A social history of a midland business: Flower & Sons Brewery, 1870-1914 Part I Jonathan Reinarz
Introduction commercial brewing process has changed very little since the mid- to late- Material relating to England's brewing nineteenth century. While the biochemical industry has recently re-entered econom- actions of yeast and chemical reactions ic and social history debates, especially which take place during fermentation since the publication of Terry Gourvish's continue to be investigated by chemists and Richard Wilson's The British Brewing and biologists, the steps by which hops, Industry, 1830-1980 (1994), which con- barley, yeast and water are combined tinues an earlier history of the trade from and transformed into English ale are 1700 to 1830 written by Peter Mathias in more familiar to the public than ever in the 1950s.1 While such grand narratives the past. Not only is the process repeat- inevitably focus heavily on London and edly described in scientific texts, but most other regional brewing centres, such as histories of the trade briefly outline the Burton, a fact which the authors them- operation in order that readers may selves have acknowledged, subsequent familiarise themselves with obscure studies have also revealed the trade as it terms and expressions and other aspects evolved in the provinces.2 The most peculiar to the trade. For the purposes of important of these projects include inter- this study, a summary of Peter Mathias's esting works of local history, such as description of the brewing process has Philip Eley's Portsmouth Breweries since been included in the introduction, not 1847 and Peter Shinner's description of only to make the overall claims of this Grimsby's trade in the nineteenth century, study more accessible, but in order to and very comprehensive, commissioned frame an argument which his work helps accounts of particular firms, of which initiate and thereby set this work apart Richard Wilson's detailed study of Greene from the body of literature pertaining to King is perhaps the best example.3 the trade as it currently exists.
Although these authors' approaches In the introduction to Lesley Richmond's inevitably differ, often only slightly, the and Alison Turton's The Brewing Industry:
Brewery History Number 140 87 A Guide to Historical Records, Peter Although these descriptions are almost Mathias, like many other brewing histori- always useful to an understanding of the ans, provides a useful introduction to trade, Mathias's particular essay also the subject by carefully outlining the presents the reader with several uncer- basic brewing procedure.4 Assuming the tainties. Presumably, the entire process typical English brewery made its own was not mechanised to the extent that malt, Mathias begins by describing the the product of each brew was efficiently way in which barley is transformed into passed from one stage to the next in the malt and milled into a coarse powder, brewery buildings. While gravity was an called grist. Mixed with hot water in the important motive force in many of the brewer's mash tun, starch contained in tower breweries constructed in England the grains is then converted to maltose during the nineteenth century, human which dissolves to form a sweet malt intervention had not been made entirely solution, commonly referred to as wort. obsolete as the result of this and other This dense sugary liquid is separated technological innovations. Nevertheless, from the spent grains and run off into a descriptions, like the one above, give lit- brewing copper to which hops are tle indication of the worker's role in the added, and the contents are boiled; production process. Instead we are left sugars may also periodically be added asking a number of simple, but practical, to the solution in order to increase the questions. For example, who ground the fermentable materials available to the malt into grist? How did this material find brewer. After the hops have been its way to the mash tun? Did the same strained from the mixture, the brew is individual perform both tasks? Or even, permitted to cool and aerated to increase were goods carefully measured, and was the rate of fermentation which takes theft a problem which plagued brewers? place in one of a number of special ves- As Mathias's particular article is imme- sels. Yeast is then pitched, or added to diately proceeded by detailed lists of the mixture, in order to convert sugar to brewery archives, many of which contain alcohol and carbon dioxide. Over sever- material relating to the subject of labour, al days, a fluffy yeast crust, or head, it challenges historians to address these forms on the product and is periodically neglected aspects of the industry's past. skimmed off. During racking, the beer is filled into casks and permitted to condi- In general, most business histories have tion. Extra hops and priming sugars may had very little to say about the general be added to increase the strength or conditions of labour or the experiences of adjust carbon dioxide in the beer. Finally, the average worker.5 Instead, business residual yeast cells and other particles in historians regularly revert to a traditional the beer are cleared by the addition of form of history writing, namely, that ‘from finings or isinglass which deposits them above', whereby business histories become as sediment. narratives primarily concerned with a
88 Journal of the Brewery History Society firm's founding families, their partners ences of workers, these historians have and their successors.6 Few business his- been described by the discipline's torians deal with issues concerning the greatest critics, such as the business labour process, often ignoring the experi- biographer, Harold Livesay, to resemble ences of workers altogether. Although, weapons of mass destruction, ‘wiping out over the years, ideas of labour recruit- the people while leaving the buildings ment, training and management have intact'.10 regularly been discussed in contempo- rary business management texts, they Although an exaggeration, Livesay's are still frequently neglected by business evaluation in some respects appears to historians, or left to labour historians to apply to much of the recent work relating write as separate accounts.7 What results to England's brewing industry. Although a is a history of a firm's creation and growth number of studies of provincial firms have of production and sales over a given corrected some of the genre's weakness- number of years. Despite the critiques of es, they have also failed to address the social historians, among other scholars, labour process in any detail. As a result, this disciplinary tradition has endured and David Gutzke's bibliography of drink, essentially become a dominant narrative. Alcohol in the British Isles (1996), does For example, in an article which recently not contain an entry for labour in the drink appeared in the Author, the journal of the trades. Ian Donnachie's history of the Society of Authors, Stephanie Zarach industry in Scotland remains the only describes business history as being work which contains an entire chapter ‘simply a multi-sided biography'.8 More- devoted to labour, although most of his over, Zarach does not even consider the conclusions remain hypothetical and are difficulties associated with writing a not based on a detailed examination of commissioned history. wage and salary ledgers.11 To be fair to traditional business historians, wage and While the multi-sided biography may be salary ledgers have not survived as well the aim of some business historians as have directors' reports and sales and is unarguably a very accessible form ledgers. Nevertheless, some evidence of historical narrative, most business clearly exists, as Richmond's and histories too often resemble boards of Turton's guide demonstrates, and greater directors' annual reports. Usually research- efforts are needed to include this materi- ed and written by an historian trained in al in business histories. an economic discipline primarily for the eyes of a firm's senior managers or Interestingly, not only business historians marketing department, the average com- have failed to describe the experiences pany history tends to be a sympathetic of brewery workers; few labour historians account of a firm's growth over a given have discussed the trade. As a result, number of years.9 Ignoring the experi- brewery workers rarely appear in the indices
Brewery History Number 140 89 of labour histories, where brassworkers wages compared to the costs of licens- are more often, and quite conspicuously, ing, property and duties.15 Moreover, the followed by bricklayers. Generally, this poor organisation of brewery workers appears to be the result of a tendency determined that labour never delayed the among labour historians to concentrate introduction of new technology to firms, on institutions rather than individuals.12 though the diffusion of such innovations As most nineteenth- and early twentieth- certainly changed the nature of work in century brewery workers remained unor- breweries. Surprisingly, despite his ganised, few of their experiences are important work on the subject, Donnachie recorded in trade journals; any early also appears to justify the omission of unionisation in Britain appears to have labour from the majority of studies, as the been limited to Ireland. Branches of the industry was ‘no great employer of trade which witnessed some success in labour';16 nationally, in the late nineteenth establishing combinations were brew- century, their numbers totalled approxi- eries' cooperage departments. Coopers' mately 80,000. Even members of the unions, however, generally remained trade in the nineteenth century, however, regionally based and, despite regular argued this was not an excuse for neg- fluctuations, were strongest in London lect.17 There were certain districts where and Burton. Greater organisation for the the trade eventually concentrated and average brewery employee came only in brewery labourers consequently com- the middle of the present century. While prised a significant proportion, if not the this thesis covers only the first years of majority, of a region's inhabitants. As a the twentieth century, it will deal primarily result, the tendency of brewing historians with non-unionised labourers. to neglect the role of labour from their studies does not appear to be justified by What little information existing studies the number of workers enumerated reveal about brewery labourers suggests nationally;18 in some towns, their pres- most had lengthy careers and worked in ence dominated social and cultural life. very paternalistic environments;13 not surprisingly, the former characteristic has Traditionally, the trade has always been been attributed to employers' very per- associated with Burton due to the num- sonal managerial styles.14 Despite these ber of breweries established in the town interesting findings, most historians have during the middle of the last century. In not examined brewery labour in greater 1893, the town was host to thirty-one detail. Instead, attempts have been made breweries employing 8,000 workers.19 to diminish the importance of labour in Histories of the town have naturally con- the overall picture of the trade. For exam- sidered the role of labour simply due to ple, John Vaisey considers labour only the overwhelming number of brewery briefly in his study of the industry from workers who lived there. However, there 1886 to 1951 due to the insignificance of were other towns which were noticeably
90 Journal of the Brewery History Society ruled by the trade during this period. many important urban centres, and made Tadcaster, for example, became one of distant trade easier to control; during this Britain's better-known brewing towns period, London was approximately a and was regularly referred to as ‘the three-hour rail journey from Stratford.24 Burton of Yorkshire', as were Wrexham Only one firm, however, grew to a size and Alloa of Wales and Scotland, respec- which allowed it to dominate trade in the tively.20 Other regional centres, however, town. have since shed all evidence of their industrial pasts. Stratford, for example, is Like other successful provincial brewers more regularly associated with tourism at this time, the Flowers began to look and Shakespeare than England's brew- beyond their locality in efforts to increase ing heritage.21 At one time, however, the business, though strong local sales town was home to Flower & Sons, always remained important to the firm's Warwickshire's ‘largest and most famous trade. Relatively stable economic condi- brewery'.22 tions and increased sales permitted rapid expansion. Although business conditions Founded in 1831 by Edward Flower, the continually changed throughout this peri- brewery became Stratford's largest od, the firm's facilities remained almost employer a few decades after it was unaltered until 1870. A lengthy period of founded. Primarily a country town in the strong sales had convinced the brewery's eighteenth century, Stratford represented proprietors to expand production in this the interests of a farming community. Not year, and Stratford's landscape, not only surprisingly, most of the town's primary its local economy, was dominated by trades, including malting, evolved out of what was then one of the most modern of this agricultural tradition, and production tower breweries in the provinces; gener- at its first brewery initially satisfied the ally, this form of production became demands of a locally-based clientele. common throughout much of England Developments in transportation, however, between the mid-nineteenth century and such as the completion of a canal in the first decades of the twentieth.25 1816, much of which comprised local Moreover, the firm employed nearly 200 investment, made for a significant workers, approximately 5% of the bor- expansion of the town's trade.23 Soon ough's population and almost a quarter of afterwards, along with a brewery, the heads of households, many of whom Stratford attracted timber, lead, glass and depended on the business for their liveli- coal merchants and several brick manu- hoods. Trade for the town's other firms factories, most of which were based on also hinged on the brewers' continued an industrial site along the Avon, or linked success. For example, local timber to the town's extensive canal navigations. merchants, Cox & Son, provided the Better rail transport in the middle of the business with wood for brewery expan- last century also improved access to sions, as well as the casks in which
Brewery History Number 140 91 Flower's pale ale was shipped to the Far structure, more than that of any other, East. Numerous smaller businesses, includ- will most resemble that of the traditional ing local grocers, builders, engineers, business history. Subsequent chapters butchers and veterinarians, however, will each cover the same time period, also profited from the brewery's prosperi- only themes will vary. It is hoped that a ty. Due to the importance of the business combined chronological and thematic to the town's economy, the general approach will enable a considerable neglect suffered by Stratford's industrial amount of empirical material to be pre- past and the richness of the brewery's sented in historical context. However, records, the subject of the thesis will one theme, namely that of science and concern the relationship between brew- technology, has been regarded as an ery workers, their employers and the important catalyst in the industry during town from 1870, when the construction of these years and will therefore immediate- a tower brewery was completed and the ly follow Chapter One in order to increase Flower family began to run their business the larger frame of reference in which along modern lines, through 1888, when subsequent material will be considered. the firm became a limited liability com- pany, to 1914, when the conditions in In the past, historians who have grappled which the business had evolved, fluctuat- with the relationship between science ed and radically changed as a result of and industry, rather than concentrating war. on the problems confronted by individual firms, have surveyed entire industries. The first chapter in this thesis traces the Consequently, changes which occurred growth of the firm in considerable detail, in one branch of an industry, or a specific serving as an introduction to a more com- region, are often used as examples of prehensive analysis of other develop- the ways in which industry as a whole ments in the history of this midland busi- developed. A section of this thesis, to an ness. Conditions at Flower & Sons were extent, comprises an effort to correct clearly tied to the brewery's record of pro- this by returning to the case study as duction and growth and will naturally be advocated by an earlier generation of discussed within this framework. More scholars. For example, Schumpeter pos- specifically, Chapter One charts the tulated that capitalism is characterised growth of the Flower family's firm, as the by evolutionary turmoil associated with directors opened new agencies and pur- technical and organisational innovations chased an increasing number of public occurring at the local level. He conse- houses throughout the years 1870 to quently advised his followers to study 1914. It is not only concerned with the business histories, for the individual was general growth of production, but also of ‘the mainspring of progress and sales and markets and, as a result, of growth'.26 Moreover, it is regarded as too those chapters comprising the thesis, its simplistic for historians to argue that
92 Journal of the Brewery History Society change within an industry occurs sim- gest that the period from 1870 to 1900 ultaneously with scientific discovery. marked the trade's break with an unsci- Empirical work that has concentrated on entific past. Primarily the result of work innovations and their diffusion at the firm carried out by Louis Pasteur and Emil level, has repeatedly stressed much Hansen, brewers learned to control the more contingent and malleable paths for brewing process due to a greater under- technology, a wider range of technical standing of yeast and the importance and organisational forms, such as inter- of cleanliness within the production active processes, rather than firm-based process. Technological innovations dur- experiments, and the role of power and ing this period were equally revolutionary. chance rather than technical and organi- Refrigeration, for example, was being sational logic in determining outcomes.27 applied to brewing in many more brew- Although businesses have been receptive eries throughout the country at the end of to lessons derived from major scientific the nineteenth century. Unlike that of the discoveries in order to solve their produc- steam engine, however, the role of the tion problems, solutions are generally refrigerator in British industry has scarce- locally determined. Consequently, ly been researched.30 Developments in Schumpeter's belief is again being this field would undoubtedly have affect- advanced by business historians.28 ed the experiences of brewery workers. However, though many historians appear Despite historians often describing these to have taken notice of such advice, changes as revolutionary, however, we others still find it all too easy to dismiss are left with few details as to the effects of empirical work carried out by early, both scientific and technological changes practical craftsmen. The fact that equip- on the labour process.31 ment and procedures were imperfect by modern standards does not justify the While Chapter Two examines the extent rejection of eighteenth- and nineteenth- of scientific and technological changes century natural philosophy as being and their repercussions on the trade, ‘unscientific'. After all, many of these Chapter Three considers the skills of the practical industrialists went on to revolu- average brewery employee. As earlier tionise a number of technological studies of the trade have revealed the processes. transmission of knowledge within the industry to have been highly dependent Nevertheless, considerable work has on apprenticeship, the chapter will dis- already, to a large extent, eliminated this cuss the evolution of technical education bias from the existing historiography. during a period which witnessed the Unlike the field of labour, that of science emergence of zymotechnology, the science and technology has rarely been neglect- of fermentation. However, while workers ed by business and brewing historians.29 also very often acquired their skills outside For example, Gourvish and Wilson sug- the firm, the chapter begins by consider-
Brewery History Number 140 93 ing the firm's policy of recruitment. As way in which Flower & Sons' firm was British firms rarely internalised such func- run, publicans have generally been tions, one would expect this practice was omitted from the scope of this study. of great importance to brewers despite Unlike their midland competitors, such as the existence of more formal training Mitchells & Butlers, Flowers never placed methods. Of further interest will be to salaried managers in their public houses. assess apprenticeship's ability to survive Due to their independent status, publi- during years when technical education cans have not been included in what is declined in other industries. Furthermore, essentially a company history. the plight of apprentices in a non- unionised environment will be considered, Chapter Five will continue the question of as previous works suggest such training, management and deals primarily with the when placed firmly in the hands of the relationship between brewers and their employer, was degraded into an institu- employees. In most recent studies, these tion which provided industry with little have been described as having been more than cheap labour. amiable, a fact generally attributed to the paternalistic environment of the brewery. Chapter Four is perhaps the most descrip- Few studies, however, have attempted tive of those comprising this study. Within to describe a particular system in its its pages, the duties of workers will be entirety. Moreover, while sharing the described in considerable detail. More characteristics of the previous chapter, it specifically, it is an attempt to fill in the attempts to reveal the historical context gaps in Mathias's description of the brew- in which the brewery owners' particular ing process. Moreover, the most broad paternalism developed and to demonstrate definition of worker is used throughout, in the way in which conflicting traditions order to consider the experiences of have incorporated various contradictions manual labourers as well as clerks and into such managerial schemes, thereby managers. A weakness of many past making it very difficult for historians to studies is that few describe the way in agree on a working definition of paternal- which firms were managed. Con- ism. sequently, reporting lines, control and accounting in decision making ‘all remain Rather than also attempt to formulate a a mystery'.32 Furthermore, although the satisfactory definition of this term, the experiences of labourers and entrepre- final chapter will reassess the success of neurs have often slipped into studies paternalism within an individual firm carried out by labour, business and eco- during a given historical period. Evidence nomic historians, considerably less work supporting previous interpretations of the has concentrated on the salesman.33 In system as a viable managerial strategy many ways, this chapter attempts to have focused chiefly on workers' long rectify this omission. However, due to the periods of service and a lack of strikes.
94 Journal of the Brewery History Society Viewed in this way, paternalism becomes ing macro-history, stimulate further little more than a recipe for working-class studies and bring us closer to answering subordination. Moreover, much recent this very important question. work has questioned the relevance of such measures in an assessment of a Finally, although the role of women in non-unionised workforce. As a result, an brewery workforces deserves to be effort will be made to uncover more addressed, very few were involved in the covert signs of worker dissatisfaction trade during the period covered by this using Flower & Sons' and other brew- thesis.34 At no time between the years eries' detailed wage books. Besides 1870 and 1914 did women comprise examining labour turnover, drunkenness more than one per cent of Flower & Sons' and more traditional forms of trade dis- workforce. However, managers' and ruption, the chapter will also consider the directors' wives and daughters, of which incidence of white-collar crime. Further- Hester Thrale is perhaps best remem- more, an effort will also be made to bered, at times exercised considerable explain such dissent by returning to the influence at breweries.35 Their roles in numerous definitions of paternalism firms' decision-making processes, for which have been advanced in previous example, are almost always overlooked. historical, sociological and even anthro- Moreover, even when these women left pological investigations. financial matters to men, several occu- pied important positions in the paternalist Although constant efforts are made structure established by brewers and throughout this study to compare experi- influenced firms' particular methods of ences of workers and events in Stratford labour management. Nevertheless, with those of other breweries in order to labourers, when discussed throughout measure the representativeness of this the work in the singular, are regularly particular investigation, the work described as men, and revealed as inevitably tells a very specific story of women only when this is applicable to the change in a particular town during a particular employees being discussed. precise period of time. While being an attempt to locate the place of brewery workers in the histories of business and Chapter 1: The rise, fall and rise of a labour, the sheer number of variables provincial brewery which determined events at Flower & Sons and the gaps which exist in the Although Flower & Sons' Stratford brew- records of those firms against which this ery was founded approximately 40 years case is regularly measured make this a prior to 1870, it was in this year that the very difficult task. Nevertheless, it is firm's managers modernised their pro- hoped that this particular micro-history duction facilities in order to brew in an will permit historians to re-think an exist- enlarged plant according to tower meth-
Brewery History Number 140 95 ods, a principle adopted at many brew- during the 1830s.2 Instead, having eries throughout much of England during entrusted all brewing to apparently these years and which survived well unqualified individuals, he suffered from beyond the first decades of the twentieth what Francis Lawrence Talbot, a long- century. While the general organisation time employee made director, years of production remained relatively static later referred to as ‘the crass ignorance' between 1870 and 1914, despite the displayed by the operating brewers first introduction of new technology, the brew- employed in the Stratford brewery.3 After ery's markets, their degree of penetration many spoiled brews and having estab- and exploitation changed, as they lished an equally poor purchasing record, evolved and fluctuated dramatically. This the firm's initial brewers were eventually chapter provides an introduction to the relieved of their duties. The brewery was state of brewing in Stratford as practised rescued by the intervention of the propri- by Flower & Sons in the late-nineteenth etor, who reluctantly took operations into and early-twentieth centuries. Other his own capable hands. developments in the trade, such as recruitment, training and retirement, will While signalling the end of an unsuccess- be discussed in later chapters. ful experimental period, the more stable brews produced by Edward Flower did Although Edward Flower is credited with not lead to a significant increase in trade. having established a successful brewing Shortly after joining the firm in 1845, business in Stratford, almost two Charles Flower found the business to be decades after he founded his brewery, ‘in a small way', paying little more than growth was certainly not remarkable.1 ‘the usual annual household expenses'.4 Total sales alone, however, were not the Sales in 1847 amounted to £10,220.5 only confirmation of Edward's success, During a good season the family could especially to his contemporaries. That a have expected to generate a profit provincial brewer's ales should have equivalent to approximately 5% of this been purchased and enjoyed in a country sum. Even in lucrative years, however, as distant as India, was indicative of suc- both sons, and later partners, Charles cess of another kind. Although the Flower and Edgar, found it difficult working with family did not use sales figures in order to their father. This condition was almost justify their reputation, they undoubtedly certainly exacerbated by the fact that the relied on the fame achieved by their brothers had spent considerable time world-renowned product to do so. away from home and in boarding schools during their formative years, when they Trained in the art of brewing by the understood little about business, only its Fordhams - uncles and cousins who brewed effect on their father. When at home, the in Ashwell, Hertfordshire - Edward Flower sons remember their father as prone to spent little time in his Stratford brewery ‘blow up', frequently suggesting the fami-
96 Journal of the Brewery History Society Figure 1. Selina Flower, c. 1860. SBTRO, Photo File: Flower.
ly emigrate when business was poor.6 being apprenticed to a corn merchant Like his father, Richard, who was prompt- and commencing a few of his own success- ed to leave England for America due to ful business ventures, Edward continually high taxation and political illiberalism planned his own family's departure from when his son was still a child, Edward England, a fact which was widely known Flower was a well-known advocate of throughout the district. Flower often emigration.7 Despite returning to England, received letters from other dissatisfied
Brewery History Number 140 97 residents or simply those desirous of fact, no other owner's or manager's wife information concerning travel to North exercised anything comparable to her America and other destinations.8 Early in control over affairs at the brewery. For his career, Edward seriously considered example, her husband's conservative the family's departure for Australia. Years approach to risk has been attributed to later, apparently less fond of the South- her resolute disapproval of debt. The Pacific way of life, he travelled for six firm's overdrawn accounts at Lloyds Bank months in America in order to determine in Stratford, a form of finance relied upon a desirable destination in the country by many other businesses throughout where his father had been buried.9 Like this period, would, according to Selina the brewery's proprietor and future man- Flower, inevitably lead to ruin.11 Prior to agers, however, Flower's ales travelled incorporation, however, the bank over- well. Perhaps it was Edward's continued draft was an important source of capital, success in distant markets that con- as most customers, especially those vinced him to brew in Stratford for the associated with the firm's export trade, remainder of his working life. required months to settle their accounts with the brewery. Accounts in early sum- During these years, the brewery was in mer generally looked less robust than all respects a small family firm, and, as they did at the end of a season of healthy was common in this form of business, retail sales and much warm weather. In sons succeeded fathers into positions of general, given the senior family mem- management.10 Succession, in Flower's bers' dispositions, it is not surprising that case, was guaranteed with the birth of radical changes to production would have three sons, William Henry, Charles to wait until Charles and Edgar took con- Edward and Edgar. Although William trol of the family firm. Henry, director of the Natural History Museum in London (1884-98), was Despite the limited number of risks taken encouraged to pursue a scientific career, by the Flowers during the brewery's early thus being spared a life in the brewery, years, a revolution in transportation his substantial loans to the firm, like those beginning in the mid-nineteenth century made by many other relatives and set the stage for a more dynamic period friends, stimulated the growth of the busi- in the firm's history. Developments in rail ness and helped pay bills during periods transport provided possibilities for expan- when poor sales tried Edward's and his sion into new and more accessible mar- brothers' tempers. Moreover, despite kets. The second generation of man- rarely attending events at the brewery in agers to emerge from the family the last decades of the previous century, appeared to understand the benefits Edward Flower's wife, Selina, had con- such services implied. In 1860, to cele- siderable influence over business matters brate the opening of a new line to during the brewery's first decades. In Birmingham, railway offices in Stratford
98 Journal of the Brewery History Society distributed free tickets to the town's resi- Charles and Edgar, although no longer dents. Among those on the inaugural trip scolded at The Hill, the family's residence was Charles Flower, along with all the outside Stratford, along the Warwick brewery's clerks.12 Over the years, his Road, not infrequently received the odd regard for rail travel only increased. ‘violently worded memoranda' from Approximately two decades after travel- Edward and Selina when not appearing ling on the first train from Stratford to to dedicate themselves fully to busi- Birmingham, Charles became an impor- ness.16 Although the elders appeared tant contributor to a scheme known as united in a disapproval of their sons' par- the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester and ticipation in leisure and martial activities, Olney Branch Railway.l3 The fact that such as the local hunt and militia, in Flower should have recognised the ser- which Charles played a founding role, vice's business potential early on is per- Edward frequently apologised to his sons haps only natural considering he had run for any angry words exchanged during the brewery's export trade from a small family quarrels. In fact, in later life, office in James Street, Adelphi, London, Edward appears to have got on quite well early in his brewing career.14 with his sons, despite the continuation of scoldings. After the first of many such In 1863, Edward Flower retired from the incidents, it became clear that Selina had firm soon after having brought Charles always been responsible for ‘loading up and Edgar into partnership. Despite this the gun', while Edward had been made to change in the legal organisation of the ‘pull the trigger'.17 business, and the retired couple's removal to 35 Hyde Park Gardens, Perhaps due to this pressure, business, London, it would be some years before following the new partnership in 1863, Flower relaxed his control over the firm. continued, to some extent, along estab- Nevertheless, the changes in manage- lished lines. The brewing facilities in ment indicated by the new partnership Stratford still remained virtually un- appear to have marked a fresh period in changed from those built by Edward in the history of the brewery, and the active 1831. While agencies in Leamington and roles both sons played in the brewery's Coventry, each with their own small management eventually convinced sales staffs, had been established years Edward Flower that the family business before they were made partners in the was in good hands. After Edward's firm, Charles and Edgar widened Flower departure from business, sales continued & Sons' sphere of influence and set up a their steady increase, exceeding £40,000 more distant agency along similar lines in in 1857 and totalling nearly £100,000 in Cheltenham in 1867. Subsequent 1866.15 changes, however, were more radical. While the brothers, like their father, Selina Flower, as in the past, remained wished to introduce another generation of more sceptical of the firm's success. Flowers to the firm, in the same year the
Brewery History Number 140 99 Figure 2. Flower & Sons Brewery, 1870 Illustrated Midland News, 2 January 1870.
brewery's Cheltenham branch began to well, in fact, that, after only two years, solicit orders, two additional partners, production strained the capacity of the John Tod Dickie and John Witters firm's old premises and the decision to Dowson, joined Charles and Edgar in build a new brewery was made. order to manage business interests which were rapidly becoming more As had been common among other widely diffused. Interestingly, the decision family firms in the past, it appeared unre- to admit non-family members to the brew- alistic to the Flowers that any manager ery's management team appears to have should watch with 'anxious vigilance' over been made with little hesitation by an investment that was not his own.18 As Charles, who, of the two brothers, would a result, the dilemma of entrusting one's take the leading role at the brewery. Had fortunes to strangers was solved by any doubts as to the men's abilities exist- requiring all future managers to invest a ed, these were soon dispelled as the portion of their earnings in the business firm's accounts continued to improve, so and thereby become stakeholders.
100 Journal of the Brewery History Society Despite the brewery administration's brewery, where almost a third of produc- incomplete transformation to a form of tion was carried out in a thirty-two-quarter management recognisable to a contem- plant, and the firm's administrative offices porary business community, the move remained in the centre of town, alongside improved the trustworthiness of man- canals, once indispensable to the distri- agers, a matter of importance to a firm bution of Flowers ale. As most of the wishing to outgrow the limits inherent in brewery had been removed beyond the structure of traditional family firms. By Stratford's core, near the town's new rail introducing ‘new blood' to management, lines, an elderly labourer regularly bicy- Charles Flower ensured the appointment cled between the two sites during these of new managers by his successors years in order to facilitate communication would be a far less agonising experience and convey vital paperwork. This situation, for the family. Moreover, as a result of although inconvenient, was tolerated due such administrative changes, and the to the benefits the new brewery derived capital this generated, the firm's manage- from its proximity to rail transport. A rail- ment at this time could actually finance way siding was erected on the firm's further expansion. property, and the loading of casks and unloading of empties was carried out by On 18 March 1870, Flower & Sons' own- the brewery's own labourers, which now ers and managers hosted a dinner at the numbered 130 men, most of whom newly-constructed premises, along the resided in Stratford.21 As the main brew- Birmingham Road, on the northern edge ery, on the other hand, was no longer of Stratford, to celebrate the completion located in Stratford, public viewings of the of their second brewery. The buildings premises after each subsequent con- were erected by J & G Callaway, the struction project gained importance, for Stratford builders, over more than five they permitted residents to view the months and were three times the size of brewery, and thus maintained contact the firm's old premises. The fifty-quarter between the business and the town. plant and its wide range of fittings were installed by a Frome-based engineer, Such a public gathering again transpired named Oxley, while the entire project was four years after the construction of the carried out under the supervision of new brewery. In fact, the celebrations George Wilson & Company of Frome, arranged for 15 May 1874 were so grand who also advised several other brewers that many residents believed the firm had who had expanded their production built a third brewery; in reality, the firm facilities during these years.19 opened its 'Ponto', or fermenting room. Built by Messrs Naden & Sons of For the remainder of the nineteenth cen- Birmingham, the extension added 140 tury, production continued to be based at feet to the brewery, which now measured two separate sites in Stratford.20 The old 227 feet in length. The buildings were
Brewery History Number 140 101 . Figure 3. Map depicting brewery and rail lines, 1905. SBTRO, Photo File: Brewery Figure 3. Map depicting brewery and rail lines,
102 Journal of the Brewery History Society 100 feet wide, a portion of which reached and into which it had invested consider- a height of 54 feet. The total floor space able capital.28 At one point Flower & exceeded 50,000 square feet and Sons even contemplated taking over brought the planned brewery expansion the brewery, but, instead, the troubled to a conclusion; the entire project since business was purchased by Charrington its commencement in 1870 had cost the & Co Ltd in 1909.29 firm approximately £9,000.22 While matters of transportation frequently Although not immediately used to its full created difficulties for their competitors, capacity, the new premises allowed the Flower & Sons' early success in the trade brewery to produce approximately 4,000 has been attributed to their distribution barrels of ale a week.23 The brewing sea- skills. An important component of Edward son, however, was generally restricted to Flower's business, the firm's export trade, between October and April.24 This, in developed soon after the brewery was turn, encouraged early and efficient first established and extended very wide- methods of estimating, a skill which came ly with some help from independent much later to other industries, in order agents located in all the world's habitable that the brewery could meet the summer continents. As the firm's archives proudly demand for their product.25 Should staff reveal, the brewery's ale developed a have failed at this task, the cellars locat- reputation in several foreign ports, long ed at the firm's old buildings, combined before the brand was commonly recog- with the new facilities, permitted the stor- nised north of Birmingham.30 The brewery age of 20,000 barrels, the majority of regularly shipped its products to agents which comprised pale ale for export.26 and private customers in Madeira, Additional ale in times of a shortage Madras and Hong Kong, among many would come from breweries with extra other distant destinations.31 Rather than stock with whom Flowers had entered cultivate a few adept foreign agents, or into reciprocal trade agreements. Such set up their own remote offices, as was arrangements had been made with attempted by H & G Simonds, the Worthington & Co, the Burton brewers, in Reading brewers,32 Flowers relied on 1866 and with Courage & Co of London hundreds of dispersed customers, who in 1881.27 Courage transferred the latter each ordered an average of twelve contract to Fremlins of Maidstone in 1886 hogsheads a year.33 During the 1869- due to difficulties relating to transport, as 1870 brewing season, the firm had most ale reached their London brewery shipped 1,515 hogsheads to various by way of barges along the Thames. destinations, although the brewery also Flowers, however, continued to provide frequently provided customers with pale ale to small porter breweries in smaller quantities. Most of this trade was London, such as the Notting Hill Brewery, conducted by the firm's export office staff a firm with which it had formed close ties in James Street, Adelphi until 1872, when
Brewery History Number 140 103 Flower & Sons constructed its new new plant on occasion to produce near London offices near Paddington Station at three-quarters capacity, again overtaxed a cost of more than £9,000.34 In general, the powers of the firm's managers. While the export season commenced in this frequently created problems for November, and shipments continued until entrepreneurs who wished to retain con- 1 July, after which date management would trol of their firms using only family hands, not guarantee the condition of their prod- Charles Flower, intent on working less uct to withstand the trial of sea-transport.35 than he had in the past, was quite com- fortable with the thought of introducing Despite the firm's early success in estab- new talent to the firm. After he returned to lishing an export market, other less- Stratford following a term managing the distant markets gained importance during brewery's London offices, which were the years following Edward's term as the then entrusted to Mr E Dix, Charles spent brewery's sole manager. In addition to much of his time travelling between the firm's Cheltenham branch, where a newly-established agencies in England, team of seven salesmen doubled sales checking agency books, ensuring salesmen between 1868 and 1873, Flower & Sons regularly travelled through designated had agencies in Birmingham, where districts canvassing orders and investi- salesmen managed to double sales in an gating any complaints. Moreover, he even shorter time span (1869 to 1873), maintained control over the majority of Liverpool (established 1872), Wolver- the firm's correspondence. Rather than hampton (1869) and even Dublin (1874), take on greater responsibility, or recruit where a team of four employees had dif- additional unqualified family members, a ficulties justifying the expense of opening practice which he openly discouraged, an office at all. Moreover, the brewery's Flower decided to employ young original branches in Leamington and hands,'very able ones, to come in and London both maintained high levels of join them in taking a share of the duty'.37 sales, and, after remaining quite static for In addition to Dowson and Dickie, the firm most of the 1860s, gradually increased acquired the services of Stephen Moore their trade in 1872 and more dramatically of Lincoln, formerly an apprentice with thereafter (see Table 1).36 Between 1870 the firm, who also spent some years in and 1874 the total amount of ale pro- charge of production at the Notting Hill duced in Stratford approximately doubled. Brewery, London; Moore is first listed The decision to expand production facili- among the brewery's salaried staff in ties appeared justified, as agents more 1873, though he had settled in Stratford successfully solicited the brewery's prod- the previous year.38 Near the same date, ucts in national markets. the firm acquired the services of Archibald Park, originally a distributor of The consequent growth in production, as Flowers ale in Madeira, in order to man- well as sales, although permitting the age brewery offices at Birmingham and
104 Journal of the Brewery History Society Tables 1a-m: Agency Sales of Cask Ale (to nearest pound), 1870-1914
1a) Home Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 -* 1879 45,838 1888 28,351 1897 53,694 1906 81,903 1871 - 1880 45,066 1889 32,464 1898 60,269 1907 80,169 1872 - 1881 42,714 1890 31,855 1899 66,705 1908 76,404 1873 - 1882 41,002 1891 32,493 1900 66,643 1909 75,099 1874 44,448 1883 39,307 1892 33,473 1901 68,380 1910 73,412 1875 47,558 1884 36,385 1893 33,160 1902 72,865 1911 67,762
Brewery History Number 140 1876 50,492 1885 34,510 1894 31,068 1903 75,780 1912 68,195 1877 55,847 1886 27,219 1895 31,884 1904 76,974 1913 69,098 1878 55,666 1887 26,989 1896 38,781 1905 74,834 1914 63,905
*no figures available
1b) Rail Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 -* 1879 49,123 1888 26,118 1897 18,155 1906 11,347 1871 - 1880 45,782 1889 21,983 1898 15,313 1907 10,967 1872 - 1881 40,331 1890 21,739 1899 17,017 1908 10,413 1873 - 1882 40,145 1891 19,651 1900 16,294 1909 10,046 1874 23,294 1883 37,026 1892 19,205 1901 14,398 1910 10,721 1875 75,257 1884 37,513 1893 17,964 1902 14,466 1911 12,840 1876 48,823 1885 36,500 1894 16,081 1903 15,086 1912 12,670 1877 57,488 1886 32,576 1895 19,804 1904 14,520 1913 13,198 1878 66,101 1887 29,883 1896 18,409 1905 13,343 1914 12,806
*no figures available 105 106 1c) London Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 19,281 1879 39,820 1888 50,132 1897 60,278 1906 47,998 1871 20,875 1880 41,681 1889 53,669 1898 69,868 1907 44,949 1872 22,374 1881 41,705 1890 45,275 1899 70,600 1908 40,836 1873 24,693 1882 39,336 1891 44,034 1900 72,160 1909 43,101 1874 27,648 1883 39,110 1892 45,287 1901 73,802 1910 43,274 1875 32,977 1884 38,976 1893 43,030 1902 71,829 1911 45,441 1876 34,314 1885 37,466 1894 41,347 1903 64,635 1912 45,021 1877 37,343 1886 42,078 1895 43,888 1904 56,499 1913 43,138 Journal of the Brewery History Society 1878 41,088 1887 42,301 1896 49,611 1905 53,134 1914 41,488
1d) Leamington Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 16,086 1879 16,712 1888 12,709 1897 26,798 1906 38,391 1871 16,227 1880 16,448 1889 14,844 1898 30,281 1907 38,813 1872 18,002 1881 15,745 1890 15,693 1899 31,759 1908 38,213 1873 18,592 1882 15,583 1891 15,983 1900 33,246 1909 36,918 1874 20,075 1883 16,299 1892 17,080 1901 34,332 1910 35,768 1875 21,617 1884 16,230 1893 16,785 1902 36,319 1911 38,743 1876 22,650 1885 15,318 1894 16,933 1903 35,609 1912 39,495 1877 21,846 1886 13,670 1895 18,918 1904 35,062 1913 40,950 1878 22,221 1887 13,386 1896 20,145 1905 35,766 1914 39,211 1e) Birmingham Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 13,191 1879 21,106 1888 24,103 1897 31,494 1906 23,581 1871 12,598 1880 20,786 1889 28,498 1898 32,362 1907 21,206 1872 17,380 1881 20,864 1890 28,528 1899 33,686 1908 19,834 1873 22,661 1882 21,243 1891 28,705 1900 34,635 1909 19,052 1874 23,294 1883 21,643 1892 28,617 1901 32,878 1910 18,257 1875 26,060 1884 21,262 1893 27,229 1902 30,320 1911 19,528 1876 22,098 1885 21,140 1894 25,240 1903 28,521 1912 20,534 1877 23,876 1886 20,028 1895 25,072 1904 25,866 1913 21,447 1878 28,138 1887 20,085 1896 26,523 1905 24,913 1914 19,716 Brewery History Number 140
1f) Cheltenham Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 7022 1879 10,804 1888 14,369 1897 22,162 1906 31,934 1871 6826 1880 11,177 1889 15,848 1898 23,268 1907 32,710 1872 8317 1881 11,059 1890 15,944 1899 24,421 1908 32,497 1873 9242 1882 9901 1891 15,270 1900 23,874 1909 32,508 1874 9034 1883 11,044 1892 16,270 1901 26,094 1910 32,048 1875 10,200 1884 12,207 1893 17,754 1902 26,807 1911 30,187 1876 9765 1885 12,750 1894 17,444 1903 28,907 1912 29,480 1877 11,898 1886 12,328 1895 17,646 1904 30,441 1913 29,762 1878 13,729 1887 13,481 1896 17,921 1905 28,772 1914 29,909 107 108 1g) Liverpool Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 - 1874 1356 1878 1681 1882 1846 1886 2884 1871 - 1875 1613 1879 1310 1883 1767 1887 3470 1872 1355* 1876 1719 1880 1334 1884 1120 1888 1395 1873 1705 1877 2771 1881 1563 1885 1484 1889 -
*office opened in 1872 and closed in August 1888.
Journal of the Brewery History Society 1h) Wolverhampton Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1870 1502 1879 4145 1888 6061 1897 4773 1906 5036 1871 1482 1880 5337 1889 6178 1898 4988 1907 4745 1872 2142 1881 5588 1890 4597 1899 4871 1908 4610 1873 2541 1882 7163 1891 3967 1900 4849 1909 4862 1874 2784 1883 7764 1892 3793 1901 5292 1910 5398 1875 4540 1884 7996 1893 3555 1902 5397 1911 -* 1876 4635 1885 7771 1894 3146 1903 4906 1912 - 1877 5338 1886 7476 1895 3873 1904 4549 1913 - 1878 5518 1887 6236 1896 5052 1905 4692 1914 -
*no figures available
1i) Manchester Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1881 2319* 1883 3144 1885 3131 1887 3031 1889 1680 1882 3167 1884 3125 1886 2950 1888 2716 1890 -
*office opened in 1881 and closed in October 1889. 1j) Dublin Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1874 1568 1878 - 1882 1132 1886 661 1890 452 1875 1685 1879 - 1883 859 1887 710 1891 364 1876 1872 1880 - 1884 581 1888 597 1892 254† 1877 -* 1881 1115 1885 617 1889 471 1893 -
*no figures available. †office closed in 1892.
Brewery History Number 140 1k) Castlebar, Belfast, Bristol and Kidderminster Trades
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1879 - 1883 5600 1887 277 1891 1121 1895 669 1880 76* 1884 46 1888 703‡ 1892 1235 1896 669 1881 561 1885 - 1889 1105 1893 1022 1897 545 1882 545 1886 363† 1890 1010 1894 621 1898 728±
*Castlebar sales commence (office closed in December 1882). 0Belfast office opens (office closed in May the following year). †Bristol office opened in April 1886 and closed in April 1888. ‡Includes £46 of Bristol agency's sales; Kidderminster office opened in February 1888. ±Kidderminster office closed in December 1898.
1l) Oxford Trade
Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total Year Total 1905 - 1907 914 1909 1014 1911 1386 1913 2055 1906 772* 1908 970 1910 1060 1912 1653 1914 2328
*office opened in April 1906. 109 Wolverhampton. After having gained a knowledge of the manner in which local agencies were run, Park was provided yearly with a rail pass and took over Charles's tour of regional offices in England, as well as Dickie's periodic vis- al
ot its to Ireland. T
Meanwhile, closer to home, improve-
ear ments were introduced to the Stratford Y brewery for more than a decade after its initial construction. One of the firm's six al
ot malt houses was rebuilt to suit the 2622 1913 3309 T Galland-patented process of pneumatic malting in 1879, in order to save time, 1
ear space and labour.39 This was soon fol- 191 Y lowed by the modernisation of the firm's mashing plant according to methods al
ot introduced to Charles Flower by a T German brewer and engineer, Emil Welz, in 1881. New ice-making machinery,
ear mash tuns and boiling plants at both the Y old and new breweries were also installed during the 1883-1884 brewing al 1 and 18
ot season. The following season, a Slopes- T patented kiln, which facilitated the pro- duction of malt of a uniform quality, was
ear installed in the brewery's third and largest 1907 2125 1909 1971 Y 1908 1833 1910 2128 1912 2899 1914 3497
April 1906. malt house. Finally, as early as 1886, the
rade initial infrastructure required to electrify al ot
1548* the brewery, including a 1,000-watt - T dynamo, was installed on the main premises, and ensured electricity would fice opened in fice opened
ear begin to play a more important role in 1905 1m) Malvern T 1m) Malvern Y 1906 *of Sources: SBTRO, DR 227/3, 8-1 Sources: SBTRO, DR production.40
Flower & Sons' interest in technological developments not only ensured that the firm's managers encouraged their brew- ers to apply the latest inventions to the
110 Journal of the Brewery History Society brewing process, but also led them to ed in Stratford with the help of a skilled play a larger role in the distribution of par- mechanic sent by the Breslau firm, the ticular innovations. Having diversified inside of the machine soon became broadly during his first years as a brewer, worn. Moreover, the managers noticed Edward Flower had concentrated almost several screws holding the contraption exclusively on the production of pale ales together had rusted through only a month since the 1860s; Flower gave up his wine after it had first been put into operation. and spirits business when son Charles Nevertheless, some interest in the new joined the firm in 1863 and had ceased all method was shown by Mr William trade in scrap-iron years earlier.41 By the Greatorex of the Neptune Brewery, 1880s, however, foreign contacts and the Manchester, who requested particulars firm's own experiments with various relating to the self-acting mashing plant brewing machinery, convinced its man- and arranged to view the foreign-engi- agers that they had developed an addi- neered equipment in Stratford. When the tional strength and, consequently, a new machine did not work as well as direction in which to expand. Impressed described, and even broke down on with an innovative mashing apparatus several occasions, Flower & Sons' only manufactured by Emil Welz of Breslau, serious customer decided against adopt- Flower & Sons entered into negotiations ing Welz's invention. Unable to report with the brewing engineers, Pontifex & any sales, Flowers wrote to the German Wood, to produce the German firm's engineer and described how difficult it machinery in London.42 As Welz's sole was to ‘induce Brewers to put up new agents in England, Flower & Sons hoped apparatus', and requested more time to to take a leading role in the distribution of convince other industrialists of the mashing equipment, which had gained machine's advantages.45 Apparently this importance due to legislative changes was out of the question, for, shortly after- introduced at the beginning of the 1880s wards, Flowers wrote to Pontifex & Wood and was beginning to be described by describing the unsatisfactory way in many brewers as ‘the greatest improve- which they had been treated by Welz, ment in the modern art of brewing '43 gave up all attempts to import brewing apparatus and concentrated on that at Despite the successful performance of which they were best. the firm's own mashing plant, little else during this venture worked in the brew- Despite Flower & Sons' international ery's favour. A second apparatus, which connections and a desire to ship their ale was intended to serve as a demonstra- throughout the world, the brewery's most tion model to be viewed by brewers important customers, along with their interested in Welz's methods of mashing, smallest rivals, had always been situated was damaged during transport from locally. Given its agricultural traditions Germany.44 Although repaired and erect- and fruit-growing regions, Warwickshire
Brewery History Number 140 111 was home to a number of home brewers the Union Tavern in Stratford guaranteed and wine makers. While evidence sug- the owner sold only ‘Avon Ales', the name gests the brewers occasionally regarded by which Flower's ale was then common- this trade as a hindrance to its own, had ly known.49 In the last years of the 1850s the firm not supplied approximately 300 and most of the 1860s, the practice of cottage customers with malt to brew in tying trade by guaranteeing mortgages or winter, few would have purchased the providing loans steadily increased. brewery's products in spring and sum- Almost all of the brewery's early tied mer, periods when most amateur brewers houses were located in Stratford. One of ceased to produce their own ale.46 the first was the White Lion in 1858. A Moreover, despite the difficulty of meas- year later, arrangements were made that uring the success of temperance efforts, only Flower's products would be sold in arguments advanced by local teetotallers the Golden Lion Hotel. Although the do not appear to have halted the brew- brewery had not directly controlled its ery's advance during this period. own wine and spirit trade since the early Although often keeping an eye on temper- 1860s, in exchange of a fixed commis- ance meetings, if not actually attending sion, Flower & Sons sold the products of them, Flower & Sons' owners would other firms in order to supply a full range always be able to rely on strong sales in of alcoholic beverages, mineral waters Stratford and its environs.47 Among its and even tobacco to its houses.50 In most important customers were many 1863, such an agreement was reached local families, including several farmers with the proprietors of the Rose & Crown. who continued to provide ale to their A year later the Green Dragon in Arden labourers despite the passage of legisla- Street, which would host many of the tion that discouraged this practice in the firm's celebrations in later years, was pur- early 1870s. chased outright from Charles Brett. When licences were restricted by the Wine and In spite of the persistence of orders from Beerhouse Act of 1869, and properties faithful agriculturists, most individuals in became more valuable, Charles and Flower & Sons' home market obtained Edgar, like their competitors, more regu- their ale from public houses. Although larly acquired public houses.51 By the some houses in Stratford continued to end of the 1879-1880 season, however, brew their own beer in the early nine- the brewery had still acquired only some teenth century, their numbers steadily twenty houses (see Table 2). decreased as the public began to demand a more stable, commercially- Many of the firm's first public houses brewed ale.48 A regular outlet for the were purchased individually out of profits, brewery's ales was guaranteed as early and not always for their commercial as 1836 when Edward Flower ‘tied' a value. Ever the Shakespeare aficionado, local public house to the firm. A loan to Charles Flower rarely appears to have
112 Journal of the Brewery History Society 1858 Railway Hotel, Evesham, Worcs White Lion Inn, Stratford 1886 1859 Craven Arms, Coventry Golden Lion Inn, Stratford Beerhouse in Moreton Morrell 1863 The Royal Hotel, Southampton, Hants Rose & Crown, Stratford 1887 Bull's Head, Bidford Exchange Inn, Alveston 1864 Pub in Broadgate, Coventry Green Dragon, Stratford Race Horse Inn, Hereford, Herefords Blue Bell, Henley-in-Arden Pub in Liverpool, Lancs Blue Bull, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire Crown Hotel, Worcester, Worcs 1865 Bell Hotel, Worcester, Worcs Crown Hotel, Llanrwst, Denbighs. 1888 1867 Bird in the Hand, Beaudesert Lord Nelson, Stratford Albion Hotel, Manchester, Lancs 1868 White Hart Inn, Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucs Lygon Arms, Feckenham, Worcs Golden Cross Inn, Harvington, Worcs 1876 Three Tuns Royal Hotel, Pershore, Worcs Bowling Green Inn, Broom New Hotel, Weedon, Northants. Crown Inn, Blockley, Worcs Savernake Forest Hotel, Wilts 1877 The Bear Hotel, Maidenhead Dun Cow, Coventry The Shakespeare Inn, Harvington, Worcs 1878 The Old Stags Head, Wellesbourne Croon Inn, Claverdon The Stag & Pheasant, Hartshill 1879 The Swan Inn, Broadway, Worcs The George Inn, Winchcombe, Gloucs The Teddington, Tewksbury, Gloucs 1880 Three Tuns, Pershore, Worcs Falstaff, Stratford The White Hart, Ipsley Nelson Inn, Alcester White Lion, Brighton, Sussex 1889 Norfolk Hotel, Shoreditch, London Shoulder of Mutton, Stratford Coach and Horses, Broadway, Worcs The Black Swan, Stratford Golden Cross, Harvington, Worcs Unicorn Inn, Stratford Harrow Inn, Shipston-on-Stour Bull's Head, Barston 1881 Wings and Spur, Ullenhall George Inn, Henley-in-Arden Fleece Hotel, Witney, Oxfordshire Shakespeare, Welford 1890 Austin House, Broadway, Worcs Talbot Inn, Stratford Edgbaston Hotel, Llandudno, Wales Golden Cross, Bearley 1882 Park Tavern, Warwick Red Cow, Wolverhampton, Staffs Peacock, Wellesbourne The Barrel Inn, Tewkesbury, Gloucs The Masons Arms, Bristol, Somerset The Cross Hands, Teddington, Worcs 1891 1883 Globe Inn, Stratford The Oddfellows Arms, Badgworth, Gloucs Bears Head Hotel, Newtown, Mon 1884 1892 Crown Inn, Kemerton, Gloucs Mason's Arms, Stratford Garrick Hotel, Hereford, Herefords The Roebuck, Alcester 1885 Carpenter's Arms, Kineton Cross Keys, Stratford George & Dragon, Chipping Campden, Royal Hotel, Bath, Somerset Gloucs
Brewery History Number 140 113 1893 The Lord Nelson, Ansley Queen's Head, Oswestry, Shropshire Cross Guns, Beaudesert Fox & Goose Hotel, Redditch, Worcs The Engine Inn, Bedworth 1894 White Horse, Bedworth Hare and Hounds, Chilvers Coton Rose Inn, Hartshill Abbey Hotel, Kenilworth The Castle, Bedworth Half Moon, Nuneaton Prince of Wales, Nuneaton Crown Hotel, Warwick Bull Hotel, Nuneaton Gibbon's Hotel, Torquay, Devon Bell Inn, Tamworth Belle Vue Hotel, Cheltenham, Gloucs The Castle Arms, Warwick Bull Inn, Witherley, Leicestershire The Bell Garden, Welford Belgrave Hotel, Balsall Heath The Masons Arms, Wilmcote Midland Hotel, Worcester, Worcs Mason's Arms, Long Marston, Gloucs Pheasant Hotel, Malvern, Worcs Red Lion Inn, Blockley, Worcs 1895 Labour in Vain, Oldswinford, Worcs Mother Huff Cap Inn, Great Alne Railway Inn, Ripple, Worcs The Boot Inn, Aston Cantlow 1898 Crown Inn, Harbury Boot Inn, Studley The Two Boats, Long Itchington White Lion, Warwick The Farmers Arms, Apperley, Gloucs Nevill Arms, Inkberrow, Worcs Boot Inn, Flyford Flavell, Worcs 1899 Wheelbarrow and Castle Inn, Radford, Worcs Boot Inn, Bidford 1896 Greswolde Arms Hotel, Knowle Old Red Lion, Stratford Bird in Hand, Newbold Red Lion, Barford 1900 Summerland Tavern, Coventry The Horse Shoe, Bourton-on-the-Hill, Gloucs Rose and Crown, Coventry Central Inn, Cheltenham, Gloucs The Wheatsheaf, Foleshill Rose Garden, Holmer, Herefords Plough Inn, Minworth 1901 Off-licence in Abbey Street, Rugby The Stratford Arms, Stratford Garrick's Head, Cheltenham, Gloucs Peacock Inn, Rugby Lamb Hotel, Cheltenham, Gloucs Emscote Tavern, Warwick (cask trade only) Nag's Head, Longhope, Gloucs Royal Hotel, Cheltenham, Gloucs Duke of York Hotel, Tewkesbury, Gloucs 1903 The Bowling Green Inn, Hereford, H’fords Greyhound Inn, Stow-on-the-Wold, Gloucs Lion Inn, Claverley, Shropshire 1904 White Lion Inn, Astwood Bank, Worcs Bell Inn, Willersey, Gloucs. Red Lion Inn, Shipston-on-Stour 1905 Star Hotel, Upton-on-Severn, Worcs Prince of Wales, Cheltenham, Gloucs Red Cow, Upton-on-Severn, Worcs Apple Tree Inn, Woodmancote, Gloucs Great Western Hotel, Worcester, Worcs 1906 1897 Stags Head, Wellesbourne Phoenix, Stratford Star Beerhouse, Bourton-on-the-Hill, Gloucs Dog & Partridge, Alcester Plough Beerhouse, Shipston-on-Stour
Table 2. Flower & Sons' licensed properties (from existing deeds)
Licensed premises are identified in present day counties and are in Warwickshire unless other- wise indicated. Sources: SBTRO, DR 325/991-1177.
114 Journal of the Brewery History Society Figure 4. Map showing the distribution of outlets.
missed an opportunity to buy licensed ing brewing journals. At times, news of a premises associated with the Bard. The house's impending sale travelled more Shakespeare Inns in Welford-on-Avon quickly to managers, especially if it lay and Harvington were both purchased near the brewery or was already included during the period he was connected to among the firm's customers. the firm. Moreover, both were acquired individually from their previous owners. Despite still being purchased at auctions Sales of such premises were regularly within a decade of each other, the advertised in various periodicals, includ- Shakespeare Inns in Welford and
Brewery History Number 140 115 Harvington marked two distinct periods in brewers to increase the credit they the administrative history of the brewery. already received from banks in the form The first, that in Welford, was purchased of an overdraft, the granting of which during the period when the firm was still a became easier when a firm deposited the partnership, while the house in deeds to their property as security.53 Harvington was added to the firm's col- lection of properties after it had become a The success of several large share offers limited liability company. Incorporation, within the industry, and especially that of among its many benefits, provided the Guinness on 22 October 1886, finally capital many breweries required in order convinced many English brewers of the vastly to increase their tied properties.52 advantages of incorporation. Only two years As a result, the Shakespeare Inn at after Guinness's successful incorpora- Harvington was among numerous pur- tion, Flower & Sons registered themselves chases made during these years. for limited liability. The nominal capital the Acquired in 1888, shortly after the firm company was entitled to offer for public became a limited liability company, it was subscription amounted to £350,000, included among approximately fifteen divided into 17,500 ordinary and 17,500 other acquisitions made in that year. The preference shares of £10 each.54 Of property in Welford, on the other hand, these, 12,506 ordinary and 12,500 pref- was one of four houses purchased in erence shares were immediately issued 1881. and fully paid up. The firm also offered £100,000 in 4½% first mortgage deben- The advantages of limited liability extend- tures publicly, being only half of a total ed beyond ensuring that those individuals authorised issue of £200,000. involved in a business venture were legally responsible to only a limited The finances of the company were degree for the debts their members entrusted to individuals long familiar with amassed; for brewers it was a reliable the company. The first directors included way to raise a large amount of capital in Edgar, Archibald and Richard Fordham order to fund expansion. Flower & Sons' Flower, Stephen Moore, Archibald Park early growth was financed out of profits, and the firm's new head brewer, Francis an overdraft supplied by Lloyds' Stratford Lawrence Talbot. According to the incor- branch and numerous loans deposited by poration notice, property and assets, customers, salaried workers and their rel- including freehold and leasehold prop- atives. Limited liability brought the funds erties, amounted to £188,267. Total lia- with which managers could finance fur- bilities, including plant, the firm's stock of ther growth. Not only would large injec- ale, hops, malt and barley, loans, book tions of capital permit the purchase of debts and cash in hand amounted to additional property, but a swelling real £425,372. While one can hardly compare estate portfolio made it easier for many this with Guinness's £6,000,000 share
116 Journal of the Brewery History Society issue, in 1888, Flower & Sons Ltd was tions to their main brewery, and the one of the largest breweries in the West increased costs entailed by decentralised Midlands, and certainly one deemed to production, additional plants were rarely have a great future by many in the trade. used for brewing, which continued to take place in Stratford. Some disused brew- New methods of raising capital not only eries were utilised as warehouses or increased the number of licensed houses converted into agencies, as occurred in firms bought, but led many to sink greater 1896 when Flowers bought Messrs Alfred capital into property in general. After Thomas's Caudlewell Brewery, a ten- incorporation, all forms of land purchases quarter plant in Shipston-on-Stour, for grew noticeably, for such a strategy permit- £28,250 in order to acquire 26 public ted a firm not only to enlarge its market, houses.57 Other facilities were part of but made borrowing easier. Flower & more adventurous exercises. For exam- Sons' board appeared less discriminating ple, when the brewery hired Cheltenham than in former years when making acqui- brewer Edward Pole to be an agent in sitions. Their collection of properties that town, Flower & Sons took over the included several cottages in nearby vil- management of his brewery and convert- lages, fields which were let to local farm- ed the premises into a bowling-alley at ers and even Aston Villa football a cost of approximately £20.58 Whether grounds.55 No different from other nation- the project became a successful addition al brewers in scrambling for property dur- to leisure services in Cheltenham is ing these years, Flowers' board bid for unknown, for the firm's managers sev- nearly every available licensed property ered their ties with Pole before its com- which came up for sale in the parishes pletion. 59 surrounding Stratford.56 Despite the apparent success of the While many public houses were still years which immediately followed incor- acquired individually, as was common in poration, the future of the brewery was by previous decades, many were now no means secure in the days preceding purchased in parcels. This was done pri- its successful share issue. Only a year marily by taking over entire breweries, in earlier, Charles and Edgar had been order to acquire the licensed houses in ‘anxious and disturbed' about the brew- their possession. By purchasing small ery.60 Since 1883, income returned from local breweries, Flower & Sons, like the firm's agencies had been declining, many other English breweries during this despite lower raw material costs.61 Only era, added substantially to their tied those at Cheltenham, Liverpool and estate. While made to increase the com- London recorded any positive growth. pany's trade, these purchases at the Sales in Dublin and at the newest agen- same time decreased local competition. cies in Castlebar and Belfast did not Given the proximity of Flowers' acquisi- recover the costs of office administration.
Brewery History Number 140 117 Consequently, the premises in Belfast was discovered that the family respon- closed in May 1885, followed soon after sible for sales in the town had been by those in Castlebar, while Dublin's withholding payments to the firm for salesmen somehow managed to remain many years. Moreover, as became a employed until 1892, a year of general common pattern among English brewers, depression in the brewing trade, despite no further attempts were made to devel- never returning more than £1,000 a year op the firm's export trade which remained for more than a decade.62 Immediately scattered and hardly paid enough to jus- after closing their Belfast office, Flower & tify transporting small quantities of ale Sons attempted to revive sales by great distances.63 Since incorporation, expanding their business in Bristol. Sales export sales rarely totalled more than there, however, did not surpass those 5,000 gallons, and declined thereafter as obtained in Belfast, and the agency many more breweries were established closed two years later. Attempts to estab- in foreign territories (see Table 3).64 By lish trade in the vicinity of Kidderminster, 1895, export sales amounted to an soon after incorporation, were more suc- embarrassing 12 hogsheads and never cessful, perhaps due to Francis Talbot's again recovered. In general, during the familiarity with the district, but did not five years preceding limited liability, total make up for the loss of sales which sales had decreased by more than 8%.65 resulted from the closure of the brewery's According to Charles's wife, Sarah, the Manchester operations in 1889, after it two managers, like their father years ear-
Year Amount Year Amount
1874 1,089 Hhds, 15 Brls, 356 Kils 1885 350 Hhds, 10 Kils 1875 621 Hhds, 267 Kils 1886 217 Hhds, 12 Kils 1876 732 Hhds, 10 Brls, 59 Kils 1887 351 Hhds, 12 Kils 1877 550 Hhds 1888 -† 1878 494 Hhds 1891 88 Hhds, 3 Brls, 6 Kils 1879 273 Hhds 1892 50 Hhds 1880 395 Hhds, 16 Brls, 130 Kils 1893 49 Hhds, 24 Kils 1881 237 Hhds, 20 Brls, 150Kils 1894 61 Hhds 1882 279 Hhds, 30 Kils 1895 12 Hhds 1883 312 Hhds, 125 Kils 1896* 25 Hhds 1884 264 Hhds, 62 Kils 1908 1 Firkin
*no shipments after 1896 until 1908. †1888, 1889 and 1890 sales figures incomplete. Source: SBTRO, DR 227/44
Table 3. Exports, 1874-1908 (in casks).
118 Journal of the Brewery History Society lier, did not know whether to abandon the brewery. The period of growth initiated by enterprise or retain openings for Edgar's Charles and Edgar, although feared to be sons, Archie and Richard Fordham.66 over, unlike the firm's export trade, Only the willingness of a new generation revived. A reduction in staff at various convinced the family to continue in their agencies reduced expenses, without predominant line of business. affecting sales.68 Moreover, negotiations at the brewery were still guided by the A third generation of Flowers did not elder brothers. While Charles chose to need to be convinced to join the family retire rather than join the new board of firm. Edgar's eldest sons, Archie and directors, Edgar remained in the brew- Richard Fordham, appeared eager to ery's employment for another 15 years. manage a portion of their predecessors' Although the firm purchased approximate- workloads after amalgamation. Of the two, ly two dozen additional public houses in Archie would eventually assume the top the two years proceeding limited liability, position at the brewery. From a relatively the brewery continued to rely a great deal young age he quickly established himself on free trade as it had in the past. as one of the rising stars of the industry in Furthermore, investment in the brewing the Midlands. Soon after completing his plant resumed, based on strategies intro- studies at Cambridge, Archie presided at duced in the early 1880s. As much of the meetings held by the Licensed Victuallers' machinery at the brewery was little more Society's Birmingham branch. In an arti- than a decade old, the directors could cle describing the events which tran- turn their attention to the brewery's most spired at the society's 72nd annual dinner, important natural resource. In order to Flower was described as ‘one of the most ensure the quality and supply of the firm's eloquent and active leaders connected water, a new well was sunk in 1895.69 with the wholesale branch of the trade,' While the feat was described as novel, and, his speeches, like those of his uncle, the project was carried out by a new gen- Charles, upon whose career he appeared eration of managers, whose membership to model his own, were ‘marked by on the managerial team had also been breadth and originality of thought'.67 one of Charles's and Edgar's most impor- Although his leadership qualities were tant innovations. apparent from the moment he was made a director, his authority at the brewery One of the newer members on the com- only really began to increase after his pany's board, well known to the London brother, Richard Fordham, was killed dur- trade due to the role he played in brewing ing the war in South Africa approximately societies based in the capital, was John a decade later. Pritchard, a native of Stratford and son of local surgeon, Dr Arthur Pritchard. On the Despite an increase in property purchas- occasion of his becoming a director of the es, incorporation changed little at the brewery in 1897, after working his way up
Brewery History Number 140 119 from the cask department and having in the past, a manager accepting a seat successfully fulfilled the duties associat- on the board also involved his taking a ed with managing the firm's London greater stake in the company. In addition office, which he had joined in 1869, mem- to being made a director in 1896, bers of the trade assembled at the Hotel Thwaites was issued with 2,500 ordinary Cecil in London, where Pritchard was shares, worth £25,000.72 Although he presented with ‘a handsome testimonial would have preferred simply to collect engrossed on vellum and framed in gilt,' dividends, which averaged 7½% for the a silver ink stand and salver and a first three years after incorporation and cheque for £150 to be used in placing a approximately 5% thereafter, given his stained glass window in Holy Trinity education and familiarity with the firm, Church at Stratford in memory of his Archie's offer to Thwaites was made in parents.70 Despite the gains made by order to acquire his services and thereby Pritchard on this occasion, the brewery reduce his own work load.73 had benefited from his service over a 31 year period. According to members of In addition to Thwaites's shares, the firm one of London's largest trade protection issued an additional £150,000 in 4% societies, those connected with the gen- debenture stock, being the remainder of tleman were ensured of ‘victory and the securities not yet offered to the pub- success'.71 lic, including £50,000 of old debentures converted into new 4% stock after their Another familiar face to join the team of first redemption.74 Thereafter, the brew- directors at the brewery was Gilbert ery fixed its overdraft with Lloyds at Thwaites. Thwaites was the nephew of £60,000.75 Within a year this was again Daniel Twaites, MP for Blackburn and increased to £100,000, providing the owner of the Eanam Brewery, later regis- firm's management with capital to fund tered as Daniel Thwaites & Co Ltd further expansion.76 More importantly, (1897). Instead of joining his family's firm, these additional funds were raised with- however, Thwaites took the seat on out the firm's having to deposit any of its Flowers' board offered to him a year deeds as security. before Thwaites & Company became incorporated. He was in many ways a Flush with capital, the firm's management natural managerial candidate for he had wished to take part in what would be completed an apprenticeship with the described by historians as an early peri- brewery and served several years as a od of brewery mergers.77 Attempts made member of Flower & Sons' clerical staff in by Flower & Sons to purchase another Stratford. While admitting Thwaites to the brewery, however, continued to be frus- board denied his talent to other firms, it trated. In December 1896, the board con- also insured the Stratford brewery of cluded negotiations concerning the sale additional funding. As had been common of the City Brewery in Oxford when the
120 Journal of the Brewery History Society firm's owners refused Flowers' offer.78 those of all other agencies. This period of Nevertheless, attempts to expand south- growth reached a peak in the late 1890s, ward within Flowers' ‘immediate neigh- and justified further expenditures in order bourhood' continued for another year.79 that the brewery could tap into what When word reached the brewery that proved to be a lucrative market, managed Henry Larder, ‘an old friend of by one of the trade's most respected [Archibald's] grandfathers' and owner of figures, John Pritchard. the nearby Little Compton Brewery, was considering the sale of his business, the The brewery's successful growth in board exploited the friendly relations London mirrored its performance in which had existed between the families, Warwickshire in the 1870s. Albeit the and, within a year, negotiated their sec- population of the county steadily ond takeover.80 Others followed. Add- increased during the last half of the itional breweries purchased at the turn of century, the rapid rise in Flowers' sales the century included the Tavistock during this decade is more impressive Brewery Company Ltd of Tavistock, when it is realised that the national mar- Devon, in 1899, and JO Gillett's Swan ket for alcoholic beverages had peaked Brewery, located in Moreton-in-Marsh, in 1878.82 Expansion after this date often Gloucestershire, in 1900. occurred at the expense of the firm's many competitors. This once again In addition to purchasing property out- appeared to be the case in the 1890s. In right, the board spent much of their new surviving letter books, directors claim capital securing the loans of licensed that, in certain regions of London, property in London. These stood at Flowers had 'ousted Bass completely'.83 £5,000 in 1885, at a time when London Such triumphs appeared to suggest the sales exceeded £60,000. Soon after, firm would soon be ranked alongside the however, in 1890, when Pritchard nation's most successful breweries. By replaced Dix as office manager, the poli- this time, the company's directors no cy was pursued more aggressively.81 By longer appeared to concern themselves the end of the nineteenth century, London with the performances of smaller com- loans stood at more than £127,000. petitors. Instead they collected statistics Freehold and leasehold properties were which allowed them to monitor the affairs valued at approximately £350,000 (see of industry giants.84 Table 4). No longer subject to Selina Flower's doubts and criticisms, the firm's In spite of capturing a healthy share of managers were convinced their risk London's pale ale trade by the end of the would not only bring them success, but nineteenth century, Flowers' agents in the make Flowers a nationally-recognised provinces performed less well than those brand. Their confidence grew as sales in in the capital. Although the brewery dom- London continued to grow, outpacing inated the market within a 20 mile radius
Brewery History Number 140 121 Table 4. Schedule of Properties, 7 April 1897
4a) Freehold Licenced Properties
Name of Property Location Type of License Value (in pounds)
The Falstaff Stratford Full 3000 One Elm Stratford Full 2500 The Nelson Stratford Full 1150 The Globe Stratford Full 2000 Golden Lion Hotel Stratford Full 2000 Old Red Lion Stratford Full 2400 The Swan's Nest Stratford Full 7000 The Black Swan Stratford Full 1600 The Masons Arms Stratford Full 1750 The Talbot Stratford Beerhouse 1000 Crosskeys Stratford Full 950 Plymouth Arms Stratford Full 2500 Green Dragon Stratford Full 1620 Crown Hotel Tiddington Full 3000 Exchange Inn Alveston Full 1800 The Red Lion Barford Full 3000 The Fox Loxley Full 800 The Peacock Wellesbourne Full 1600 Black Horse Moreton Morrell Beerhouse 1150 Carpenters Arms Kindon Beerhouse 950 The Bell Welford Full 1300 The Shakespeare Welford Beerhouse 950 Shoulder of Mutton Broad Marston Beerhouse 700 The Ivy Inn North Littleton Beerhouse 750 The Bulls Head Bidford Beerhouse 850 The Boot Bidford Full 1150 Whitehorse Lowsonford Full 900 The Bell Tamworth Full 3500 Bird in Hand Beaudesert Full 1600 Railway Hotel Evesham Full 5500 Royal Oak Evesham Full 2250 Three Tuns Pershore Full 3500 The Plough Pershore Full 1800 Black Horse Pershore Beerhouse 1250 Butchers Arms Pershore Beerhouse 800 Wheatsheaf Badsey Beerhouse 2000 Coach and Horses Broadway Full 2000 Queens Head Sedgebarrow Full 1650 Queens Head Iron Cross Full 1850 Wheelbarrow and Castle Radford Full 1500 The Boot Flyford Flavel Full 2400 Wings Arms Mickleton Full 1600 Milking Pail Mickleton Beerhouse 700 George and Dragon Chipping Campden Full 950
122 Journal of the Brewery History Society The Crown Blockley Full 2500 Red Lion Blockley Beerhouse 1000 Great Western Arms Blockley Beerhouse 1800 Star and Garter Crabbs Cross Full 3500 White Lion Astwood Bank Full 2500 The Lygon Feckenham Full 1200 Bell Hotel Shipston Full 2250 The Crown Shipston Full 1000 Red Lion Shipston Beerhouse 700 Harrow Inn Shipston Full 1700 Red Lion Ilmington Full 1050 The Bell Armscote Beerhouse 600 The Gate Brailes Full 1250 White Hart Moreton in Marsh Full 2000 The Bell Moreton in Marsh Full 1600 Blue Boar Chipping Norton Full 2500 George Hotel Winchcombe Full 2500 Candlewell Brewery Shipston Full 1500 Boot Inn Great Alne Full 2150 Mother Huff Cap Great Alne Full 850 Roebuck Alcester Heath Beerhouse 950 Golden Lion Alcester Full 950 The Nelson Alcester Full 1500 Golden Cross Bearley Full 1275 The Bell Henley in Arden Full 650 George and Dragon Henley in Arden Full 600 Cross Guns Henley in Arden Full 500 Red Lion Henley in Arden Full 1050 Broom Inn Broom Beerhouse 1000 Kings Head Upton on Severn Full 1250 Old Crown Upton on Severn Full 700 Barley Mow Upton on Severn Full 550 Star Hotel Upton on Severn Full 1500 Red Cow Upton on Severn Full 800 Eagle Inn Leamington Full 2600 New Inn Leamington Beerhouse 1500 Greyhound Leamington Full 3500 Jolly Brewer Leamington Full 2000 White Hart Leamington Full 2500 Queens Arms Leamington Full 2300 Half Moon Leamington Full 1000 The Vine Warwick Full 2300 The Nelson Warwick Full 2450 Nags Head Warwick Full 1500 Antelope Warwick Full 2500 Queens Head Warwick Full 3300 Crown Hotel Warwick Full 4000 Castle Tavern Warwick Full 3500 Abbey Hotel Kenilworth Full 8000 Dun Cow Coventry Full 3500
Brewery History Number 140 123 City Arms Coventry Full 3500 The Grapes Coventry Full 4000 Summerland Tavern Coventry Full 3500 Craven Arms Coventry Full 1500 Rose and Crown Coventry Full 3500 Wheatsheaf Coventry Full 3700 Two Boats Long Itchington Beerhouse 1200 Shakespeare Harbury Beerhouse 900 The Crown Harbury Full 1000 The Peacock Rugby Full 4500 Abbey Street Beerhouse Rugby Offlicense 1500 Black Dog Southam Full 1200 Victoria St Beerhouse Rugby Offlicense 1200 Bulls Head Brinklow Full 1500 Robin Hood Cheltenham Beerhouse 400 Cambridge Inn Cheltenham Beerhouse 1200 Garricks Head Cheltenham Beerhouse 2000 Morvend St Offlicense Leckhampton Beerhouse 1000 British Union Cheltenham Full 3000 Lypiatt St Offlicense Cheltenham Beerhouse 500 London Inn Charlton Kings Full 4000 Oddfellows Cheltenham Beerhouse 1100 Farmers Arms Apperley Beerhouse 2000 Barrel Inn Tewkesbury Full 1600 Duke of York Tewkesbury Full 5000 Cross Hands Teddington Full 1700 Crown Inn Kenerton Beerhouse 850 Ale and Porter Stores Twyning Beerhouse 1200 Widden St Offlicense Gloucester Beerhouse 750 Plough Inn Newent Beerhouse 1250 Nags Head Gloucester Beerhouse 450 Bowling Green Inn Hereford Full 1600 Fruiterers Arms Birmingham Full 3250 The Belgrave Birmingham Full 12000 Bloomsbury Wolverhampton Full 4700 The Plough Mineworth Full 1900 Crab Mill Old Swinford Full 2400 Navigation West Bromwich Beerhouse 1200 Spring Cottage West Bromwich Beerhouse 900 Half Moon Kidderminster Full 3000 Feathers Ledbury Full 3500 Brewery Stores Leamington Full 4500 Engine Bedworth Beerhouse 1500 Railway Hotel Ripple Full 1600 Brewery Stores Cheltenham Full 2000 Teddington Inn Tewkesbury Beerhouse 650
Total 282,495
124 Journal of the Brewery History Society 4b) Leasehold Licensed and Unlicensed properties
Name of Property Location Type of License Value (in pounds)
The Unicorn Stratford Full 1500 Railway Inn Stratford Full 175 The Bell Shottery Full 175 Cottage of Content Barton Full 100 Kings Head Aston Cantlow Full 450 Wings and Spur Ullenhall Full 550 Royal Oak Hockley Heath Full 750 American Tavern Evesham Beerhouse 500 Golden Cross Harvington Full 500 Red Hart Kington Full 250 The Angel Broad Campden Full 150 Greyhound Redditch Full 1000 The Wharf Ilmington Full 150 Greyhound Stow on the Wold Beerhouse 500 Cross Keys Llandudno Full 2300 Blue Boar Grafton Full 50 Builders Arms London Beerhouse 920 Prince Albert London Beerhouse 4000 Dover Castle London Beerhouse 1400 Nell Gwynne London Full 1500 The Pheasant London Beerhouse 350 Thornbury Castle London Beerhouse 560 Essex Head London Full 4800 Queens Arms London Beerhouse 304 The Vaults Leamington Full 400 Brunswick Leamington Beerhouse 1800 Sword and Mace Coventry Full 700 The Anchor Bedworth Beerhouse no value Bulls Head Barston Full 350 Kings Arms Heronfield Full 400 Salisbury Arms Cheltenham Full 800 Stout House Inn Cheltenham Beerhouse 700 Central Inn Cheltenham Beerhouse 225 Adam and Eve Cheltenham Beerhouse 700 Royal Oak Prestbury Full 400 Farmers Arms Gotherington Full no value The Bell Eckington Full 200 Racehorse Hereford Full 200 Rose Gardens Inn Holmer Full 400 Criterion Restaurant Cheltenham Beer and Wine 600 Albion Hotel Birmingham Full 1500 White Horse Cellars Birmingham Full 5750 The Leopard Birmingham Full 250 Turf Inn Birmingham Beerhouse 300 Old Nelson Birmingham Beerhouse 1100 Grand Turk Birmingham Beerhouse 1450 The Fox Birmingham Full 2870
Brewery History Number 140 125 Wings Head Birmingham Full 1650 The Stores Balsall Heath Full 400 Railway Inn Moseley Full 5500 Travellers Rest Birmingham Beerhouse 2500 The Stores Birmingham Beerhouse 12000
Total 65,519
4c) Yearly Tenancies
Name of Propery Location Type of License Value (in pounds)
The Phoenix Stratford Beerhouse 200 The Sun Aston Cantlow Full 200 Fox and Hounds Great Walford Full 250 Wings Head Bishops Cleeve Full 200 White Hart Droitwich Full 500
Total 1,350
Total (all properties) 349,364
Source: SBTRO, DR 227/170
of Stratford, and had established a strong inexhaustible London market should the record in London, especially in the West brewery continue to prosper. End, few other agencies experienced the sort of growth demonstrated by the The decision to concentrate on the firm's main offices. Only days after the London market, although justified by brewery's directors could boast that their transport arrangements, storage facili- product had displaced Bass in many ties, staff and especially sales, could not London outlets, Archibald Flower repri- have come at a worse time. As early as manded publicans at their Cheltenham 1899, in a letter to Pritchard, Archie houses for serving competitors' products. Flower expressed his concern regarding On 9 June 1899, he advised Mr Hart, a the continued increase in London loans; hotel manager, to refrain from supplying this had worried London brewers much his customers with Ind Coope bottled earlier.86 Furthermore, Archie believed beer, which Archie believed to be 'quite that many of the loans granted by second to ours'.85 Not surprisingly, such Pritchard were 'shakey'. Two months pre- episodes only helped convince Archibald vious to this correspondence, Archibald Flower of the need to tap the seemingly Park, after completing a tour of the firm's
126 Journal of the Brewery History Society offices, had notified Flower that Pritchard season, the directors appeared to have had neglected to inform the directors of no alternative but to sell some of the several 'shakey' loans, and, instead of firm's less-essential property to acquire rectifying the situation, continued to much-needed capital, for the brewery's request that loans be made available to other agencies were not performing publicans whose accounts were long in remarkably well either. Archie immediate- arrears. Not surprisingly, in response to ly commenced negotiations with Ansells, Archie's rebuke, Pritchard again request- the Birmingham brewers, who had shown ed that additional funds be made avail- an interest in the brewery's Aston Villa able to a long-indebted customer. A pay- property. After furnishing the brewers with ment of £14,000, returned by Pritchard the accounts of the mineral water factory only two days after being cautioned by located on the property, along with the the directors, appeased Archie, but usual sales particulars, however, his proved only to delay the inevitable. Birmingham rivals no longer appeared Nationally, Flowers' loans already enthusiastic. Nevertheless, the firm exceeded £340,000. One publican alone advanced an offer, which Flowers, had £16,000 of the brewery's money.87 although anxious, regarded as not ‘suffi- By granting any further loans the direc- ciently tempting'.88 Although negotiations tors would only put the firm beyond the between the two firms continued for the limit granted by Lloyds. Moreover, Archie remainder of the year, these came to Flower had informed the bank's manager nothing. In the meantime, Archie could in Stratford, Mr SF Ellis, that the firm only request that Lloyds maintain their would soon be in a position to reduce the overdraft at its current limit. brewery's overdraft. While the terms offered by Lloyds until Despite staff expending the greatest the beginning of the twentieth century efforts to improve business in the London had been unusually generous, the bank's office, sales in the capital appeared stat- regional office in Birmingham judged the ic, and even began to decline in the first increase in the brewery's overdraft to year of this century. Given this lag in be an unnecessary risk. However, after sales, Pritchard deposited funds in the having contacted the brewery's directors firm's London account only infrequently. and suggested modifying the conditions By July 1900, the number of orders governing the loan, the bank's represen- obtained by the office had fallen. The tatives were informed that the firm's expense of running the agency only board was unable to reduce the amount. increased as a desperate staff can- Although the bank eventually allowed the vassed its district more regularly. Unlike limit at 4%, the overdraft was now to be the debts accumulated by their cus- guaranteed by the deposit of deeds rep- tomers, Flowers' bills were to be paid resenting properties valued at £75,000. promptly. Therefore, by the end of this This reduced the firm's secured overdraft
Brewery History Number 140 127 to £25,000, which Archie quickly negotiat- Although disrupting production for two ed be increased to £50,000, then, soon days in December, the fire did not inter- after, to £75,000 in order to avoid a fur- fere with the remainder of the brewing ther issue of debentures, which both season. The combined capacity of the Flowers and Lloyds agreed was undesir- two plants permitted the firm to produce able at that time.89 Despite wishing to enough ale to satisfy existing demand. remedy their overdrawn accounts, the Furthermore, the damaged buildings board of directors did not regard their were immediately scheduled to be rebuilt troubles to be exceptional, for they by Stratford builder John Harris in the believed the trade slow-down would spring. Nevertheless, the brewery was affect them only temporarily. In general, faced with the burden of additional heavy they assumed trade, though momentarily expenditures. The directors had decided slow, was still increasing. Moreover, an to acquire several new public houses in overdraft provided management with Birmingham to off-set the continued loss- flexibility, for they 'wished to be prepared es they suffered in a sluggish London for emergencies'.90 market. Business in 1900, however, proved difficult and a complete recovery Although the anticipated boom in trade in trade remained elusive. In the annual did not materialise, as if by premonition, report issued by the firm in that year, the brewery's first real emergency did. directors blamed a sizeable drop in prof- On the morning of 2 December 1899, a its on an increased beer duty, income fire destroyed most of the firm's No. 6 tax and the war in South Africa, though malt house. An adjoining building con- the contamination of certain ales in taining barley, malt and some casks of Manchester, as a result of arsenic con- ale was also badly damaged. Although tained in brewing sugars, undoubtedly workers managed to salvage some provided brewers with considerable neg- supplies, more than £3,200 worth of ative publicity.93 Moreover, although all materials were lost. Moreover, the firm brewers faced higher material costs and was short of a gas engine, weighing increased duties, the war's effect had machines, not to mention shovels, bas- direct repercussions on the firm's organi- kets and other malting utensils. The total sation, for it had also claimed the life of damage caused by the blaze was esti- Richard Fordham Flower; Richard's seat mated at over £14,000.91 Although the on the board was offered in unusual cir- brewery was insured by the County cumstances to Theodore H Lloyd of Insurance Company, a confusion in the Bletchingley, near Reigate, who had order of malt houses, which were not been an apprentice at the firm four years consecutively numbered, led Flower & earlier. Sons to incur losses of £10,000 over and above the amount stipulated in their The next year saw no recovery in the policy.92 London trade; Flower & Sons' profits had
128 Journal of the Brewery History Society again diminished, but the firm was able to February 1902, the board was pleased renew its overdraft with Lloyds at condi- by news from Lloyds that its overdraft tions deemed favourable by the directors. would be renewed according to condi- Nothing else positive occurred in 1901. tions set the previous year, but only if the Early in the year, the brewery lost the total amount were reduced by £25,000 by services of another long-serving member, the summer.96 This, however, required Stephen Moore, who had been with the that sales recover, and the firm's London firm for 36 years. Moreover, his memory trade continued to decline. Moreover, was denied any prolonged mourning due provincial sales in general were not much to the financial implications of the death. better given an unusually cold summer.97 Over the years, besides acquiring 520 Consequently, in July, the rate of interest ordinary shares at £10 each, Moore had on the overdraft was increased to 5%. deposited more than £7,300 with the firm, which had now to be transferred to a After another less-than-prosperous sum- drawing account in order that the funds mer, the drastic measures threatened by could easily be withdrawn by the brewer's Archie a year earlier were finally carried family members. As conditions appeared out. Pritchard was told to contact the to become more uncertain almost daily, manager of the Swan, Sloane Street, and Archie Flower wrote to Pritchard in call in a loan of £12,000.98 The desperate London and demanded he make an effort measures employed by the firm's man- to ‘get in a good account' and deliver the agement, however, ensured the firm's 'long promised cash'.94 The firm needed survival, for debts incurred during the to make payments totalling £17,000 at preceding half year had increased, as the end of June, followed by interest on trade in London's West End, where most its 4% debenture stock at the end of July. of Flower & Sons' properties were locat- Unless Flower received his promised ed, collapsed. In discussions with Lloyds' money, some of the firm's best loans Stratford manager at the beginning of would have to be called in, for, as was 1903, Archie Flower stated that the made very clear in a correspondence brewery had adopted ‘vigorous methods' dated 8 May 1901, 'we must have the and pressed for the payment of some money'.95 large outstanding loans, but, given the stagnation of trade in London, the direc- Following a general recovery in provincial tors were finding it difficult to collect sales the next year, and receiving a string amounts sufficient to reduce their debt.99 of timely personal loans deposited by To make matters worse, in the first office staff, the Flower family and friends months of the year it was discovered that and even several local publicans, the the firm's accountants, Messrs Sharp, brewery was able to cover all immediate Parsons & Co., had made a serious error operating costs for the remainder of 1901 in the previous year's bookkeeping. The and again in 1902. In the first week of amount of £7,318.9s.10d., which should
Brewery History Number 140 129 have been charged to the Cheltenham teenth century.102 A prolonged dip in office's expenses, was included in their sales had made it inadvisable to pay a debtor balances, thereby increasing prof- dividend on the company's ordinary its by exactly this sum.100 Not only did shares, which had been regularly paid this raise the concern that dishonest until this date.103 If the brewery were to employees could easily falsify brewery reverse this trend, it needed to avoid ledgers, but the board had to redraft their direct competition with brewers in the financial plan for that particular year, as it nation's capital and sever its ties with had been determined using the old, inac- publicans in London. Consequently, curate figures. these public houses, once regarded as indispensable to future growth, were now The depressed state of affairs continued being abandoned, but still only slowly. throughout 1903, a year of 'record rain- fall',101 and necessitated greater changes Despite a long, hot summer which proved in the brewery's structure. The directors good for provincial sales, depreciations realised they had to reconsider their and further losses in London practically involvement in the nation's capital given absorbed profits in 1904 and 1905 (see the declining values of their London Table 5).104 Moreover, by this late period, properties, many of which had been pur- other breweries that had invested heavily chased at exorbitant prices during the in the London market began to feel the 'boom' years at the close of the nine- affects of decline in this region and, con-
Year Net Profit (£)* Year Net Profit Year Net Profit
1888 22,973 1897 27,133 1906 21,526† 1889 15,535 1898 27,404 1907 20,658† 1890 19,980 1899 30,376 1908 15,065 1891 12,740 1900 24,835 1909 16,575 1892 12,177 1901 20,621 1910 18,723 1893 10,620 1902 17,826 1911 25,430 1894 9,815 1903 10,110 1912 25,479 1895 15,972 1904 6,548 1913 25,871 1896 23,712 1905 20,112† 1914 28,011
*after deducting debenture interest †before providing for London Special Losses
Table 5. Flower & Sons' Profits (annual averages to nearest pound), 1888-1914.
Sources: SBTRO, DR 227/14 and 104.
130 Journal of the Brewery History Society sequently, stocks reduced to their lowest of Evesham Brewery, evidently more vul- ebb since the major share issues of the nerable than Flower & Sons, voluntarily 1880s.105 Unlike their competitors, how- wound up business during this difficult ever, Flower & Sons faced additional financial period.109 losses due to conditions specific to the firm. Apparently having discovered The desperate situation in which the investments which offered more gener- directors found themselves late in the ous returns, in 1904, family members year inspired the board to extricate the surviving Stephen Moore notified the firm from the London market more rapid- board of their intention to withdraw all the ly and accept greater losses. Loans in funds which the past director had excess of £97,000 were written off in deposited with the firm in the coming 1906 alone, and houses which had been year. worked at a loss with the hope of a recov- ery in trade were finally abandoned.110 At this point in the brewery's history, man- Furthermore, a reserve in the firm's agers also began to feel the burden of accounts, amounting to £150,000, was legislation, which, in the more profitable established in order to provide against past, had been regarded as no 'great any further depreciation. Despite a gen- grievance'.106 During the financial crisis, eral increase in trade (first apparent in however, the brewery clearly felt the the north of England)111 after 1906 under strain of additional costs, such as those Campbell-Bannerman's new administra- brought about by political intervention. tion, sales declined by £6,000 the follow- The first such cost was the tax introduced ing year, approximately half of the losses by the government during the Boer War being suffered in the provinces, the other and which brewers continued to pay well in London.112 That profits were higher beyond the cessation of hostilities in was deceptive, for the directors had South Africa.107 Another burden came begun to sell off the firm's most valuable with the introduction of the Compensation London properties, as well as the Aston Tax in 1905, which was to reimburse Villa grounds.113 Vital assets were sur- brewers whose public houses were rendered in order to maintain technical closed as a result of local option, by solvency. which a two-thirds majority vote of the ratepayers would allow them to reduce or By 1908, the sacrifice was complete. even completely abolish licensed premis- Losses amounted to £346,327.5s.5d., es; Flower & Sons' first contribution to the £210,000 of which was to be met by fund amounted to almost £2,000.108 In reducing issued share capital from general, since the 1899-1900 brewing £300,000 to £90,000.114 A special reserve season, trade among the nation's brew- fund covered the remaining losses, ers had declined by approximately 12% except for £8,041.0s.3d. Moreover, £10 and some smaller firms, such as the Vale shares of both classes (ordinary and
Brewery History Number 140 131 preference) were reduced to £3 shares, that was passed there from going unno- and preference shareholders were to ticed. Although promising to affect the give up any claims to arrears of dividends trade less dramatically than the Licensing up to 31 December 1908. The dramatic Bill two years earlier, the Finance Act of restructuring of the firm seemed to over- 1910 threatened firms that, like Flowers, shadow one of the biggest political were struggling economically in these events of these years. While Flowers years by increasing the duties on breweries were struggling to remain solvent, the and public houses and, consequently, industry had been shocked by the intro- making them more expensive to run.118 duction of the Licensing Bill (1907). Its passage, along with a sudden growth Brewers, however, were spared the in working men's clubs, which competed immediate effects of this legislation with brewers' licensed houses, reminded when it was rejected by the House of such brewers of their vulnerable state.119 Lords, but only after members of the In consequence, Flowers sold its scattered trade organised dozens of mass meet- properties in Stratford; its old brewing ings throughout the country and a 'mon- plant in the town centre was sold to ster demonstration' at Hyde Park to Kendall's, the brewers' chemists, in order which Flowers, with every other brewer in to pay increased licensing duties and the country, sent many of their employ- concentrate production at the site con- ees.115 Together, the two episodes would structed by the firm in 1870.120 Together raise fears among the investing public. with this legislation and that passed and The confidence of investors, which had threatened between 1905 and 1908, been so high in the late 1880s and early these three episodes made the first 1890s, had been seriously shaken. The decade of the twentieth century more dif- directors expected the question of ficult for the brewery. The fact that the finance in the future would be one of events generated a considerable amount increasing difficulty.116 of correspondence, unseen in previous years, suggests it was only when faced By this date the worst was over. A year with dire circumstances that Flowers took later and the crisis appeared to be behind any real interest in politics. Although left the brewery. Despite the board's decision with few interests in London, the firm's not to pay a dividend on ordinary shares, owners and management would continue a full-year's dividend of 7% was paid out to follow events in the capital with some on preference shares in 1909, and a bal- interest. ance of £5,567.10s.9d. could be carried forward in the board's report.117 While the Meanwhile, home sales remained stable, trade in London would not fully recover and even increased after the firm for another two years, Flowers had few obtained a licence to sell beer from the remaining interests in the capital. This, brewery premises in quantities compris- however, did not prevent the legislation ing at least one dozen pints to those
132 Journal of the Brewery History Society customers not wishing to frequent public hand, fundamentally changed the way houses in order to purchase alcoholic in which Flower & Sons was managed. beverages.121 Residents regularly came One of the more obvious changes to the brewery to purchase Flower & caused by the decline in Flowers' trade at Sons India Pale Ale, Light Bitter Beer, the beginning of the century was the way Family Ale and Extra Stout. As in the in which power at the brewery became past, Stratford remained the brewery's concentrated. In an environment almost strongest and most reliable market. certainly characterised by panic at times, Moreover, in many ways, this regional and uncertainty otherwise, duties former- dominance ensured the brewery's exis- ly carried out by junior managers and the tence during these years.122 company secretary were rapidly monopo- lised by the firm's chairman, Archie Conditions at the brewery and its admin- Flower. The delegation of responsibilities istrative structure appeared less stable. to long-serving managers, a process initi- Having lasted longer than anyone could ated by Charles and Edgar Flower have imagined, the crisis which had dec- decades earlier, appeared to cease in the imated the firm's trade in London was first years of the twentieth century. After managed from beginning to end by several years of financial difficulties even Archibald Flower. As a result, these years some of the most basic items of corre- would change the brewery's manage- spondence, such as replies to appren- ment indelibly. Should one wish to divide ticeship enquiries, once again became the firm's history between 1870 and 1914 the work of the firm's most senior mem- in two, 1888 would appear the logical ber. dividing line, for to many it signified a revolutionary change in the way business After 1908, Archie Flower continued to was conducted in Stratford. Administratively, run the brewery autocratically. Just as a things appeared to have been changed war-time government often extends the radically by incorporation, but in practice, use of dictatorial powers into peace-time, as was demonstrated earlier, much con- Archie Flower refused to relax the condi- tinued as it had in the past. The firm's first tions inspired by an economic emergency. board of directors comprised primarily Of course one could justify his measures, members of the Flower family and, for it was his prudent policies which had despite his retirement, Archie's uncle still brought about an end to the troubled played an active part in the management times the brewery faced in the first years of the brewery. Like his father, Charles of this century. Extreme financial difficul- continued to influence affairs at the brew- ties encountered early in his career ery until his death in 1892. seemed to call forth Archie's equally extreme leadership methods. Almost as The trade crisis which devastated the firm soon as these difficulties had been over- at the turn of the century, on the other come, however, another crisis, this time in
Brewery History Number 140 133 the form of the First World War, seemed Apparently, during his final years, to necessitate a continuation of this auto- Flower's grip on the firm never weak- cratic managerial style. By the time peace ened. According to the firm's last chair- came, the brewery would have endured man, even decades after having been almost two decades of unnatural econom- faced with bankruptcy, Archie individually ic conditions. Consequently, more than controlled the brewery's finances. Not any other episode in the brewery's histo- a penny could be spent without his ry, these troubled times and their effect on authorisation. He is remembered for one man's leadership style essentially having joked that his favourite form of determined the firm's dominant organisa- management was by a committee of two tional culture. Over a career lasting forty with one away, he being the member years, Archie Flower stamped his identity remaining.124 Few members of his board, on that of the firm.123 however, would have appreciated this
Figure 5. Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, Stratford, c.1880.
134 Journal of the Brewery History Society sort of humour, neither did members of In his defence, Archie Flower claimed his his family, for his control over their approach to Chamberlain was not as dis- actions was also almost complete. Not honourable as was made out to be.127 As only was his daughter, Evadne Lloyd, evidence concerning the incident placed on the brewery board in 'a rather became public, many observers, like the autocratic way', but she was later given a brewery's director, realised that the city's seat on the council of the Shakespeare justices intended to 'put the screw on' Memorial Theatre, founded and funded Flower to participate in a compensation by her great uncle, Charles, in a similar scheme organised by Birmingham's manner.125 Archie's reluctance to work as brewers.128 This involved the firm sub- part of a team and his improvised ways of scribing to a company that bought up doing business, however, did not materi- houses which were suitable for surren- alise in the first decade of this century; der, as no new licences had been issued this aspect of his character was apparent in Birmingham since 1892 without the prior to 1900. An incident recorded in the immediate surrender of another.129 firm's correspondence books, as well as Yearly the group of brewers relinquished various local newspapers, concerning licences of houses unlikely to be one of Flower & Sons' pubs in renewed in hearings before the city's Birmingham, the Royal George, is reveal- licensing committee. By doing so, its ing, for it highlights these traits in a members would receive preferential young Archie Flower. treatment before the bench when required to appear before them for any Altered beyond recognition, and nearly given purpose. Despite the benefits of the doubled in size during construction car- scheme, however, the brewers were not ried out in the last years of the nineteenth always prepared to sacrifice a house in a century, the pub's licence required particular vicinity, for the benefits in some renewal before a licensing committee in cases would accrue to a non-member, 1899. The firm's application, however, such as Flower & Sons. Although he was refused before the house's plans had considered cooperating with were even viewed by the city's planning Birmingham's brewers, Archie Flower committee. According to committee claimed threats from the committee's member Arthur Chamberlain, Archie chairman, Arthur Chamberlain, had Flower had visited him prior to a sched- deterred him from joining the scheme. uled hearing in order to gain the support Whether or not this was true, the two of a licensing committee member before argued in the pages of local newspapers the case was presented before the other for several weeks, and the case seemed justices. According to the Birmingham to reach a stalemate. However, as Post, this was the first time a brewer had Archie's opponent adopted a more visited privately with a member in order to aggressive manner, the tone of the discuss trade interests.126 reporting became distinctly anti-
Brewery History Number 140 135 Chamberlain, and attention was drawn period of apprenticeship to a clearly- away from Flower's indiscretions.130 demarcated end. The death of his broth- Instead, the public demanded the licens- er, Richard Fordham, on the other hand, ing committee be reformed.131 ensured Archie alone would inherit con- trol of the family's investment. Stephen Despite the fact that Flower's public rep- Moore's death, as well as increasing the utation survived this incident seemingly brewery's financial burden in the early untarnished, another correspondence 1900s, represented another important contained in the brewery's letter books leadership loss. As only Edgar, Archie demonstrates Archie regularly cut his and Stephen Moore had regularly own path in company negotiations and attended directors' meetings each Friday frequently discussed crucial business morning, he became the sole survivor of items behind the backs of the firm's other the board's key members. By the time the managers. For example, although some brewery's finances improved, of the sen- of the directors were against selling all of ior managers who had been with the firm the Aston grounds at the first sign of in the nineteenth century, only Archibald unfavourable trade conditions in 1899, Park remained, and his duties had been Archie offered the entire property to significantly reduced as he approached Ansells due to his desire to develop the retirement age. Others, though much brewery's local and London trade further. younger, were also becoming less active Should the Birmingham brewery have in brewing affairs. Gilbert Thwaites had decided against the purchase of the wanted to reduce his active duties at the property, as they were to do until 1907, brewery from the moment he became a Archie requested the firm 'please say director. By the end of the first decade of nothing', for the news of their negotia- the twentieth century, he managed to tions would upset the other managers 'a relinquish a number of his responsibilities good deal'.132 until, like TH Lloyd, he was remembered only as an important shareholder and Such dealings, however, were no longer rarely seen at the brewery. John necessary after the first years of the Pritchard, on the other hand, could hard- twentieth century. To be fair, the new dis- ly have expected greater control at the tribution of power at the brewery was not brewery after his London office failed to entirely engineered by Archie Flower. To prosper for approximately a decade. some extent it was the result of natural Moreover, by 1910, the future of the firm circumstances, namely the deaths of the no longer relied to the extent it had on firm's most senior managers. Although events in the capital. This left only rarely having taken a leading role at the Francis Lawrence Talbot, who, although brewery, Edgar Flower represented the well-instructed in brewing, knew far less last of the Flowers' second generation of about business. Talbot therefore pre- brewers. His death brought Archie's ferred to be left to run the brewery, while
136 Journal of the Brewery History Society Archie managed the firm's offices, agen- be avoided under the brewery's new cies and determined company policy. leadership.
Not surprisingly, despite Archie's auto- In this sense, it appears that the brewery cratic style, after surviving the crisis years in the second decade of the twentieth of the early twentieth century, the firm's century witnessed a return of the policies management became far more conserva- espoused by the firm's founders. tive than it had been previously. Although Although it is clear that Archie modelled the brewery's operations in London had himself on his uncle, Charles, and was been virtually shut down, other chal- even compared to his forerunner at the lenges would present themselves. In brewery by the local press in his early general, trade conditions remained years, the two men were actually very unfavourable due to the high cost of different. Given that their experiences as brewing materials and a string of 'damp managers at the brewery contrasted sunless summers' in the early years of entirely, this would only appear natural. this century.133 Moreover, the hand of Increasingly cautious of debt as a result government, seemingly invisible in the of the firm's near collapse, Archie cen- two last decades of the nineteenth centu- tralised control at the brewery, a process ry, certainly left its mark on the trade in reversed by Charles Flower during the first years of the new century and Flower & Sons' expansion in the 1860s tightened its grip on the industry there- and 70s. By implementing such reactionary after. When sales and profits eventually measures, Archie began to distance him- increased despite higher prices, the firm self from Charles's managerial style, and, was faced with the prospect of war in unknowingly, ensured the ideals of his Europe. 8% of brewery workers immedi- frugal grandmother, Selina, outlived ately volunteered for military service, and those of his mentor and uncle, Charles many firms would face greater labour Flower. More importantly, the brewery shortages.134 Naturally, trade also suf- began to resemble the type of conser- fered, as beer usually rapidly attains lux- vative, backward family firm so often ury status in wartime. Output in 1914 criticised by business and economic alone dropped 40%, although certain historians.135 breweries experienced a brief period of increased consumption as men moved Although Flower & Sons was still a noted into provincial military camps. Before the provincial brewery in 1914, in an attempt brewery's balance could even feel the to seize a national reputation and grasp affects of another prolonged battle, how- a greater share of the London market, ever, prudent measures in the form of the company's board at the turn of the reduced dividends had already been century lost the momentum achieved by implemented. Given the existing busi- managers in the firm's first 50 years. A ness climate, risks of any kind were to reversal of trade conditions in the capital
Brewery History Number 140 137 brought a period of rapid growth to a dra- Trade during the Industrial Revolution: The matic end. Only those individuals inti- case of Yorkshire. York: St Anthony's Press, mately familiar with the brewery's admin- p.3. istration realised how lucky the firm was 3.Eley, P. (1994) Portsmouth Breweries to have even survived the first decade of since 1847. Portsmouth: Portsmouth City the twentieth century. While the brewery Council; Shinner, P. (1996) ‘The Brewing had commenced the century as a pros- Industry in Nineteenth Century Grimsby,' in pering provincial firm with national aspira- Journal of Local and Regional Studies; and tions, its future no longer looked grand. Wilson, R.G. (1983) Greene King: A Business Within a decade the brewery's prospects and Family History. London: Jonathan Cape. changed in ways its managers, especial- 4. Mathias, P. (1990) ‘Brewing archives: ly those able to recollect the firm's expan- their nature and use,' in Richmond, L. and sion and subsequent celebrations in the Turton, A. (eds), The Brewing Industry: A 1870s, could not have imagined. Despite Guide to Historical Records . Manchester: remaining one of Stratford's largest Manchester University Press. employers for another fifty years, hence- 5. This was one of many criticisms made by forward, Flower & Sons' strength would B.W.E. Alford of A.D. Chandler's work, (1990) be restricted to and noticeable only in the Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Midlands. Capitalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, which has been very influential in shaping the field of References business history in America and Britain; see Alford, B.W.E. (1994) ‘Chandlerism, the New Introduction Orthodoxy of US and European Corporate 1. A recent publication which places these Development,' in Journal of European debates into an international context is Economic History. XXIII, 3, p.640. Numerous Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (eds) (1998) historians, however, have attempted to The Dynamics of the International Brewing address this weakness. For example, see Industry Since 1800. London: Routledge. Fitzgerald, R. (1988) British Labour 2. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) The Management & Industrial Welfare, 1846- British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980. 1939. London: Croom Helm; Gospel, H.F. Cambridge: CUP, p.382. The authors also cri- (1992) Markets, firms, and the management tique J. Vaisey's work, (1963) The Brewing of labour in modern Britain. Cambridge: CUP; Industry, 1886-1951. London: Sir Isaac and his article (1988) ‘The Management of Pitman & Sons, which incorporates a similar Labour: Great Britain, The US and Japan,' in bias, see p.384. P. Mathias's study, (1959) Business History Review. XXX, 1, p.107. The Brewing Industry in England, 1700-1830. Since then, one of Chandler's more recent Cambridge: CUP, on the other hand, concen- works addresses the question of labour in trates on the London trade, a point empha- relation to the history of the firm, see sised by E.M. Sigsworth, (1967) The Brewing Chandler, A.D., McCraw, T.K. and Tedlow,
138 Journal of the Brewery History Society R.S. (1996) Management: Past and Present; and present,' in Business History Review. A Casebook on the History of American LXIII, 1, p.5; and Gourvish, T.R. (1995) op. Business. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western cit. p.10. College Publishing. Seven of the seventeen 11. Donnachie, I. (1979) A History of the cases which comprise the volume address Brewing Industry in Scotland. Edinburgh: the subject of labour. John Donald, p.20. A lack of primary 6. Lewis, G. (1995) ‘Whatever happened to evidence also led Donnachie to conclude that Social History?' Centre for Social History ‘no business archives can convey much Seminar, University of Warwick, October; and about the day-to-day mechanics of brewing or interview with Gwynne Lewis, July 1996. the working conditions of the ordinary Wilson, R.G. (1983) op. cit. is an example of labourer', see ibid., p.94. A less cited source a business history in which this particular of information relating to brewery workers is approach is somewhat justified simply due to Knox, D. (1956) The Development of the its subtitle. London Brewing Industry, 1830-1914 with 7. See, for example, Drucker, P. (1968) The special reference to Whitbread and Company. Practice of Management. London: B. Litt, University of Oxford, especially Heinemann. In the final paragraph of the pp.146-62. Work on the development of the introduction to Scale and Scope (p.13), brewing industry in other countries does not Chandler acknowledges that the task of necessarily address the issue of labour more writing the history of the relationship between regularly. In Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. managers and their workforces has been left (eds) (1998) op. cit. collection of essays only to others. K. Austin Kerr's article, 'The American 8. Zarach, S. (1997) ‘Multi-sided Biography: Brewing Industry, 1865-1920,' touches the writing business histories,' in The Author. subject, though only briefly. (Journal of the Society of Authors), CVIII, 4, 12 Turner, J. (1989) ‘Labour and Business p.169. in Modern Britain,' in Business History. XXXI, 9. Over the years, the field of business 2, p.2; see Zeitlin, J. (1987) ‘From Labour history has been a very easy target for History to the History of Industrial Relations,' criticism by scholars. For a good discussion in Economic History Review (EHR). XL, 2, for of past critiques see Gourvish, T.R. (1995) a defence of this approach. ‘Business history: in defence of the empirical 13. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) op. approach?,' in Accounting, Business and cit. p.198. Financial History. V, 1, especially p.9; 14. Fitzgerald, R. (1988) op. cit. pp.138-9. Coleman, D.C. (1987) ‘The uses and abuses 15. Vaisey, J. (1963) op. cit. p.88. of business history,' in Business History. 16. Donnachie, I. (1979) op. cit. p.34; and XXIX, 2; and Harvey, C. and Jones, G. (1990) Mathias, P. (1959) op. cit. p.37. Donnachie ‘Business History in Britain into the 1990s,' in also interprets the poor survival rate of wage Business History. XXXII, 1. ledgers as another indication of the 10. Livesay, H. (1989) ‘Entrepreneurial dom- insignificance of labour costs to brewers, see inance in businesses large and small, past ibid., p.94. This, however, rarely stopped
Brewery History Number 140 139 brewers from designing their plants in ways 1700: Volume Two, 1860-1914. Cambridge: which reduced labour requirements. CUP, pp.63-4. See also Schumpeter, J.A. 17. Hartley, A. (1895) ‘Practical Notes on (1947) ‘The Creative Response in Economic Brewery Management,' in Journal of the History,' Journal of Economic History. Federated Institutes of Brewing (JFIB). 1, 27. Freeman, C. (1994) ‘The economics of p.368. technical change,' in Cambridge Journal of 18. According to the Brewers' Journal, 20 Economics. XVIII, 5, p.469; and Tolliday, S. October 1866, the trade employed 86,000 (1994) ‘Business History and the History of workmen. Technology', Business History Unit, London 19. Fitzgerald, R. (1988) op. cit. pp.139-40. School of Economics, June. 20. Barnard, A. (1889-91) The Noted 28. Edgerton, D.E.H. (1987) ‘Science and Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, Technology in British Business History,' Volume One. London: Sir Joseph Canston & Business History. XXIX, 4, p.91. Sons, pp.11 & 527. 29. Developments in science and 21. As early as 1890 in his Stratford-on- technology are discussed thoroughly by Avon: From the Earliest Times to the Death Gourvish and Wilson. Other important works of Shakespeare (1890), the DNB's second on the effects of science on brewing include: editor, Sidney Lee, warned against making Teich, M. (1983) ‘Fermentation Theory and Shakespeare's name the central feature of all Practice,' History of Technology. 8; Anderson, Stratford history and topography. Instead, Lee R.G. (1989) ‘Yeast and the Victorian Brewers: suggested the town should be treated as a incidents and personalities in the search for municipality not unworthy of study for its own the true ferment,' Journal of the Institute of sake, see Lee, S. (1890) Stratford-on-Avon. Brewing (JIB). 95; Bud, R. (1992) ‘The London: Seeley & Co., Ltd, pp.5-6. zymotechnic roots of biochemistry,' British 22. Luckett, F. Flint, K. and Lee, P. (1982) A Journal for the History of Science. XXV, 84; History of Brewing in Warwickshire. Warwick: Redman, N.B. (1995) Louis Pasteur and the CAMRA, p.42. Brewing Industry. London: Whitbread & Co.; 23. Hadfield, C. (1966) The Canals of the and E.M. Sigsworth's (1965) seminal article, East Midlands. Newton Abbot, Devon: David ‘Science and the Brewing Industry,' EHR. & Charles Ltd., p.180; Shakespeare XVII, 3. Birthplace Trust Records Office (SBTRO), ER 30. This point is also made in Teich, M. 7/1/14; and BRU 15/18. (1983) op. cit. p.131. One of the few works to 24. SBTRO, DR 227/106. comment on the demand for artificial 25. Sigsworth argues this form of refrigeration in England during this period is production, for example, was introduced to Thévenot, R. (1979) A History of Refrigeration Yorkshire in the 1860s and 70s, see throughout the World. Paris: International Sigsworth, E.M. (1967) op. cit. p.16. Institute of Refrigeration. Some of the best- 26. Pollard, S. (1994) ‘Entrepreneurship, known histories of the steam engine include: 1870-1914,' in Floud, R. & McCloskey, D. Musson, A.E. & Robinson, E. (1959) 'The (eds), The Economic History of Britain Since Early Growth of Steam Power,' EHR. XI, 3;
140 Journal of the Brewery History Society Dickenson, H.W. (1963) A Short History of Chapter 1 the Steam Engine. London: Frank Cass & Co. 1. Flower's entry in DNB presents a very Ltd; Rolt, L.T.C. (1963) Thomas Newcomen: optimistic account of the brewery's first 30 The Prehistory of the Steam Engine. London: years. David & Charles; Cardwell, D.S.L. (1971) 2. E.K. & H. Fordham Ltd was originally From Watt to Clausius. London: Heinemann founded in Ashwell, Hertfordshire by Elias Educational; Buchanan, R.A. & Watkins, G. Pym Fordham in the late eighteenth century. (1976) The Industrial Archaeology of the Elias Fordham eventually sold his share of Stationary Steam Engine. London: Penguin the brewery to his son, Oswald, who, togeth- Books; von Tunzelmann, G.N. (1978) Steam er with his brother, Edward King Fordham, Power and British Industrialisation to 1860. ran the family business. After Oswald's death Oxford: Clarendon Press; Hills, R. (1989) in 1862, Edward King was joined in business Power from Steam. Cambridge: CUP; Tann, by his cousin, Herbert Fordham, and, as of J. (1993) ‘The Steam Engine on Tyneside in 1864, the firm traded as E.K. & H. Fordham. the Industrial Revolution,' Transactions of the The brewery was registered as a limited liabil- Newcomen Society. LXIV; and Cardwell, ity company in 1897, see Richmond, L. and D.S.L. (1994) ‘Steam engine theory in the Turton, A. (eds) (1990) op. cit. p.145. 19th century,' Transactions of the Newcomen 3. Talbot, F. (1924) ‘Fifty years' experience Society. LXV. of the quality of beer as it has varied during 31. Vaisey, J. (1963) op. cit. p.86. that period,' JIB. 30. p.398. 32. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) op. 4. Flower, S. (1964) Great Aunt Sarah's cit. p.397. Diary, 1846-1892. Stratford: Privately Printed, 33. An interesting piece of research is p.6. Brown, D. (ed) (1996) 'The Autobiography of 5. SBTRO, DR 227/140. a pedlar: John Lomas of Hollinsclough, 6. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. pp.5-6. Staffordshire (1747-1823),' Midland History. XXI. 7. Foulkes, R. (1982) ‘Edward Flower and 34. Although the issue of women in the the Shakespeare Tercentenary,' Warwickshire trade for an earlier period has been History. p.74. addressed by Bennett, J. (1996) Ale, Beer 8. SBTRO, DR 227/121. By the end of his and Brewsters in England: women's work in a career, Edward reached only Hyde Park, changing world, 1300-1600. Oxford: OUP, where he died in 1883; his wife, Selina, died more work is required, especially as the the following year. participation of women in the trade appears to 9. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.6. have varied depending on region, see, for 10. For a more detailed description of the example, Riley, W.A. (1919) ‘Brewery Labour characteristics commonly associated with the Problems,' JIB. 25, especially pp.160-1. family firm, see Jones, G. & Rose, M.B (1993) 35. Pudney, J. (1971) A Draught of ‘Family Capitalism,' Business History; Church, Contentment. London: New English Library, R. (1993) ‘The Family Firm in Industrial pp.61-5; and Barnard, A. (1889-91) op. cit. Capitalism,' Business History. XXXV, 4; and Volume Three, p.231. Nenadic, S. (1993) ‘The Small Family Firm in
Brewery History Number 140 141 Victorian Britain,' Business History. XXXV, 4. J. (1994) ‘Labour and Management in the 11. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.61. The Midlands Printing Trade, 1890-1914’. MA reliance of brewers on overdrafts during the Dissertation, University of Warwick. nineteenth century is discussed thoroughly in 26. Stratford Herald, 15 May 1874. Watson, K. (1996) ‘Banks and industrial 27. Luckett, F. Flint, K. and Lee, P. (1982) finance,' EHR. XLIX, l. op. cit. p.43; Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. 12. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.47. (1994) op. cit. pp.83-4; and Sigsworth, E.M. 13. Birmingham Post, 12 August 1887. (1965) op. cit. p.545. 14. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.47; and 28. During these years, the brewery was SBTRO, DR 227/140. managed by J. Richardson, the brother of E. 15. SBTRO, DR 227/140 Richardson, Flower & Sons' shipping agent. 16. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.61. 29. Richmond, L. and Turton, A. (eds) 17. ibid. p.48. (1990) p.98. 18. Pollard, S. (1965) AStudy of the 30. SBTRO, DR 227/121. Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. London: 31. ibid., DR 227/6. Edward Arnold, p.12. 32. Thomas, K. (1991) ‘The Adventures of 19. Stratford Herald, 18 March 1870. H. & G. Simonds Limited in Malta and East 20. Despite this unusual arrangement, Africa,' Business Archives: Sources and Flower & Sons was not the only firm with ‘a History. p.41; and Barnard, A. (1889-91) op. double-barrelled brewery and plant'. cit. Volume Four, pp.24 and 27. Production at Greene King was similarly 33. SBTRO, DR 227/6. divided, the brewery having had both forty- 34. SBTRO, DR 227/8. Some of the firm's and twenty-five-quarter plants, as were those export trade was handled by E. Richardson & of Thomas Berry & Company in Sheffield and Co., bottlers and export agents in London. S. A. Brain in Cardiff; see Wilson, R.G. (1983) Beer for export, on the other hand, was op. cit., p.73; and Barnard, A. (1889-91) op. stored at Hoare's Brewery, located at the cit., pp.273 and 471, respectively. Metropolitan Railway at Paddington. 21. SBTRO, DR 227/121. Discounts were 35. ibid., DR 227/121. given to breweries which did their own load- 36. ibid., DR 227/8 and 106. By this time, ing and unloading. According to the Solicitors' the firm's Coventry office had closed; sales in Journal, 10 September 1881, freight charges the town and its district, however, continued were approximately 11/2 d. per ton per mile. and were managed by the brewery's home 22. Stratford Herald, 15 May 1874. office staff. 23. ibid. 37. Morning Advertiser, 8 May 1874. 24. SBTRO, DR 227/203-9. 38. Brewers' Journal, 15 May 1901. 25. ibid., DR 227/121. For a discussion of 39. SBTRO, DR 227/9. Initially, the firm con- the development of estimating practices in verted only one of its malt houses to the new the printing trade see Howe, E. (1950) The system because of the cost of royalties and British Federation of Master Printers, 1900- expenses, which exceeded £1,000 a year 1950. London: 11 Bedford Row ;and Reinarz, while the patent on the Galland process last-
142 Journal of the Brewery History Society ed; see correspondence dated 19 July 1878, duplicates of all invoices to Flowers and DR 227/106. promote the brewery's ale to their own 40. ibid. Electric lighting was first introduced customers. to the brewery yard, offices and sawmill. 51. Vaisey, J. (1963) op. cit. p.139. 41. ibid., DR 227/121. The brewers resumed 52. Mathias, P. (1990) op. cit. pp.25-6. their wine and spirit trade in the twentieth 53. This strategy also proved advantageous century. for several British multiple-retailing firms a 42. SBTRO, DR 227/109. generation later. For example, see Scott, P. 43. Barnard, A. (1889-91) op. cit. p.321. See (1994) ‘Learning to Multiply: The Property also Chapter Two. Market and the Growth of Multiple, Retailing 44. SBTRO, DR 227/109. in Britain, 1919-39,' Business History. XXXVI, 45. SBTRO, DR 227/109. 3, p.24. 46. Brewers' Journal, 15 August 1899; and 54. SBTRO, DR 227/121; Stratford Herald, 9 15 September 1899. For a thorough survey of March 1888; Brewers' Journal, 15 March rural and country-house brewing, which refers 1888; and Financial News, 2 March 1888. to the practice in Warwickshire, see 55. SBTRO, DR 227/110 and 170. Besides Sambrook, P. (1996) Country House Brewing the Aston Villa football grounds, the real in England, 1500-1900. London: Hambledon estate comprised the Holte Hotel and Press. gardens, which adjoined the property, and a 47. Stratford Herald, 21 November 1890. Of hall, used for many years as a mineral water the firm's directors, Archie Flower regularly plant. attended and participated in the Church of 56. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) op. England Temperance Society's meetings. cit. p.267. 48. The Windmill Inn in Church Street, 57. Stratford Herald, 3 July 1896; and Stratford continued to brew and sell its own Brewers' Journal, 15 June 1896. ales into the twentieth century when it was 58. SBTRO, DR 227/121. purchased by Flowers. The Stratford Herald, 59. See Chapter Four, pp. 172-3. 11 September 1903, carried an advertisement 60. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. p.103. for its home-brewed ales, available in firkins, 61. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1887; and kilderkins and barrels. SBTRO, DR 227/18. 49. SBTRO, DR 227/121. 62. SBTRO, DR 227/57. Although brewing 50. ibid., DR 227/110. In Stratford, the materials were available at moderate rates, brewery's wine and spirit trade was the Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1893, guaranteed to R.M. Bird & Company. In describes the year to have been exchange, Flowers received 5% of cash characterised by a decline in trade, as well as collected and an additional 5% of any orders the value of ordinary shares. obtained by their own travellers. Bird & 63. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (eds) Company, on the other hand, were (1994) op. cit. p.25. responsible for all breakages, loss of casks, 64. SBTRO, DR 227/44. After 1892, Flower or bad debts. In addition, they were to send & Sons had only a single export customer in
Brewery History Number 140 143 Freemantle, near Perth, Australia; by 1896, October 1896. the brewers had shipped their last ale to 78. SBTRO, DR 227/110. Australia. 79. ibid. 65. ibid., DR 227/18 and 57. 80. ibid.; and DR 227/104. 66. Flower, S. (1964) op. cit. pp.103-4. 81. Brewers' Journal, 15 July 1909. Despite these difficulties, Charles Flower still 82. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) op. found time to pursue his literary interests. His cit. p.601; and Webb, A.D. (1913) ‘The modest contribution to the burgeoning field of Consumption of Alcoholic Liquors in the nineteenth-century Shakespearean studies United Kingdom,' Journal of the Royal includes Shakespeare on Horseback (1887) Statistical Society. LXXVI, 2, p.209. and Shakespeare No Dog Fancier (1890). 83. SBTRO, DR 227/110. A growth in beer 67. Sportsman, 24 May 1897. sales in London, however, can not be 68. SBTRO, DR 227/110. attributed entirely to Flower & Sons' particular 69. Brewers' Journal, 15 May 1895; and 15 business strategy. Interestingly, according to December 1895. the Brewers' Journal, 15 June 1899, certain 70. Licensing World and Licensed Trade houses in the capital during this period Review, 13 March 1897; Brewers' Journal, 15 boycotted Burton beers. These factors January 1897; and 15 March 1897; and permitted a number of firms, such as Flowers, Wainwright, P. (1989) The Windows of Holy to gain access to what was ordinarily a very Trinity Church. Stratford-upon-Avon: privately competitive market. printed, p.8. The window, with its overt 84. SBTRO, DR 227/121. medical imagery, can still be viewed in Holy 85. ibid., DR 227/110. Trinity, Stratford. 86. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) op. 71. Licensing World, 11 March 1894. cit. p.135. 72. SBTRO, DR 227/110. 87. SBTRO, DR 227/110. 73. ibid.; DR 227/104; and Brewers' Journal, 88. SBTRO, DR 227/110. 15 August 1891. 89. ibid. 74. Stratford Herald, 11 June 1897; and 90. ibid. This was conveyed to the bank's Brewers' Journal, 15 August 1891. Birmingham office by Archie Flower in a letter 75. SBTRO, DR 227/110. The request was dated 3 November 1899. made in a letter written by company secretary 91. SBTRO, DR 227/110. The details of the Charles Lowndes and is dated 19 November damage and claim are recorded on several 1897. pages in the firm's letter books. The Brewers' 76. ibid. This is the limit stated in a letter Journal, 15 December 1899, on the other written by Archibald Flower to John Pritchard hand, claimed the fire caused £20,000 worth dated 13 May 1899. of damages. 77. Hawkins, K.H. & Pass, C.L. (1979) The 92. ibid. Brewing Industry: AStudy in Industrial 93. SBTRO, DR 227/104. Directors of the Organisation and Public Policy. London: Holt Brewery, Birmingham, for example, Heinemann, p.41; and Brewers' Journal, 15 believed the arsenic scare had led many
144 Journal of the Brewery History Society workers to give up beer consumption. Peace of Paris in 1815 to the Declaration of According to the firm's chairman, the War in 1914, based on Parliamentary increased consumption of spirits was Debates. New York: Augustus Kelley, p.401. ‘extraordinary', see Brewers' Journal, 15 113. Inglis, S. (1997) Aston Park 100 Years. March 1902. Smethwick, West Midlands: Sports Projects 94. ibid., DR 227/110. Limited, p.89. 95. ibid. The emphasis is Archie's. 114. SBTRO, DR 227/104; and Brewers' 96. SBTRO, DR 227/110. Journal, 15 July 1909. According to the latter 97. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1903. source, Flower & Sons' capital was reduced 98. SBTRO, DR 227/110. from £350,000 to £105,000 due to their 99. ibid. London losses. 100. SBTRO, DR 227/110. 115. Brewers' Journal, 15 August 1907; and 101. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1904. Stratford Herald, 2 October 1908. The poor weather affected not only Approximately 250 Stratford residents consumption, but influenced the quality of attended the rally in Hyde Park on 27 brewers' materials. September 1908. Most were employed at the 102. Knox, D. (1956) op. cit. p.90. brewery and travelled to the event on one of 103. SBTRO, DR 227/104. the 170 special trains organised to bring 104. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1905. demonstrators to London. According to the 105. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) Brewers' Journal, approximately 125,000 op. cit. p.295; Hawkins, K.H. & Pass, C.L. people attended the demonstration. (1979) p.37; Wilson, R. (1994) op. cit. 116. SBTRO, DR 227/104. pp.133-4; and Brewers' Journal, 15 August 117. ibid. 1904. 118. Gourvish, T.R. and Wilson, R. (1994) 106. SBTRO, DR 227/121. op. cit. p.293; and Knox, D. (1956) op. cit. 107. Brewers' Journal, 15 March 1905; and pp.27-8. 15 November 1905. Birmingham brewers 119. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1911. eventually met in November 1905 in order to 120. Brewers' Journal, 15 May 1909. At a oppose the war tax and demand the meeting held at Stratford's Corn Exchange, government for its immediate abolition. Archie Flower claimed that, as a result of the Despite their protests, brewers faced the tax chancellor's decision to raise licensing duties, until the outbreak of another war in 1914. Flower & Sons' directors had `decided to 108. SBTRO, DR 227/10 and 104 close one of [their] two breweries in Stratford'. 109. Brewers' Journal, 15 January 1906; 121. Stratford Herald, 3 April 1908. and 15 March 1906. 122. Strong local sales had permitted other 110. SBTRO, DR 227/104. provincial breweries to survive these 111. Brewers' Journal, 15 December 1906. especially difficult years of trade; see, for 112. Page, W. (ed.) (1968) Commerce and example, Gourvish, T.R. (1987) Norfolk Beers Industry: A Historical Review of the Economic from English Barley: A History of Steward & Conditions of the British Empire from the Patteson, 1793-I963. Norwich: Centre of East
Brewery History Number 140 145 Anglian Studies, p.82. See SBTRO, DR 227/110 for Flower's 123. This, to a great extent, supports the interpretation of the incident. idea that, above all, 'brewing management is 129. Brewers' Journal, 15 September 1892. about personalities', as is argued by 130. In particular, see Birmingham Daily Gourvish, T.R. (1987) op. cit. p.166. For an Gazette, 14 November 1899. interesting account of the way in which a 131. Birmingham Mail, 22 November 1899. managerial culture was generated at another 132. SBTRO, DR 227/110. The letter is firm see Church, R. (1996) ‘Deconstructing dated 7 July 1899. Nuffield: the evolution of managerial culture in 133. Brewers' Journal, 15 July 1911. the British motor industry,' EHR. XLIX. 134. ibid., 15 August 1914. 124. SBTRO, DR 730/11. 135. Chandler, A.D. (1990) op. cit. pp.291-4; 125. SBTRO, DR 730/19. and Rose, M.B. (1994) ‘The family firm in 126. Birmingham Post, 9 November 1899. British business,' in Kirby, M. & Rose, M. 127. Birmingham Daily Gazette, 13 (eds.) Business enterprise in modern Britain: November 1899; and Daily Argus, 11 From the eighteenth to the twentieth century. November 1899. London: Routledge, pp.61-2. 128. Birmingham Post, 10 November 1899.
146 Journal of the Brewery History Society