KNOTTINGLEY PUBLIC HOUSES & BREWERIES
circa. 1750 – 1998
by TERRY SPENCER B.A.(Hons), Ph D. (1998)
CHAPTER ONE
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
In
1752, eighteen residents of the township of Knottingley in company with
John Mitchell, the Parish Constable, agreed to be bound over in the sum of
£10 each to observe the legal and moral obligations attendant upon being
granted a licence as an innkeeper. In so doing the applicants were
observing the requirement of a law dating from 1495 which had empowered
two local Justices of the Peace sitting together to "reject
and put away any common ale selling in towns…and to take sureties of ale
houses in their good behaviour."
Such
was the origin of the landlords bond which was reinforced by the Act of
1753 which rendered compulsory the licensing of public houses.
Ale
house licences were originally granted by obtaining the necessary approval
at any time of the year. In 1729 however, the Brewster Sessions were
instituted. Under the new system licences could only be granted at General
Sessions of the Divisional Justices (Upper Osgoldcross in the case of
Knottingley and district) held annually each September.
The
age-old legal requirements demanded that each applicant "..keep
the true Assize in uttering and selling Bread and other Victuals, Beer,
Ale and other liquors….and not fraudulently dilute or adulterate the
same…and not use any Pots or other Measures that are not full
size."
The moral obligations specified that the licensee was not to permit drunkeness
and tippling on his premises but set and uphold an acceptable standard of
behaviour by remaining sober at all times. All gambling was prohibited
within the house itself and also in adjacent areas such as outhouses and
servant quarters. Sports and sundry amusements such as bull or bear
baiting and cockfighting were forbidden as was the sale of liquor on
Sundays during the usual hours of Divine Service. An additional duty was
that of excluding "men and women of notoriously bad fame or
dissolute girls and boys" from the ale house.
The admix of statutory and moral constraint had developed during the medieval
period as those in authority sought to control the excesses arising from
frequent feast days with their accompanying church ales. Such excess not
only tended to undermine the moral standards espoused by the Church but
also distracted men from archery practice and the martial exercises which
were essential for the defence of the realm. That such laws continued to
be upheld in the post-medieval period when the practical necessity for the
restriction had lost its significance marks a divide between the
Establishment which regarded ale-houses as potential agencies of social
unrest and the general populace which regarded them as centres of gaiety,
relaxation, gossip and entertainment.
Our knowledge of social life at Knottingley is, however, confined to more
recent times and one can only assume that the ale houses of the township,
as befitted a substantial inland port with its myriad travellers and
tradesmen, existed in abundance and that the activities undertaken within
such places mirrored the general spirit of the age.
The eighteen applicants of 1782 who afforded the earliest reference to the
licensed trade within the township indicate by their number a profusion of
public houses. In appearance such premises were for the most part little
different from the surrounding houses in respect of size and general
appearance. Indeed, many such properties are designated in early deeds of
conveyance as mere dwelling houses or tenements and although the context
of such documents makes clear that the premises were used as ale-houses
they are not distinguished by their titles in many instances.
Nevertheless, whilst doubtless of small dimension and unprepossessing
appearance it is apparent from the number involved that the licensed
premises catered for a clientele well in excess of the demand engendered
by the size of the native population.
Two of the earliest known applicants of 1752 who afford the earliest reference
to the licensed trade within the town were women; Mary Patton and Widow
Knapton. It is probable that the former may have served as the nominal
licensee in order to enable her husband to follow some alternative trade
or occupation, a practice which is still followed within the trade to this
day in rural or small town communities. Widow Knapton for her part may
have followed the well-established convention of having the licence
transferred to her name following the demise of her husband. Incidentally,
the presence of Widow Knapton’s name on the list of licensees is an
early indication of this family’s connection with the victualling trade
although the location of her house is not known for although the
Wheatsheaf Inn is one associated with the Knapton’s, who are known to
have been in continuous possession of the property until the middle of the
nineteenth century, the name of the inn is not recorded before the 1830s
and the Recognisance’s prior to 1820 do not indicate the houses for
which licences were granted.
The names of those persons applying for and granted licences in respect of
Knottingley ale-houses in 1752 are: - Richard Gawthre, William Walker, Thomas Scott, William Clark, John Tomlinson,
Samuel Hurst, Thomas Morris, John Wilson, Robert Bolton, William Witman
(sic), John Jackson, William Darnborough, Thomas Gaggs, Thomas Shillitoe
(sic), Thomas Ambler, Robert Pickering, Widow Knapton, Mary Patton.
The licensees are a pretty anonymous bunch but Thomas Gaggs bears a
distinguished name, presumably being a member of the family which owned
part of the manorial rights of the township and a forebear of Edward Gaggs,
lime merchant and vessel owner, who, almost half a century later was
instrumental in establishing the first common (i.e. public) brewery within
the town. Likewise, the name Shillitoe was of some distinction for the
family owned considerable property within the town by the end of the
eighteenth century, including the Limestone Inn. The name of William Clark
is also noteworthy for a medical practitioner of that name was resident at
Hill Top during the final quarter of the eighteenth century and it is not
improbable that the doctor was related to the inn-keeper. Samuel Hurst may
well be a forbear of William Hurst who is known to have been a brewer
resident at Hill Top early in the following century at which time there
was also a maltster named Samuel Hurst resident within the town. It would
therefore appear that an element at least of the listed applicants were
people of some material substance.
The next recorded list of Knottingley licensees is dated 11th September, 1771,
and is again in the form of official Recognizances. Of sixteen applicants
for licences, five; Robert Bolton, Thomas Shillito (sic), Robert
Pickering, John Wilson and William Darnbrook, featured in the list
nineteen years earlier. The last named person is probably the one listed
as William Darnborough in 1752 for the similarity of the surname allied to
its uncommon nature suggests a variant spelling. The supposition is
substantiated by the fact that the 1771 list contains the name of a
guarantor variously spelt as Goldsborough and Goulsborough. Here again a
family name associated with the licensed trade is evident, once more in
connection with the Limestone Inn, where the publican during the early
decades of the following century was William Darnbrook. In addition to the
five licensees originally named the presence of Thomas Gaggs Junior and
Thomas Jackson on the 1771 list suggests that these men had succeeded
their fathers as victuallers at some point during the previous nineteen
year period. The list of 1771 contains the name of only one female
licensee, Susanna (sic) Saynor, who is recorded as being a widow. The list
also indicates a reduction in the amount of bond money to be found by each
applicant, from £30 to £20, the applicant and guarantor each standing
surety in the sum of £10.
A further interesting feature of the 1771 list is the degree of mutual aid
afforded by the local victuallers, with each standing surety for the
other, the same person being cited as guarantor in several instances.
Thus, Robert Bolton and Robert Askham supported each other’s application
and jointly supported the applications of Joseph Hall and Richard Turner.
Bolton and Askham both featured singly or jointly in respect of several
fellow applicants. Nor was the practice confined to Bolton and Askham for
several other applicants, individually or conjointly, provided assistance
in furtherance of licence applications at this date.
Askham was a man of considerable wealth; a vessel owner with business interests
in limestone quarrying and as such one of the foremost ratepayers within
the town. The obvious social status conferred on wealthy men such as
Thomas Shillito and Robert Askham leads one to conject that although they
were the nominal licensees the properties licensed in their names would be
occupied by sub-tenants. Fellow applicants during the period 1771-1803
included small farmers and master craftsmen such as blacksmiths, both
occupations by their nature closely allied to the victuallers’ trade.
In 1773, of sixteen applications for licences approved by local magistrates,
two were granted to women. One of these, Susannah Frank, may well have
been the previously named Susanna (sic) Saynor who had perhaps remarried.
The other female listed in 1773 was Mary Moorhouse. By 1778, the name of
Mary Askham appears, being joined in 1781 by those of Mary Gaggs and Mary
Hutchinson. Again, one may conject that the two former women had suffered
the misfortune of widowhood and were seeking to renew licences previously
held by their husbands. Two points become apparent from the inclusion of
so many women on the list of applicants; the role of women as publicans
was socially acceptable in mid eighteenth century Knottingley and that
such an occupation afforded a means of adequate subsistence for unmarried
or more commonly, widowed women despite the proliferation of public houses
throughout the town at that time.
Of the practical aspects of inn management in that era we know nothing,
particularly with regard to problems of drunkenness and misconduct but
references from a slightly later period allied to our knowledge of the
maritime trade and its influence upon life within the township allow one
to conject that the inns of the period were frequented by what may be
somewhat euphemistically referred to as ‘men of the world’ who
required a firm hand in their management. The apparent incidence of
remarriage amongst female licensees, particularly where no growing son
existed to aspire to the eventual status of landlord, may indicate one
solution to the problem. Another may perhaps be found in the presence of a
regular lodger, a situation which applied in the case of Caroline Bayes,
licensee of the Duke of York Inn for thirty years from the mid nineteenth
century, whose lodger was the sea captain, William Whitaker, who succeeded
her as publican in 1879 and served in that capacity until 1892.
In addition, examination of extant data reveals the towns victuallers as a
close-knit, mutually supportive group, a fact which doubtless ensured full
co-operation in all areas of activity within the trade. Nevertheless, to
pursue the occupation of licensed victualler successfully by whatever
means in the rough and tumble mens’ world of that era reveals the women
publicans to have been a doughty and determined sorority.
Terry Spencer, 1998
<PREV
| NEXT>
|