korsakoff closed, if we still had a thirst, Mazzo wasn't far. A club where we could drink for two hours more. Though a couple of years later we did go there for clubbing. When they had to move after a fire, Lucas had a regular DJ slot in the chillout room. Happy days.

Both are closed.

Ter Brugge was another regular meeting place. When Will and Lucas used to play football with me and the kids in Vondel Park. One of the cheapest pubs around. Where I drank Westmalle Tripel or La Chouffe.

It was remodelled and renamed in 2016.

We've been through quite a few regular haunts over the years. Me and my long-term mates. When somewhere closes or changes or gets too fucking expensive, we move on. As we have done many times before. 

 Butcher's Tears closing was sad, but we're moving on. The group of friends is what matters. And is the whole point of going down the pub. Not where we choose to meet.

Let's see if Checkpoint Charlie sticks. If not, I'm sure we'll find somewhere else. We always have.

More lovely 1970s pub food

I've not finished with processed pub meals yet. I've some more lovely dried meals for you.

Other dried products. Batchelors Catering Supplies has carried out intensive research into pub catering and to give maximum assistance to the trade have catering advisory service from which brochures, recipe booklets, etc., can be obtained free of charge. Members of this service are also available at all tunes to help and advise customers. There are three recipe booklets, one gives 50 meals using Batchelors savoury mince or farmhouse stew, the next giving 50 recipes for sweets from Batchelors and the third with 50 recipes for entrées from Batchelors ready dishes.

All the products, from soup to coffee, and including quick-dried vegetables, are convenience foods. They offer no shelf-life problems, all being guaranteed for at least 12 months under normal conditions. Reconstitution is by the addition of water, bringing to the boiling point and simmering for varying periods up to about 30 minutes. Additional assistance is rendered in that these pre-prepared foods cater for snacks, simple and elaborate meals and simple and elaborate sweets. They may be made to suit the custom and, in particular, the evening out — when it is a natural thing to go to a pub for a few drinks and a meal not encountered in everyday household catering.

For a simple meal there can be beef curry and rice, chicken curry and rice, chicken supreme and rice, chicken orientale and pilaff rice or spaghetti bolognese. For the more special occasion there is an orientale medley: stuffed peppers orientale, chicken marengo, chicken supreme de luxe, spiced chicken adriatica or savoury polonaise. Sweets have been far from forgotten, for here there are the convenience packs for delectations such as souffle milannaise, apple strudel, apple torte, charlotte royale, sundaes and strawberry delight.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 60.

Fifty meals from savoury mince and farmhouse stew? That's what I call cooking. Just add water, bring to the boil and away you go. You could even go crazy oriental. It's making my mouth water just reading about it.

Another new development was boil-in-the-bag technology.

A new concept in convenience meals was introduced nationally nearly a year ago by Cerebos Ltd. (part of Ranks Hovis McDougall), under the brand name Cerola, a range of complete meals which are easier to cook than break an egg. The packs of Cerola "Magipaks" meals, which serve either one or two persons, contain two pouches, one of meat and vegetables, another of rice. The two pouches are simply placed in a pan of boiling water and are boiled together for 15 minutes. The advantages are obvious — no preparation, no supervision, no messy cooking pans. Shelf life is indefinite and the packs are light and compact.

The range includes beef curry with rice; beef in a medium curry sauce with vegetables, tomato and sultanas. Chicken curry with rice; chicken in a mild curry sauce with red peppers, peas and sultanas. Lamb curry with rice; lamb in a strong curry sauce with apples, tomatoes, mango chutney and pineapp1e. Jambalaya; smoked ham in tomato sauce with onions, mushrooms, sweet peppers and spices, served with rice. Spaghetti Bolognese — spaghetti with a classic bolognese meat sauce with beef, tomatoes, burgundy wine and spices, served with Parmesan cheese and Paella; rice with chicken, prawns, red peppers and mushrooms in a spicy sauce.

The meat and the sauce are preserved for an indefinite shelf life with natural preservatives, involving the use of lactic acid. This procedure means that the meat and the sauce can be pasteurised rather than sterilised as in canning, and thus all the important nutrients are retained in the food. The contents are sealed in a flexible plastic pouch which allows reheating in boiling water, Boil-in-the-bag meals until now have only been available with frozen foods, where special storage facilities are essential. This, it is claimed, is the first time a range of meat products has been sucessfully preserved in a flexible plastic pouch.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 60.

Burgundy wine? How posh. Was there real burgundy in the meal? If so, how much?

One thing I've noticed about these processed meals. They almost all come with rice. I guess that was easier to have preprocessed than rice.

More of the customer's view of 1970s pub food

Let's see how our three pub customers reacted to some more questions. Starting with a very early 1970s activity: driving to a country pub.

When you are out driving what prompts you to pick a particular pub for a meal break?
(a) In the summer, I most certainly look for a pub with outside chairs and tables - or perhaps a garden at the rear for customers — so that I can eat drink in the open. In the winter I tend to stop at the cosy pub rather than the imposing hotel type inns. I suppose I must relate the cosiness to home-cooking.

(b) The secluded country pub - better still one by a river. If the car park is well-filled then I am more inclined to stop because the pub must have something, even if it's only an attractive barmaid. The various "meals served-here” signs do help a suppose, but they are not greast enough publicity and so you don't know what standard to expect.

(c) As a matter of fact I usually to a ............. pub if there is one in the area. More often than not they have good and food and are pleasantly decorated. If I am in an area served by them then I go for a country pub which looks as though it has got a history. Because most of my time is spent in town during the week I like to get out of the dirt and grime and never really see town pubs other than at weekday lunch-times. I should imagine they can be pretty lifeless during the day at weekends.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 56.

As we've been seeing, your chances of getting genuine home-cooking might not have been great. However cosy and traditional the pub might have appeared.

Would people really drive to a pub just because it had a pretty barmaid? Knowing blokes, and especially 1970s blokes, I think that's not only possible, but extremely likely.

Were town pubs really that dead during the day at weekends? That wasn't my experience of pubs in the centre of Leeds. Which would be packed, at least on a Saturday. Sunday was another matter, though. That were scarily dead everywhere. How I hated Sundays.

How do you find the standard of food and cooking in pubs compares with other eating places?
(a) By and large I think they compare very well. The thing is that with the new gadgets for quick-cooking the cleanliness and hygiene of the food can never really be in question, which is quite the reverse to some of the restaurants and cafes I have been in.

 (b) In the lunch-hour they seem to have so much to do in so little time that the quality suffers in some pubs. Things are slightly underdone, spilled, badly served and so on, In one pub I have visited in the past not too much attention was paid to the washing of plates and cutlery.

(c) In my local, both at work and at home, the quality is good if unspectacular. I think that this is probably one of the things which attracts me to the particular pubs I use. Their consistency. In restaurants one can find that the chef will have an “off" day but in pubs with cold snacks and pre-prepared foods which are just heated they seem to be able to eradicate the "human" element to quite a large degree. I have found that in some pubs where the licensee's wife experiments in foreign dishes they don't turn out quite right. Perhaps more attention should be paid to their training if they are going to a pub with a high meals trade.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 56.

Were pub diners not very critical of the standard of food? Or was it really mostly OK? Mr. c seemed to actually prefer the prepackaged stuff because of its consistency. Which is an interesting take. And probably just as true of some punters today.

 

How pub catering worked

It would be easy to imagine that in the past pubs were serving nutritious, home-cooked food. Not like the pre-prepared muck sold in today's pub chains. Well, you'd be very disappointed.

Advances in food technology in the 1960s were taking the pain out of pub catering. The aim seemingly to remove all actual cooking from the process. It all sounds wonderful.

Basic essentials. An essential consideration is cost that doesn't add value — cost of marketing, preparation, wastage and cooking. To which may be added possible overwork for a licensee's wife or, if the call for food is high, the problems associated with a kitchen staff. Fortunately, advances in food processing by forward-looking manufacturers have eliminated all previous barriers to pub meals. There are now no foods that cannot be obtained in oven-ready and convenience pack form-from snacks to full haute cuisine meals.

These prepared foods may be in chilled or deep-frozen form, accelerated freeze or air dried, canned and otherwise packaged: in convenience packs properly apportioned to suit the formula of the meal and the number of persons served. Preparation is simple and quick. Explanatory instructions are given by the manufacturers who also are only too pleased to render assistance in the planning of meals.

Of equal importance is minimal kitchen equipment. Basic requirements are for a low temperature storage cabinet; a refrigerator for short-term storage of perishable foods; a cooker with boiling rings, a micro-wave oven, a deep fat frier; equipment for hot snacks; a washing and drying machine. Some of these must be available, whilst others are needed according to the products handled.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 58.

Note the assumption that the landlord's wife would have to do the cooking. A bit of casual sexism for you there.

Quite a bit of kit was still needed. Though no more than you would find in most kitchens today. Not sure why they called a freezer a "low temperature storage cabinet". Because I'm certain that's what they meant.

What sort of food was being prepared? A full three-course meal could be assembled from processed foods. With no processing more complicated than boiling water required.

There are 15 flavours in the Heinz-Erin range of air-dried soups, including all the favourites. They are simply added to the water, brought to the boil and simmered for 15 to 20 minutes with an occasional stir. The equipment needed is a gas or electric range for preparation service bain-marie on the counter for service.

For main-courses, Heinz-Erin market five casserole-type dishes in ten-portion packs. They are smoked fish, vegetable and prawn curry, chicken curry, savoury beef with vegetables and beef curry. Preparation of each is the same as for the soup mixes, as is also keeping in a bain-marie for service. Each may be served with Heinz-Erin patna rice and one of the vegetables from this concern’s range of air-dried or canned vegetables.

Also produced is the means for making Pizza pie, unique by virtue of the fact that for the first time this attractive snack may be prepared quickly and economically from a packet. The product is a complete pizza pie containing tomatoes, anchovies, capers, oragana, herbs and spices. Tailored to suit the British palate, this full savoury is ready to eat in twenty minutes. Each carton contains a can of pizza sauce and a sachet of powdered dough mix.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 60.

Tinned and packet food. That's exactly what I want when I go out for a meal. "Tailored to suit the British palate" doesn't bode well for the authenticity of the pizza.

There was another big reason pubs would go for this approach. In addition to the convenience. Cost.

Economics are indicated by typical menus taken from the Heinz catering range. A snack comprising a bowl of soup, slice of Pizza pie and coffee has a selling price of about 4s. 9d., for a materials cost of approximately 1s. 7d. A light meal comprising a bowl of soup or fruit juice, a casserole type dish served with rice and one vegetable, and coffee could sell at a minimum price of 6s. 9d. The materials cost here is approximately 2s. 8d. Labour and heating costs are not accounted, but these should not make great inroads into the high margin of profit available.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 60.

Those are huge markups: 19d (1s. 7d.) to 57d (4s. 9d) and 32d (2s. 8d.) to 81d (6s. 9d.). Which must have been very attractive to a landlord. AS well as the lack of cooking needed.
 

What annoys you most about pub snacks?

In 1970, the Brewers' Guardian interviewed three customers about pub food. It gives us a little insight into the attitudes of publicans and diners.

At least that's what I'm going to claim. The reality is that I've a couple of weeks of travelling coming up and I need to string out a stack of posts before I go. Maybe I should make this interactive. You can tell me what you find annoying about pub snacks.

I'll go first. Not enough of them, too expensive. My favourite? A simple hard-boiled egg. Which is something you find in old-fashioned Amsterdam pubs.

What annoys you most about pub snacks?
(a) Well, it's terribly difficult to generalise, of course, but I suppose my pet hate about pub snacks or meals is the awful smell of cooking that hangs around some bars. It hits you as soon as you walk in the place and if you stay for any length of time you can smell it on your clothes when you get home. I don't mean all pubs are like this, but there are plenty of them and when I come across one I can't even drink there, let alone have something to eat.

(b) Apart from the obvious things, like bad hygiene, I think what I dislike most is that one can never really tell how long the food has been standing in the warming cabinet. It’s easy enough to spot a curled up sandwich or a piece of mouldy cheese but if you fancy shepherd's pie or sausages I am put off by the thought that they may have been re-heated from the morning session. Perhaps I am too nervous.

(c) I would say that 99 per cent of pub snacks are really good value for money, but occasionally you can be grossly overcharged for a sandwich in a pub. I went into a pub in the West End [of London] the other day and was charged 3s. 6d. for a cheese and tomato sandwich and the only tomato I found in it was a few pieces of skin. I don't know how some of them get away with it.
Brewers' Guardian, Volume 99, May 1970, page 56.

It's weird complaining about the small of food at a time when pubs were blue with fag smoke. How could you have even smelled the food?

Sometimes it's best not to think too much about what the food might have been through before hitting your plate. Just like in Wetherspoons. Who knows what horrors might have befallen it.

Let's put that 3s. 6d (17.5p) into context. The average price of a pint of Bitter in 1970 was 10.7p. Making that spartan cheese and toamto the equivalent of seven or eight quid today.

We'll move along to the next question.

Do you ever go to a pub for an evening meal? If so what special features do you look for?
(a) I never go on spec., as it were. If I have been recommended to a pub or inn then most certainly I will go, but in general I do not like eating in a room separate from the atmosphere of the pub. I like to be in amongst the noise and entertainment, which after all is a good slice of the attraction at the pub.

(b) No. If I want to eat out then I will go into a proper restaurant where the preparation of food is their whole livelihood and not just an extremely profitable sideline. Apart from this, I feel that there is not enough variation on a pub's menu to warrant it. Roast beef and steak seems to be about the usual limit, whichever language they print it in. Also pubs that serve decent sweets are few and far between.

(c) Yes I do. There are some very nice little restaurants above pubs or in annexes to them. If one is prepared to be adventurous, spend some time searching and, perhaps, be prepared to make a mistake or two. then I think the search can be rewarding. One small complaint is that many pubs, especially in towns, only cater for the lunch-time crowd. If a snack is available in the evening it is often re-heated from the lunch-time session.

I'll answer this one. No. Well, maybe I have at sometime in the past. But I can't think of an occasion off the top of my head. In contrast, I've eaten meals at midday loads of times.

I agree with Mr. a. If I'm in a pub, I want to feel like I'm in a pub. Not a restaurant.