Toothless in Burton: A history of the Crescent , and in particular its association with the Tooth family of Cranbrook, Kent and Sydney, Australia

Paul Bayley

Introduction One of the earlier incomers in this 19th century industrial boom established what Over the past two centuries, Burton upon later became known as the Crescent Trent has been the home of many com- Brewery. The history of this brewery is mercial , probably far more the subject of this paper. Whilst its than anywhere else of comparable size. foundation followed the general principal The number of these rose during the mid outlined above it had many unique fea- and late 19th century reaching a peak of tures, not least of which is its link to the 31 in the late 1880s. As well as those large and successful brewing family the founded by local entrepreneurs many Tooths. They originated in Kent, but were built or purchased by existing brew- arrived in Burton via Sydney, Australia.1 ers from outside the town as specialist This link, I believe, represents an early, if satellite breweries in support of unsuccessful, attempt at globalisation their existing and successful operations within the brewing industry. in London or other population centres. This investment was based on the expec- tation that a brewery in Burton would The Tooth family's background enable them to exploit the fashionable taste for Burton pale . Subsequently Late in the 18th century a man named almost all of these 31 breweries were John Tooth was a hatter in Cranbrook, closed or consolidated until, 120 years Kent. John was a successful tradesman later, only two of them are still operating. who, when he died, was particular in the Now, joined by a smattering of more way he shared his small estate amongst recently founded microbreweries, these his family. Of his children, two of his two survivors are capable of producing a sons, William and Robert, shared and greater volume than did the 31 breweries continued in hat making, although combined at their peak. apparently trading separately, but with

2 Journal of the Brewery History Society different degrees of success. William, Brewing in Kent when he died was merely designated as a hatter, but Robert seems to have The Tooth family's first link with a brewery achieved the rather more elevated status was recorded in 1827.3 This was at of hat manufacturer.2 We do not know if Baker's Cross in Cranbrook which, up to Robert Tooth (the hat manufacturer) mar- that time, had been operated by a Mr ried or had children, but several of James Youell who had become bankrupt William's children reached maturity. It is resulting in the brewery being auctioned two of these who primarily concern us; in October 1827.4,5 We do not know who Robert, born in 1799 and hereafter bought it, but it seems likely that it was referred to as Robert (Snr.) to distinguish some association between the Tooth and him from the five other Robert Tooths in Newnham families, headed by John this paper, and John, born 1802. Newnham, who was described as a timber merchant and brewer. Shortly Since so many Robert Tooths can very afterwards and perhaps not totally coinci- easily lead to confusion, in the interests dentally, since there had been political of clarity these Roberts and their relation- pressure for some time, the Act of ships (and my suffixes) are listed below. 1830 freed up the beer market. Between Further clarification of their relationships 1829 and 1835 the rates on the brewery and those of other Tooth family members are reported as being paid by Newnham mentioned can be gained from the Tooth & Co. or Newnham and Tooth. John family tree overleaf. Newnham's son, Charles is recorded as

Robert Tooth 1768-1840 (the hat manufacturer) Uncle to Robert Tooth (Snr.)

Robert Tooth (Snr.) 1799-1867 Nephew of Robert Tooth (the hat manufacturer)

Robert Tooth (of Wandsworth) Died 1869 1st cousin and Brother in Law to Robert Tooth (Snr.) Also Nephew to Robert Tooth (the hat manufacturer)

Robert Tooth (Jnr.) 1821-1893 Eldest son of Robert Tooth (Snr.)

Sir Robert Lucas-Tooth (bart.) 1844-1915 Nephew of Robert Tooth (Jnr.) and grandson of Robert Tooth (Snr.)

Brewery History Number 134 3 Figure 1. Part of the Tooth family tree relevant to the Cresent Brewery, Burton.

4 Journal of the Brewery History Society Brewery History Number 134 5 living in the brewery house and was pre- ued to widen his business activities and sumably the practical brewer operating progressed into banking, ultimately the business. becoming a partner in Overend and Gurney. This was a major discount house In 1828 John Tooth, the younger son of for bills and bonds; in effect a Bank which William, went to Australia from where he became a major financial institution and, returned briefly in 1830 to marry in some respects, came to rival the Bank Elizabeth Newnham, John Newnham's of England.10 By the mid 1840s Robert daughter and Charles' sister.6 On their (Snr.) had become wealthy enough to return to Australia he continued to estab- outshine the local gentry of Cranbrook lish himself by operating cattle runs and purchasing, in 1847, the three storey as a general merchant and commission Queen Ann house and estate of Swifts agent in Spring Street, Sydney. Park. At this time it was a substantial property which, for a period up to 1820, William Tooth died in 18327 and, in 1833, had been owned by Major John Austen, a John Newnham negotiated additional relative of the famous Jane Austen.11 water rights for the Baker's Cross Robert Tooth (Snr.) had a large family, Brewery from a neighbouring farmer. nine sons and two daughters by his first However, only two years, later in 1835, it wife, followed by four daughters by his seems that Robert Tooth (Snr.) had second. Fanny, his second wife, was in become the sole owner of Baker's Cross fact his first cousin. She was the sister of Brewery.8 It is unlikely that this is totally another Robert Tooth (Robert Tooth of unconnected with the fact that in the Wandsworth), and the daughter of Robert same year John Tooth, in partnership (Snr's.) uncle Edward, the elder brother with Charles Newnham, open-ed a new of William Tooth.12,13 brewery, the Kent Brewery, on the Parramatta Road in Sydney, Australia. The first reference to the Tooths export- ing beer to Australia is in 1839 when, it Robert Snr. appears to have become is claimed, Robert Tooth (Snr.) exported something of a general businessman and beer from Baker's Cross.14 The beer entrepreneur and at some point, probably travelled to Maidstone by road, then by before gaining the benefits of owning a barge to the coast and finally by ship to successful brewery, he had developed Sydney where, no doubt, its sale was interests in hop growing. In 1841 he is managed by his brother, John. At some recorded as a hop merchant at 12, Little point, probably in 1841, Robert (Jnr.) took Tower Street, London, but it has not been over Robert (Snr.)'s. business as a hop possible to find details or corroboration merchant at 12, Little Tower Street and for the claim that in around 1843 he pur- exported hops, spirits and London and chased a second brewery, this time in Edinburgh to John Tooth in Sydney London.9 In the following years he contin- and also to J.P. Bilton in Hobart.15

6 Journal of the Brewery History Society Brewing in Australia Australia was to become an important market for U.K. beer brewers throughout The Tooths, both in Sydney and in the mid 19th century, particularly for Bass, London, were undoubtedly in close touch for which it was second only to India. with trends in the beer market, chief Bass had ten agents in Sydney as well as amongst them in the early 1840s would others in other Australian states. Some have been the rapidly increasing popular- time later, in 1873, the volume of cask ity of Burton pale ales. Burton beer, beer exported from the U.K. to all of already well known, had become more Australia was 57,000 barrels of which 7% readily available both across the U.K. came from Bass.18 and, after 1839, when the building of the Birmingham to Railway through In 1843 there appears to have been a Burton on Trent was completed, for problem in the export of beer to John who export.16 The Tooths were proud of their was clearly having business difficulties.19 origins and emphasised Kent at every At the ages of 22 and 21, Robert (Snr's) opportunity, including the name of their two elder sons Robert (Jnr.) and Edwin Sydney brewery, the Kent Brewery, in went out to Australia together, and Robert brands such as Tooth's K.B., (that is (Jnr.) was commissioned to open busi- brewed at the Kent Brewery, Sydney) and ness with Messrs Deloitte. Also in 1843 later in the use of the rampant Kent horse Charles Newnham withdrew from his as their trade mark. However, even to partnership with John apparently having them, it must have been apparent that his own problems with another business beer imported into Australia from Kent, venture, Newnham's Soap Manufactury. and in particular from the obscure Problems did not end there; in 1844 Baker's Cross, would never have the John, over-extended by his pastoral cachet of that from Burton on Trent. It is interests, was forced to mortgage the suggested that one of Robert (Jnr's.) brewery, almost certainly to the Tooths of brothers (possibly referring to Edwin or it Kent & London. He then leased it to his may be to Charles Newnham, his brother two nephews for what, on the face of it, in law, who at that time was actually res- seems the large sum of £4,000 a year. ident in Australia), visited Australia in The two brothers traded as R. & E. 1842 and also, in that year, there is a Tooth, but they were not content with reference in correspondence to laying brewing. They already had, and contin- the 'foundation at Burton of doing future ued to undertake, a wide range of other good business'.17 This most probably business activities, as individuals, in meant the purchase of Burton ale for partnership with each-other, and in part- export to Sydney, but it is an indication of nership with others. Their interests their awareness of Burton and a likely spread from operating cattle runs and early expression of a deeper interest in importing and farming Peruvian Alpaca the products that town. to hop growing, from mining to sugar

Brewery History Number 134 7 refining.20 They were essentially all round from Sydney indicate shipments to the businessmen and their interests were so Tooths in Sydney of Bass Ale, spirits, isin- widespread that it is unlikely that they glass, hoop iron, staves and hops. ever had time, or indeed the skills, to be Payment was by remittance or as wool hands-on brewers manning the mash and tallow consigned to Tooth's London tuns each day. During this period records business.21

Figures 2 and 3. Two early views of Tooth's Kent Brewery, Sydney. From The First Hundred Years : A brief History of Kent Brewery 1835 to 1935.

8 Journal of the Brewery History Society In 1848 John Tooth, by then no longer of the Tooth businesses as a merchant. In active in brewing, became bankrupt. 1855, working out of 14, Mincing Lane in This was a common fate for Australian the , he registered the businessmen in the difficult economic 'black horse' bottle design incorporating conditions of the colony at that time. His the rampant Kent horse (patent office brewery was mortgaged for £30,200. 102519, 9th Nov 1855). He and a Robert Despite these vicissitudes Robert (Jnr.) Tooth, presumably Robert (Jnr.), are and Edwin's business continued.22 The recorded as partners in Tooth & Co in most significant characteristic of Tooth's London Directories from 1853 to 1858. Brewery, in fact, was its ability to survive. Robert (Jnr.), Edwin and Frederick are Of the ten breweries operating in Sydney also recorded as hop merchants and in 1835 only three, including Tooth's, general merchants with other London were still operating a decade later. Over companies at various points between the next 25 years seven other breweries 1848 and 1868 and, in some cases, pos- started up in Sydney making a new total sibly acting as agents since they were of ten potential candidates, but of these in Australia for much of that time.26 only two survived and again one was the Kent Brewery which was by then trading The Baker's Cross Brewery was sold by as R. & F. Tooth.23 The Tooth brothers Robert Tooth (Snr.) in 1848. Perhaps this enjoyed consistent success over this release of funds provided money for the whole period. It may have been the qual- mortgaged Sydney brewery which then ity of their beer, which was always a tricky became the only brewery in Tooth owner- issue in the hot Australian climate. ship. Subsequently Baker's Cross is However, it was more likely due to busi- recorded as owned by William Barling ness acumen combined with the Sharpe in 1846 and by 1892 it had undoubted advantage of strong family become known as Sharpe and Winch. connections overseas supporting their Later it was owned by Frederick Leney & import business. Surviving correspon- Sons who subsequently became part of dence emphasises the importance of the Whitbread & Co Ltd.27 The premises import trade in beer, wines and spirits were subsequently occupied by a furni- from London.24 In the 1850s Australian ture manufacturer trading as Tudor Oak. beer brewed in the English style was not held in high regard25 and as late as the Although times were difficult in Australia 1870s importing and wholesaling drinks in the 1840s the Tooth Brothers brewery from the U.K., and later European , survived and eventually circumstances was considered to be the most profitable began to look up. First came the part of the Tooths' business. California gold rush during which R. & E. Tooth exported beer to supply the many Alfred, the third of Roberts (Snr.)'s sons, Australians who went from Sydney to the seems to have taken on the London end United States. This was followed, in

Brewery History Number 134 9 1851, by the start of the Australian gold With Australia seemingly awash with rush, initially in New South Wales but money (or, even better, gold) and with later and more significantly in demand and prices high, it is likely that Victoria.28,29 In its wake the population the local breweries could sell every barrel soared and economic activity boomed, as they could brew, import or borrow - and did the rates of pay for skilled workers.30 sell them at previously unimagined prices. However, in the overheated In January 1853, with trade in the colony Australian economy with skilled wage rapidly expanding, the Tooths suffered a rates running at several times pre-gold serious fire in their Sydney brewery. rush levels,33 the opportunity to expand Although the site was severely damaged brewing capacity in Sydney to meet local and a lot of uninsured raw material and demand must have seemed either stock was lost, it still fell short of a total impossible or impossibly expensive. The disaster. Brewing was still possible on a Tooths found that increasing the supplies reduced scale and after some months of of their own Sydney brewed product intensive work and expensive repairs, was a difficult and expensive option. It is which were covered by insurance, the also likely that supplies of imported beer brewery was able to attain normal pro- from U.K. breweries would have had duction again.31,32 There is no direct evi- severe competition for cargo space from dence to suggest that the Sydney fire many other imports, not least of which directly influenced subsequent events, was a flood of new gold prospecting but it must have focussed the Tooths' immigrants. The supply of imported beer minds on the nature and future of their may well have been insufficient to meet Australian brewing business, on its secu- market demand and the Tooths must rity and on its potential for expansion. have felt that the Australian boom was a 1853 had suddenly became a busy and profit opportunity they were failing to important year for the Tooths. We have a exploit to its full potential. reasonably clear picture of the Tooth brothers' actions at this time. Robert It seems probable, for what proved to (Jnr.), now 32, was established in New be only a short period, that it was cheap- South Wales and Edwin, who was 31, er to build additional brewing capacity in had returned to Sydney after a period in the England rather than Sydney. This is Tasmania attempting to grow barley. probably supported by the fact that virtu- Alfred, who was 29, Frederick, aged 26, ally all of the brewing raw material used and the sixth son, Charles, aged 22, were in Australia was imported from the U.K. in London. The fifth son, John Sydney, where, without additional shipping costs, had died in infancy. The Tooth brothers it would have been cheaper. Again, in were available in numbers and, in some the short term, labour in the Britain was cases, with considerable business skills probably cheaper than in the overheated and experience. Australian labour market. This gave the

10 Journal of the Brewery History Society U.K. an all round cost advantage over the Allsopp's beer was also inferior to Tooths' colony, both in terms of capital invest- own. The brothers' estimate of the market ment in new capacity and in running for imported beer into the colony (pre- costs. This would have offset some, if sumably just New South Wales) was not all, of the transport costs of shipping 7,600 hogsheads (11,400 barrels) and finished beer around the world. This pre- their extremely optimistic target (subject sented the Tooths with an opportunity if, to quality) was to quietly supply up to two as well as brewing in Sydney, they could thirds of that trade. also brew their own beer in the U.K. They would still be able to exploit their The travels of the brothers in this period strong local name when marketing become significant. Robert (Jnr.), by then Tooth's beer from either brewery in a director of the Bank of New South Sydney, but with the added potential to Wales, left Sydney in 1853 for London. build up their established wholesaling The fourth brother, Frederick, left London presence in London. They could also to join the Australian operation, becoming exploit their direct access to the growing a partner in the Sydney brewery which British market as a whole as well as link then traded on as R.E. & F. Tooth. Robert all these aspects of their businesses into (Jnr.) remained in the U.K. for two years a globally integrated operation.34 In fact but returned to Australia in 1855. In the the creation of a business which was same year Edwin, by then also a director focussed partially on the costs of produc- of the Bank of New South Wales and a tion at different locations and operated by resident in Sydney, returned to England shipping goods around the globe would to establish himself in London.35 be an early, if not the earliest, example of globalisation in the brewing industry. The first surviving Australian record of what was initially a proposed new brew- We do not know what alternative sites, if ery in Burton on Trent dates from 1854. It any, the Tooths considered for a U.K. is clear that Edwin and Frederick in brewery. London may have had attrac- Australia were doubtful about the venture tions, as would their original home base and wanted to delay it on the grounds of of Kent, but in the 1850s the growth prod- market uncertainty.36 They also empha- uct of the day was the fashionable Burton sised the developing potential (and cost ale. The only possible place to brew this saving) of growing barley locally, but the authentically was in the Staffordshire enthusiasm of Robert (Jnr.) in the U.K. town and their decision was to build a seems to have carried the day. The new new brewery in Burton on Trent. This may Burton brewery went ahead. Robert have been influenced by allegations that (Jnr.), Edwin and Frederick became deliveries of Bass draught beer to major investors and probably mort- Australia were, at that time, experiencing gagees in the Tooth Brothers Burton quality problems and by claims that Brewery.37

Brewery History Number 134 11 The Australian gold rush certainly gave Burton brewers were based on volume an enormous fillip to the colonies econo- trade in the British market, which was still my as a whole. We do not know if the growing rapidly as a result of population Tooths had drawn any conclusions from growth and the consolidation of craft and the Californian gold rush as to how long domestic brewing into industrial scale they expected the benefits of this local operations. This trade was supported by manifestation to last. The reluctance of a large network of experienced sales Edwin and Frederick suggests that they agents in the U.K.38 which gave a sound had some doubts and hindsight makes it base from which the larger brewers were clear that the economic situation in able sell across the Britain and from Australia was unstable and the boom which they were able to build trade likely to be of finite duration. The decision abroad, through a parallel group of to invest was undoubtedly driven by the agents, and to export significant amounts rapidly rising popularity of Burton beer. of beer to many markets across the With so many Australian consumers sud- world. denly prosperous and able to afford to develop a taste for expensive, imported The Tooth brothers' project did not con- Burton beer and with other brewers in the form to this model. It started by producing U.K. following the trend of brewing in beer in Burton primarily for export to a Burton, who could lose money by open- single country, with the potential for some ing a brewery there? Even if the London and U.K. trade. A successful Australian market faltered surely Burton future relied on the hope that they could was still the best place in the world to continue and extend this trade, building own and operate a brewery. Even with up a wider export trade whilst, at the the benefit of hindsight this argument same time, developing a significant clearly had some merit since the Burton British market. The hard facts of life were fashion and the town's reputation were that the Tooths would need a large and advantages which, to a greater or lesser stable sales volume to fill the capacity extent, lasted for at least the next 100 and cover the costs of what was a large, years. new, and untested brewery. Given the cyclical nature of Australian trade they would sooner or later have to ensure that Brewing in Burton their Burton brewery was capable of standing alone in its home market with There were, of course, significant differ- minimal support from its Australian par- ences between the Tooths' project and ent. They were embarking on a task for the enterprises of the other Burton brew- which they had little experience and no ers. The businesses of the indigenous track record.

12 Journal of the Brewery History Society Robert Tooth, 1821 - 1893 Edwin Tooth, 1822 - 1858

Frederick Tooth, Sir Robert Lucas Tooth Bart 1827 - 1893 1844 - 1915

Figure 4. Family portraits of three Tooth brothers and Edwin's Son, Sir Robert Lucas Tooth. A modified composite from The First Hundred Years: a brief History of the Kent Brewery 1835 to 1935. Sydney: Tooth and Co Ltd. (1935).

Brewery History Number 134 13 In the year 1855 the first U.K. references ees and was producing 6,000 barrels a are found to a newly built brewery in year. However, to put its scale into per- Horninglow, a village recently absorbed spective, of the growing breweries in into the fast growing town of Burton upon Burton Bass was of course by far the Trent. This began trading as Tooth largest and was producing 191,000 bar- Brothers' brewery, the managing partner rels at that time from two 'breweries'.44 being Mr Charles Tooth, Roberts Snr's. sixth son, then age 24. Charles began to Tooth's brewery was built from scratch on take an active part in local affairs, being a green-field site. Historically the land elected in 1856 as one of three Town had been scrub owned by the Paget Commissioners for the new Horninglow family (hereditary Earls of Uxbridge and, ward and sitting alongside other Burton post, Waterloo the Marquises of brewery worthies such as Messrs. Anglesey). However, it had been secured Worthington and Nunneley.39,40 He is by a Freehold Land Society and partly recorded as living just a few miles further became, and until very recently still was, down the Horninglow road in the small allotments. There must have been some and ancient town of Tutbury where many serious 'earthing up' of potatoes because fine houses from that period still sur- the activities of the workers led to the vive.41,42 area first being called locally ‘the Diggings’ and then 'California',45 an allu- The new Tooth Brothers' brewery was a sion to the earlier famous gold rush of significant business venture. It must have which the locals seemed to be well been some time in the planning and aware. building, at least since 1854, and it was to operate for many years (and under a suc- The Tooth brewery was built on a rough- cession of owners) with, as far as we can ly oblong site running north-west to tell, little change. As an indication of its south-east with the narrow end of the size, in 1861 the brewery termed by oblong fronting north-west onto the Trent Owen as 'Tooth Bros, (London and and Mersey canal. The Tooths had their Colonial)',43 was estimated as having 80 own basin on the canal and were, in fact, employees and producing 25,000 barrels the only brewery in Burton to own or a year, which was nearly half the size of even to have direct access to such a Worthington or Salt. Based on this data, facility.46,47 Their site was split in two by from a standing start it had very rapidly a newly built road, Victoria Crescent. The become the 6th largest brewery in Burton brewery itself was situated on the smaller (out of the then 18). In output it was larg- southern third of the site, fronting onto er than those owned by many famous the road. This location, at first sight, brewers such as Ind Coope, who first appears to be anomalous since, if access bought a brewery in Burton in 1856 to the canal was a prime reason why the which, Owen suggests, had 50 employ- Tooths bought the plot, the brewery was

14 Journal of the Brewery History Society built on the part furthest from the canal. canal basin. This location and potential The reason for this was probably based use of the canal is interesting since it on sound brewing practice. To make suggests a firm commitment to canal sense of a Burton venture the brewery transport, nearly two decades after the would have had to have its own well arrival of the crucial rail link to Burton in delivering the rock hard Burton water 1839. from the gravel beds of the Trent valley. The only wells used at this time were the In the decade following the opening of classic shallow Burton wells, typically this rail link beer production in Burton had around 25-30 feet deep. The Tooths’ increased by a factor of four (and was to brewery was possibly the first of the treble in each of the next three decades). Burton breweries to exploit the water The opening up of the beer market to from this particular area of the gravel Burton has been largely ascribed beds, on the western edge of the Trent to cheaper and more rapid transport of valley, which was furthest from the mod- beer by rail within the U.K. and to ports ern course of the river. It was a region for export as opposed to the pre-existing from which, within 30 years, all the major canal transport. At this time rail is thought breweries would come to extract their to have carried two thirds of the goods premium brewing water.48 In this context moving in and out of Burton, however the the greatest risk to the quality of the well boom in volume and in the use of the rail- water was seepage through the lining of way system had the secondary conse- the nearby canal and canal basin, there- quence that road traffic within the town of fore locating the wells as far as possible Burton also grew enormously. Most of the from this was a wise precaution to protect beer produced was conveyed the dis- the source of the key brewing water.49 It tance from the breweries to the station, would also be desirable for the brewery which, in some cases was over half a to be reasonably close to the well so that mile, on small horse drawn carts called a single steam engine could drive the floaters. This generated long, slow mov- water pump while at the same time pro- ing queues of floaters through the town viding a power source for mechanised and, in particular, down Station Street to brewing plant. Hence the brewery was the station sidings where wagons were built on the southern part of the site. continuously loaded throughout the Sadly the usual situation applies and we day.50,51 By the mid 1850s the railway have no specific information as to the lay- system, or more accurately the road out of the brewery or the nature of its plant. access to the goods facilities set up to service the railway, had become grossly Tooths brewery is recorded in Whites's overloaded and the speed and financial Directory of Derbyshire in 1857 as being advantage of rail transport was probably one of five breweries in Burton to export being eroded. The Tooths, with a strong beer, which presumably they did via their export focus, may have seen the Burton

Brewery History Number 134 15 traffic congestion as a problem and commitment to rail transport, culminating intended to avoid this difficulty by eschew- in 87 miles of private track and 92 sets of ing the railway and locating its brewery sidings and yards in the town, a system directly on the Trent and Mersey canal which at some point was to cross and re- which had links, albeit slower than rail, to cross all of the town's major roads.53 the major ports in the U.K. Presumable Ironically, the many level crossings of the delay of another two weeks of slow Burton were eventually to cause as many canal transport were irrelevant when com- problems to general road traffic as the pared to three months on the high seas, floaters they eliminated. The more imme- largely in the tropics, on the long, hot jour- diate result of the new branch lines was ney to Australia. Perhaps, in the early that by the early 1860s all the major days of rail, goods arriving at an export breweries were able to load goods port by established canal route also directly into railway wagons within their avoided similar road transport delays premises and later to receive returned between railway station sidings and the containers and then raw materials in sim- dockside prior to loading on board ship. ilar fashion. The railway wagons were at first pulled to the main line by horses The Tooths, because of the location of which were soon replaced by the brew- the brewery on their split site, had their eries own steam trains. It must have own, if relatively minor, internal traffic been clear by 1858/9 that if the Tooth problem in moving their beer the compar- brothers had gained any advantage for atively short distance from their brewery their brewery from their canal-side loca- across the road to their own store rooms tion and prototype internal railway, it and canal basin. In response to this, in would be short-lived. In fact any advan- 1855, Tooths became the first brewery in tage finally disappeared completely when Burton to obtain permission for a The Midland Railway obtained permis- tramway (a horse drawn railway line) to sion in 1867 to construct the Horninglow cross a public road (Victoria Crescent) for branch line. This ran from the main line to an easement of £1 per year.52 This level the canal crossing Victoria crescent crossing created a precedent which was alongside Tooths' old tramway and then soon to be followed and greatly expand- running down King Street, which as a ed by the other brewers in the town. result was closed. This line was complete Following unsuccessful earlier attempts, by 187354 and then linked the brewery The Midland Railway, The London North on Victoria Crescent to the main line in Western Railway and the Marquis of one direction and to the canal in the Anglesey succeeded in passing the other. Midland Railway and Burton upon Trent Bridge Act 1859 and later the Midland The brewery location and some of these Railway (Burton Branches) Act. So began developments are shown in the sketch what was to become Burton's unique map (see opposite) of the Victoria

16 Journal of the Brewery History Society ictoria Crescent. , V ooths Brewery Figure 5. Sketch plan of T

Brewery History Number 134 17 Crescent area of Burton which also Mincing Lane, and 76, Freeschool Street, includes developments over the next 50 Horsleydown.59 With this connection or so years. 'Tooth's Burton Ale' presumably found a market in London. The strongest evidence that the Tooth brothers Burton brewery successfully Of course, the Tooths were far from alone exported their beers from Burton to in jumping on the Burton on Trent band- Australia comes from the Australian end wagon. The 1850s were the start of a of the enterprise where, after his return to long period of major building projects in Sydney, Robert (Jnr.) wrote congratulat- the town. Other breweries built, or sub- ing Alfred in London, Charles and his stantially developed, in this decade were brewer.55 Then and subsequently the the Bass New Brewery, later called the need for a top quality product was middle brewery (1852), Eversheds brew- emphasised, presumably since premium ery in Bank Square (1854), Eadies in prices were charged for imported beers. Cross Street in 1854, Ind Coope in Physical evidence in the form of Station Street (1856), and Allsopps new embossed trade marked bottles from the brewery (1859). We can estimate the Tooth brewery (the 'black horse' bottle expense of building a new brewery such embossed with a rampant horse repre- as Tooths from scratch based on figures senting the white horse of Kent) have quoted for the building of the larger Bass been found in Australia.56,57 New Brewery. This cost £28,000,60 a sum which did not include the price of the As well as the family connection there is land, which had been purchased earlier also indirect evidence of an Australian and separately, nor the expensive hold- link in the naming of a pub (or perhaps a ing of casks raw material and stock down hotel) near to the Burton brewery. This a long slow distribution chain which was not owned by Tooth Brothers. but already existed. The total cost of Tooths’ was built on Horninglow Road less than brewery enterprise, given only existing 100 yards from the Tooths' brewery and London and Sydney infrastructure, was called the Dingo Hotel a name would, at most, have been £60,000, unique amongst British pubs and which including stock, casks and product in the must surely be a reflection of intense distribution chain. This sum, although not local interest in the colony. We have no beyond the assets of the combined Tooth evidence of Tooth Brothers owning any brothers, clearly needed either the major pubs, but they did have an agency and liquidation of other business assets or the stores in Derby.58 This would have sup- use of significant loans or mortgages. plied some local trade whilst Alfred and What proportion of the capital was sup- Robert Tooth are recorded, in London plied by the Tooth brothers, by Robert directories, as principals in the firm Tooth (Snr.), by external sources such as the Brothers, which had an Ale stores at 14, bank of New South Wales or even by

18 Journal of the Brewery History Society Overend and Gurney,61 we do not know. England had been in London, died whilst Twenty years later the rather larger in Tutbury. His death certificate states Albion brewery, built by Mann Crossman that the cause was peritonitis, which he and Paulin on a larger greenfield site, had endured for five days, and his cost £77,000. This price is comparatively demise was registered by Charles who high because it included the land and a was present during his final moments.69 sizeable local farm, but would arguably Edwin was buried near the family home have been offset by their London brewery in St. Dunstan's churchyard, Cranbrook, being able to supply some of the casks.62 Kent.70 In early 1859 Robert (Jnr.) briefly returned to the U.K. and in 1860, shortly During this period Charles Tooth seemed after Edwin's death, James Mitchell, settled in Tutbury where, in 1857, he whom the Tooth brothers had appointed demonstrated early signs of a religious brewery manager in Sydney in 1856, interest when he apparently won a close joined the Australian partnership, possi- election to become a Churchwarden of bly acquiring some of Edwin's stake in Tutbury Church. The result was to be the business as well as a major role in its subject to a review the result of which we future management.71 do not know, but the churchwarden's records which survive do not indicate that Edwin was already a widower, his wife Charles ever acted as a Sarah Lucas having died in 1854 leav- Churchwarden.63,64 However, he did ing him to look after their five surviving serve as an Inspector on Tutbury Town children. Only the day before he died he Lighting Review from January 1855 to added a codicil to his long, complex will December 186065 after which he disap- changing the arrangements for the pears from Tutbury. He is mentioned in guardianship of his children He appoint- February 1858 as summonsed for non ed his friend and partner in some of his payment of sewerage rates - probably a Australian and U.K. business ventures, protest against the inadequate sewerage William Mort and his wife Louisa.72 The service in the developing Horninglow total size of Edwin's estate is not clear suburb66 and as reporting a theft from as it probably depended on the realisa- his brewery,67 but he is not mentioned as tion of his assets and winding up his a Town Commissioner after June 1858.68 various partnerships in Australia. He Resignation in protest over the sewage seems to have based his bequests on situation is possible, but no mention is an estate of around £50,000, but it has made of this and it is more likely that been suggested that including his he was overtaken by events later that Australian assets, a total of £150,000 is summer. more accurate. The Morts took their guardianship responsibilities seriously Sadly, in August 1858, Edwin Tooth, sending Edwin's eldest son, Robert whose main home since returning to the Lucas Tooth, to Eton after which, in

Brewery History Number 134 19 1863, he returned to Sydney to join the raised in the early gold rush years, both Australian brewery. in the volume of trade or its profitability. Certainly the influence of the gold rush After a short period of just less than six began to disappear after 1855 when years, between early 1855 and the end of mining peaked and then fell back settling 1860, the Tooths disappeared from at a much lower, if steadier, level. In 1858 Burton even more quietly then they had gold fever moved on to British Colombia arrived. They slipped in and out of the where another find sparked a rush, albeit town unrecorded by the census in either not as large as that in Australia. In other 1851 or 1861. It was an age when there words the gold rush ran out of steam and were no shock-horror headlines in the the cost and pricing issues it raised local press at the prospect of a brewery began to revert back to 'normal'. Although closure or change of ownership and the the population had risen sharply wages transfer of ownership and withdrawal had fallen back and consumers now had from Burton was not formally recorded in to spend their incomes more carefully. any extant local record. They would inevitably trade down from premium imported Burton beers to There are a variety of possible reasons cheaper local brews and, even in for the Tooths’ departure from Burton and Australia, cut back their per capita level of it is likely due to a combination of them. consumption. The failure of the Tooths' The only direct evidence we have as to chief market to deliver the necessary vol- why the Tooth brothers apparently lost ume to a Burton brewery, largely dedicat- interest in their Burton venture is given in ed to it, must have raised questions correspondence from Robert (Jnr.) about the Tooths continued investment in which contains the crushing reference to Burton and the brewery's survival. ‘trading difficulty’ in the colony.73 Even by the time of Edwin's death, in It is likely that the mid and to 1850s were 1858, this decline in their key market a difficult time for the export trade of would put the Tooth brothers under pres- Burton brewers in general. To fund the sure. They were probably amongst the Crimean war a 10 shillings a barrel duty first to have to face up to a problem had been imposed, and the Indian Mutiny which has become common amongst must have effected trade to this prime breweries. If you operate more than one export market, but the Tooths were, of brewery, but your sales volume falls such course, heavily focused on Australia. In that this can be produced by only one, evaluating Robert (Jnr.)'s brief comment which do you close or sell? In the it seems reasonable to believe that in the colony's post gold rush phase logic sug- later 1850s the beer wholesaling busi- gests that, as well as demand and prices ness in Sydney may well have failed to falling, the production costs in Sydney meet the expectations which had been would also have fallen. This would have

20 Journal of the Brewery History Society restored the cost advantage to the Kent experience or ability may also have been Brewery in Sydney, particularly taking a consideration and losses made by into account the slow and costly transport Alfred and Charles, who were in debt to of beer half way around the world. If a Robert and Frederick, are referred to, brewery had to go, on a strict cost basis, although the cause of these debts is not Burton was the favourite candidate. clear.74 Perhaps, given the closeness of Viewed solely as a business asset, the the Tooths, with its record of keeping tight relatively new brewery in fast growing family control over its investments, it Burton would surely find a ready market began to seem that it had run out of will- and achieve a good or at least reason- ing or able brothers. able sale price. Selling it would recover more of the Tooths’ investment than the Little is known of Alfred after the Burton alternative of disposing of the Kent brew- brewery disposal. He is recorded as ery in Sydney. The Kent brewery had only marrying Adelaide Lainson in 1853 at Old a local reputation and a local market with St. Pancras church, but not as having any no export potential to the U.K., but it had children.75 He may have a claim as evolved and prospered well before the something of a technologist for more Burton 'experiment'. It was a market the than his bottle design because he is Tooths had seen slowly developing and recorded as an Analyst/Merchant having in which they were comfortable. one successful patent and an even more Furthermore, it was now flooded with new interesting failed patent application to immigrants and potentially was much his name.76 larger. It probably seemed that it was like- ly to be more profitable in the future to We have, apart from the Tutbury Gas operate a Sydney brewery in volume pro- Lighting Review meetings, only a few duction rather than import and sell a other references to Charles Tooth after smaller volume of imported premium Edwin's death in 1858. In 1860 he is Burton beer even if it was branded with referred to as manager of the London the 'local' Tooth name. The Tooths saw and Colonial Brewery on Victoria Australia as a land of opportunity and Crescent.77 Correspondence from Robert their decision was to pull out of Burton (Jnr.) indicates that he was far from and sell the brewery. happy with Charles to whom he is scathing but unspecific, suggesting he Edwin's sudden death and the unwinding had either deceived him or was incom- of his partnerships in Australia did not petent in incurring a debt of £6,000.78 It help to sustain the brothers' financial may be that Robert (Jnr.)'s verdict on position. Robert (Jnr.) was particularly Charles’ business abilities was generally unhappy at being forced to buy out some held within the family and that Charles' of Edwin's assets and partnerships. fate was sealed, thereby making the Charles' relative lack of management doors of the church his most attractive

Brewery History Number 134 21 prospect. He was present at and regis- Burton water and the use of Burton tered his father Robert Snr's death in Unions as a fermentation system. Whilst 1867 when he is recorded as living in this is far from the whole story, the nature Falfield Gloucestershire. More signifi- of Burton water was reasonably well cantly he is recorded in a Tooth family understood by 1859. In fact, even as tree held at the Powerhouse Museum in early as 1830, the effect of gypsum, if not Sydney in which he is referred to as the its mechanism, was understood to the Reverend Charles Tooth. The details of extent that its use as an aid in brewing a his clerical career are revealed in the Burton style beer was recorded.83 Burton successive volumes of Crockfords water could be imitated, albeit crudely, by Directory which inform us that he gradu- the addition of gypsum (Burtonisation) ated from Cambridge in 1862 (two years and within a few years it was known after he left Tutbury) and was ordained as almost everywhere, probably even in a priest in 1864.79 Oddly this was in the Australia. Similarly the use of Burton same year that both Arthur and William, unions as a method of fermentation who both also attended Cambridge, were could easily be, and actually was, export- ordained as priests. 1864 was certainly a ed to Australia. We do not know exactly year for the Tooth family to remember when Burton unions were introduced to with the entry of three brothers into the Tooths brewery in Sydney which also priesthood, undoubtedly a sequence of used a more primitive form of cleansing events which must have contributed to of beer in puncheons. Photographs of the family parable. Charles' ordination both Tooth's puncheons and union sets, it superficially seems to confirm the family is believed from the early 1890s, survive verdict on the level of his success in com- in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney merce, but possibly more kindly, may and provide one of the earliest photo- also express the final manifestation of a graphic records of union plant.84 The religious calling already in evidence in acquisition and subsequent export of Tutbury. Charles had a long career minis- union set technology to Australia, possi- tering to several parishes in England, bly around 1860, may have eased the including Falfield, before finally becom- Tooth brothers' decision to withdraw from ing Chaplain to St. Marks in the parish of Burton and consolidate in Sydney. Here Florence in Gibraltar where he died in they could confidently produce a credible 1894.80,81,82 pale ale and, with more justification than many breweries today, describe it as Another possible factor easing the being in the Burton style. Tooths' departure was that they had learnt all they needed of Burton's In the late 1850s new limited liability advanced brewing technology. The tech- legislation had been enacted permitting nical reasons for Burton's success as a changes in the financial structure of brewing centre are usually quoted as industry. Implementation of this coincided

22 Journal of the Brewery History Society with wishes expressed by Robert (Jnr.) in around 1953, Over a Century of Brewing late 1859, indicated in correspondence, Tradition. In these the Burton brewery that he was anxious to sell out all their has been completely air-brushed from interests and mortgages in Burton and the company's official history. that forming a company (presumably a limited liability company) was a favoured prospect.85 He was anxious that they The London and Colonial Brewery faced a significant loss, but this prospect Limited apparently disappeared in 1860 when Robert (Snr.) induced a large investor to There are no surviving local references in enter the company. Robert (Snr.), with a Burton to the almost seamless change in strong interest in banking, would have ownership or title between the Tooth been amongst the first to become aware Brothers brewery and their successors, of the opportunity that limited liability leg- The London & Colonial Brewery islation presented to entrepreneurs as a Company Limited. Many sources at the means to raise capital and so establish or time and subsequently seem to have expand a business. He must also have been confused about it and used either or been aware that it offered a new opportu- both names indiscriminately. It looks as if nity for entrepreneurs to withdraw their the change of title took place in late 1859. original capital and any capital gains from Management continuity was provided on a business entirely or piecemeal, by a temporary basis; firstly by Charles going limited or public. It was recorded in working with and handing over to the new correspondence by William Mort (of management, which may have been a Tooth and Mort in London) that in condition of sale rather than reflecting an late1859 'the Burton brewery had been ongoing financial link, and secondly by sold to a company' (which surely could Robert (Snr.) remaining on the Board, only have been the London & Colonial possibly as Chairman. Both of these Brewery Company Limited) and that factors may have contributed to this Robert (Snr.) 'at least was a director'.86 confusion, but for the next eight years the brewery in Victoria Crescent was Indirect confirmation that the Tooths’ correctly referred to as The London & Burton brewery was not a resounding or Colonial Brewery Company Ltd. rather even a passable commercial success than Tooth Brothers. In fact it was one of comes from the total absence of any ref- only two breweries in Burton to be limited erence to it in the official histories of the companies at this point in time.87 Tooths' Australian brewery. These were commemorative books, the first pub- Suggestions of a loose ongoing commer- lished in 1935, The First Hundred Years: cial link between London & Colonial and a brief history of the Kent Brewery - the Tooths or their business in Sydney 1835-1935 and a reprint of it published post 1859 come from correspondence in

Brewery History Number 134 23 Cranbrook Museum.88 This also asserted improvement in the attendance record of that Robert Tooth (Snr.) was the the Horninglow ward representatives. Chairman and Director of the company at Edward Guilding only attended one its foundation and that as late as 1863 meeting, that being two weeks after his Robert (Snr.), in an unstated capacity, appointment.93 He and his family, with was in touch with an associated company two pupil brewers and four servants, are of London & Colonial in Melbourne. recorded in the census of 1861 as living There is no indication as to the size of in the 'White House', which still stands any shareholding held by Robert (Snr.) adjacent to the brewery site and which (although it cannot be ruled out that he was until recently a doctor's surgery. He might himself have been a shareholder) presumably arrived in Burton as early as and neither is there any suggestion that 1859 since his two year old son is record- any of the other Tooths retained a finan- ed in the 1861 census as being born in cial interest. It seems likely that the busi- the town, whereas his daughter, one year ness association between London & older, was born in Portsmouth.94 Edward Colonial and R. & F. Tooth was solely Guilding and Charles Tooth seem to have that of the Tooth brothers acting as their worked together at London & Colonial for agent in Sydney.89 Frederick apparently at least a year. entered even this limited arrangement with little enthusiasm and with heavy On 2nd of April 1862 Edward Guilding emphasis on the quality of the product protested to the Town Commissioners about being of paramount importance. what was still a running sore, the state of the drains and sewers in Horninglow. In Charles Tooth stayed on with the London 1863 he is referred to in Kelly's Directory & Colonial Brewery as manager into 1860 as Managing Partner of the London & but from that date onwards there was a Colonial Brewery Company Limited. (appa- new manager, Mr Edward Wingfield rently the subtleties of managers and Guilding,90 who had been born on St. directors titles within limited company ter- Vincent in the West Indies, perhaps minology were yet to develop). In the same another potential export market and year he sat on a committee in Burton aim- colonial link.91 Guilding was appointed, ing to build a church in Horninglow which rather than elected, as a Town was completed in 1865 primarily with Commissioner to replace Mr William support from the Marston family and their Prince who was deemed to have vacated connections with St. Johns, Horninglow. his public office through non attendance for six months.92 Whether Mr Prince was However, in 1867, Robert Tooth (Snr.) linked to the Tooth brothers or to the died and just two weeks afterwards the London & Colonial we do not know, but London & Colonial Brewery Company the records do not suggest Edward itself failed.95 A strong link between these Guilding's appointment lead to an two events seems probable.

24 Journal of the Brewery History Society Mr Guilding was by that time apparently uidators. These confirm the Managing no longer managing the brewery site. The Director at the time of liquidation to have brewery secretary (usually a term for its been Mr Frederick Thomas Elworthy and general manager) was Mr John Spong the Company Secretary as John who subsequently took part in the liqui- Spong.100 There is no reference to any dation operation. The liquidation of other Directors, named Tooth or otherwise, London & Colonial was voluntary and, or to any other specific shareholders. very unusually, the petition was present- ed by 'a large shareholder' rather than The details of the liquidation cases indi- creditors. The official reason given for cate a level of eccentric, if not incompe- London & Colonial's failure was 'depres- tent, management by London & Colonial. sion of trade'.96 The volume shipped to In 1866 they took a 21 year lease on Tooths in Sydney had certainly fallen large premises at 18, Billiter Street in the sharply between 1865 and 1866 and centre the City of London at a rent of ceased in the course of 1867.97 £1,800 a year. This was a cost roughly equivalent to the wholesale price of 750 Also in 1867 there was a sharp rise in the barrels of beer and the profit from per- price of barley. This increase temporarily haps twice or three times that volume, checked trade to the extent that even around 6-9% of the brewery's output. Bass experienced a greater fall in sales These premises were presumably intend- between 1864 and 1888 than in any other ed to be either a head office or at least years.98,99 The increase was probably the administrative office for a London too late to have had any direct influence agency. They were acknowledged by the on the profitability of London & Colonial liquidators, and even his honour Vice prior to its liquidation. Although Bass and Chancellor Sir G.M. Giffard, as being other Burton breweries were able to ride much larger than they needed since they out what was a short term slowdown, only ever occupied one floor of it.101 One even if the London & Colonial brewery would have expected that if the Tooths, had survived into 1868 it would almost who had been trading in various capaci- certainly have failed then. ties and from various premises in and around London for many years, had any Information on the London & Colonial significant input into the business they Brewery Company Limited is as scarce would neither have been so unjustifiably as that on the Tooths’ Brothers Brewery. ambitious nor have made so fundamental Apart from very rare snippets from local an error. They would surely have found newspapers, and the Tooth & Co. Ltd. smaller premises at a lower cost and per- records held by the Noel Butlin Archive haps on a shorter lease. in Canberra, we only have the reports from the Court of Chancery of two legal In 1865 the court records also show cases, one against and one by the liq- London & Colonial engaged Mr Robert

Brewery History Number 134 25 Calvin Clark of Melbourne as their agent expanded quickly. Many investments in for that town and presumably that area of this initial period of this system were Australia. Not only were his financial perhaps over-enthusiastic or injudicious terms ambiguous, but they seemed to generating a 'bubble’ of unjustifiably high have been made up as they went along, investor expectations and equally unre- changing in each port as the ship on alistic company valuations. Like all which he travelled came closer to bubbles it burst, triggered by the notori- Australia. After the company failed this ous collapse of Overend & Gurney in uncertainty lead to a series of claims and 1866.104,105,106 The subsequent fallout counter claims between the liquidators from the insolvency of this major financial and Clark.102 It seems unlikely that this institution lasted for some years and it was a situation which the Tooth brothers, destroyed or severely damaged many as experienced business professionals Victorian investors and their families with knowledge of both sides of commer- including Robert Tooth (Snr.) and many of cial agency agreements, would have the newly formed Limited Companies allowed to develop. It may reflect either a lack of experience or success in appoint- It has been suggested that, as a partner ing overseas agents, a key factor which in Overend & Gurney, a partnership with may have contributed to London & unlimited liability, Robert (Snr.) was Colonial's problems. directly ruined by the collapse.107 In fact the matter was far more complex,108 but The new London office and the fresh the result was the same. appointment to the Melbourne agency confirm that Australia and London were Robert (Snr.) died six months or so after the principal target markets. A detailed Overend's collapse. This was on the 18th examination of the legal claims and coun- February 1867 following three month terclaims indicate that Clark's efforts were period of mental illness described as indeed successful in generating sales 'urea on the brain'.109 He had, of course, but alone were far from sufficient to justi- for part of his life been closely connect- fy the operation of a large brewery.103 ed to the hat industry noted for mercury poisoning. Furthermore, he must have The company's financial structure may gone through a period of intense stress also have had a bearing on its limited following Overend & Gurney's collapse, lifespan. It was one of the early compa- either or both of which factors could have nies formed under the developing Limited contributed to his death. Significantly, no Liability legislation. In the late 1850s the probate or letters of administration were introduction of this legislation, in a series granted on Robert's estate. It is incon- of steps, lead to an exciting period of ceivable that a man who had been so increasing interest and opportunity in wealthy would not, at some point, have commercial investment, an area which made a will and even without one his

26 Journal of the Brewery History Society once extensive effects would, in normal Overend & Gurney and (even if posthu- circumstances, have needed legal mously) the failure of London & Colonial. authority to realise and dispose of them. This brings us again to the inescapable For a period Robert (Snr.)'s wife, Fanny, conclusion that the collapse of Overend & was able, or was permitted, to continue Gurney and its consequential fallout was living at Swifts and, fortunately for her, a situation from which Robert (Snr.) was she was soon afterwards to be the prin- unable to escape. It seems that all of his cipal beneficiary under the will of her assets were used to meet his extensive brother Robert Tooth, of Wandsworth, liabilities from Overend & Gurney. As a who died in February 1869.110 Perhaps a result Robert had no estate to leave. general glut of country houses on the market as a result of Overend & Gurney The direct consequence of this was that financial collapse delayed its sale, but any holding Robert (Snr.) had in London eventually the house was sold and Fanny & Colonial would have had to be sold. moved out. She took up residence in Maybe the timing of the sale of Roberts Tenby, which was where her eldest holding was delayed because of Robert daughter, Fanny Blanche, lived and (Snr.)'s infirmity and this offers a possible where Fanny died intestate on 25th explanation for the close link between February 1872.111 Letters of Administration Roberts death and two weeks later the on her estate were granted to her daugh- voluntary liquidation of the London & ter, but these offer no details and suggest Colonial Brewery Company Limited. that her estate, although adequate, was Perhaps Robert (Snr.) himself (or his not of great value. In fact it was just a administrator) was the large shareholder. little larger than that of her late brother.112 Swifts still stands, having passed through In the Tooth's Australian brewery's com- many hands, but has now been renamed memorative books, Robert (Snr.) is Oak Hill Manor.113 described as a brewer of London. He is briefly noted as supporting his brother The liquidation of London & Colonial was John and his sons in the early years of expected to pay all company creditors out the Kent Brewery, but no mention is in full,114 presumably at the expense of made of him subsequently. The success- the shareholders as the remaining capital ful Tooth & Co. of the 1930s, by then was called up. Payment to creditors of much less interested in pale ale than in seven shillings and sixpence (in the lager, clearly wanted not only to draw a pound) and two shillings and sixpence veil over the entire Burton adventure, but are recorded in the court records but not also over aspects of their founding as final payments.115 fathers. This applied particularly to Robert (Snr.), tainted as he was by a The vulnerability of London & Colonial major financial scandal, the bankruptcy at seems to be confirmed by a more

Brewery History Number 134 27 detailed analysis of its financial details. and the London & Colonial company's Comparing figures between different failure in 1867. This capitalisation was an companies, even with today's tight amazingly high sum even if there had accountancy standards, is not necessari- been substantial growth in the business ly easy. Definitions and interpretations under the Tooths, for which we have no 150 years ago were much more fluid, but evidence (and in fact the evidence sug- the figures quoted below, although not gests the contrary, there being a decline strictly comparable, do seem to be finan- in the late 1850s), or if there had been cially significant. significant investment in premises, casks and stock at sales agencies. There is no Earlier, the estimated set-up costs for the evidence of any investment in a tied Tooth Brothers Burton Brewery in 1855 estate of public houses which would have were around £60,000. There is no defini- been unusual at this time, particularly tive account of the extent and nature of outside London, although it was to the London & Colonial Company's busi- become the basis of brewery capitalisa- ness assets, but the notice of liquidation tion later in the century. The trading confirms that its main activities were in agreement of 1860 for the supply of beer Burton and it seems likely that these into Tooths’ businesses in Sydney or in (Billiter Street apart) were substantially London might have been considered as a the same as that of the Tooth brothers. valuable intangible asset, but it seems to However, at its liquidation the capitalisa- have been concluded almost as an after- tion of the London & Colonial Company thought rather than as a key factor for figures was stated as £360,000, of which either party. The Tooths almost certainly £70,000 had not been called up, leaving intended and succeeded in supplying as a net capitalisation of £290,000.116 This much of the Australian trade as possible all seems to have been in the form of from their Sydney brewery shares of £100 and none of it in the form of preference shares or debenture stock. Further evidence of how inflated this cap- In later years it was to be quite usual to italisation was is gained by comparison issue non-voting stock at a level of at with that of Bass in 1859 in which the least 50% of total capitalisation for sub- partners capital was recorded as scription by the public, if only to leave £586,350,117 with M.T. Bass still owning control in the hands of the founding own- and leasing back the Old Brewery, mod- ers. There is no evidence or recorded estly valued in 1853 at £18,000.118 The reason to suggest why the asset value of total was perhaps a little over £600,000. the business should have increased so This was only double that of London & much (fivefold) between 1855, when the Colonial’s at a time when Bass’ output is Tooth's brewery started trading, and 1859 recorded as around 15 times that of when they sold out and a limited compa- London & Colonial and Bass had, of ny was formed or equally between 1859 course, an incomparably greater reputa-

28 Journal of the Brewery History Society tion, that is a fast growing value in what partners, investors and mortgage hold- we might call 'goodwill'.119 Even if sup- ers. Of course, the Tooth brothers did ported by the rising popularity of Burton have strong banking connections through ales, by the investment surge prompted their father Robert Snr. and their own by the rising enthusiasm for the idea of connections with the Bank of New South limited liability and by the Australian gold Wales. Nonetheless, if the Tooth Brothers rush (before its future decline was widely or Tooth family successfully sold all of recognised) the Tooth Brother's brewery their Burton brewing interest to London & changed hands at a remarkably inflated Colonial (which is what Robert (Jnr.) price. wanted), for this paid up capitalisation fig- ure of £290,000, then they were indeed We are left with a significant inconsisten- very shrewd or very lucky businessmen. cy between, on the one hand, Robert If they did not gain significantly then (Jnr.'s) brotherly ire at the £6,000 loss someone else, perhaps manipulating which Charles is accused of making or the finances in the background, did come obscuring and, on the other hand, the off rather well. In any event the London proceeds from the inflated capitalisation & Colonial Company Limited was left of the company which must in some way with the major problem of generating an have represented monies which changed appro-priate return on this large capitali- hands in favour of the original owners. sation, a task in which it was doomed to Perhaps the £6,000 loss hurt his pride, fail. because it arose in the day to day man- agement, the profit and loss of the oper- The London & Colonial's liquidation was ation, which was personally covered by long and presumably complex since the brothers’ own funds (and there may the liquidators were still advertising for have been other losses or liabilities not final claims against it in the Burton press exposed by the surviving correspon- in 1872, that is five years later and long dence). A sharp distinction appears to after the brewery itself had been have been drawn between the profit and sold.120,121 It may reflect the time neces- loss account and the valuation of all sary to wind up a company with interna- assets in the balance sheet. Perhaps tional connections, but it may also sug- Robert (Jnr.) feared that any weakness or gest that it took time for all concerned to loss shown in the brewery accounts could scale down their expectations as to the severely damage the prospects of the true market value of the assets for which sale of the brewery and of its price. We the shareholders had paid so much. The do not know how much of London & sale of the brewery took place three Colonial’s capitalisation was received years after the liquidation commenced. In personally by the Tooth brothers for their view of this delay it is possible that this share of the brewery, but the gross pro- particular brewery, in size, facilities or ceeds may have had to be split with other price, did not meet the requirements of

Brewery History Number 134 29 prospective purchasers, but more likely public company. In 1888 he became the the delay suggests that, as even as early first Chairman of Tooth & Co. Ltd. before as 1870, a Burton brewery was not the retiring from the business in 1889 and asset it might have appeared to be in returning to the U.K. He was made a 1855. Whatever the reason, it took three baronet in 1906 'for services to the years for a customer to be found or for Empire'.126 On his death in 1915 probate the price to drop to a level acceptable to was granted on estates valued at him. £905,000 in Britain and £276,000 in Sydney. His two sons died in World War I, but the baronetcy was recreated for a The Tooths' Australian success story grandson, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, in 1920. Two of Frederick's sons remained The Tooths remaining in the Australian in the business, Alfred E. Tooth, as business, Robert (Jnr.), Frederick and Secretary and eventually Manager, and later Robert Lucas, apparently ran a Arthur William Tooth, who became Head tighter or, at any rate, more successful Brewer and who, when he left it in 1916, ship and certainly did well out of brewing. seems to have been the last Tooth to hold Robert (Jnr.) retired from R. & F. Tooth in a senior position in the business.127 1872 and must by then have been a man Arthur William died in 1928. of some substance. Like most of the Tooths he had built an English style man- When it was incorporated as a Limited sion in Australia and bought a living for Company, in 1888, Tooths’ Australian his young brother Father Arthur Tooth in brewing business was the largest and Hatcham, a parish in south-east most successful in Australia. It became a London.122,123,124 Robert (Jnr.) died in public company with a total capitalisation America in 1893. Frederick Tooth retired of £900,000 shares of £1 of which from the Sydney operation soon after, in £520,000 were issued as fully paid to the 1873, and moved back to London and vendors and £320,000 was taken up on Sevenoaks , Kent. When he died, also in the first day of the public subscription.128 1893, Frederick left the then enormous The launch was a great success, but sum of £339,472 in the U.K. and £48,000 perhaps the foundations for these large in Sydney. It is not clear how much of this sums had been laid in the gravels of may have arisen from his other invest- the Trent valley at Burton rather than on ments as well as his brewing interests.125 the playing fields of Eton or the gold Edwin's Eton educated son, Robert mines of Australia. Lucas Tooth, (who also married his uncle Frederick's daughter, thus becoming his In the same year the initial total capitali- son in law) rose to be the major player in sation of Bass, when it went public, was the Tooth brewery and the driving force £4M; consisting of £1.36M129 of prefer- behind its eventual incorporation as a ence and £1.36M of ordinary shares and

30 Journal of the Brewery History Society £1.36M of debenture stock. The public for $160M (Australian) and continued to were only permitted to apply for two operate the brewery until it was finally thirds of the debenture stock. These fig- closed in January 2005. It is now awaiting ures are reasonably comparable since redevelopment.133,134 this was at a time when Bass had only just begun to purchase pubs and begin the transition into a property owning com- The Crescent Brewery pany. In 1889 Bass produced 914,000 barrels of beer. Shortly after that, in 1893, We need to return to the oddly named the total amount of beer brewed in Dingo Hotel to pick up the fate of the Australia was just over 1 million bar- Tooth brother's brewery in Victoria rels130 and this was virtually all ale. Up Crescent, Burton. The Dingo Hotel (or Inn to this time all lager was imported, but as it was sometimes called), at the corner by 1896 a controversy had developed of William St. and Horninglow Road, was over the use of ice machines, in particu- sold in 1857 by Mr George Pickersgill lar in Mssrs. J.T. & J. Toohey's Standard who owned and had possibly had it Brewery, Sydney.131 This undoubtedly built.135 It appears to have been bought demonstrated interest in, and the poten- by Mr George Rose Bircher who shortly tial for, lager brewing, a tempting afterwards constructed a small brewery prospect in a country where shade tem- on land behind it.136,137,138 Not surpris- perature were often 1200F. This contro- ingly this was called the Dingo Brewery. versy was not new in terms of trade press In 1856139 or 1857140 he employed a criticism of British brewers who, despite young man called Edward Wright as a any advantages of the Empire, were los- brewer who, when Bircher sold the brew- ing their dominance in export markets. ery, continued in employment with the They remained loyal to exporting ales new owners, T. Cooper & Co. and ignored the success of continental lager brewers in world markets, such as 'The Dingo' brewed successfully under India and Australia, where ale export vol- Wright's management and its five quarter umes were falling.132 brewhouse was replaced in 1865 by a larger ten quarter plant.141,142 In late In Australia Tooth & Co. Ltd. continued to 1869 T. Cooper & Co. seem to have to expand and became a very successful have begun to use the crescent as a brewery, partly due to being in the fore- trade mark.143 There is some confusion front of the move into the increasingly about the brewery name, but it may have fashionable lager market. They also took briefly been renamed as the Crescent over many other Australian breweries Brewery144 and the Dingo Hotel was cer- until, as breweries inevitably do, they tainly renamed the Crescent Hotel, themselves fell to a predator. Carlton although neither the Dingo Brewery nor United Breweries bought them in 1982 the Crescent Hotel was actually located

Brewery History Number 134 31 on Victoria Crescent. These moves may after the disruption in building the line, it have been in anticipation of a planned subsequently sold on to a brewer named move to London & Colonial's brewery Clayton.146 Perhaps this railway develop- which seems to have taken place in ment both prompted and contributed 1870. We do not know what price T. funding to the purchase of the ex-London Cooper & Co. paid for a brewery which & Colonial brewery. had stood empty for three years. A small, successful local company, no matter how In 1872 a partnership between Edward anxious it was to expand, was unlikely to Wright and Herbert Keeling of Shelton be in a position pay over the odds for a Hall bought out Thomas Cooper & Co. larger site. It seems likely that T. Cooper which then continued to go from strength & Co. retained the Crescent Hotel,145 but to strength. A new malting was built in in the course of acquiring the land for the 1874 and in 1876 the company even sur- Horninglow branch line the Midland vived the ambitious and high-risk activity Railway bought the Dingo brewery which, of building a new office block fronting

Figure 6. The Offices of the Crescent Brewery fronting onto the south side of Victoria Crescent © P.V. Bayley (1973).

32 Journal of the Brewery History Society the line oftheHorninglow branch level crossing.© P Figure 7.V iew of thefrontof theCrescent brewery onthesouth sideof V .V . Bayley 1973 ictoria crescentfrom theeast. Thefencing frontlef t marks

Brewery History Number 134 33 V Bayley 1973. Figure 8. The rear of the Crescent Brewery from the southeast. © P Figure 8. The rear of the Crescent Brewery

34 Journal of the Brewery History Society onto Victoria Crescent on which the survived him by a few years and in 1919 name the Crescent Brewery was proudly the brewery was transferred to the own- emblazoned. ership of E.J. Miller & Co. Ltd.154 This company was almost certainly just a The production of the Crescent Brewery, financial vehicle registered to facilitate trading in 1874/5 as T. Cooper & Co., was the sale of the company and it's almost 34,206 barrels (more than Trumans, and immediate purchase by Salt & Co. The significantly more than Charringtons and latter immediately closed The Crescent Mann Crossman and Paulin) although Brewery whilst retaining the licensed these newly established breweries even- houses. E.J. Miller's capitalisation was tually went on to produce much greater £200,000,155 very similar to the valuation volumes.147 In 1886 the Wright-Keeling of Edward Wright's estate in his will a partnership was dissolved and E. Wright few years earlier and presumably was continued as sole proprietor going on to the price paid by Salt & Co. This was at a become Mayor of Burton in both 1886 and time when, compared to 1859, the brew- in 1887.148,149 In 1884 T. Cooper brewed ing trade was in steady decline, and this 40,000 barrels at the Crescent Brewery valuation must have been almost entirely and the former Dingo Brewery trading, as in respect of its tied houses.156,157 It is Clayton & Co., produced 15,000 barrels. unlikely that any great value was attached to the sale of the brewery and Edward Wright died in 1903 leaving its equipment, even on quite a large site. £215,943 in his will.150,151,152 This is pre- As a comparison, two years after the sumably an indication of the total value of death of its founder the Burton company the company, which by then included a of Sydney Evershed Ltd. was recorded in significant, but unknown, number of pub- the 1905 annual report and accounts of lic houses. The Crescent Hotel apart, we Marston Thompson & Co. Ltd. as being know of only two, both in Shropshire. As bought for a similar figure of £205,000. sales fell in the early years of the century Evershed's assets then consisted of 70 one of these, The Coopers Arms, freehold and 16 leasehold public houses Madeley, became, in 1907, the first in pub and a brewery of similar capacity to T. in Shropshire to close under the Cooper, but on a small landlocked site Compensation Act, 1904. For that sale T. close to the High Street in Burton. In the Cooper and Co. received compensation fullness of time Evershed's brewery was from the fund raised by the brewing inevitably also closed. trade.153 The second, the Commercial Inn in Madeley, was closed in 1970 for Just after Bass had taken over redevelopment. Worthington, in 1927, Salts were also purchased by Bass for the sum of Edward Wright's sons continued the £1,284,856.158 Again the intention was to business, but the two elder ones only eliminate a rival and acquire its tied

Brewery History Number 134 35 house estate and, immediately after buy- The larger, northern part of Tooths’ site ing Salt & Co., Bass sold the Crescent was used after 1919 by two Belgian engi- Brewery for £1,800.159 It is not clear if by neers trading as Cyclops Engineering then it had been stripped of its brewing and making metal drums. During World equipment, but the price reflected the War II the site was employed for muni- depressed state of the beer market and tions manufacturing and afterwards the minimal value of brewery production Cyclops was bought by Van Leer, also a facilities in a period of rapid industry con- metal container manufacturer. It, in turn, solidation. Even if not absolutely compa- was recently bought out becoming Greif rable, this is quite a fall from the likely (U.K.) Ltd., part of the large international build cost in 1855 of £60,000 or the paid Greif group, engaged in a similar line of up £290,000 capitalisation of the London business.163 Still just visible in the middle & Colonial Brewery Co. Ltd. in 1859/60. of this site and surrounded by modern Whatever T. Cooper & Co. paid for the buildings are the remains of a Victorian brewery, they, and particularly Edward building, probably Tooth's storehouse Wright, did well to generate a company originally built alongside their canal value of over £200,000, much of which basin. The basin was filled in between must have been achieved by steadily 1881 and 82 when owned by Coopers to purchasing licensed houses as the value enable the building of yet another of of the brewery declined. Burton's railway lines, the Dallow Lane branch line, which ran south of and par- allel to the Trent and Mersey canal.164 The brewery site after brewing This was built as a fully signalled dual track line which during World War II The smaller southern part of the brewery enabled it to be used to bypass the main site has subsequently had a chequered line and sidings in Burton. Where it history and was employed for a variety crossed the site of the original canal of businesses. Geo. Orton, Sons & basin the Dallow Lane line was placed on Spooner, a fairground roundabout manu- an embankment and over a bridge which facturer,160,161 used it for a period in allowed access from the Horninglow 1924 after they had suffered a fire in their branch line, mentioned earlier, to the nearby erecting shed, and later it held a canal where a coal wharf was built.165 printers, Harold Wesley Ltd., before Part of the Dallow Lane line embankment being demolished in 1980.162 The brew- survives, running between the canal and ery building was replaced by a modern a drainage channel constructed in the warehouse/factory unit used to manufac- 1970s for rainwater and flood relief ture pet-food. This also burnt down was around the north side of Burton. rebuilt by the present owners of the site, Stonell Direct, who supply decorative It is recorded that Mr Clayton of Clayton stone finishes. & Co., who purchased the Old Dingo

36 Journal of the Brewery History Society Brewery, was injured in an accident in Conclusion 1881,166 but we do not know if this is connected with the subsequent liquida- The Crescent Brewery was one of the tion of the brewery in June 1883. By then earliest of many ventures into Burton by it had been renamed the Trent Brewery outsiders intending to exploit the town’s and was sold immediately after liquida- growing reputation. At that time it was tion.167,168 The Dingo Hotel, still known one of the largest breweries, one of the as the Crescent Hotel, continues to trade first on an out of town green-field site, the to the present day. On the site of the first to own a canal basin, and the first to demolished Dingo brewery there is now operate a railway line across a public a dance studio.169 road.

Figure 9. View of the modern buildings on the Greif site north of Victoria Crescent viewed from the remains of the embankment of the Dallow Lane railway line alongside the Trent and Mersey Canal. The brick built Tooths Storehouse can be seen standing in the middle of modern buildings. January 2006.

Brewery History Number 134 37 Figure 10. The Crescent Hotel (previously Dingo Hotel ) on the corner of Horninglow Road and William Street. January 2006.

Fundamentally, it was the only one with at of acquiring an estate of tied houses. least a nominal non-U.K. origin, aimed Like many breweries, even in difficult primarily at the export trade. Further- times and in an age when Burton’s more, it was one of the first, if not the first, reputation was high, the abilities and breweries to practice globalisation within commitment of the owning family were the industry. The failure of this attempt vital. When this waned, as with so many resulted in the brewery having a che- breweries in and outside Burton, the quered early history, first under the Tooth Crescent Brewery's operating life was family and then under The London & ended by its sale to a local competitor. By Colonial Brewery Company Limited. then its value as a brewery was minimal compared to that of its tied houses. After it was abandoned the brewery was successfully operated for many Some 80 years later the result of this years, and through more difficult trading demise is that neither the site of the times, by less ambitious local owners Crescent Brewery nor its name are com- who following the developing U.K. model memorated in any way. In the brewery

38 Journal of the Brewery History Society cemetery which is Burton on Trent the sites of these breweries are marked with Crescent Brewery resembles most of commemorative plaques and, with few Burton’s lost breweries (or maltings, or exceptions, records of them in the litera- cooperages, or other supporting indus- ture or archives are very sketchy. tries) in that precious few buildings Moreover, they are almost totally forgot- remain to act as headstones. Few of the ten by the population at large.

Acknowledgements References

E. Fower of Burton for generous access to 1. The significance of this route and the his extensive private archive and elephantine Tooths’ status as ‘foreign’ or at least ‘over- memory. seas’ investors has passed un-remarked. The ultimate source of their finance may be sub- Dr P.A. Pemberton, of the Noel Butlin ject to debate but at the time and for many Archives Centre, Australian National years it was unique within the brewing world University, Canberra for her considerable and was certainly one of the more unusual assistance in searching the Tooth brewery's attempts at globalisation within brewing in the Australian archives. 19th or indeed any other century. 2. This was evidenced, in 1817, by his build- J. Chapman, Archivist and The Powerhouse ing of what was called the ‘Hat Factory’, Museum Sydney for her assistance in evalu- which was a three storey building in Georgian ating the Kent brewery plant and general style which still stands today on a narrow advice on Australian sources alley called Chitteden's Passage, off Stone Street in Cranbrook where, even in this Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, for access to restricted and obscure location, it has made a an early version of the Tooth family tree parts rather fine residence. of which I have selectively developed to 3. www.thehatsite.com/felt.html. clarify the text. We do not know to what extent Robert (Snr.) or his brother John were involved in hat mak- Betty Carman, Archivist and the Cranbrook ing. They probably recognised the approach- Museum. for her assistance. ing decline of a traditional industry due to both progressive industrialisation and to the Ray Anderson for information on E.B. Miller & swing in fashion away from the highly water Co. resistant but expensive beaver felt hats, which had been popular during and after the Peter Allen of Cranbrook for information on Napoleonic wars. The recognition or even the history of Swifts. anticipation of changes in fashion in various

Brewery History Number 134 39 markets was to mark the commercial careers could be connected they might equally well of successive generations of the Tooths. It be totally unrelated people who's paths may certainly seems likely that Robert and John never have crossed the Tooths'. Tooth had developed wide business interests 5. Singleton, A.F. Correspondence with Dr well before the events outlined in his paper. Ferguson of Wahroonga Australia 8 February 4. Burton Weekly News and General 1994 held in Cranbrook Museum. Advertiser 27 June 1856. 6. Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol. 6, Strangely a few years later Mr John Youill (1976) Ed. Nairn, B. Melbourne: Melbourne was selling up his home and brewery in University Press. Burton on Trent on 9th July 1856 at about the 7. It is possible that his death may have same time as another chapter in this history released a limited amount of capital and stim- was unfolding; an odd coincidence of an ulated Robert (Snr's.) and John's future busi- unusual or very similar name and somewhat ness enterprises. These may equally have similar circumstance. Other potential links been facilitated by their Uncle Robert (the hat between other Youels, Youells and Youils manufacturer), a man of apparently greater worth considering are: substance, either acquiring William's residual Mr John Youil (the spelling changes even hat making interests or even lending capital. within the same patent) of Ardwick in 8. Legal Agreement for J. Newnham to draw Lancashire presented a very detailed patent water. 1833 Cranbrook Museum.. in 1850 No 13074 for a very advanced set of 9. www.users.bigpond.com/oz-riley/college. bottle washing, filling and corking machines. 10. Nevile, S.O. (1958) 70 Rolling Years. Mr John Youil of Burton on Trent patented a London: Faber & Faber. p.19 mode of raising liquids using atmospheric 11. Allen, P. (2005) The History of Great pressure in 1853, No2973, and in 1854 Mr Swifts, Journal of Cranbrook Local History John Youil of Burton on Trent presented a Society. patent No. 1957 for "Improving the mode of 12. Little is known of Edward Tooth except fermenting liquor and in the machinery that he appears to have had family differ- employed therein". This really a method of ences with his father John, being left only the applying the then current fetish for the exclu- sum of £10 in his will but no share of the fam- sion of air from fermentations, in this case ily's hat making business. from Burton Unions. Presumably much of this 13. An interesting light is thrown on Robert patent he published in his book of September (Snr's.) personality in the autobiography by 1855 entitled The Brewers Perfect Guide - one of his grandsons. Mary Ann Tooth, being a clear and practical illustration of the Robert (Snr's) first daughter (by his first wife), principles of Brewing together with specifica- was the mother of Sydney Nevile, (later Sir tion of his patent self acting fermenting appa- Sydney Nevile) who was to become a ratus". Managing Director of Whitbread's Brewery, a No connection between the Youils / Youills Chairman of the Brewers' Society and a sig- of Ardwick and Burton and the Youells of nificant figure in brewing in the first half of the Cranbrook has been established. Whilst they 20th Century. Sydney was told (presumably

40 Journal of the Brewery History Society by his mother) that Robert (Snr's) custom Brewery in the World.’ A History of Bass, was to give each of his sons, on his 21st Ratcliff & Gretton. Derbyshire Record Society: birthday, the sum of £5,000 and to tell him to Chesterfield. Table 5.5. p.229. go into the world and see what he could do 19. Noel Butlin Archive. Robert Tooth with it. If the son did not prosper he was con- Letterbook. 1841-1843. 14th Dec 1842 p.649. sidered unfit for business and was prompted 20. Australian Dictionary of Biography. op. by his father to go into the Church. cit. p.285. Perhaps the tale applied primarily to the 21. Noel Butlin Archive. Robert Tooth younger sons as Robert (Snr's.) wealth grew Letterbook 1844 -1850. (N20/435). or maybe it was simply a family joke con- 22. Australian Dictionary of Biography. op. structed retrospectively. Robert (Snr.) may cit. p.285. well have been generous to his sons but, if 23. Over a century of brewing tradition : the the figure of £5,000 is in anyway correct, story of Tooth Co. Limited, established 1835. Robert was indeed a seriously wealthy man. (1953) Sydney: Tooth & Co. p.11. £5,000 was a very considerable sum and, on 24. Noel Butlin Archive. Robert Tooth the basis of a good wage for a skilled worker Letterbook 1844 -1850. (N20/435). then being about £50 a year, £5,000 is close 25. Stuart, M. and Pearce, K. (2006) ‘Gold to £2M in today's money. His eldest son Rush spawned an Australian owned malting Robert (Jnr.) would have been 21 in 1842 fol- icon’. The Brewer and Distiller. March. lowed less than two years later by Edwin, so 26. www.users.bigpond.com/oz-riley/college. if they benefited from his largesse Robert 27. Barber, N. (Ed.) Brown, M. and Smith, (Snr.) must have acquired these large sums K. (2005) A Century of British Brewers plus. very early in his career. Amounts of that order Brewery History Society. would certainly have enabled his sons to 28. Stuart, M. and Pearce, K. (2006). op. cit. become the financiers of business and the 29. www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/arti- best evidence for this family story is that his cles/goldrush. The Australian Gold Rush. elder sons rapidly did just that: they became 30. The first hundred years: a brief history of successful serial entrepreneurs and the own- the Kent Brewery, 1835-1935. (1935) ers of businesses rather than day to day Syndney: Tooth & Co. managers. 31. Over a Century ... . op. cit. p.14. 14. Barham, S.P. Correspondence in 32. Sydney Morning Herald Jan 17 and 18 Cranbrook Museum 1 July 1977. 1853. 15. Noel Butlin Archive, Robert Tooth Letter 33. Over a Century ... . op. cit. p.14. Book. 1841-1843. (N20/433). 34. At its simplest Globalisation can be 16. Owen, C.C. (1978) The Development of viewed as the financing and production of Industry in Burton upon Trent. Phillimore & goods, agrarian, extracted or manufactured, Co. Ltd.: Chicester p.79. which find their market in another part of the 17. Noel Butlin Archive, Robert Tooth Letter world, and certainly outside their country of Book. 1841-1843 7 Oct 1842. p.583. production, for example exporting English 18. Owen, C.C. (1992) ‘The Greatest beer from Bakers Cross to Australia. This has

Brewery History Number 134 41 occurred for centuries and in terms of small as the modern model of globalisation. quantities of high value, even high added 35. Australian Dictionary of Biography. op. value goods, for millennia, examples being cit. pp.285-6. . jewellery and artefacts in precious metal, 36. Noel Butlin Archive. Robert Tooth ceramics and even valued textiles. In its sim- Letterbook 1854-1855 (N20/436). 8 May and plest commercial sense goods are finding 7 July 1854. their way to the most advantageous market. 37. Noel Butlin Archive Canberra University In more recent times this has developed into Library Robert Tooth Letterbook 1854-1855 a series of more complex models which (N20/436). 2 Aug. 1854. include amongst others the planning and 38. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. p.54, 64, 78. even financing in one place of the production 39. Burton Town Commissioners Minutes, of goods in other globally remote areas. This Sept- Oct 1856 Lichfield Record Office. can confer a variety of benefits, primarily eco- 40. Burton Town Commissioners Minutes, nomic, which include the use of local skilled 1856-59. Lichfield Record Office. or cheap labour, the benefit of a favourable 41. The Burton Times 6 Sept 1856. local climate or the local availability of raw 42. Many of these houses would have been material. The finished or part processed suitable for a Partner in an progressive and goods are subsequently moved to market expanding new brewery, but we do not know elsewhere around the globe, to areas which in which of them, if any, he resided. can include, amongst others, those originally 43. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. Appendix 33. providing the finance, the concept and the 44. ibid. Table 4.10. p.222 design or the even the brand identity. 45. Burton Weekly News 19 Jan 1888. It seems that the twenty year old Tooth's Address at complimentary Luncheon to the brewery in Sydney with local management Mayor. and entrepreneurial drive and with significant 46. It has not been possible to determine Australian finance as well as possibly some whether the Tooths actually had the canal from the UK became a rather precise parallel basin built or located their brewery adjacent to this model. Working in Sterling, this essen- to a pre-existing facility built speculatively by tially Australian business invested for purely some third party. economic reasons in production capacity in 47. Shepherd, C. (1996) The Brewery the U.K. Its intention was always primarily to Railways of Burton on Trent. Industrial export back to the market in Australia with the Railway Society. pp.188-9. recognised potential to sell into other mar- 48. John Marston's original brewery was kets, particularly within the U.K. It was a truly then the only brewery further out from the global venture of a far more complex nature town centre and in fact was quite close to than the earlier and volumetrically much larg- Tooths, just a little further up the Horninglow er export of Burton and other European beers road. However it was not in the Trent valley to colonial markets such as India. It is a clear but just on the hills to the North west and it attempt, possibly the first within the brewing did not in fact draw water river valley gravels. industry to achieve what we would recognise 49. The Albion brewery built by Mann

42 Journal of the Brewery History Society Crossman and Paulin and later purchase by 61. Overend and Gurney were, at about this Marston Thompson & Co. was also on a large time, beginning to develop a side line to their site adjacent to the canal and has, amongst long standing and profitable bill discounting others, two systems of wells of classic depth operation. This was as purchasing and deal- and style. The Crossmann St wells, closest to ing in (junk) bonds, financing by this adven- the canal always produced water of inferior turous means the growing Victorian industries quality and were never used for prime brew- particularly shipping and railways. This was ing purposes. The field wells are located on the activity which ultimately lead to Overend's the western edge of the sports field as far downfall. I am not aware that brewing has away from the canal as it was possible to get been identified as an area in which Overend and these were always the source of the & Gurney showed any interest but the subse- brewing water. The field wells were almost quent evidence in Burton seems to be consis- directly in line with the highly valued Bass tent with their approach revealing a lack of Nile well, the Cuckoo well and the Maltings financial astuteness and control. well at Allsopp's Maltings all close to the 62. Janes, H. (1958) The Albion Brewery western edge of the Trent valley. If, as seems 1808 -1958: The story of Mann Crossman & likely, the proximity to a canal with a clay Paulin. London: Harley Publishing. lining, does cast some doubt over a well's 63. Burton Weekly News 24 April 1857. water quality and therefore over the quality of 64. Tutbury Overseers records and the ensuing beer. It may well be that as well Churchwarden accounts 1823-1916. as the commercial considerations, covered Staffordshire Records Office. D3353/7/1. later, there were also technical ones 65. Minutes of Tutbury Town Lighting contributing to the eventual fate of the brew- District. Staffordshire Records Office ery on Victoria Crescent. D3353/5/2. 50. Shepherd C. (1996) op. cit. p.8, p.17. 66. Burton Times 6th Feb.1858. 51. Burton on Trent Times May 1858 . 67. Burton Times 20th Feb 1858. 52. Burton Town Commissioner's minutes. 68. Burton Town Commissioners Minutes, Lichfield Record Office Sept. & Oct 1858. May - June 1858. Lichfield Record Office. 53. Shepherd, C. (1996) op. cit. p.37. 69. Death certificate of Edwin Tooth. 54. ibid. p.189. Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths . 55. Noel Butlin Archive. Robert Tooth 70.Australian Dictionary of Biography. op. Letterbook 1854-1855 (N20/436). 9th Aug cit. p.286. 1855. 71. Over a Century ... . op. cit. p.16 56. White, J.H. Personal correspondence, 72. Will of Edwin Tooth Probate Registry. Victoria Aus. Sept 1977. 73. Noel Butlin Archive. Tooth Letterbooks 57. www.users.bigpond.com/oz-riley/college 1856/7-1860 (N20/437). 58. History & Gazetteer and Directory of 74. Ibid. Derby, Francis White & Co. 1857. 75. Val Tooth Database - http://www- 59. www.users.bigpond.com/oz-riley/college. pisquaredoversix.force9.co.uk/pretlove.txt 60. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. p.56. 76. Tooth Alfred Patent No. 2415 16 Oct

Brewery History Number 134 43 1856. Alfred Tooth filed a patent for ‘An was thus justified and enjoyed a resurgence. improved method for the bleaching of malt Whether Alfred made any money from his whereby the colour is rendered more suitable patent or gained any reputation is doubtful for the brewing of pale or bright malt liquors’. but it is very likely that the Tooth brothers This consisted of burning sulphur on the malt would have used sulphur in their Burton malt- kiln during the kilning process. Whether it ings and probably in their Australian ones. was an original concept or as I suspect the Some years later, on 27 November 1873, opportunistic patenting of a procedure already and by then living in Philpot Lane in the City in widespread use I cannot confirm. It would of London he filed another patent No. 3877 have had little effect on the true colour of the for ‘Improvements in the treatment of beer’. malt in so far as it affected the colour of the This suggested that to avoid haze and acidity wort or final beer but cosmetically it did make in beer (bottled beer in particular) and to ren- the malt look pale and bright and much more der it suitable for bottling in the most distant attractive. Appearance was a matter of con- and tropical climes it should be heated (to an siderable importance in selecting malt for use unspecified temperature) for a time (again and in purchasing malt from sales maltsters unspecified ) and by a method which was since the reliance on hand evaluation also not revealed. (detailed appearance) continued as a practice Unusually this application was recorded and in widespread use for many years until the numbered but not even given provisional pro- analysis of malt developed and its accept- tection (which is normal pending considera- ance gradually came to dominate purchasing. tion of a detailed specification). In practice it The burning of sulphur continued for many means the application was all but dismissed years during which time kilns were coal fired out of hand. This may have been for lack of (mostly by anthracite) but this was discontin- detail but also may have been because his ued as kilns began to be converted wholesale proposed technique, with a similarly vague to natural gas in the late1960s and the 70s level of detail, was already in the public when the value of sulphur was rediscovered. domain having been published by Pasteur in New analytical techniques demonstrated 1866 in his book Étude sur le vin and minute amounts of objectionable compounds strangely a second edition of this work was in malt called nitrosamines (NDMA), which republished also in 1873. It is also alleged by were found to be present on the borderline of Lloyd Hind, in his classic text Brewing detectability (parts per billion) in some malts Science and Practice, that after Pasteur's first dried on gas fired kilns. These materials were edition, Brewers in Bavaria, had experiment- produced by interaction with nitrous oxides ed with the technique for beer. This was all (NOX) present in the atmosphere and gener- well before Pasteur published his book Étude ated on the gas fired kilns but not in malt sur la Bière in 1876. It would seem that Alfred from coal fired kilns. This was due to the nat- Tooth was far from the first to use or propose ural but low level of sulphur in the coal being this heating technique and he got no further burnt. The burning of sulphur on kilns with his patent so we have been spared ter- although corrosive and destructive of plant minology on the lines of ‘Tootherisation’ or

44 Journal of the Brewery History Society ‘Tootherised milk’. end and Robert (Snr's.) alleged and rather lit- 77. Kelly and Co's Post Office Directory eral application of the parable of the talents. 1860. Arthur was a remarkable young man who did 78. Noel Butlin Archives. Tooth Letterbooks not seriously try his hand in business at all. (N20/437) (dated 29 Jun 1860). After graduating in science at Trinity College 79. Crockfords Clerical Directory 1878, Cambridge he travelled round the world 1886, 1894, 1900, 1904, 1912. twice, in the course of which he became a 80. Of Henry, the next brother in line, we first class horseman and crack shot, all pre- know little although a reference in Val Tooth's sumably within his budget of £5,000. Then, internet database (op. cit.) suggests that he whilst in Australia, he experienced a strong married but, unusually, the name of his wife is calling to the Church. This resulted in him tak- not recorded and no reference is made to ing the cloth and becoming the staunch and children. More concrete and slightly contra- almost notorious Anglo-Catholic Father Arthur dictory is what can be inferred from Edwin's Tooth. Strangely, this calling caused Arthur to will (op. cit.). In this document Edwin left pro- be the only one of Robert's children to see vision, in the event of the early death of his the inside of one of H.M.'s prisons. This own children, for his assets to be shared unfortunate acquaintance, nominally for con- amongst his siblings. This potential split gave tempt of court, arose from his prosecution for Henry and each of his full sisters double the breaking the 1874 Public Worship Regulation share of his other brothers and of his half sis- Act in maintaining the Catholic style of church ters. Henry may simply have been a favourite ritual. After this, although no longer as a but this favouring of Henry was further parish priest, he actively followed his calling emphasised since Henry's share was to be until his death in 1931. held in trust for life implying that he was not 83. Molyneux, W. (1869) Burton on Trent, its regarded as likely to be capable of managing History, its Waters and its Breweries. London: his own affairs. Trubner & Co. p.233. Another son, John Sydney, had died in 84. Powerhouse Museum Sydney. infancy and of William, the penultimate son, Photographic Archive. we know nothing of any business experience, 85. Noel Butlin Archive. Tooth Letterbooks but he joined the church, eventually becom- 1856/7-1860 (N20/437) (dated 23 Nov 1859). ing the chaplain at the Industrial School for 86. Noel Butlin Archive. Tooth Letterbooks boys (an early reform school) at Brighton. 1856/7-1860 (N20/437) (dated 14 Mar 1860). 81. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 87. Kelly & Co Post Office Directory 1860. (Tooth, Arthur). Oxford: Oxford University 88. Barham, S.P. (1977) Correspondence in Press. Cranbrook Museum. op cit. 82. The life of the youngest son, Arthur, is 89. Noel Butlin Archive. Tooth Letterbooks also covered in 1857-1860 (N20/437) 4 Jul 1860. http:/justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/bios/ato 90. Mr Edward Wingfield Guilding, from St. oth.html. Vincent , West Indies, was in New South Arthur's story also supports the family leg- Wales in 1827 (shipping on the Admiral

Brewery History Number 134 45 Cockburn) and planning to grow cotton and of perhaps some 9,400 barrels of beer (con- sugar. Co-incidentally the Tooth brothers also solidated on the basis that it was all due to had large sugar refining interests. If it is the beer and not other imported goods) and com- same man this would have made him well mission for Clark at his commission rate of over fifty when he lived in Burton. 2.5% of £587. Alternatively, he may have been the father or Clark's claim for lost commission of £2,570 a relative of the Burton brewery manager and for the next 3 years (to complete his 5 year in either event could have been the ‘large contract after the liquidation) suggests he investor’ supporting the establishment of the anticipated annual sales of £34,266 or 13,700 company or perhaps ‘a large shareholder’ (consolidated) barrels a year. petitioning for liquidation. The confirmed sales based on the only 91. Burton Chronicle 18 Oct 1860. quoted actual sales figures to 2 major cus- 92. Burton Town Commissioners minutes, 3 tomers (over an unspecified period) only was Oct 1860. 5576 barrels, again assuming it all to be beer. 93. ibid. 17 Oct 1860. Ignoring potential exaggeration in Clark's 94. Burton Town Census Returns, 1861. claim (particularly in view of the hardening 95. Burton Chronicle 14 Mar 1867. Australian market) and considering only the 96. Burton Weekly News 8 Mar 1867. smaller figure of 5,576 (consolidated) barrels, 97. Noel Butlin Archive. Tooth & Co Ledger which, although significant, is probably con- N20/354. servative, Clark was doing a good job for 98. Molyneux, W. (1869) op. cit. p.235. London and Colonial in Melbourne. 99. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. p.73. Although Clark was providing a very useful 100. Court of Chancery (1868-69) LR 7 Eq contribution from a single agency, London 550 RE London & Colonial Company ex parte and Colonial would need other several similar Clark. operations to support a substantial Burton 101. Court of Chancery (1867-68) LR 5 Eq Brewery. To survive it was likely to need pro- 561 London & Colonial Company Horsey's duction and sales in the order of the 25,000 Claim barrels a year, quoted by Owen as achieved 102. Court of Chancery (1868-69) LR 7 Eq in 1861 which was the first year of ownership 550 RE op. cit. under London & Colonial. The only direct 103. Clark's success as a salesman is not comparison we have in this context is that the immediately obvious from the data we have December shipment to Tooths in Sydney in but some information can be prised from it. In 1865 was for some 350 barrels of beer which the course of Clark's counterclaim, receipts in further dwindled to around 100 barrels in 1867 from the Melbourne agency (presum- 1866 and virtually nil in 1867, no doubt ably a financial year rather than the limited 3 reflecting the cause of the company's failure. months of trading in 1867) were conceded by Presumably the Tooths were brewing and the liquidators to have been ‘not more than selling a much larger volume of their own £23,484’. On the basis of a round wholesale beer from the Sydney brewery. A few years price of £2.50 per barrel that suggests sales later in the year to September 1873 the vol-

46 Journal of the Brewery History Society ume of cask Bass sold into all of New South their business (by then largely liabilities) into Wales according to Owen was a mere 1,450 a Limited Liability Company of the same barrels reflecting a further and perhaps name whilst at the same time offering new general decline in the link between Burton shares to outsiders. and Australia. This may have been inspired self interest This volume drop may be an indication of which verged on sharp practice (indeed it the success of the local brewers, in particular lead to a long fraud trail which focussed on Tooths, or as mentioned earlier that the stan- the wording of the share prospectus) and was dards expected of beer brewed and even perhaps driven by the desire to survive a little imported into such a hot climate were very longer in the hope that something would turn different from those in a cool European one. up to save them. The partners all exchanged At this time there was no refrigeration, little or their share in the ownership of the old busi- no imported lager and no means to cool it ness for shares in the new company (which and even 20 years later in 1893 local ale they all kept) but to support the share launch (and it was virtually all ale as opposed to they had to personally guarantee the new lager) was described by a ‘local correspon- company's capital against liabilities with their dent’ as mawkish and gruesome with little own personal wealth and assets. In addition, hop and as flat and stale. Although Owen the new company's shares, all 100,000 of suggests some brewery's all malt products, them at £50 had been launched on the basis called ‘English’ were in better condition than of it being the directors' "intention" to call up the expensive import. only £15 per share. However, once the col- 104. Taylor, J. ‘Limited liability on Trial: The lapse had occurred it became apparent that Commercial Crisis of 1866 and its Aftermath’. the company's finances were so dire that this University of Kent. www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/con- good intention was to prove disastrously mis- ference2003/assets/Taylor.doc. leading. The remaining £35 per share eventu- 105. Forest, C. (2002) ‘Learning to avoid ally had to be called up to meet liabilities, financial crises: the Bank of England’. thus severely embarrassing most of the www.cf.uk/carbs/econ/resources/seminars/aar shareholders with, out of 2,219 shareholders, chive/boellr.pdf. 43 becoming bankrupt with 151 demonstrably 106. Elliott, G. (2006) The Mystery of unable to pay in full and 40 of them ‘disap- Overend & Gurney: A Financial Scandal in pearing’. Victorian. London: Methuen. From the former partners point of view the 107. Nevile, S.O. (1958) op. cit. p.19. share call up was not the worst of it. The per- 108. Elliott, G. (2006) op. cit. The impact of sonal guarantee of the capital meant that the Overend & Gurney collapse on Robert their personal fortunes and assets were Tooth (Snr.) is not as straight forward as needed to offset the company's liabilities. Nevile depicts since in 1865 Overend & Roberts (Snr's.) losses seem for all practical Gurney took advantage of the opportunity purposes to have been total. This was further presented by comparatively recent Limited exacerbated since with such a widespread Liability legislation to transfer the assets of financial disaster and so many partner's and

Brewery History Number 134 47 shareholders assets and even country hous- 6. op. cit. p.285. es and estates coming onto the market 124. Perhaps Arthur had spent his £5,000 together meant that the market was endowment or used it for charitable purposes. depressed and their anticipated value was 125. ‘Report on Probate of the Estate of unlikely to be fully realised. Frederick Tooth’ (1874) Brewer's Journal. There was one not insignificant survivor to p.137. this in the shape of the Gurney's old bank in 126. Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol. Norwich which was quietly moved into the 6. op. cit. p.285. hands of new directors just two weeks before 127. Over a Century ... . op. cit. p.29. Overend & Gurney collapsed. Perhaps others 128. ibid. did not see or chose not to take parallel 129. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. p.93. opportunities 130. Brewer's Journal 1893 p.348. 109. Transcription of Robert Tooth Snr's 131. Brewer's Journal 1896 pp.377 & 454. death certificate. Cranbrook Museum. 132. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson R.G. (1994) 110. Copy of Will of Robert Tooth of The British Brewing Industry 1830-1980. Wandsworth Cranbrook Museum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 111. Death certificate of Fanny Tooth pp.174-5. Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths. 133. Browne, P. (2005) ‘Expansion at 112. Letters of Administration of Fanny Yatala’. The Brewer and Distiller. March. Tooth. Probate Registry. 134. Blomeley, G. and Grant, D. (2006) 113. Allen, P. (2005) op. cit. ‘Closure of C.U.B.s Kent Brewery in Sydney’. 114. Burton Weekly News 8 Mar 1867. The Brewer & Distiller. January. 115. Court of Chancery (1867-68) LR 5 Eq 135. Burton Weekly News 21st Feb 1857. 561 London & Colonial Company Horsey's 136. History & Gazeteer and Directory of Claim. Derby. Francis White & Co. 1857. 116. Burton Weekly News 8 Mar 1867. 137. Spooner's Map of Burton 1867. 117. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. Table 4.13. 138. Burton Weekly News 16th Jan 1858. p.225. 139. ibid. 19 Jan 1888. Address at compli- 118. ibid. Table 4.9 p.221. mentary Luncheon to the Mayor 119. Owen, C.C. (1978).op. cit. appendix 140. ibid. 19 Dec. 1857. 33. 141. ibid. 22 June 1876. 120. The complete liquidation of the much 142. ibid. 14 June 1883. larger Overend & Gurney in fact took 25 143. Molyneux, W. (1869) op. cit. p.237. years but that time was presumably spent 144. Harrad's Postal and Commercial tracing largely worthless paper and non exis- Directory of Staffordshire 1870. J.G. Harrod & tent credit in other companies rather than Co their own tangible assets. 145. Burton Weekly News 3 Feb. 1876. 121. Burton Weekly News 8 Mar 1872. 146. Shepherd, C. (1996) op. cit. p.190. 122. www.woolahara.gov.au 147. Owen, C.C. (1978) op. cit. Appendix 123. Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol. 34. Owen's production figures appear to be

48 Journal of the Brewery History Society based on a possibly contemporaneous hand- www.burton2000.org.uk/A.S.HOWELL/how- written record in the Archive within the ell5.htm Museum of brewing at Coors visitors centre. 161. Owen, C.C. (1978) op. cit. Appendix 41. Whilst the figures seem reasonable and likely 162. Burton Mail 15 July 1980. ‘Former to have been checked as far as possible Brewery Tumbles’. could and were no doubt accurate for Bass 163. Burton Mail 13 Jan 2006. and the breweries which subsequently 164. Shepherd, C. (1996) op. cit. p.139. became its subsidiaries, the exact source of 165. H.M. Ordnance Survey: Burton North the data is not clear. Local excise data could (1900). Sheet 40.12. 2nd edition 1901. (Alan account for the production but not the Godfrey reprint edition). employment data. A local exchange of infor- 166. Burton Weekly News Sept 1881. mation for any number of technical or com- 167. ibid. mercial purposes is possible but out of so 168. Confusingly ‘Trent’ was a name used many breweries one would expect some dis- for the Boddington brewery on the Trent senters if it was in any way voluntary. bridge, which was later used by Everards. 148. Burton Weekly News 7 Oct.1886. The name was also later used for the 149. ibid. 19 Jan 1888. Address at compli- Thomas Sykes brewery in Cripplegate St mentary Luncheon to the Mayor. /Anglesey Road introduced sometime 150. Burton Mail 16 Oct 1903. between it's building in 1881 and the liquida- 151. Brewer's Journal 15 Nov 1903. tion of the Trent Brewery Company in 1896 152. Grant of Probate on Estate of E Wright and this brewery eventually also came into London 2 Feb 1904. the ownership of Everards. 153. www.localhistory.madeley.org.uk/pub- 169. The name Tooth has arisen in two pages/pubs5.html. other connections with U.K. brewing. One is a 154. Brewers Journal Sept 1919 p.359. Thomas Tooth who is briefly recorded in 155. Manual of British Brewing Cos. 1926. Wesley's Directory of Burton on Trent 1844 Inc. Brewers Guild. as a Beer house keeper and a common 156. Burton Mail 28th June 1919. brewer but is not recorded in Whites 157. Brewing Trade Review Aug 1919 Directories in 1834 or 1851. The other is p.235. Alexander Frederick Tooth whose ownership 158. Owen, C.C. (1992) op. cit. p.161. of the Castle Brewery in Cambridge between 159. ibid. 1894 -1899 is noted in a Century of British 160. Messrs. Orton Sons & Spooner Ltd. A Brewers Plus. Neither of these seems to be Brief History. connected with the Tooths of Cranbrook.

Brewery History Number 134 49