UK Pub ownership 1974 - 2024

I spent yesterday afternoon scanning the BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025. Providing me with lots of fresh, juicy numbers. With which I'll be boring you over the coming days.

Kicking off with pub ownership. Which has been transformed since I started drinking. When the vast majority of pubs were owned by breweries.

I was going to say that it's a shame the numbers don't go back a little further. Then realised I did have some for the 1970s. Which confirm what I suspected: that brewery ownership of pubs peaked in the 1970s.

You can see that from 72% in 1974, brewery ownership fell to just 17% in 2024. While pubcos, which peaked with owning 55% of pubs in 2003, subsequently also saw it share fall, down to 33% in 2024. Which means the "independents", i.e. free houses, have increased from 28% to 50% between 1974 and 2024.

Though I'd take those independent figures with a pinch of salt. In the 1970s, quite a lot of "free houses" were effectively tied to brewers by loan ties or other agreements. Scottish & Newcastle, in particular, were keen on this sort of tie. Which, in Scotland, was a commoner sort of arrangement than outright ownership. 

Not sure how common alternative ties are currently. But I doubt all of those "independent" outlets are really free to buy beer from any brewery they fancy.

I sort of miss the days when every brewer's estate had its own particular livery and character. Unlike those of large pubcos. Though it wasn't quite so much fun when one brewer owned almost all the pubs. As was the case in my hometown of Newark. 

UK Pub ownership 1974 - 2024
Year	brewery owned		pubco		Independent		Total
	no.	%	no.	%	no.	%	no.
1974	52,131	72.00%	0	0.00%	20,273	28.00%	72,404
1980	49,000	71.01%	0	0.00%	20,000	28.99%	69,000
1990	43,500	68.50%	0	0.00%	20,000	31.50%	63,500
1991	29,500	47.43%	12,700	20.42%	20,000	32.15%	62,200
1992	25,700	41.72%	15,900	25.81%	20,000	32.47%	61,600
1993	26,200	42.95%	14,800	24.26%	20,000	32.79%	61,000
1994	26,000	42.83%	14,700	24.22%	20,000	32.95%	60,700
1995	22,200	36.39%	18,800	30.82%	20,000	32.79%	61,000
1996	22,300	36.68%	18,500	30.43%	20,000	32.89%	60,800
1997	21,900	36.14%	18,900	31.19%	19,800	32.67%	60,600
1998	19,700	32.30%	21,700	35.57%	19,600	32.13%	61,000
1999	20,400	33.17%	21,700	35.28%	19,400	31.54%	61,500
2000	11,200	18.42%	30,400	50.00%	19,200	31.58%	60,800
2001	10,100	16.64%	31,600	52.06%	19,000	31.30%	60,700
2002	9,800	16.31%	31,500	52.41%	18,800	31.28%	60,100
2003	8,300	13.97%	32,500	54.71%	18,600	31.31%	59,400
2004	8,900	15.08%	31,700	53.73%	18,400	31.19%	59,000
2005	9,400	16.04%	31,000	52.90%	18,200	31.06%	58,600
2006	9,400	16.15%	30,400	52.23%	18,400	31.62%	58,200
2007	9,400	16.35%	30,000	52.17%	18,100	31.48%	57,500
2008	9,100	15.99%	28,900	50.79%	18,900	33.22%	56,900
2009	8,900	15.92%	28,400	50.81%	18,600	33.27%	55,900
2010	8,700	15.70%	24,200	43.68%	22,500	40.61%	55,400
2011	8,500	15.54%	22,800	41.68%	23,400	42.78%	54,700
2012	9,300	17.29%	19,800	36.80%	24,700	45.91%	53,800
2013	9,300	17.71%	19,000	36.19%	24,200	46.10%	52,500
2014	9,800	18.88%	17,500	33.72%	24,600	47.40%	51,900
2015	9,400	18.50%	16,900	33.27%	24,500	48.23%	50,800
2016	9,400	18.69%	16,900	33.60%	24,000	47.71%	50,300
2017	11,000	22.75%	14,700	30.40%	22,650	46.85%	48,350
2018	10,600	22.27%	14,200	29.83%	22,800	47.90%	47,600
2019	9,900	20.97%	13,900	29.45%	23,400	49.58%	47,200
2020	8,100	17.31%	15,600	33.33%	23,100	49.36%	46,800
2021	8,100	17.48%	15,300	33.01%	22,950	49.51%	46,350
2022	7,950	17.34%	15,250	33.26%	22,650	49.40%	45,850
2023	7,750	17.09%	14,950	32.97%	22,650	49.94%	45,350
2024	7,750	17.22%	14,700	32.67%	22,550	50.11%	45,000
Sources:
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025, page 69.
“The Brewing Industry, a Guide to Historical Records” by Lesley Hammons & Alison Turton.

 

Tied Houses Abolition Act

More fun from the Brewers' Journal today. Which I've been using a lot as a source recently. Mostly, because that's what I've been researching in this week. And I need loads of posts to cover my next couple of trips. I should be in Norway when this is posted.

Tied houses have always been somewhat contentious. Obviously, the temperance twats were against tied houses. Well, just because. They were opposed to everything connected to pubs.

Mr. Broadhurst seemed to have an aversion to tied houses, too. Judging by the Bill he initiated. It's not the easiest of reads, despite being quite short.

Mr. Broadhurst and Tied Houses.
The following is a copy of the Bill introduced by Mr-Broadhurst, and read a first time in the House of Commons on the 3rd inst.:—Whereas the practice of tying licensed houses is injurious to the public, and it is expedient that it should be abolished. Now, therefore, be it enacted:—

1. From and after the passing of this Act any covenant or agreement binding the holder of a licence of ale, beer, or spirituous liquors for consumption on the premises to purchase such ale, beer, or spirituous liquors, or any part thereof, from any specified person or persons only shall be deemed to be an unreasonable covenant in restraint of trade, and shall be void. Provided always that this section shall not apply to any licence granted before the passing of this Act unless and until application shall be made for a renewal thereof.

2. Upon any application for the grant or renewal of a licence for the sale of ale, beer, or spirituous liquors to be consumed on the premises, the licensing authorities shall require the applicant to satisfy them that he is not under any such covenant or agreement as aforesaid; and in the case of an application for the renewal of a licence that has been granted or renewed subsequently to the passing of this Act that he has not been under any such covenant since the granting or last renewal of the licence, as the case may be, and unless the said licensing authority is so satisfied, it shall not grant or renew such licence.

3. This Act may be called the Tied Houses Abolition Act.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, August 15th 1900, page 456.

If you were tied for any alcoholic drink, your licence wouldn't be renewed. And without its licence, a pub was worth fuck all. Not much use for a brewer, either.

Of course, the Bill didn't pass. Private members' Bills almost never do. If passed, how would it have affected UK brewing? Would brewers have simply found some other way of securing outlets? They might have concentrated on off-licences. Which were oftebn tied, too. Weirdly, the Bill doesn't seem to apply to them. Only on-licences. 

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.

Small regional brewers in 1973

At the smaller end of regional brewers were ones with up to 250 pubs. At least, that’s the cutoff point I’ve picked. And is totally arbitrary. But I’m going to run with it.

To put those 4,000-odd total pubs into context, the two smallest of the Big Six (excluding Scottish & Newcastle) had around 6,000 pubs each.  But, due to the higher concentrations of regional brewers’ pubs in specific locations, they could be competing on an equal footing with the Big Six. At least, in terms of pub numbers.

Only around a third of these breweries still exist. Luckily, other than Workington and Carlisle, I had the chance to try beer from all of them. Morland and Morrell were such good breweries, with several excellent cask beers. Both had tasty Dark Milds. As did Darley.

Davenport, other than the beer delivered to Dad, I can remember drinking in one of their few pubs in the city centre. When in Birmingham visiting relatives. I was served a half (I was young) of Mild that was so yeasty that it was totally opaque. I was so young, that I tried to drink it rather than sending it back. When not abused, their cask beer was pretty decent.

Despite the brewery being close to where I grew up, I seldom drank Hardy & Hanson. Way the least of the three Nottingham brewers. Simply because I rarely came across their pubs. Home Ales had pubs in Newark, Shipstone loads in the centre of Nottingham. Hardy & Hanson had no pubs in either.

The Old Kings Arms, a real ale pub opened by former CAMRA chairman Chris Holmes in the mid-1970s, they originally sold Hardy & Hanson. Annoyingly, the only cask beer served by electric pump rather than a hand pull. Despite being a hardcore Mild drinker, I never took to it. Far too sweet.

These Kimberley memories keep coming. Right at the end of my school time, we had a trip to see Tommy in Derby. As the bus arrived early, me and Martyn Young nipped into a handily-placed Hardy & Hanson pub for quick half of Mild. We got to theatre a few minutes before the final curtain.

Mansfield was also fairly local. But didn’t have any pubs around Newark. As they had no cask beer, I wasn’t going to search them out. Everards was another brewer not that far from Newark whose beers I didn’t come across often, Perfectly acceptable beers, with Tiger being the standout.

There was one pub in Leeds which served Hull Bitter: the Town Hall Tavern. Located, surprisingly, directly opposite Leeds town hall. It was owned by Musgrave & Sagar, a former local brewery which still owned a few pubs and bottled Guinness. It had an ancient landlady who could magically hold three nonic glasses in one hand while using the other hand to work the beer engine. Dead impressive. Served the Leeds economiser way, with a tight head, I thought it tasted pretty nice.

Having a caravan in Mablethorpe, we weren’t too far from Bateman country. And, despite Mablethorpe itself not having any of their houses, there were some not too far away. I always really rated their cask beers. The Mild and both Bitters were excellent.

From my time living in London in 1979, I developed a great love of Fullers. In particular, Hock and London Pride. Though it was rare that I came across the former.

Young’s, on the other hand, I never took to as much. Despite, in the 1980, having to walk past one of their pubs, the Railway Telegraph, on my way to and from Thornton Heath station every day. I can’t remember ever seeing their Mild in a pub. I usually drank Ordinary. Which was fine, just not particularly to my taste for some reason.

Lees I drank mostly on visits to Manchester. When I could find one of their pubs. Which wasn’t that easy in the city centre. While at university, me and Simon took a day trip to Oldham, basically just to try the beers of Oldham brewery. I can’t really remember anything about them. Other than that they weren’t crap.

I remember visiting the Higsons brewery tap in 1973 when in Liverpool to see Pink Floyd in 1973. I was only just 17 at the time. Which was no obstacle to me getting stuck into a few very pleasant Milds.

Brains beers I actively sought out at beer festivals. In particular, Dark, a really tasty Mild. Just my type of beer: malty and very drinkable.

On a family holiday to Cornwall in 1974, I did get to sample some St. Austell. But only a couple of times as most of their pubs only sold keg. The far Southwest being a bit of a beer desert (for cask) at the time. St. Austell’s beer made no lasting impression on me, one way or another. 

Breweries with 100 to 249 tied houses in 1973
brewery	no. tied houses	brewery	no. tied houses
Brain	100	Carlisle State Management	170
Darley (Vaux)	100	Buckley	180
Oldham	100	Mansfield	180
Fuller	110	Border	190
Workington	110	Lees	190
Davenport	118	Eldridge Pope	200
Brakspear	130	Hull	200
Everards	134	McMullen	200
St. Austell	135	Thos. Usher (Vaux)	200
Bateman	140	Hardy & Hansons	230
Morrell	140	Shepherd Neame	235
Young	140	Morland	240
Wadworth	148	Total pubs	4,180
Higsons	160	Total breweries	26
Source:
The Beer Drinker's Companion by Frank Baillie, 1974.

Local brewers in 1973 (part two)

Operating on a slightly larger, but still pretty localised, scale was another group of brewers.

Other than Okell, which was rather inaccessible on the Isle of Man, Ann Street ditto in the Channel Islands and Gray which had stopped brewing by the time I was really drinking, I drank beers from all of this set.

Felinfoel was one of the first beers that I served at the Great British Beer Festival. Lovely stuff – and in great condition – it was, too. King & Barnes. Well, I loved that brewery. Such good beer. I was so annoyed when they closed. Jennings I have very happy memories of from a holiday in the Lakes with my brother.

Holts I only ever drank in their tied houses. Because they didn’t sell their beer anywhere else. Including beer festivals. I drank in one of their Salford houses which had no branding on the outside, no pump clips and I had to lean over the bar to look at the bottles to work out which brewery’s beer was being served. Low-key or what?

Hydes owned one of my favourite pubs, not just in Manchester, but anywhere: The Jolly Angler. The beer was pretty good, too. Straightforward Mild and Bitter.

My time in Swindon left me with a very soft spot for Arkells. Especially BBB. A typically malty Southwestern Bitter.

Despite being pretty small, Adnams beers had a good reputation and started turning up in free houses in London.  Where, sadly, it wasn’t always in as good condition as it was at beer festivals. When looked after well, their Bitter was lovely.

Wards brewed an excellent Dark Mild which was, unfortunately, difficult to find in their hometown of Sheffield. It being very much a Bitter town already in the 1970s. 

Breweries with 50 to 99 tied houses in 1973
brewery	no. tied houses	brewery	no. tied houses
Ann Street	50	Adnams	70
Hydes	50	Felinfoel	75
Gray	52	Jennings	79
Gibbs Mew	55	Holt	80
King & Barnes	58	Okell	80
Arkell	62	Gale	88
Ridley	62	Ward (Vaux)	96
Elgood	65	Total pubs	1,087
Palmer	65	Total breweries	16
Source:
The Beer Drinker's Companion by Frank Baillie, 1974.

Local brewers in 1973

A handful of brewpubs had struggled into the 1970s, brewing on the smallest scale imaginable. Others owned just a handful of pubs. Bathams is a good example. And there was a surprising number of brewers with fewer than 50 pubs: 31 in 1973.

How many of these breweries’ beers did I get to try? Nineteen, if my memory serves me correctly. Standouts? Batham, obviously. Top-class beers back then, top-class beers today.

The two Lancaster breweries, Yates & Jackson and Mitchells, were pretty solid. I remember serving the former at the Great British Beer Festival. More beers that were in excellent condition and formed a tight head served straight from the cask.

Paine’s beers? Nothing special, in my memory. Hartleys, on the other hand, brewed excellent stuff. Including a tasty Best Bitter called XB. Maclay’s I got to drink in their one tied house in Edinburgh. And was convinced that 60/- was Dark Mild. How wrong was I? I’m still not sure. Lovely beer, whatever.

I never got why Ruddles beers were so popular. Too sweet and cloying for my taste, even Blue, the 3% ABV Bitter. As for County, I couldn’t drink more than a pint. And that was a struggle.

End of personal memories. Back to the factual stuff.

These small tied estates were usually geographically limited to a small radius around the brewery. Though there were sometimes random pubs miles from the brewery. Houses obtained for obscure reasons.

The three Channel Island breweries – Randall (Guernsey), Randall (Jersey) and Guernsey –Castletown of the Isle of Man and Burt on the Isle of Wight had no pubs on mainland Britain. With their estates being restricted to the island on which they were located. Which would account for their limited size.

Ruddles sold off most of their tied estate to finance expansion. A decision which eventually came back to bite them on the bum.

Sadly, a majority of these breweries, including Ruddles, have since closed. 

Breweries with fewer than 50 tied houses in 1973
brewery	no. tied houses	brewery	no. tied houses
Cook	0	Paine	24
Hoskins	1	Belhaven	25
All Nations	1	Beard	26
Blue Anchor	1	Hartleys	28
Three Tuns	1	Timothy Taylor	28
Ma Pardoes's Old Swan	1	Rayment	31
Traquair House	1	Melbourns	32
Selby	2	Hook Norton	34
Batham	8	Maclay	34
Holden	8	Castletown	36
Burt	11	Yates & Jackson	43
Theakston	16	Ruddle	44
Donnington	17	Guernsey	45
Randall (Guernsey)	17	Mitchells	47
Simpkiss	17	Total pubs	623
Randall (Jersey)	20	Total breweries	31
Harvey	24
Source:
The Beer Drinker's Companion by Frank Baillie, 1974.

The Big Six

The buying spree initiated by Eddie Taylor in the 1950s and 1960s came to an end in the 1970s, when the Labour government stopped further takeovers by the large brewing groups. Effectively freezing the six as they were. Any expansion had to come from off sales or adventures abroad.

In the 1970s, those UK large breweries were amongst the largest in the world. But with domestic possibilities extremely limited, what could they do?

At a time when most beer was consumed in pubs, the number of them you controlled determined how much beer you could sell. Roughly. Which is why they had gobbled up ramshackle breweries, purely for the pubs that they owned.

This is also when the Big Six started to rationalise their production Through closing multiple older breweries and replacing them with new more “rational” plants. Which were mostly a total disaster.

The most insane proposals came from Bass Charrington, whose chairman came from outside the brewing industry.  He wanted to concentrate brewing in just two plants: the M & B brewery in Cape Hill, Birmingham and Runcorn in Lancashire. It didn’t end well.

Large numbers of regional breweries were closed. Replaced with massive keg plants that never operated to capacity. The Courage brewery that replaced Simonds Reading brewery is a good example. It never brewed the full six million barrels it was capable of. That would have been about 17% of the UK's total output. And has closed.

When beer consumption began to fall, the UK was left with serious overcapacity. Assuming demand would continue to rise, big brewers had invested in massive plants to expand capacity.

The new “megakeggeries”, as CAMRA called them, were no great success. Whitbread’s plant in Luton and Bass Charrington’s in Runcorn were plagued with technical problems and industrial unrest. Both closed. Poor labour relations were rare amongst family brewers with their more paternalistic approach.

Big brewery tied houses in 1970
Bass Charrington	9,450
Whitbread	8,280
Allied	8,250
Watney Mann	6,135
Courage	6,000
S&N	1,700
Guinness	2
Total	39,817
Source:
Investors' Chronicle, 13 November 1970.

 

 

Heineken's tied houses

Some think that the tied house system was a specifically British phenomenon. It wasn't. In several countries breweries either leased or owned outright cafes which were then obliged to sell only their beer. Belgium is a good example. But the system was, and in fact still is, practised in Holland.

I think nowadays it's mostly done through loan ties rather than by controlling the premises themselves. The reason I believe it's mostly done through loans is that I know many examples in Amsterdam where the brewery supplying a pub has changed. Mostly changed from Heineken to Inbev.

Though in Holland the tie is only for beer, not spirits. For jenever and other Dutch spirits, nowadays there's usually also a tie to a distiller. Which is why Amsterdam pubs often have two signs hung up outside, one for a brewery and one for a distiller.

This report of a lawsuit gives some insight into how things worked a 100 years or so ago.

Lawsuits
Tapping without a licence. One writes from Rotterdam to the Handelsblad:

When the so-called Emergency Act came into effect, the joint-stock companies for exploitation sprang up like mushrooms. The tapping went on regularly until some time ago the commissioner of police ordered an official report to be drawn up against the tappers who retailed hard liquor in an establishment of a joint-stock company.

Thus, in the session of the 2nd Sub-district Court, 16 defendants had to account for themselves as such.

Mr. Th. A. Fruin acted as defender for accused J. Dijkstal, but as he said actually for Heineken's Bierbrouwerij.

The treatment showed that the building in which D. lives is rented from the aforementioned Bierbrouwerij; that although it is the owner of the inventory in most cases, this is not the case in the case of D.; that D. should sell the beer from Heineken's brewery, but that he sells spirits wherever he pleases. He can do this at will in the name of the brewery or in his own name, but always against cash payment. He is not an accounting officer, but has to pay the brewery a fixed amount of f30 per week, plus the costs of the license fee and tax, while most that is earned in the business is counted as his salary as publican.

When asked by the sub-district court to the director of the brewery, the latter says that the only advantage the brewery derives from the case is the profit made on the beer to be supplied.

The officer of the Public Prosecution Service was of the opinion that it has been legally and convincingly proven that the accused is not licensed and taps, while the brewery is licensed and does not tap. He asks a sentence to f 1 or 1 day.

Mr. Fruin, acquiring the word, cannot understand how people, standing in the evening, when they say goodbye to this Liquor Act, still proceed to such prosecutions. He tries to show that the accused is nothing but the brewery's publican and therefore has not committed a criminal offence. A conviction will therefore be unable to follow. He cites as an example the foreign carriage companies which simply provide the coachman with a carriage for a fixed sum, regardless of what the coachman receives.

The speaker cites the new Liquor Act, which prohibits a person from having more than one licence, while a legal person is also denied having that one. What this article was for Heineken can be imagined if one knows that the brewery has 71 permits in its name, pays f 63,150 a year in rent, and the inventories of all those items represent a balance sheet value of f 267,000. She has therefore approached the House of Representatives with an address, with the result that her objections have been met in the transitional articles.

After a rejoinder and a rejoinder, the subdistrict court judge will give the verdict on 20 September.
Het volk: dagblad voor de arbeiderspartij 10-09-1904  

Interesting to know that Heineken already had an estate of 71 pubs in 1904. 

It looks as if Mr. Dijkstal wasn't paying a market rent, as the average monthly rent Heineken was paying for their pubs was 74 guilders a month. More than double what they were charging Mr. Dijkstal.

 

Delivering beer in WW II

In order to conserve fuel and transport capacity, the tied-house system was partly set aside through a scheme called "zoning"

 Essentially, brewers were only allowed to deliver to customers in a core area. Those outside their zone were served a brewery which was closer by. There were a couple of exceptions for brewers considered to be "national", such as Bass or Guinness. Everyone else had their distribution reduced to their local area.

But before such restrictions could be imposed, the government need information about where brewers delivered.

"Transport Economy:
The Society had been represented by the Chairman at a meeting of Divisional Food Officers held at the Ministry of Food, at which the Ministry had explained to the Divisional Food Officers the arrangements which they would have to make for the regional control of the delivery of beer. These arrangements had been fully set out in a circular letter issued to all brewers and bottlers of beer on the 25th January, with which forms were sent out on which a return was required of all deliveries of cask and bottled beer into each of 76 zones in England and Wales, and 12 in Scotland. A large number of returns had already been sent in to the Society, and it was hoped that all brewers and bottlers who had not already done so would send in their returns as soon as possible. Although the information as to deliveries in zones was essential in order to set out the general position for the guidance of the Divisional Food Officers, there was no doubt that further and more detailed information would have to be called for by those Officers in order to deal with the problem of beer deliveries in their regions."
The Brewing Trade Review, March 1943, page 60.

Inevitably, some brewers were late returning the forms. The Society mentioned is the Brewers' Society, the industry's trade body.

Barclay Perkins sold quite a bit of Stout in Scotland, based  on the number if advertisements they placed in a large number of regional Scottish newspapers. But by 1943 they were no longer advertising in Scotland. Which is what you might expect. They were quite a large brewery, but by no means national. I wonder how they acquired their Scottish trade?

The swapping of trade between brewers was intended to be temporary. Each brewery retaining the freehold of their tied houses. Though some brewers were going for a permanent swapping of ownership.

"Attention had been drawn by a member to arrangements to transfer the freeholds of houses between brewer and brewer for purposes of beer deliveries, which might result in a monopoly by one brewer in one village or district. While the Committee agreed that such a result would be undesirable and that the consumer should have a choice of beer in every district, they were of opinion that the permanent exchange of houses had not taken place to any material extent, and that the problem had not really arisen."
The Brewing Trade Review, March 1943, page 60. 

How ironic that the Brewers' Society was so against local monopolies. They didn't care so much in the 1960s, when they became a reality through mergers and acquisitions. I should know, I grew up in one. Almost all the pubs in Newark were owned by Courage, after the town's two breweries ended up in Courage's hands. I don't remember the Brewers' Society chiming in defending the consumer's right to choice.

Tied houses in the 1890s

Boak & Bailey conveniently got the full version of the 1895 Brewers' Guardian available in Google books. Very useful for my book after next.

A quick flick through its pages resulted in me finding an interesting report on a House of Commons debate about tied houses. Which weren't very popular with some politicians

The debate kicked off with a tied house opponent:

"Some twenty or thirty years ago there were comparatively few tied houses in the country, but statistics now showed that at least 70 per cent, of the licensed houses were held in that way, and the rapid growth of the system was, no doubt, the result of keen competition between brewers. A return published in 1890 showed that in Liverpool some five or six brewery companies held between them no fewer than 504 publichouses, while the tied houses in St. Helens numbered 126, and in Portsmouth 212. In Birmingham one firm alone owned as many as 155, whilst one firm in Bristol headed the list with 287. Quite as bad a state of things prevailed in the country licensing districts. And not only were publicans tied in regard to the sale of beer and spirits, but in many cases the restrictions were applied to mineral waters, matches, and even the sawdust which was used in the spittoons. In some cases the publicans were only monthly tenants of the brewers, and as the licences were granted for a year he claimed that that tenure constituted an evasion of the licensing laws. The system bore very hardly upon the publicans, and in some of the agreements he had seen it was distinctly specified that the brewer or his agent should have the right to inspect the cellars of the house at any hour of the day or night. They were obliged, too, to sell whatever liquor was supplied, whether it was good, bad, or indifferent. In some cases he had to pay from 15 to 20 per cent. more for his liquor than the owner of a free house, with the result that he was compelled to force his trade by illegitimate means very often, so as to get a bare livelihood out of the house. Licences for the sale of drink were granted for the general well-being of the community; but it certainly was contrary to the interest of the public that in a very large number of licensed houses the only beer that could be obtained was the beer which some single firm of brewers choose to sell. In most cases it was bad beer made from the substitutes for malt and hops; and he therefore appealed for support for his motion to the hon. gentleman opposite, who strongly upheld the other night the use of pure beer and of the English barley-grower."
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, pages 130 - 131.

The percentage of houses which were tied was thrown around by a few speakers. Not always the same number. 70% seems to have been the most popular.

Why were tied houses so much more common than 20 or 30 years earlier? That's an easy one: the 1869 Licensing Act, which made it very difficult to obtain new licences and had provisions for actively reducing the number.

At a time when the population was increasing, the number of pubs was falling:

Pubs in England and Wales 1870 - 1895.
Date	Full	Beerhouse	Total Pubs	population	pop. per pub
1870	68,789	49,396	118,185	22,783,541	193
1875	69,184	43,884	113,068	24,045,385	213
1880	69,112	49,597	118,709
1881	68,632	38,309	106,941	26,046,142	244
1885	67,822	37,278	105,100	27,220,706	259
1890	67,315	36,498	103,813
1893	67,028	35,809	102,837
1895	66,750	35,351	102,101	30,451,528	298
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 162.

With the number of potential outlets in decline, brewers increasingly tied pubs, either my outright purchase or by loans.

Tying pubs on matches and sawdust? That sounds very Sam Smiths