Brewers' Tales: making, retailing and regulating beer in , 1550-1700 James R. Brown

Introduction sive studies of beer-making in specific locales do exist, they have so far focused For some years now early modernists on the metropolis, on regional cultures have been in their cups. With a wave of outside of Britain, or on the pre-1500 or recent studies about public drinking post-1700 period.5 spaces and cultures, we now have a fuller sense of the very large extent to This article seeks to repair this surprising which alcohol was embedded within oversight by offering a case study of communities in both town and countryside beer-brewing, retailing and regulation throughout sixteenth- and seventeenth- within a single provincial community: century Europe.1 Brewers themselves, Southampton, a port town and incorpo- however, have not benefited from these rated borough on the English south developments as fully as might be coast. Home to 4,200 souls in 1596,6 expected. Reflecting the priorities of a Southampton's economy revolved 'consumption turn',2 most work on prein- around textiles and the maritime sector, dustrial intoxicants has yielded accounts while it was governed by an oligarchic of retail venues, drinking behaviours and common council of around twelve who sociability in which issues of production exerted their will via four judicial venues and supply are marginal or absent. A (the court leet, quarter sessions, the town separate literature has developed around court and the admiralty court) and meet- renaissance beer and its manufacture, ings held on a weekly basis within the but these studies either use brewhouses Audit House, known as the Assembly.7 as 'laboratories' for specific questions Beer flourished within this dynamic port within the sub-fields of gender, immigra- setting, and its manufacture and circula- tion, local government and the history of tion has left traces in a wide range of technology,3 or offer surveys of beer- sources including the administrative and brewing that range widely over space judicial records of the Assembly and local and time but permit little sustained tribunals;8 civic accounts and tax data; engagement with particular terrains.4 property terriers and leases; and twenty- Where detailed, thematically comprehen- two extant wills and inventories prepared

110 Journal of the Brewery History Society for Southampton beer-makers between since the twelfth century,10 while bibulous 1550 and 1700 (supplemented in the fol- horizons were further broadened by the lowing analysis by over seventy located introduction at some point in the early fif- for publicans). The article combines this teenth century of beer. Originally brewed evidence to offer a fully contextualized in Germany and the Low Countries, beer account of practices of beer-brewing of had a lighter colour, cleaner taste and the kind that is still lacking for early mod- higher alcohol content than its unhopped ern Britain. The discussion unfolds in four predecessor ale and, because of the parts. Section one sketches the linea- preserving properties of the resin found ments of Southampton's early and in hops, could be transported more confi- entrenched beer culture, while section dently and stored for up to a year.11 two introduces the products, settings and Although London is still regarded as protagonists of beer-brewing in the bor- the national trendsetter for beer drinking, ough. A third section outlines the relation- like other southern and eastern ports ship between the preparation and the Southampton took readily and independ- consumption of beer as institutionally ently to the new, exotic cordial via expressed in Southampton's extensive processes ill-served by 'emulation' para- interdependence between brewers and digms.12 Both a retail 'berehouse' and a publicans, while a final section recon- resident producer referred to as 'Adrian structs the unique regulatory frameworks the Beerbrewer' were encompassed by that resulted. the property terrier of 1454 (the use of an occupational surname intimates that he was probably Dutch),13 while by 1531 Beer culture in Southampton other 'certain brewers of both ale and beer' were active in the town.14 Casting Southampton's residents experienced doubt on Lien Luu's recent claim that what anthropologists would term an beyond the metropolis 'it was not until 'alcohol culture' in which intoxicating Elizabeth's reign that Englishmen began beverages were a core constituent of to drink beer in large quantities', by 1543 daily diets, an alternative to urban water the latter already outnumbered the for- supplies which were unreliable or pollut- mer by eight to five.15 Ten years later, in ed and, not least, a ubiquitous social a manoeuvre even more suggestive of lubricant.9 Its continental trading connec- transformed consumer preferences, one tions made for an eclectic market in of the five ale-brewers, Henry Russell, alcoholic drinks that had always paid 40s for permission to retool and endowed its inhabitants with a greater relaunch 'as a common brewer of beer'.16 range of inebriating consumption options than their peers in inland boroughs or the Several related attributes arising from its countryside. Wines from France and the port status stimulated the formation of an Iberian Peninsula had been imported indigenous beer culture in Southampton,

Brewery History Number 135 11 a culture that had all but displaced ale by ers could anticipate markets beyond the middle decades of the sixteenth cen- internal networks of exchange. From tury. As a southern entrepôt it occupied a 1553 select Southampton brewers key position on the trade routes along exported beer to the Channel Islands which beer had originally flowed as an while,22 as in New England, Minehead import commodity, while when residents and Southwark, they exploited con- themselves turned to production they nections with the maritime sector by enjoyed ready access to hops imported brokering lucrative contracts for kegged from the Low Countries, a main trading 'ship beer' with the captains of merchant partner.18 Markets were guaranteed. and naval vessels.23 Southampton had long been enmeshed in global networks of commodities and agents (it hosted a colony of Venetian Products, settings and makers merchants and their African servants, sailors and troops of various nationalities, These factors coalesced to establish and, from 1567, a Huguenot stranger early modern Southampton as a major community) that would have eroded any beer-brewing centre in which production local resistance to 'alien' goods that is was controlled by a coterie of commercial believed to have impeded the accept- (or common) brewers with the expertise ance of beer in northern and rural con- and resources to manufacture on a large texts.19 Unusually high concentrations of scale. Unlike in London, where aliens mariners and soldiers augmented local dominated the trade until the seventeenth demand; its value and superior transport century, by the sixteenth century the skills potential established beer as the primary of a first generation of Dutch producers drink of sailors and troops who, accus- seem already to have been transferred to tomed to its flavour and strength, sought the natives who now dominated the trade it out when harboured in Southampton or (as early as 1543 immigrants were billeted upon its citizens.20 Most was banned from participation).24 The com- acquired from an extensive infrastructure parative expense and technological of official retail outlets in the form of inns, complexity of beer-making is well- taverns and alehouses which developed known and does not require extensive around this nomadic populace but also rehearsal. Put simply, successful com- catered to townspeople. By 1531 magis- mercial production required built-for- trates were already complaining that purpose or substantially adapted premises; 'every other house is a ... tapper [retailer access to a water supply, adequate ven- of alcohol]', while by 1603 the ratio of ale- tilation, multiple heating sources and houses to adult male householders had additional lofts and outhouses; a reper- risen to an impressive 1:13.21 Although toire of specialized brewing vessels and the bulk of demand was local, the town's other equipment; exhaustive supplies of beer culture radiated widely and produc- fuel and storage receptacles; a small

12 Journal of the Brewery History Society army of servants, stokers and clerks; from 'small' or 'threepenny' beer up to the and service animals and vehicles to dis- startling 'double double' type complained seminate the finished product to local of in 1553, 1558 and 1568,29 all of which consumers and the wharves. Although possessed different strengths, flavour professional ale-brewers, such as Henry profiles and ideological associations. Russell, could exploit their existing However, in a reproduction of the two knowledge, credit and facilities to reorient main types of ale, 'ordinary' and 'double' their operations,25 it would have been beers were the varieties which dominated impossible for most household producers brewer portfolios in this context. Civic to effect a similar transition without sub- authorities disliked the latter for three stantial additional training and capital interrelated reasons: it consumed more investment. Probate inventories provide malt than ordinary beer, unnecessarily particularly revealing glimpses into the diverting barley during dearth periods; economic and material realities of a large it was perceived to have diminished urban beer-brewing enterprise. At Roger nutritive properties; and, because of its Turner's brewhouse in 1623, over- higher alcohol content, it was deemed whelmed assessors 'prised together' the conducive to drunkenness. Governors 'vessels of the brewhouse ... and other attempted to steer Southampton's beer necessaries thereunto belonging' at market firmly in the direction of 'whole- £60 and recorded an extra £15 in malt, some' ordinary beer via the instrument of £5 in hops and £20 in faggots.26 The the assize, formulated locally by justices appraisers of Thomas Rought's suburban and communicated orally to all common facilities in 1636 were more thorough, brewers at the Audit House on an irregu- using the stages of the brewing cycle to lar but recurring basis.30 As can be seen structure their enumeration of over £100 in Figure 1, assize orders banned the in copper furnaces, brass kettles, mash manufacture of double beer altogether vats, tuns, coolers, stands, slings pumps during dearth years and endeavoured to and pails. They also noted extensive price it out of the market by ensuring arti- cooperage (thirty barrels, forty-six ficially high disparities with the ordinary hogsheads, and one hundred humber- variant even when it was permitted (a tac- tons) and a brace of 'iron-bound carts' tic especially evident in 1609, 1628 and with their accompanying horses.27 The 1630). However, the initiative backfired. contents of William Knight's brewhouse Brewers complained, possibly with justifi- (which included a copper furnace worth cation, that they could not brew good £60 and over £129 in malt) were valued ordinary beer profitably at the stipulated at £335 in 1667.28 tariffs; there were frequent complaints about its 'smallness' or 'badness', while in Within the overarching rubric of 'beer', 1594 leet jurors fined seven brewers £10 these sophisticated facilities were used to each for refusing to make it altogether.31 create range of discrete commodities, The high charges dictated for double beer,

Brewery History Number 135 13 Price per barrel (d) Figure 1. Assized beerprices inSouthampton, 1553-1639. TBRI-IV double beer ordinary beer Date ; AB I-IV ; SRO, 'Assembly books':SC2/1/6.

14 Journal of the Brewery History Society meanwhile, not only made it more remu- beer' awaiting delivery (1,035 gallons) com- nerative, but as the hardier variety used pared to only four barrels and two and a by soldiers and aboard ships it was the half firkins of small (164 gallons).32 In 1667, style that the town had first learned to William Blake at The Ark owed brewer drink. Data from inventories supports the William Knight for sixty hogsheads of dou- impression that, in Southampton, double ble beer and only seven of ordinary, while beer was king. At William Grant's brew- Ellis Antram of suburban inn The White house in 1628, there were twenty-four Horse owed him for forty-three of the for- humbertons and three firkins of 'strong mer compared to just five of the latter.33

Figure 2. John Speed's 1611 street plan of Southampton with the location of seven brewhouses indicated (a-g).

Brewery History Number 135 15 Turning to the geographies of beer- How should this distribution be interpret- making, a comprehensive street directory ed? Brewing was an unusually thirsty prepared by local archivists for the years trade, and access to water has hitherto around 1620, supplemented by other been regarded as the primary determi- sources, enables us to plot a 'locational nant of preindustrial locational choices.39 history' of Southampton's brewhouses The pattern disclosed for Southampton with unusual confidence (Figure 2).34 The can certainly be read in aqueous terms. picture disclosed is a snapshot, frozen in While all breweries maintained wells, time; however, in contrast to the more suburban brewhouses were in closest dynamic retail sector, the large and spe- proximity to the several natural springs or cialized character of breweries meant 'water heads' that supplied Southampton that once constructed they were prone with its water and that led to a designat- to spatial inertia and tended to remain ed 'water house' in Houndwell Field venues of beer production for sustained Above Bar (onto which all three of the periods.35 Three brewers operated within East Street breweries backed). The intra- the walled town. Edward Barlow had a mural breweries, meanwhile, were all large brewhouse in Simnel Street by the concentrated within northern parishes Beadle's Gate (a),36 while a brewery where the provision of public cisterns and occupied by William Lynch stood off conduits was densest (the most recent English Street at the New Corner (b). A had been introduced by St Michael's third intramural brewhouse, at this point church in 1594) and where sites offered held by Christopher Cornelius, stood at potential for experimental waterworks the top right-hand side of English Street designed to secure additional supplies in wealthy All Saints Parish (c); this from the northern source.40 William corporation-owned property measured Knight, who occupied the large brew- 29ft wide by 220ft deep and was house on English Street (c), attempted to Southampton's largest and most presti- hydrate his business by means of a pri- gious brewery.37 The four remaining vate 'lead pipe that cometh from Above brewhouses were sited beyond the Bar with a cistern of lead, a well rope and walls. In the northern suburb Above Bar a bucket'.41 However, brewhouse geog- there was a substantial brewhouse on raphies would also have been shaped by Windmill Lane, at this point occupied other factors beside the supply of water. by Thomas Rought (d),38 while three In particular, its heavy consumption of separate brewhouses, in the respective wood and coal in myriad reeking furnaces occupancies of John Grant, William rendered brewing a flammable, noxious Parmett and Thomas Heath around and noisy trade best practised in periph- 1620, clustered in Southampton's eral greenbelt zones where both fire risk Southwark, the far reaches of East Street and the sensorial impact on the urban in the down-at-heel eastern suburb of St populace would be at its lowest (for the Mary's (e-g). same reasons, the suburbs also con-

16 Journal of the Brewery History Society tained the majority of the town's black- ification, when combined with the weight smiths and timber yards).42 This was not of their cargoes and the frequency of just public-spiritedness; confronting one's their movements, had a disastrous effect neighbours with unwanted hazards, on the condition of bridges and road smells and sounds could be an expen- surfaces. In 1562 Bernard Cortmill, who sive business in a period in which public occupied one of the East Street brew- nuisances were doggedly pursued and houses, was ordered by the Assembly to presented by Southampton's active furnish a local court with beer gratis 'for manorial court. Even on their remote the maintenance and reparation of the sites the town's suburban brewers were East Gate bridge, which is by reason of vulnerable to prosecution, as in 1579 the carriage of their beer over the said when Sampson Thomas (who probably bridge'.45 Leet jurors, who had special occupied the brewhouse on Windmill responsibility for thoroughfares, were Lane [d]) was presented for 'the filthy and more effusive on the hazard to unsavoury odours that proceed from ... his Southampton's paved highways, and the brewhouse'.43 On other occasions, spatial spectre of 'the brewers' iron-bound carts' violations caused by the expansiveness seems to have haunted the manorial of premises and paraphernalia were at imagination. They rehearsed the issue. John Grant, one of the East Street expense that 'the great spoiling and brewers, was presented for blocking the decay of the pavements' brought to doors, walls and hedges of adjacent pro- householders on a near-annual basis, perties with his 'beer carts' in 1616, while and wistfully referenced the 'contrary in 1627 Thomas Rought was accused of example' of London and Bristol where obstructing Windmill Lane with ditches.44 bans against iron-binding (introduced in Southampton in 1562) were correctly Nor was the environmental impact of enforced.46 The ecological repercussions brewing on the urban landscape confined of brewing also extended to the hinter- to the discharges and impedimenta of the land, specifically the salt marsh, a large brewhouse itself. Brewers were mobile swath of commons to the east of the town inhabitants of preindustrial Southampton, where brewery employees sourced and and the 'carts' that are frequently dug the clay used to plug bungholes, the glimpsed in inventories described regular apertures bored in barrels prior to their ambits around town arteries in the course despatch (obscured by the legend in of their deliveries to resident consumers Speed's plan). The holes they left were and the two quays. Unlike other trades, to to the 'spoil and decay' of the marsh and, reduce their maintenance costs it was by 1587, were deemed sufficiently customary for town brewers to have their numerous to be dangerous to cattle. vehicles 'iron bound', that is to have a From 1590, a regulatory agent in the form hoop or tyre of 'iron' attached to the cir- of the cowherd was instructed to monitor cumference of each cartwheel. This mod- excavations.47

Brewery History Number 135 17 Moving on to the economic and social pied the brewhouse in Simnel Street, profile of the trade, as in other European described himself as a 'merchant', and towns brewers were Southampton's combined the manufacture of beer with a wealthiest occupational group outside the lucrative career as a trader in serge.53 distributive sector (as we have seen, High levels of liquidity meant that brewers those who could not meet the high start- could materialize impressive sums at up costs for facilities and utensils as well their deaths and during other rites of pas- as substantial overheads could not have sage. Roger Turner bequeathed £290 to initiated or sustained serious beer pro- his wife and four offspring in 1623,54 duction in the first place).48 Tax data, while Christopher Benbury was able to where it survives, is indicative of unusual offer a dowry of £200 at the marriage of prosperity. Of eight brewers encom- his daughter Katherine (and, in exchange passed by the parliamentary subsidy for a jointure, did not rule out £100 more assessment of 1602, three (John Jeffrey, 'if it pleased God to grant him a further John Major and Christopher Cornelius) increase of Estate in time then to were assessed at the maximum rate of come').55 8s 6d.49 The testimony of wills and inven- tories, while an inadequate guide to over- Although operating within a surprisingly all wealth, furnishes telling insights into loose guild structure (guilds generally brewer self-presentation and lifestyles.50 played a small role within the city econo- Major, who held the large brewhouse in my because the common council - itself All Saints parish at his death in 1610, an outgrowth of the medieval merchant's evoked his status as an 'alderman' in his guild - consolidated the regulation of will and, as part of a total movable estate trade),56 elite beer-makers could dovetail worth £941, possessed 'one scarlet gown their wealth and business acumen into with a tip of velvet' - ceremonial garb from the acquisition of a civic office. Indeed, his stint as mayor - as well as a 'best brewers were particularly attractive can- black gown' and 'another black gown'.51 didates for local government as, unless George Burton was a 'beerbrewer' in his they also had mercantile interests, the inventory but a 'gentleman' in the immobile character of their professional attached will (his own movables were val- activities rooted them to the body ued at £397), while Nicholas Grant, politic.57 At least six brewers rose to the although avoiding such self-fashioning in heights of the Southampton mayoralty in his last wishes, indulged in personal the early modern period,58 while others styling of a more literal kind as he negoti- participated in the common council as ated mid-Tudor Southampton in 'a gown sheriffs, bailiffs or aldermen. In 1608, in of London russet faced with fox, another what one imagines was a richly satisfying one faced with rabbit, another faced with moment, two unlicensed alehouse-keep- ruffles, and a jacket of new colour lined ers claimed to have received their beer with velvet'.52 Edward Barlow, who occu- from 'Bailiff [Christopher] Cornelius' and

18 Journal of the Brewery History Society 'Alderman [Philip] Toldervey'.59 Likewise, whose personal wealth ranked with that in 1602, despite being committed to The of professionals and merchants and who Counter prison for violating brewing reg- attained the charmed circle of the com- ulations and 'hot speeches' when asked mon council, from a second tier whose to desist, brewer and senior bailiff John wealth ranked with that of other manual Major negotiated his release with the trades and who made fewer inroads into gaolor and, 'finding Mr Mayor to be in the urban governance. The former generally Guildhall at a Piepowder Court then held held the large intramural brewhouses ... came up in his gown and cap to the and dominated the ship beer and export hall, offering himself to sit on the bench market, as a result of their own mercan- as [a] judge of the court' (the Guildhall tile networks or by using their political was located directly above the prison in connections to secure lucrative con- the northern Bar Gate).60 Beyond the tracts; in 1553, for example, Henry Audit House and Guildhall chambers, Russell, who rose to the mayoralty in brewers were habitually appointed to 1562, was one of two brewers awarded positions of influence and responsibility the right to supply Jersey, Alderney and as churchwardens or tax collectors. Guernsey.63 The latter served the Richard Walker served in the vestry of domestic market, occupied smaller wealthy St Lawrence's parish between premises and were generally found in 1641 and 1642,61 while Christopher the suburb of St Mary's; in the 1602 Benbury, encountered above, was acting subsidy the three East Street brewers as an assessor for the parliamentary sub- were assessed at between 20d and 4d. sidy in 1640. When he heard a local While higher than the ward average of shoemaker express the desire that 'a 12d, this was substantially below the plague of god confound all the assessors assessments for leading beer-makers.64 and the devil in hell confound him that Evidence from inventories is also sug- pays a penny' while drinking in a local gestive of considerable variability in the tavern in the same year, he 'reproved' fortunes and circumstances of brewers. him in person ('telling him that he cursed The movables of Edward Mannings better men than himself') before dutifully from East Street were valued at only rendering account of the shoemaker's £31 in 1671, while his premises had sedition before the borough quarter ses- been assessed for only two hearths the sions.62 previous year.65 Thomas Malzard had movables worth just £25 in 1635 (£16 3s However, the prevailing impression of of which was 'in the brewhouse'), and beer-brewers as uniformly wealthy and even took the risky step of supplement- politically involved requires nuancing. As ing his income as an unlicensed ale- in the towns of north Germany, in house-keeper. However, that he was Southampton it is possible to differentiate not genuinely deserving of this econom- a 'super league' of top level brewers, ic expedient is suggested by the fact that,

Brewery History Number 135 19 when fined 19d for the offence by the management. Anne Knight, who acquired Assembly in 1619, it was meaningfully Southampton's largest brewery upon the redirected 'to the use of the poor ale- death of her husband William in 1667,70 house-keepers'.66 was presented two years later for delivering beer to unlicensed alehouse- Finally, we must attempt a gender profile. keepers and even renegotiated the Early modern beer-brewing has been a leases of 'her brewhouse' on improved proving ground for large theories in gen- terms with the corporation in 1677.71 der studies and the history of women's Likewise, Thomas Malzard's widow had work. Judith Bennett has argued that, in been presented for supplying illicit ale- contrast to the domesticated production houses in 1634.72 Such women would of ale, the scale and complexity of beer have been familiar with the daily re- production in terms of capital resources, quirements of a busy brewhouse from people management and marketing assisting their husbands before their accelerated 'masculinisation' within the deaths, an especially likely scenario in a brewing sector, while Marjorie McIntosh port context where, as we have seen, has recently endorsed claims that 'the brewers sometimes had mercantile inter- way beer was brewed and distributed ests that would have involved sustained excluded almost all women from partici- spells of absence.73 Contrary to received pation'.67 However, some revision of this impressions, these contributions could consensus may be in order; while the and did gain public recognition. In 1613 overwhelmingly masculine character of the leet jurors presented a list of brewers beer production in Southampton is who had served unlicensed alehouse- already evident, there remained occa- keepers with beer 'as by the persons sions and opportunities for female themselves or by their wives', while in involvement. Women sometimes had 1634 'Thomas Rought's wife' was pre- facilities and equipment willed to them; sented for the same offence (Rought between 1550 and 1750 at least five died two years later so may well have Southampton brewers bequeathed brew- been infirm at this point).74 Although most houses to their spouses.68 There has paid employees of brewers were male, been a tendency to short-circuit such some retained female staff. William examples by terming them the 'exception Christmas left bequests to four female that proves the rule', or with untested servants in 1564; however, the fact that assumptions that, unable to cope, female he was also running an inn means that beneficiaries would have swiftly sold they might have been hired in connection their breweries or conveyanced them to with hospitality rather than brewing.75 other male relatives.69 Instead, pursuit of Indeed, it is to the broader relationship widows across adjacent records sug- between the production and retailing of gests that many retained their inherited beer in the borough that we must now business and were hands-on in their turn.

20 Journal of the Brewery History Society Brewing and retailing ble' that leet jurors waged a decade-long campaign against them.80 Analysis of the Southampton's beer-brewers had access debts recorded in brewer's inventories to various markets for their products. As suggests the importance of institutional we have seen, some exported to the demand in the borough (with the caveat Channel Islands or supplied ships, while that publicans were more likely than pri- wealthy citizens and the corporation had vate clients to obtain merchandise on the financial resources to purchase from credit). In 1628, of eighteen individuals brewers on a wholesale basis. The who owed money to William Grant in account books of Thomas Stockwell, an East Street at least nine were publicans; agent who managed the local tithes and they included Nicholas Hockley, holder of estates of Sir Oliver Lambert, contain Southampton's most prestigious inn The large payments to brewers for household Dolphin (who owed £8; see Figure 3 consumption,76 while in 1663 William below) and Thomas Dally, an alehouse- Knight provided a hogshead for the admi- keeper from St Michael's parish (£12).81 ralty court.77 There is also evidence that Likewise, at least eighteen of the twenty- ordinary town-dwellers could purchase five debts recorded by William Knight's directly from source, as in 1590 when assessors in 1667 were generated by servant Jean Rawson told examining publicans (who in eight cases were iden- magistrates that the 3s 4s found in her tified by their signboards).82 purse 'was had of her mother to pay for beer at Sampson's' (almost certainly How should we account for this promi- Sampson , who occupied the nence? As well as their ubiquity, all brewhouse Above Bar).78 However, such drinking houses sold beer; while concen- exchanges were probably unusual, and trated in a multitude of alehouses (none their greater dispersal and the opportuni- of which, despite their surviving medieval ty to purchase in quantities less than a appellation, now specialised in ale), to a firkin (the smallest barrel size) meant that greater extent than wine hopped bever- most households would have acquired ages migrated promiscuously across their beer as ad hoc 'take outs' from institutional borders and could be found parish public houses.79 Thus, it was this in all classes of drinking establishment.83 multitude of retail drinking venues that As we have seen, its production would represented the brewers' most important have been beyond the scope of most market. A ubiquitous component of all publicans, many of whom (especially at early modern towns, inns, taverns or ale- the lower end of the retailing spectrum) houses were especially pervasive in operated from small domestic premises Southampton given its large itinerant on extremely limited capital. However, of population of soldiers and sailors. most significance were local orders that Indeed, by the 1590s the number of ale- banned the combined production and sale houses was so 'inordinate' and 'intolera- of beer within single venues. Fifteenth-

Brewery History Number 135 21 century guild ordinances proscribing clearly sustained the retail dimension of brewers from trading by retail, honoured their businesses; Christmas, as we have more in the breach than in observance, seen, appears to have been running a were revived in 1553 when the council full-fledged inn at his death (complete stipulated that 'no beer-brewer that is with 'best sheets for guests' and an admitted to brew beer shall occupy any 'ostler' named George), while others, as tippling or uttering of beer otherwise than we have seen, operated as unlicensed in gross and not by retail as by the pot or alehouse-keepers (Thomas Malzard) or gallon within their houses'; this inverted peddled beer from tapped barrels at an orthodoxy across northern Europe less than wholesale volumes and prices that beer-brewers should enjoy automat- (Sampson Mansbridge). It has been plau- ic retail privileges.84 The ruling was sibly suggested that two unlicensed ale- extended to retailers in 1558, when it was houses 'over-right the church litten of St ordered that 'no person of what estate or Mary's' in 1589 were operated by East degree so ever he be (other than be of Street brewers, providing a retail outlet the corporation of brewers) shall take for their products away from their premis- upon him to brew any (kind of) beer other es (thereby exploiting a spatial loophole than shall be for his or their only provision in the decrees) and effectively functioning and not to put any to sale'.85 The logic as early 'tied houses'.87 Publicans, espe- informing these novel manoeuvres was cially innholders, also continued to produce never explicitly articulated, although the their own hopped beverages. Five inn- former was almost certainly designed to holders were presented for 'brew[ing] in aid quality control (and perhaps also to their houses and sell[ing] the same by maximise retail opportunities for poor retail' in 1574,88 while inventories for larg- townspeople), while the latter probably er establishments sometimes disclose the reflected brewer influence on the council. spaces and fixtures of beer-making.89 Whatever their motivation, they forged affil- But the lack of such cases is surprising, iations between the borough's brewers and there is evidence of increasing com- and publicans that were unusually close. pliance among publicans. The Dolphin inn, Southampton's largest, may enclose Of course, the orders separating out the narrative in microcosm (Figure 3). A brewing and retailing translated unevenly 1570 inventory taken for this elite institu- into practice and were subject to numer- tion on English Street made reference to ous complications and contestations. The a brewhouse Above Bar as well as 'a bed fact that the rule apparently did not for the brewers' in its stables. There is no encompass ale diluted the principle that evidence of brewing practices in a later the production and sale of malted drinks inventory from 1624,90 while, as we have should not take place together,86 while seen, by 1628 its tenant Nicholas Hockley there were transgressions on both sides was purchasing very large quantities of of the institutional coin. Some brewers beer from an East Street brewer.91

22 Journal of the Brewery History Society Figure 3. The Dolphin inn in 2007. Photo: Author.

Brewery History Number 135 23 While prohibitions on simultaneous brew- moned before town quarter sessions for ing and retailing gave Southampton's an unspecified 'contempt against the beer-brewers access to a large captive mayor' in 1623.95 market of victuallers who depended on them for their supplies, it also curtailed Brewers also attempted to ensnare and their own retail opportunities while dra- retain retail custom, especially from the matically amplifying the proportional lower reaches of the victualling hierarchy, significance of retailers within their ledger through the provision of extensive credit books. Competition for the business of facilities. All beer-makers participated publicans would thus have been even extensively in early modern England's more intense than has been noted for well-charted 'economy of obligation', and other settings,92 and brewers were evi- were especially likely to offer deferred dently keen to draw alehouse-keepers, payment to publicans where they often taverners and innholders into their social formed the final link in a chain of credit networks. Allocations of agents and tasks (alehouse-keepers frequently let their in wills and inventories adumbrate friend- own poorer clients drink 'on the score').96 ships and alliances between brewers and The networks of indebtedness superim- retailers that, while not devoid of mean- posing Southampton's beer market were ingful or affective content, would certainly particularly dense, reflecting the poverty have done no harm to commercial inter- of many of the town's alehouse-keepers ests. James Mason from The Dolphin inn but also pressure on brewers to offer appraised the goods of brewer Thomas vendors the most attractive conditions. Rought in 1636, while both overseers The probate inventories of brewers nominated by brewer William Christmas reveal that significant proportions of their in 1564 were innholders.93 In 1619 the assets remained unpaid 'in cellars' (as movables of alehouse-keeper Thomas the assessors of William Baker had it in Cook were 'taken and prised' by two fel- 1665).97 In 1628, the assessors of Roger low publicans and a brewer, while in 1642 Turner noted £10 in debts 'upon the Thomas Breame of Above Bar inn The book', £70 'upon scores' and a further Katherine Wheel appointed 'his loving £30 in other miscellaneous 'good debts', friend' (and brewer) Christopher Benbury those of George Burton recorded £226 in as his overseer and bequeathed him 6s 'debts recoverable' and £17 in 'debts 8d for 'a pair of gloves'.94 Brewers also unrecoverable' in 1651, while by 1667 came to the financial and political assis- William Knight was owed a staggering tance of publicans when they found £412 in good and £292 in bad debts (over themselves in hot water with local tri- half of his total estate).98 Over £80 of the bunals (a not infrequent occurrence); latter total was attributed to a single indi- Breame, for example, had already bene- vidual called John Okey and designated fited from a large surety provided by as 'an old debt that he [Okey] will never brewer John Warner after he was sum- be able to pay'; Okey, a poor shoemaker,

24 Journal of the Brewery History Society had been operating an alehouse in St priorities, which can be reconstructed Michael's parish since at least 1645.99 from sessions rolls, council minutes and Inventories taken on behalf of alehouse- an impressive survival of court leet keepers occasionally record outstanding books, should be understood in the con- arrears to the brewers who supplied text of the close relationship between them, most of which would have been brewing and retail outlets delineated similarly written off. Peter Hendrick, a above. The regulatory schemes imposed mariner who retailed beer on the West disclose a panoramic perception of Quay, owed £11 'in bills' at his death in Southampton's beer business on the part 1613, while the assessors of Roger Here, of town governors that extended beyond another mariner whose alehouse was venues of production to consumption and tucked into a tumbledown tenement just points of sale (indeed, as we have seen, outside the East Gate, noted 20s 'due to orders disaggregating the brewing and Roger Turner for beer' in 1611.100 retailing of beer were probably designed to facilitate inspection and control). Thus, while Judith Bennett is right to note that Regulation the separation of brewing and retailing 'sloughed onto tipplers the more We must finally take a closer look at reg- unsavoury associations of the drinks ulation. Then as now intoxicants were trade',103 the lines of force that continued 'universally subject to rules and regula- to connect breweries and victualling tions' and, with the exemption of the premises brought brewers themselves abortive excise experiments of the mid- under intense scrutiny at a time when seventeenth century, in characteristic drinking houses, especially alehouses, Tudor and Stuart fashion, the supervision were a source of both fiscal possibilities of beer-making was devolved to local and acute anxieties.104 clusters of instruments and agents.101 In Southampton, where there was an Although urban governors repeatedly unusual level of administrative and judi- represented public houses as 'engines of cial concentration arising from its status impoverishment' (a verdict reproduced by as an incorporated borough, beer-brew- some historians),105 more recent studies ers fell under the jurisdiction of two main of early modern social welfare have bodies: the common council (who dealt excavated below these discourses to with brewing offences via the town quar- demonstrate the importance of ale and ter sessions or, increasingly, on a sum- beer within urban foodways and, in par- mary basis at the Assembly); and the ticular, how the granting of alehouse manorial court leet jury (who presented licenses functioned as a species of out- transgressions committed during the door relief that kept poor individuals off manufacture and distribution of beer at parish rates.106 This was emphatically an annual 'law day').102 Their actions and the case in early modern Southampton,

Brewery History Number 135 25 where alehouse licensees were drawn tomers nutritionally benefit. Notably, in exclusively from poorer social groups and 1603, leet jurors introduced a byelaw even unlicensed operators were often empowering publicans to reject any beer 'tolerated' or 'forgiven' in respect of their which having 'been first set abroached poverty.107 Within this atmosphere, the [opened]' was found to taste of 'burned council acted paternalistically on behalf staff or ... to smell or taste of the cask'.110 of retailers and confronted the common brewers on whom they depended with a Supplementing these basic rules con- raft of legislation regulating price, quality cerning the price and quality of the beer and quantity. The foremost mechanism supplied, its quantity was another area of was regularly stated assize prices, which official scrutiny. The leet jurors, who had we have already introduced in connection jurisdiction over the urban community's with product ranges and were graphically weights and measures, spearheaded the represented in Figure 1. As well as mili- detection and prosecution of this group of tating against double beer, the much brewing offences.111 An early manorial lower prices dictated for nourishing ordi- priority was that receptacles should make nary beer were designed to safeguard the journey from brewhouse to public the meagre bottom line of alehouse- house with their contents intact. Beer, no keepers and prevent them from having to less than its unhopped predecessor, was pass on high prices to their own poor cus- vulnerable to 'jostling, sloshing ... and tomers, especially during dearth periods. other accidents of transport' (known as Leet jurors regularly presented brewers 'spurging' in the vocabulary of jurors),112 who failed to revise the cost of their and another insidious side effect of barrels downwards in line with newly- Southampton's iron-clad delivery fleet assized figures,108 and transgressors was its tendency to make beer often appeared before the Assembly. For example, Christopher Cornelius, then work up in such sort as ... barrels seem to senior bailiff, was summoned in 1609 for be full when they are brought in and when serving Christopher Sturges and John they are settled they lack some a gallon of Young (both of whom kept alehouses) beer.113 with three hogsheads and two butts 'for prices above the price given by the Initially, leet jurors advocated the 'ancient justices of the peace'.109 Although custom of filling beer' as the fix, which Southampton's sixteenth- and seven- entailed brewers or their servants making teenth-century beer stocks were never their rounds with 'a kettle with a pipe exposed to the palates of institutionalized and beer with them' to replenish any tasters, orders also encompassed flavour depleted casks on their arrival at retail and aimed to protect retailers from being establishments.114 This was never a saddled with tainted products from which viable solution to the issue of losses in they might be unable to profit or their cus- transit. In practice it was widely ignored,

26 Journal of the Brewery History Society and in a not untypical piece of self-defeat have taken much wrong for not having jurors had themselves banned the load- their cask[s] full measure' and four lead- ing of heavy filling equipment onto 'shod ing brewers were fined between 13s 4d [i.e. iron-bound] carts' in 1571.115 In 1579 and £15 for a wide variety of deficient the Assembly intervened. Rather than vessels discovered in their brewhouses being constrained to provide 'filling beer', as well as hidden in nearby conduits. In brewers would hitherto simply be a carefully choreographed punitive spec- required to 'allow to their customers tacle there was a 'public burning and twenty-one barrels for twenty barrels'.116 breaking' of fraudulent casks before the Southampton's unique bibulous twist on pillory on English Street. In addition, to the baker's dozen was endorsed as a reduce the possibility of such abuses in 'very good order' by the leet jurors and future, the authorized range of civic seems to have enjoyed widespread cooperage was radically streamlined: compliance.117 [N]o coopers should presume to make for The varieties and capacities of casks the brewers of this town, nor no brewers themselves also came under leet surveil- presume to fill for sale to any of the town lance. Cooperage in early modern other casks than such ... called by the name Europe was highly regionalized, and of humbertons.120 Southampton recognised three generic vessels (in ascending size firkins [nine While the foregoing sets of brewing gallons], barrels [thirty-six gallons] and regulations were designed to safeguard hogsheads [fifty-four gallons]) as well as the economic well-being of legitimate a more local variant in the form of the publicans, others were geared to the per- 'humberton' or 'humber barrel' (which, at ceived potential of retail drinking outlets forty-two gallons, fell between a barrel for proliferation and disorder. Occasional and a hogshead).118 In the peripatetic council-imposed prohibitions on the pro- missions that had been their practice duction of 'double' and 'double double since 1577, the weights and measures beer', which we have already sketched, inspectorate scoured brewhouses, cel- were designed mainly to prevent the lars and the streetscape for barrels that insinuation of these powerful intoxicants were of irregular dimensions or 'too little' into public houses where they might most and, reading-off culpability from their readily beget drunkenness and ensuing identificatory 'marks and burns', present- misrule. Orders in 1568 and 1570 ed the names of both cooper and brewer banned brewers from selling 'any double responsible (with the latter facing the double beer to any victualler or any other stiffest fines).119 Manorial concern about to retail',121 while another logic informing undersized beer barrels reached an the 1596 ban on double beer was the explosive peak in 1655, when it was 'restraining and reducing of many notori- declared that 'the alehouse-keepers ... ous, lewd and evil disposed persons

Brewery History Number 135 27 from their drunkenness and common The court leet also referred candidates haunting of tippling houses' (however, in for punishment in higher courts. In 1611 contravention of this order, magistrates they submitted the names of ten common complained that brewers continued to brewers who had dispatched forty-one brew 'double beer and [to have] the humbertons to thirteen unlicensed ale- same delivered out and sold to the vict- houses, and continued to present uallers and tipplers').122 In the same throughout the century.128 Indeed, the year, brewers were warned only to make enthusiasm with which this central their stronger ship beer 'for service and directive was taken up in Southampton is provision of shipping, and not to sell any suggested by brewer Thomas Rought's part thereof to any [of] the innholders, 1630 quarter sessions appearance for victuallers, alehouse-keepers or tavern- 'evil language ... touching the contrivers ers'.123 If leet jurors picked up on the of the laws for punishment of brewers for presence of double beer in drinking serving of unlicensed alehouse-keepers houses during ban years, they presented with beer'.129 Rought had good cause for the name of the publican as well as the complaint having suffered repeatedly brewer(s) who had supplied the contra- under their strictures. He had been band.124 whipped and fined by quarter sessions in both 1613 and 1616, and was fingered by From a central government statute of court leet jurors as a leading culprit in 1607, brewers also stood to be presented 1611, 1613 and 1625 (in the latter year if they supplied beer to unlicensed ale- he was identified as the principal pipeline houses. This formed part of a wider through which beer flowed to illegal ale- Jacobean attempt to cut off the lifeblood houses in the liberties).130 of illicit establishments and punish those who colluded in and profited from the These regulatory impulses converged in underground trade above and beyond Southampton's belated contribution to publicans themselves.125 As a statutory the seventeenth-century's portfolio of offence the council, in their capacity as brewery schemes, which followed the JPs, took the lead in prosecutions. Six examples of Dorchester, Salisbury and brewers were indicted at quarter ses- Colchester earlier in the 1600s.131 The sions in 1613 and appeared regularly experiment first saw light in 1659 when thereafter, facing large fines and even the Assembly ruminated that, with regard corporal penalties.126 They were also to the 'daily increase of poor people', it dealt with summarily at the weekly might be advantageous if public houses Assembly; in 1615 five brewers were would take their beer only from 'one or each fined between 40s and £10, while more' licensed brewers, with the 'benefit unlicensed alehouse-keepers summoned and profit' generated by the licence-hold- to the Audit House were thereafter inter- ers to be 'dispensed and converted to the rogated about their sources of supply.127 relief of the poor'. Three days later, a deal

28 Journal of the Brewery History Society had been hammered out. Mr Richard tured images of avaricious brewers Walker, brewer and alderman, was grant- blithely ignoring rules or throwing up ed exclusive rights to sell ale and beer obstacles to their proper execution. 'unto all the licensed inns and alehouses' Knight's objection to the brewery scheme for a three-year term, and would pay seems rather more comprehensible than £240 for the monopoly in annual instal- the project itself. As its architects must ments of £80. The scheme had discipli- have known, given the extensive depend- nary as well as fiscal stimuli. As well as ence of Southampton's brewers on the generating much-needed funds that custom of retail outlets, if implemented it would be directed to the workhouse as would have entailed financial disaster for well as 'to other poor people according to every brewer except the monopolist. the discretion of ... this corporation', Elsewhere, the orders that superimposed Walker was only to supply 'those ale- brewing activities were often unworkable houses that have licence to sell beer' and and contradictory (for example early in- was additionally enjoined to 'undertake junctions about 'filling beer') or extremely the discovery of unlicensed alehouse- difficult to comply with. As Rought's out- keepers and to give information unto the burst perhaps suggests, rules prohibiting mayor and justices with evidence for the despatch of beer to unlicensed ale- proof'.132 A new brewhouse was con- house-keepers in particular would have structed for Walker Above Bar, and two been almost impossible to observe to the months later all alehouse-keepers, tav- letter given near-daily fluctuations in erners and innholders were instructed to authorized houses and personnel. Nor did 'take and buy their beer ... only of Mr brewers always exploit positions of Richard Walker and in no wise any other authority to line their own pockets. The brewer of this town'.133 Unsurprisingly, Assembly order abolishing 'filling beer' however, the project was not enthusiasti- and replacing it with a blanket twenty-one cally received by the other common barrels for twenty allocation, a more brewers; William Knight spearheaded practical alternative but hardly one in the their resistance and there was soon 'a economic interests of producers, had its debate ... between Mr Walker and Mr genesis in the mayoralty of East Street Knight concerning the brewhouse'. It was beer-maker Bernard Cortmill.135 resolved in Knight's favour and the scheme was indefinitely 'suspended'.134 However, on other occasions supervision met more calculated resistance from the As this example suggests, the grass brewing community. Many brewers evi- roots enforcement of brewing regulations dently felt themselves above regulations, of both central and local origin was com- especially those generated by local plicated by the high social status of beer- agencies. In 1596, beer-maker, senior makers and their own involvement in civic bailiff and all-round big wheel John Major governance. We should resist carica- continued to craft double beer in defiance

Brewery History Number 135 29 of the Assembly ban and responded to censed alehouse-keepers that stalled the his fine with such 'obstinacy', 'disorderly case against them within the borough speeches' and other 'dalliances with quarter sessions and led the mayor to justices' that he was temporarily incar- write desperate letters to the town cerated (escaping, as we have seen, to recorder on two occasions requesting officiate in a local court).136 When leet legal 'directions'.142 jurors briefed Sampson Mansbridge about a new manorial provision for spillages in 1581 he announced flatly that Conclusion he 'would not allow it'.137 Other leet byelaws governing brewing, which relied From at least the mid-1400s Southamp- on the coercive apparatus of the council ton's citizens and many visitors 'called for for implementation, were obviously beer',143 and the early consolidation of ignored given the frequency of their 'reca- the hopped interloper within this southern pitulation' (with those against 'iron-bound port complicates the geography and carts' representing the most striking chronology of accounts that credit its example),138 while there is some evi- introduction and dissemination to London dence that brewers successfully bribed in the sixteenth century. Beer-making local officials. In 1642, during a drinking was monopolized by common brewers, session in The Dolphin inn, brewer who focused their efforts on 'double' beer, Christopher Benbury alleged that some whose brewhouses were concentrated in of his colleagues 'paid for selling of false northern parishes and the suburbs, and measures ... and he would maintain it', who were disproportionately wealthy and while in a suggestive addendum to their politically influential members of the 1655 orders against defective barrels leet urban community. However, there was jurors urged that the culprits should 'not some variation in the economic circum- ... be remitted for gold or silver'.139 On a stances and political engagement of more quotidian basis, beer-makers had beer-brewers and, while dominated by the finances and professional contacts males, the Southampton material sug- to 'wage law' against unpopular regula- gests that opportunities for women within tions via litigation at local and regional the sector were both more numerous and tribunals.140 In the wake of public humili- higher in profile than has hitherto been ation over their barrels 1655, William grasped. Connections between the Knight again sprang into action on behalf town's makers and retailers of beer were of his associates and initiated a success- unusually intimate, and brewers devel- ful suit against the leet jury at the oped a range of social and commercial Assizes.141 Likewise, in 1629 strategies to attract and retain the vital brewers Richard Skinner and Christopher custom of alehouse-keepers, taverners Benbury brought writs of privilege against and innholders. However, while they their prosecution for supplying unli- enjoyed access to a buoyant captive mar-

30 Journal of the Brewery History Society ket of retail outlets, the relationship References entailed unusually high levels of indebt- edness and brought the trade under far 1. From a large and growing literature see in more intensive supervision than might particular Clark, P. (1983) The English otherwise have been the case. Alehouse: A Social History 1200-1830. London: Longman; Brennan, T. (1988) Public Two more general conclusions emerge Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth- from this case study. It suggests that we Century Paris. Princeton: University Press; should resist dominant understandings of Tlusty, B.A. (2001) Bacchus and Civic Order: production and consumption as 'binary The Culture of Drink in Early Modern poles' and instead acknowledge and Germany. Charlottesville: University Press of tease out the intricate ways in which they Virginia; Kümin, B., & Tlusty, B.A. (eds, 2002) interacted.144 Although early modern The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in brewing has mainly been regarded in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate; isolation, systems of beer-making, espe- Withington, P. (2007) 'Company and cially in terms of the complexion of local Sociability in Early Modern England', Social markets and regulatory initiatives, can History 32, pp.291-307; Kümin, B. (2007) only be fully appreciated by factoring in Drinking Matters: Public Houses and Social venues of consumption, especially in the Exchange in Early Modern Central Europe. form of public houses. Likewise, accounts Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; and most of beer-driven consumerism and sociabil- recently Brown, J.R. (2008) 'The Landscape ity within these retail outlets should pay of Drink: Inns, Taverns and Alehouses in more attention to the dynamics of provi- Early Modern Southampton'. Ph.D. Thesis: sion and supply than has become the University of Warwick. The recent creation of norm. Finally, it has argued for what we the E.S.R.C. network 'Intoxicants and might term the 'local particularity' of Intoxication in Historical and Cultural early modern brewing cultures.145 Perspective' testifies to the vibrancy of the Southampton represented not the nation- field: http://www.intoxesrc.org/. al scenario in miniature but a distinctive 2. White, J. (2006) 'A World of Goods? The component of a larger jigsaw, in which "Consumption Turn" and Eighteenth-Century the introduction, production and distribu- British History', Cultural and Social History. 3, tion of beer was at every stage profoundly pp.93-104. shaped by situational factors, especially 3. Bennett, J. (1996) Ale, Beer and its character as a port, urban topography Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a and political interventions that were par- Changing World 1300-1600. Oxford: Oxford ticular (and in some cases unique) to the University Press; McIntosh, M.K. (2005) borough. More brewers' tales drawn from Working Women in 1300- other urban and rural contexts will add 1620. Cambridge: Cambridge University further subplots to the story and allow a Press, pp.163-81; Stevens, M. (2005-6) more comprehensive narrative to emerge. 'Women Brewers in Fourteenth-Century

Brewery History Number 135 31 Ruthin', Transactions of the Denbighshire , with Special Reference to Towns'. Historical Society. 54, pp.15-31; Roberts, S.K. Ph.D. thesis: University of Southampton, (1980) 'Alehouses, Brewing, and Government pp.196-7. under the Early Stuarts', Southern History. 2, 7. For overviews of the character and devel- pp.45-71; Luu, L.B. (2005) Immigrants and opment of the early modern port see Merson, the Industries of London 1500-1700. A.L. (1958) 'Elizabethan Southampton', in Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.259-99; Unger, R.W. Morgan, J.B. & Peberdy, P. (eds) Collected (1992) 'Technical Change in the Brewing Essays on Southampton. Southampton: Industry in Germany, the Low Countries and Southampton Council, England in the Late ', Journal of pp.57-75; Burgess, L.A. (1958) 'Southampton European Economic History. 21, pp.281-313. in the Seventeenth Century', in ibid., pp.66- 4. For example Hornsey, I.S. (2003) A 73; Merson, A.L. (1964) 'Southampton in the History of Beer and Brewing. Cambridge: Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries', in Royal Society of Chemistry, pp.303-484; Monkhouse, F.J. (ed.) A Survey of Unger, R.W. (2004) Beer in the Middle Ages Southampton and Its Region. Southampton: and the Renaissance. Philadelphia: University Southampton University Press, pp.218-27; of Pennsylvania Press. Temple Patterson, A. (1970) Southampton: A 5. Postles, D. (1992) 'Brewing and the Biography. London: Macmillan, pp.36-62; Peasant Economy: Some Manors in Late Platt, C. (1973) Medieval Southampton: The Medieval Devon', Rural History. 3, pp.133-44; Port and Trading Community A.D. 1000-1600. Mathias, P. (1959) The Brewing Industry in London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, England 1700-1830. Cambridge: Cambridge pp.135-215; Rance, A. (1986) Southampton: University Press; McWilliams, J.E. (1998) An Illustrated History. Horndean: Milestone 'Brewing Beer in Massachusetts Bay 1640- Publications, pp.58-74. 1690', The New England Quarterly. 71, 8. Some of these administrative records pp.543-69; Unger, R.W. (2001) A History of have been published under the auspices of Brewing in Holland 900-1900: Economy, the Southampton Records Society/Series. Technology, and the State. Leiden: Brill; They are Merson, A.L. [I-III] & James, T.B. Wasa, M. (2004) 'Brewing in Brandenburg: [IV] (eds), The Third Book of Remembrance Fiscal-Jurisdictional Aspects of an Early of Southampton 1514-1602 (4 vols), Modern State'. M.A. Thesis: University of Southampton Records Series 2-3, 8, 22 Oxford; Arthur, J.W. (2003) 'Brewing Beer: (Southampton, 1952, 1955, 1965, 1979) Status, Wealth and Ceramic Use Alteration [hereafter TBR]; Horrocks, J.W. (ed.), among the Gamo of South-Western Ethiopia', Assembly Books of Southampton 1602-1616 World Archaeology. 34, pp.516-28; Wilson, (4 vols), Southampton Record Society 19-21, R.G. & Gourvish, T.R. (eds, 1998) The 24-5 (Southampton, 1917, 1920, 1924-5) Dynamics of the International Brewing [hereafter AB]; Hearnshaw, F.J.C. & D.M. Industry Since 1800. London: Routledge. (eds), Southampton Court Leet Records A.D. 6. Taylor, J.R. (1980) 'Population, Disease 1550-1624 (3 vols), Southampton Record and Family Structure in Early Modern Society 1-2, 4 (Southampton, 1905-6, 1907)

32 Journal of the Brewery History Society [hereafter CLR]. Substance, Imagery and Behaviour. Ottawa: 9. The phrase 'alcohol culture' is from Social History Inc., pp.43-64; idem (2004), Wilson, T.M. (2005) 'Drinking Cultures: Sites Fish into Wine: The Newfoundland Plantation and Practices in the Production and in the Seventeenth Century. Chapel Hill & Expression of Identity', in idem (ed.), London: University of North Carolina Press. Drinking Cultures: Alcohol and Identity. 18. On the import of hops in Southampton Oxford: Berg, p.6. see Lamb, D.F. (1971) 'The Seaborne Trade 10. On wine imports into Southampton in of Southampton in the Seventeenth Century'. the late medieval period see Duxbury, S. Ph.D. Thesis: University of Southampton, (1996), 'The Redistribution of Wine from p.78. On English producers' continued Southampton 1550-1750'. Ph.D. Thesis: reliance on imported hops despite attempts to University of Minnesota, pp.122-90. cultivate them in Kent, and the West 11. For the best overview see Bennett, J. Country see Clark, P. (1983) op. cit. p.101. (1996) op. cit. pp.77-97. 19. Ruddock, A.A. (1959), Italian Merchants 12. Lien Luu, for example, maintains that and Shipping in Southampton 1270-1600. 'London was significant in setting the national Southampton: Records Series 1, 130, 148-9; trend for beer drinking'. See Luu, L.B. (2005) Lowe, K.J.P. (2005) 'The Stereotyping of op. cit. p.260. For a critique of the emulation Black Africans in Renaissance Europe', in model in other contexts see Pennell, S. Earle, T.F. & Lowe, K.J.P. (eds), Black (1999) op. cit. 'Consumption and Africans in Renaissance Europe. Cambridge: Consumerism in Early Modern England', The Cambridge University Press, pp.34-5; Le Historical Journal 42, p.556. Cluse, J.P. (1987) 'The Stranger 13. Burgess, L.A. (ed., 1976) The Congregation and their Church in Southampton Terrier of 1454. Southampton: Southampton 1567-1712'. Dissertation for Records Series 15, 152. A 'John Beerbrewer', Diploma in English Local History: almost certainly another alien, is also men- Polytechnic; Spicer, A. (1997) The French- tioned in town accounts for 1474-5. Speaking Reformed Community and their Southampton, Southampton Record Office Church in Southampton 1567-c.1620. [hereafter SRO], 'Mayor's Account Books', Southampton: Records Series 39. On north- SC5/1/15. ern and rural hostility to beer see Bennett, J. 14. TBR II, 44-5. (1996) op. cit. p.81; Warner, J. (1997) 'The 15. Luu, L.B. (2005) op. cit. p.20. Naturalisation of Beer and Gin in Early 16. TBR II, 36. Modern England', Contemporary Drug 17. On maritime economies as drivers of Problems. 24, pp.373-402. alcoholic diversification in another context 20. On military uses of beer see Bennett, J. see Pope, P. (1997), 'Fish into Wine: The (1996) op. cit. pp.92-5. Historical Anthropology of Demand for 21. TBR I, 44; Brown, J.R. (2008) op. cit. Alcohol in Seventeenth-Century p.25. Newfoundland', in Blocker, J. & Walsh, C.K. 22. TBR II, 36. (eds), The Changing Face of Drink: 23. In 1602, for example, leet jurors

Brewery History Number 135 33 described how beer-brewers 'do usually carry (2003) Geography and History: Bridging the their beer ... to the quays in their beer carts', Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University while in 1593 brewer Thomas Lord testified to Press, p.62. supplying a number of ships. CLR III, 393; 35. On 'continuity of site' in London see SRO, 'Books of Examinations and Mathias, P. (1959) op. cit. p.7; Luu, L.B. Depositions': SC9/3/9, fo. 65v. On the provi- (2005) op. cit. P.281. sion of ship beer in other port environments 36. Barlow acquired this property in 1598. see McIntosh, M.K. (2005) op. cit. p.150, See HRO, 'Conveyance: Messuage in pp.163-4; McWilliams, J.E. (1998) op. cit. Symmell [Simnel] Street, Southampton': p.564; Mathias, P. (1959) op. cit. p.5. 35/M87/33. 24. SRO SC2/7/4; Bennett, J. (1998) op. cit. 37. Leases for the brewery can be found at p.82. In her analysis of the occupations of the SRO, 'Corporation Leases': SC4/1/2, 73, 111, town's stranger community in the sixteenth 162. and seventeenth centuries Jane Le Cluse 38. This was still functioning as a brew- was only able to identify four brewers for the house in 1662 when it was referred to by the entire period. Le Cluse, J.P. (1987) op. cit. Assembly. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, p.123. fo. 191v. 25. TBR II, p.36. 39. For example Luu, L.B. (2005) op. cit. 26. Winchester, Hampshire Record Office p.281; Tlusty, B.A. (2001) op. cit. p.23; [hereafter HRO], 'Will and Inventory of Roger Freudenthal, G. (2001) 'Die Turner': 1623 A/94. His goods were valued by Wasserversorgung der Brauwirtschaft vom his son and another brewer. 14. Jahrhundert bis zur Industrialisierung in 27. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Thomas den deutschen Küstenstädten', Jahrbuch der Rout [Rought]': 1636 B/37. Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des 28. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William Brauwesens, pp.53-95; Jenner, M.S.R. (2000) Knight': 1667 A60/3. 'From Conduit Community to Commercial 29. TBR II, 47, 99, 114-5., Network? Water in London, 1500-1725', in 30. For example, the reference to the sum- Griffiths, P. & Jenner, M.S.R. (eds) moning of brewers in 1617 at SRO, Londinopolis: Essays in the Social and 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fo. 176v. Cultural History of Early Modern London. 31. CLR II, 296. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 32. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William p.251. Grant': 1628 AD/034. 40. On Southampton's water supply see 33. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William Davies, J. S. (1989) A History of Knight': 1667 A60/3. Southampton. 2nd edn, Winchester: 34. Thomson, S.D. (ed., 1970), Hampshire Books, pp.114-19; Monkhouse, Southampton in 1620, and the accompanying F.J. (1964) op. cit. p.209. For negotiations 'Supplement to the Exhibition Catalogue' surrounding the installation of the 1594 cis- (unpublished pamphlet in the SRO). The tern see TBR IV, 4-5. There is no evidence phrase 'locational histories' is Baker, A.R.H. that brewers themselves ever sponsored

34 Journal of the Brewery History Society water schemes. 52. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of George 41. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William Burton': 1651 A/09; Roberts, E., & Parker, K. Knight': 1667 A60/3. (eds, 1992), Southampton Probate 42. Cockayne, E. (2007) Hubbub: Filth, Inventories 1447-1575 (2 vols). Southampton: Noise and Stench in England 1600-1770. Records Series 34-5, I, 119. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 53. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Edward pp.21, 36, 213, 219-20. The consumption of Barlow': 1620 AD/007. faggots, timber and coal by town brewers was 54. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Roger already so voracious by 1551 that they were Turner': 1623 A/94. ordered to obtain their fuel by water only. 55. Thomson, S. D. (1994) The Book of TBR II, 47, 99, 114-5. Examinations and Depositions before the 43. CLR I, 186. Mayor and Justices of Southampton 1648- 44. CLR III, 507; SRO, 'Court Leet Books': 1663. Southampton: Records Series 37, SC6/1/42, fo. 14v. In the first case, the fact pp.147-8. that one of the complainants was a brewer 56. Beer-brewers weren't incorporated until called William Parmett suggests that profes- 1543, and even after this date guild structures sional rivalry might have been involved. seem to have played a small part in their 45. TBR II, 88; also TBR IV, 20. business and social affairs. SRO SC2/7/4. 46. CLR II, 211, 231, 299; CLR III, 402, 455, 57. Unger, R.W. (2004) op. cit. p.14. 519, 534, 552, 572, 592, 603; SRO, 'Court 58. Henry Russell (1562), Bernard Cortmill Leet Books', SC6/1/42, fo. 20r. (1579), John Jeffrey (1598), John Major 47. CLR I, 38, 49, 126, 153; CLR II, pp. 206, (1600), Edward Barlow (1607) and Philip 236, 257, 276, 587. Toldervey (1609). Davies (1989), 176-8. 48. On the high status of brewers in other 59. AB I, 10-11. A total of four 'aldermen' contexts see Tlusty, B.A. (2001) op. cit. p.41; brewers were presented by the leet jurors for Mathias, P. (1959) op. cit. p.7; McIntosh, M.K. the same offence in 1611 and 1613. SRO, (2005), p.164. 'Court Leek Books'; SC6/1/30, fo. 18v, 49. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fos. SC6/1/31, fos. 24-5. 7r-15v. 60. TBR IV, 34-6. 50. On the limited ability of probate invento- 61. SRO, 'St Lawrence Churchwardens' ries, surveys of movable goods and leases Accounts': PR4/2/1, fos. 137r, 141r. that exclude real property, to shed light on an 62. Anderson, R. C. (1936) Books of individual's total estate see Spufford, M. Examinations and Depositions 1639-44. (1990), 'The Limitations of the Probate Southampton: Record Society 36, 18; SRO, Inventory', in Chartes, J. A., Hay, D. & Thirsk, 'Quarter Sessions Recognizances': SC9/2/10, J. (eds) English Rural Society 1500-1800: fo. 40r. Essays in Honour of Joan Thirsk. Cambridge: 63. TBR II, 36. Cambridge University Press, 142-4. 64. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fos. 51. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of John Major': 7r-15v. 1610 A/079. 65. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Edward

Brewery History Number 135 35 Mannings': 1671 AD/084; Hughes, E., & 78. SRO, 'Books of Examinations and White, P. (eds, 1991), The Hampshire Hearth Depositions': SC9/3/7, fo. 5v. Tax Assessment 1665. Winchester: 79. In 1594 the leet jurors complained that Hampshire Record Series 11, p.294. brewers were refusing to 'deliver out' to 66. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Thomas inhabitants, forcing them to 'buy their drink at Malzard': 1635 AD070; SRO, 'Assembly alehouses'. CLR II, p. 296. For glimpses of Books': SC2/1/6, 187r. these takeaway regimes in action see SRO, 67. Bennett, J. (1996) op. cit. p.78; 'Quarter Sessions Order Book': SC9/2/1, fo. McIntosh, M.K. (2005), p.165. 41r; 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fo. 189r. On 68. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of James the takeaway services offered by early mod- Roberts': 1576 B/073; 'Will and Inventory of ern public houses in another context see John Major': 1610 A/079; 'Will and Inventory Kümin, B. (2003) 'Eat In or Take Away? Food of George Burton': 1651 A/09; 'Will and and Drink in Central European Public Houses Inventory of William Knight': 1667 A/060; 'Will around 1800', in Hietala, M. and Vahtikari, T. and Inventory of William Brackstone': 1718 (eds), The Landscape of Food: The Food A/10. Relationship of Town and Country in Modern 69. For example Bennett, J. (1996) op. cit. Times. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, p.61, 91, 96-7. pp.73-82. 70. SRO, 'Corporation Leases': SC4/3/295. 80. CLR II, p. 354; SRO, 'Court Leet Books': 71.SRO, 'Quarter Sessions Rolls': SC9/1/12 SC6/1/26, fo. 22r; SC6/1/27, fos. 17v-18r; [unfoliated]; 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fo. SC6/1/28, fo. 19r. The campaign is discussed 340r. in Brown, J.R. (2008) op.cit. pp.219-20. 72. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fo. 81. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William 276v; see also SRO, 'Court Leet Books': Grant': 1628 AD/034. A Thomas Dally SC6/1/30, fo. 18v. appears as a 'tippler' in St Michael's parish in 73. Bennett, J. (1996) op. cit. pp.60-76. the stall and art rolls for 1635. SRO, 'Court 74. SRO, 'Court Leet Books': SC6/1/31, fo. Leet Books': SC6/1/47, fos. 6r-11v. 24v; 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fo. 276v; 82. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Thomas Rout Knight': 1667 A60/3. [Rought]': 1636 B/37. On this occasion 83. On tavern licensing see Hunter, J. Rought bequeathed his brewhouse to his son (1994) 'Legislation, Royal Proclamations and William. other National Directives Affecting Inns, 75. Roberts, E. & Parker, K. (1992) op. cit. Taverns, Alehouses, Brandy Shops and p.184. Punch Houses 1552 to 1757'. Ph.D. Thesis: 76. Rutherford, J. (ed., 1932-3) The University of Reading, pp.87-125; and idem, Miscellaneous Papers of Captain Thomas 'English Inns, Taverns, Alehouses and Brandy Stockwell 1590-1614 (2 vols). Southampton: Shops: The Legislative Framework, 1495- Record Society 32-3, I, 102; II, 65. 1797', in Kümin, B. & Tlusty, B.A. (2002) op. 77. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fo. cit. pp.70-2. 196r. 84. Studer, P. (ed., 1910) The Oak Book of

36 Journal of the Brewery History Society Southampton I. Southampton: Record Society pp.288-9; HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William 6, 51; TBR II, 47. On customary retail rights Horne': 1624 A41/1-2. The prominence and in other contexts see Unger, R.W. (2004) op. high value of brewing paraphernalia meant cit. p.218; Tlusty, B.A. (2001) op. cit. p.37; they would almost certainly have been McWilliams, J.E. (1998) op. cit. pp.550-52; recorded had they still formed part of the inn's and Kümin, B. (2007) 'Public Houses and operations. Civic Tensions in Early Modern Bern', Urban 91. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William History 34, pp.89-101. Grant': 1628 AD/034. 85. TBR II, 60. Orders prohibiting victuallers 92. See Clark, P. (1983) op. cit. pp.105-6. from brewing their own beer, while not the 93. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Thomas norm, were more common. See Clark, P. Rought': 1638 B/37; Roberts, E. & Parker, K. (1983) op. cit. p.107. (1992) op. cit. I, p.184. 86. In 1574, for example, Thomas Broker, 94. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Thomas who held a small inn called The Katherine Cook'; 1619 AD24; 'Will and Inventory of Wheel Above Bar, was 'allowed to be a com- Thomas Breame': 1642 A09. mon brewer of ale'. TBR II, 117-18. His inven- 95. Anderson, R.C. (ed., 1929) Books of tory, taken on his death in 1583, makes refer- Examinations and Depositions 1622-27. ence to a 'brewhouse'. HRO, 'Will and Southampton: Record Society 29, 26. Inventory of Thomas Broker': 1583 A09/1-2. 96. Muldrew, C. (1998) The Economy of 87. Thomson, S.D. (ed. 1970) p.97; CLR II, Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social 274. Likewise, in 1620 brewer Richard Kent Relations in Early Modern England. acquired a licence for an alehouse in nearby Basingstoke: Macmillan, 269; Luu, L.B. Hythe in which he installed two 'tenants' (2005) op. cit. p.287; Clark, P. (1983) pp.102- (Humphrey and Joan Withers). SRO, 3. 'Miscellaneous': SC15/71. On the develop- 97. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of William ment of the tied houses system in later peri- Baker': 1665 AD/007. ods see Mathias, P. (1959) op. cit. p.8, 117- 98. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Roger 38; Knox, D.M. (1958), 'The Development of Turner': 1623 A/94; 'Will and Inventory of the Tied House System in London', Oxford George Burton': 1651 A/09; 'Will and Economic Papers 10, pp.66-83. Inventory of William Knight': 1667 A/060. 88. CLR II, 103. Similar presentments at 99. SRO, 'Court Leet Books': SC6/1/52, fos. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fo. 301v. 7r-11r. 89. They were present at The Dolphin inn in 100. HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Peter 1570, John Manfield's large alehouse in 1596 Hendrick': 1613 A38/1-2; 'Will and Inventory and an inn by the Itchen Ferry in 1627. of Roger Here': 1611 AD/48. The relatively Roberts & Parker (1992), I, 288-9; HRO, 'Will small amount owed by Here suggests that the and Inventory of John Manfield': A080/1-2; credit offered to him by Turner was probably HRO, 'Will and Inventory of Henry Osborne': limited. 1627 B57/1-2. 101. On central government initiatives see 90. Roberts, E. & Parker, K. (1992) op. cit. I, Roberts, S.K. (1980) op. cit. pp.45-71.

Brewery History Number 135 37 102. For the clearest overview of 107. See Brown, J.R. (2008) pp.78-81, 165- Southampton's administrative and legal cul- 73. ture see Connor, W.J. (ed., 1978) The 108. CLR I, 122; CLR III, 528, 543, 556. Southampton Mayor's Book of 1606-8. 109. AB III, 39. A Christopher Sturges is Southampton: Records Series 21, 11. identified as a 'tippler' in All Saints parish in 103. Bennett, J. (1996) op. cit. p.50. the stall and art rolls for 1605, while John 104. This enduring dualism is explored in a Young (also from All Saints) is tagged as different context in Kümin, B. (1999) 'Useful such in the 1611 rolls. SRO, 'Court Leet to Have, but Difficult to Govern: Inns and Books': SC6/1/29, fos. 7r-11v; SC6/1/30, fos. Taverns in Early Modern Bern and Vaud', 6r-10v. Journal of Early Modern History 3, pp.153-75. 110. CLR III, 386. On the concerns aroused by English alehous- 111. On the responsibility of leet juries for es see Clark, P. (1978) 'The Alehouse and weights and measures elsewhere see King, the Alternative Society', in Pennington, D. & W.J. (1980) 'Leet Jurors and the Search for Thomas, K. (eds) Puritans and Law and Order in Seventeenth-Century Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth- England: Galling Persecution or Reasonable Century History presented to Christopher Hill. Justice?', Histoire Sociale/Social History 13, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.47-72; and in a p.279. rural context Wrigtson, K. (1981) 'Alehouses, 112. Luu, L.B. (2005) op. cit. p.259; CLR II, Order and Reformation in Rural England, 179. 1590-1660', in Yeo, E. & Yeo, S. (eds), 113. CLR I, 161. Popular Culture and Class Conflict 1590- 114. CLR I, 98, 110, 126, 146; CLR II, 167. 1914: Explorations in the History of Labour 115. CLR I, 68. and Leisure. Brighton: Harvester, pp.1-27. 116. TBR III, 17. 105. Walter, J. & Wrightson, K. (1976), 117. CLR II, 190. 'Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern 118. Unger, R.W. (2004) op. cit. pp.247-50. England', Past & Present 71, pp.28-9; Clark, Coventry recognised a fourteen gallon barrel P. (1983) op. cit. p.167. called the 'sextary'. See Monckton, H.A. 106. Bennett, J.M. (1992) 'Conviviality and (1966) A Ale and Beer. Charity in Medieval and Early Modern London: Bodley Head, p.107. England', Past & Present 134, pp.19-41; 119. CLR I, 90, 104-5, 157; CLR III, 446-7, Galloway, J.A. (1998) 'Driven by Drink? Ale 521, 535, 555; SRO, 'Court Leet Books': Consumption and the Agrarian Economy of SC6/1/40, fos. 16r, 21v; SC6/1/41, fos. 19v-r; the London Region c. 1300-1400', in Carlin, SC6/1/43, fo. 18r. Unlike in the Low M. & Rosenthal, J.T. (eds) Food and Eating in Countries, where brewers sometimes made Medieval Europe. London: Hambledon Press, their own casks, in England vessel construc- pp.87-100; Hindle, S. (2004) On the Parish? tion remained a monopoly of the coopers, The Micropolitics of Poor Relief in Rural and when used in beer production England 1550-1750. Oxford: Oxford Southampton's barrels underwent a double- University Press, pp.59-60. coding with the cooper's mark as well as that

38 Journal of the Brewery History Society of the brewer. Unger, R.W. (2004) op. cit. 159v, 161r.. p.213; CLR I, 104-5. 135. TBR III, 17. 120. SRO SC6/1/58, fos. 41,45; also 136. TBR IV, 35-6. SC15/85. On the purifactory uses of fire in 137. CLR II, 217. another context see Davis, N.Z. (1975) 'The 138. On the reliance of leet juries on gov- Rites of Violence', in idem (ed.) Society and erning councils see Connor, W.J. (1978) op. Culture in Early Modern France: Eight cit. p.11; McIntosh, M.K. (1984) 'Social Essays. Stanford: University Press, 162-3. Change and Tudor Manorial Leets', in Guy, 121. TBR II, 99, 114-5. J.A. & Beale, H.G. (eds), Law and Social 122. TBR IV, 29, 30. Change in British History. London: Royal 123. Ibid., 30. Historical Society, 76. 124. For example CLR I, 141, 163. 139. SRO, 'Quarter Sessions 125. See Hunter, J. (1994) pp.38-40. Recognizances': SC9/2/10, fos. 49v, 53v; 126. SRO, 'Quarter Sessions Order Book': 'Court Leet Books': SC6/1/58, fo. 41. SC9/2/1, fos. 11v, 12r-13v, 24v, 41r, 45v. 140. The phrase is from Stretton, T. (1998) 127. AB I, 96-7; AB II, 10-11; SRO, Women Waging Law in Elizabethan England. 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/6, fo. 198v. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 128. SRO, 'Court Leet Books': SC6/1/30, fo. 141. It was ruled that they had miscalculat- 18v; CLR III, 468; SRO, 'Court Leet Books': ed the 'correct gauge of hogsheads', and the SC6/1/31, fos. 24v-25r; SC6/1/40, fo. 17r; 'exemplification' of the verdict was recapitulat- SC6/1/58, fo. 38. ed at subsequent law days. SRO, 'Court Leet 129. Anderson, R.C. (ed., 1931) Books of Books': SC6/1/59, fo. 17r. Examinations and Depositions 1627-34. 142. I have been unable to locate the writs Southampton: Record Society 31, 64. but the two letters from mayor Nathaniel Mills 130. SRO, 'Quarter Sessions Order Book': to recorder Henry Sherfield survive at HRO: SC9/2/1, fos. 11v, 12r-13v, 24v; SRO, 'Court 'Mayor of Southampton: Letters to Henry Leet Books': SC6/1/30, fo. 18v; SC6/1/31, Sherfield': 44M69L/35-36. On the functions of fos. 24v-25r; SC6/1/40, fo. 17r. the town recorder, a legal advisor, see 131. On these earlier initiatives see Slack, Davies, J.S. (1989) op. cit. pp.184-5. P. (1972) 'Poverty and Politics in Salisbury 143. Bennett, J. (1996) op. cit. p.82. 1596-1566', in Clark, P. & Slack, P. (eds), 144. Pennell, S. (1999) op. cit p.552. See Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500- also the calls for integration in White, J. 1700: Essays in Urban History. London: (2006) op. cit. pp.103-4; and Fine, B. (2002) Routledge & Kegan Paul, p.54; Roberts, S.K. The World of Consumption: The Material and (1980) op. cit. the Cultural Revisited. 2nd edn, London: 132. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fos. Routledge, pp.114-16. 151v-152r. 145. On the concept of 'local particularity' 133. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fo. see Jenkins, T. (1999) Religion in Everyday 154r. Life: An Ethnographic Approach. New York & 134. SRO, 'Assembly Books': SC2/1/8, fos. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp.82-4.

Brewery History Number 135 39