+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Licensee - partners?

    According to records (1800s - Bristol) Licensees seemed to show one main name paying ten pounds and two others paying five pounds each. (pretty expensive for that time) Sometimes the two extra people have Maltster written after them but not always. One usually has ACC next to it which has been written in full as Accompanied. Were there two possible partners?

    Can anyone throw any light on this please?

  2. #2
    Famous for offering help & advice.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Romsey, Hants
    Posts
    1,138
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    Does the licence mention the work recognisance? I suspect that they are not actually paying the money up front, but that it is a recognisance or bond to be paid if the licensee does not meet the terms of the licence. The two others will have been known to the licensee and prepared to cough up their contibution in the event of default; they would not necessarily have been partners.

    Colin

  3. #3
    Loves to help with queries
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Colin. The records didn't mention the work recognisance as far as I know but it sounds reasonable that there should be some sort of guarantee. This person had several pubs over the years. I am never quite sure if he actually owned them, e.g. premises etc. or if they were rented. If he was paying a bond I suppose that would be to the owner of the property. As I understand it at that time beer was brewed on-site in public houses and some landlords even made quite large amounts of beer in their brewhouses for sale elsewhere and had several people working for them. Also, some pubs were leased from the actual owners who had bought the properties as investments. In his Will be mentioned several properties he owned (not by name) but I think it turned out they were still mortgaged when he died.

    Mary

  4. #4
    Famous for offering help & advice.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Romsey, Hants
    Posts
    1,138
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mary C View Post
    ...If he was paying a bond I suppose that would be to the owner of the property. ...Mary
    He wasn't paying the bond (unless he broke the terms of his licence), rather, that was the sum that he would have to pay if he transgressed, and the license would be to sell ales & beers, etc, it would not imply that he was owner of the premises, he could well have leased or rented it.

    While many beer houses brewed for themselves separate breweries were in action long before the date mentioned in your subject line (1800s) particularly in larger towns and cities; at first they served just the local area but as transport became easier with the growth of the turnpike system in the 18thC and then rail transport in the 19th they were able to transport the beer further and thus expand beyond the local markets.

    If you want to follow this topic up then you will probably find it helpful to track down a copy of Victuallers Licenses: Records for Family & Local Historians, by Jeremy Gibson & Judith Hunter. It gives more detail than I can put here of the background to licensing arrangements, what records survive and where they are held.

    Colin

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Select a file: