|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: A Brewery or pub in Reading (Read 419 times)
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2310
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
On the 1881 census Alfred J Pilgrim was Cellarman Brewery living in Charles St
1891 he has moved to 143 Wolseley st and was a labourer
on the 1901 census he was at the same address but a Wine and Spirit Cellarman
From the occupations board a brewery cellar man was sometimes known as a labourer so was he with the same employer throughout?
The question is which Brewery did he work for or was he working in a pub which brewed its own beer Breweries don't usually have wine and spirit cellars
Which was the nearest pub to 143 Wolsely street?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
wendy47
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1539
My Wonderful & Funny Father
|
Hi Trees
I am a Reading girl born & bred, & there was a large brewery called Simmonds up until the 1970's (I went for an office job interview there upon leaving school back in the early 1960's but ended up at Huntley & Palmers]. There were drays drawn by Shire horses often driving through St Mary's Butts from the brewery even at that late date. they were mainly for display purposes at shows by then too. The brewery was taken over by Courages & moved to a site next to the M4. The Oracle shopping center now resides in it's place.
Checking on Google Earth, Wolseley Street is not at all far from where the brewery was, about 1/2 a kilometer.
http://www.localhistories.org/reading.html
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/radstock/rht/themes/manufacture/brew.html
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1032970
Wendy 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VEAL, PRICE, STURGE, BELLET, DREW, TAYLOR Som/Glos
COTTERELL, NAPPER, NASH, FLEETWOOD, HANDLEY, COLLINS Hereford
NASH, TYLER Warks, Kent
CROWE, REYNOLDS, BEARMAN Suflk/Essx/Middx
Abraham CARLSON/CHARLSON Sweden/E Ldn
COX Wilts
STILES, DORTON Middx, Surrey
"Fisher" HALLUM London? HANSTEY, MARSHALL Northumberland
ELDRIDGE, ALDRIDGE, STILES, DORTON Ldn RAGLESS, NYE Sussex
FEGAN, LOUGHLIN Down
CLAYTON SWEENY Cork
PROBABLE IMPOSSIBILITIES ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO IMPROBABLE POSSIBILITIES - ARISTOTLE
|
|
|
wendy47
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1539
My Wonderful & Funny Father
|
Hi Trees
I think I may have just discovered that Alfred J Pilgrim's son William 1890 was the father of my father's best friend Raymond Pilgirim b 1923. 'Uncle Ray' was a lovely man.
Wendy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VEAL, PRICE, STURGE, BELLET, DREW, TAYLOR Som/Glos
COTTERELL, NAPPER, NASH, FLEETWOOD, HANDLEY, COLLINS Hereford
NASH, TYLER Warks, Kent
CROWE, REYNOLDS, BEARMAN Suflk/Essx/Middx
Abraham CARLSON/CHARLSON Sweden/E Ldn
COX Wilts
STILES, DORTON Middx, Surrey
"Fisher" HALLUM London? HANSTEY, MARSHALL Northumberland
ELDRIDGE, ALDRIDGE, STILES, DORTON Ldn RAGLESS, NYE Sussex
FEGAN, LOUGHLIN Down
CLAYTON SWEENY Cork
PROBABLE IMPOSSIBILITIES ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO IMPROBABLE POSSIBILITIES - ARISTOTLE
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2310
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
many thanks for three useful links Wendy and what an amazing connection
It is a very loose connection on our part though I'll pm you about it
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
geniecolgan
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 854
Many a slip!
|
Yes, thanks for the links Wendy.
Now I know my gt gt grandad worked for Simonds Brewery 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Colgan, Scott, Templeton in Northern Antrim
Colgan in Saskatchewan, Canada
Durrant in Herts & Middlesex
Ford,Smith in Hammersmith, Fulham, Brentford
Whiting in Berkshire
Weller in Sussex and London
Walker in the 24th of Foot, (Canada, Ireland, India and South Africa) and London
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2310
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Newbury chap my apologies for not thanking you I had not thought about the brewery supplying the Wines and spirits to their tied houses. When did Breweries start owning their own houses? It makes great sense and looks like he was employed at Simmonds as a cellar man
Many thanks
trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4258
EDLIN
|
I think your question about Breweries owning their own houses is a bit chicken and egg. Most taverns in the early days would have brewed their own beer. However by 1729 when JPs started to license beer retailers one would anticipate that some retailers were buying their beer from another who still brewed.
It is very evident that after the 1830 beerhouse act was repealed in 1869 a lot of the premises which survived into the 20th century were owned by the breweries even though they were originally set up as "front room" activities. Most of these would still have only been licensed to sell beers, ales and stouts and their numbers only started to really reduce as a result of the positive actions of the licensing authorities in the early 20th century. This in turn would have pushed even more premises into the hands of the breweries who had the muscle to fight for their retention.
David
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2310
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Thanks David that is interesting even today some houses ftill brew their own there is one excelent example in pontypridd.
I have seen the bill of sale of a midlands farm which fhows the adjoining breweryhouse the new owners completed the trchanged the emphasis from farming to brewing. We also often stay at a cider farm in Somerset which I think is a modern version of the same progress
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
newburychap
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 753
|
I think your question about Breweries owning their own houses is a bit chicken and egg. Most taverns in the early days would have brewed their own beer. However by 1729 when JPs started to license beer retailers one would anticipate that some retailers were buying their beer from another who still brewed.
In the early days taverns sold wine - not beer. And licensing of alehouses begain in 1552.
By 1700 there were some very rich brewers - evidence of mass production. The ownership of alehouses, inns and taverns is not easy to determine that far back, but I would be surprised if the brewers did not own plenty, especially at the lower end of the market (ie the alehouses).
Simmonds are reknowned as a brewery that grew big on the back of numerous brewhouse openings - even though they apparently opened relatively few. Their real growth came when they got a big contract to supply the army at Aldreshot and abroad - there is still a Simmonds brewery in Malta.
It is very evident that after the 1830 beerhouse act was repealed in 1869 a lot of the premises which survived into the 20th century were owned by the breweries even though they were originally set up as "front room" activities. Most of these would still have only been licensed to sell beers, ales and stouts and ... The 1830 Beer Act was, in part, designed to counter the brewers’ perceived monopoly of beer retail outlets. Needless to say it didn’t work – the brewers opened beerhouses (very different from alehouses) and took over most of the rest before long.
… their numbers only started to really reduce as a result of the positive actions of the licensing authorities in the early 20th century. This in turn would have pushed even more premises into the hands of the breweries who had the muscle to fight for their retention. There was also some action by magistrates in the late 1800s (following the 1872 Licensing Act) - largely in response to pressure from the temperance movement. However, it was not until the 1904 Compensation Act that a proper system was put in place that made it easier for the magistrates to act. In Newbury they closed half a dozen or so between 1872 and 1904 but fifteen between 1904 and 1931. Interestingly there was another spate of closures in the 1780s (including fifteen closures by the Speen magistrates in 1785).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Currently researching: Newbury pubs & inns - the buildings, breweries and publican families. Member of Newbury District Field Club - www.ndfc.org.uk |
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4258
EDLIN
|
I agree that I should have said alehouses not taverns, I was vaguely aware that I was using the wrong word when I typed it.
I would however argue with your view that the beerhouses act had much to do with breaking a monopoly of the brewers. It was aimed at increasing the consumption of beer in order to reduce that of gin and the number of gin palaces. It could never have reduced the number outlets owned by brewers or their strength because the only source of beer for the beerhouses were the existing brewers and the two guinea licence anyway wasonly for sale of beer not its brewing. Similarly the brewers had very little interest in owning the part time small outlets which it generated until the actions of the magistrates started to reduce their numbers and so increase their potential.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
newburychap
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 753
|
I would however argue with your view that the beerhouses act had much to do with breaking a monopoly of the brewers.
Then you might like to consider the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the idea of the Bill to the commons (HC Deb 04 March 1830 vol 22 cc1304-7):
The subject of granting licenses to public houses had been often brought under consideration, and sufficient had been already done towards giving freedom to the retail trade in Beer to justify the institution of an inquiry into the propriety of giving it still greater freedom. It had been shown by previous inquiries, that the present system of licensing had given rise more or less to a degree of monopoly in the Beer Trade which had produced two evils:—1. a deterioration in the quality of Beer—2. an enhancement of its price: both of which were, in effect, a severe tax on the poorer classes. Both these he hoped to remedy, but he begged to be understood as not at all yielding to the imputations thrown upon a wealthy and respectable class of individuals engaged in the manufacture and sale of Beer; the fault, if fault there were, was the fault of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Currently researching: Newbury pubs & inns - the buildings, breweries and publican families. Member of Newbury District Field Club - www.ndfc.org.uk |
|
|
behindthefrogs
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 4258
EDLIN
|
While the beerhouse act as I understand it might have affected the price, it surely could have done little to affect the quality and nothing to break the brewing monopoly. With the brewers selling to the retailers any affect on the price must have been minimal.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Living in Berkshire. From Northampton & Milton Keynes DETAILS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMES ARE IN SURNAME INTERESTS, LINK AT FOOT OF PAGE Wilson, Higgs, Buswell, PARCELL, Matthews, TAMKIN, Seckington, Pates, Coupland, Webb, Arthur, MAYNARD, Caves, Norman, Winch, Culverhouse, Drakeley. Johnson, Routledge, SHIRT, SAICH, Mills, SAUNDERS, EDLIN, Perry, Vickers, Pakeman, Griffiths, Marston, Turner, Child, Sheen, Gray, Woolhouse Census Info is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
newburychap
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 753
|
While the beerhouse act as I understand it might have affected the price, it surely could have done little to affect the quality and nothing to break the brewing monopoly. With the brewers selling to the retailers any affect on the price must have been minimal.
It was not the first time that an Act failed to achieve its aims, and not the last. Though it did do something to break the brewing monopoly - a lot of new breweries started up even if they really just extended the scale of the monopoly.
The idea on quality was that free houses would only survive in a truly competitive market if they sold decent beer - perhaps it worked to some extent. On the other hand it also led to an increase in the sales of spirits as the alehouses pushed their sales in order to emphasise the difference between themselves and the new beerhouses.
However, the real drive behind the Act was ideological, Free Trade was a mantra at the time, it was an idea that was so attractive that there was virtually no opposition to the Bill (the vote on its second reading was 245 for 29 against).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Currently researching: Newbury pubs & inns - the buildings, breweries and publican families. Member of Newbury District Field Club - www.ndfc.org.uk |
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
