BREWERY HISTORY Brewery HistoryGerman-language newspaper Politikreported: The sea serpent [i.e....

Bohemian Breweries Limited was an English companyformed in 1889 with a view to owning and operatingbreweries in Prague, the capital of Bohemia, then part ofthe Austro-Hungarian Empire.1 The company pros-pered, or at least survived, well into the next decade, butthen encountered financial problems. It closed one of itsbreweries in 1897 and, after being declared bankrupt,disposed of a second two years later. In 1907 it sold itslast brewery and ceased trading. This article willdescribe the mixed fortunes of this unusual foray ofEnglish brewing capital into Europe.

The sea serpent

In the late 1880s, probably in the spring or summer of1888, Herbert Edwards and Harry Saunders, two finan-cial agents based in London, were introduced to theBerlin-based Dr John Simon to discuss the purchase ofthe U Štajgru brewery in Prague. A Mr Orriss ofChadwick & Co., another firm of London financialagents, was also involved in the deal and he agreed topromote the company immediately if the breweryreturned its predicted profit of £40,000 per annum.2

Further discussions were held when a Mr Allen3

travelled to Cologne to meet Simon on behalf ofChadwick & Co., and in May 1889 Simon’s brother-in-law visited England for more talks.

The upshot of all these meetings was that on 1 June1889 an agreement to acquire the brewery was finallyconcluded between George Harold Sutcliffe (anaccountant who shared a London address with Allen &Co.) - acting on behalf of the new company - and JohnSimon and Messrs Allen & Co. The precise nature of

the roles of the various parties in the deal is unclear, par-ticularly whether Simon owned the brewery himself orwas acting as an agent with power to arrange the sale. Itis most likely he was the latter; the English legal docu-ments refer to him and Allen & Co. as vendors, but theCzech press reports refer only to František Zverina asthe owner of the brewery, and one English documentdistinguishes between the vendors and the (unnamed)owners.

Sutcliffe had also been in contact with the owner orrepresentative of two other Prague breweries, a certainErnest Arthur Lionel Halcomb of Notting Hill,Middlesex, again with the involvement of Allen & Co.Halcomb entered into contracts with MarieKnoblochová4 of the Liben brewery on 9 February1889, and with Josef Kašpar of the Práce brewery on16 February in the same year. Two and a half monthslater, on 1 June 1889, he and Allen & Co. then agreedto sell these two breweries to Sutcliffe. Again theprecise status of the people involved is unclear; theEnglish documents refer to Halcomb and Allen & Co.as vendors, but the Czech press reports again mentiononly Knoblochová and Kašpar as owners of the brew-eries.

When the contracts were eventually signed in Prague, inlate July 1889, the German-language Prague newspaperPrager Tagblatt commented that it was over a year sincethe proposed purchases had come to the public’s atten-tion and that the deal had been so long in the makingthat there had been doubts as to whether it would hap-pen at all. The Czech-language Národní listy similarlystated that the deal had been discussed for so long thatnobody took it seriously anymore.

Brewery History Number 147 51

BREWERY

HISTORY

The Journal is © 2012

The Brewery History Society

Brewery History (2012) 147, 51-73

BOHEMIAN BREWERIES LIMITED (1889-1907): AN ENGLISH BREWERY IN PRAGUE. PART I

PETER DYER

°

v v

v

v

The deal was not universally welcomed: anotherGerman-language newspaper Politik reported:

The sea serpent [i.e. something alleged to exist but never

actually seen] of the English brewery company, which has

been creeping around for a year with seductive temptations,

has finally sunk its poisonous fangs into the heart of our old

Bohemian brewing industry. It has purchased the U Štajgru

brewhouse, whose old trading name has been changed, as if

in mockery, to ‘Národní pivovar’ [National Brewery] … We

confine ourselves today to noting these sad facts, which cast

shame both on our old and venerable Bohemian brewing

industry and on our country’s own capitalists …5

On the other hand, Bohemia made fun of Politik, quot-ing the above article and then commenting on the‘entrepreneurial’ sea serpent:

The sea serpent has obviously got tired of sea water, and so

one really cannot blame it if, to cover its certainly very

extensive moisture requirements, it buys itself a brewery.6

In fact it was not uncommon for English syndicates atthis time to search out Czech businesses to be convert-ed into limited companies. For example, in 1889 it wasreported that an English consortium had bought land inPilsen on which to erect a large brewery, although thisturned out to be false; and when two Englishmen by thenames of Stumpage and Albutt visited the brewery inStarý Plzenec (Pilsenetz), it was immediately assumedthat an English company was about to buy it.7 TheGrand Hotel in Prague was sold to an English concern,also in 1889.8

Brewing in Bohemia

Bohemian Breweries Ltd. entered the region’s brewingscene during a period of rapid change; the industry inBohemia underwent great legal, technical and econom-ic upheavals during the course of the 19th century.

From a legal point of view the introduction of theCommercial Code of 20 December 1859 (Czech:zivnostenský rád, German: Gewerbeordnung) allowedanyone to set up a business without having to be afreeman of a borough or a member of a guild.9 Furtherfreedom came ten years later when the ‘propinationright’ (Czech: propinacní právo, German: Propination-

srecht)12 - an antique statute under which a town corpo-ration or a noble lordship had a monopoly for brewingand selling beer within a specific region - was abolishedin Bohemia.13 However, anyone establishing a newbrewery within the next 30 years had to pay 5,000gulden10 into a ‘propination compensation fund’.11 Thesetwo major changes resulted in the appearance of newbreweries on an industrial scale, typically with modernequipment and often taking the form of share compa-nies.14 They also meant that older breweries were eitherreformed as companies and modernised or closed downas they were no longer competitive.15 In the brewingyear 1888/89 there were 1,902 breweries operating inAustria-Hungary producing 13,441,023 hl of beer; the766 breweries of Bohemia accounted for 42% of this.16

Among the technical changes to occur in this periodwere the replacement of the traditional wooden brewingvessels with metal ones and the introduction of directfiring of the copper by steam heating. The conversionfrom top to bottom fermentation was also completed.17

Several engineering firms in Prague began to specialiseinter alia in brewing equipment; in particular J.Martinka a spol., Br. Noback a Fritze, Novak a Jahn, Fr.Ringhoffer, and J. Rosenberg. They built and equippedmany breweries not only in Austria-Hungary, but also inGermany, Russia and beyond. For example, accordingto an article of 1891, the brewing and malting clients ofBr. Noback a Fritze included 28 in Bohemia, Moraviaand Silesia, 22 in the rest of Austria-Hungary, 15 inGermany, 26 in Russia, 15 in the rest of continentalEurope, and 4 in England and South America.18

The first modern brewing trade organisations and tech-nical schools were also established at this time and theinaugural issue of trade journal Kvas appeared in 1873.

Brewing in Prague and district

The breweries in and around Prague at this time couldbe divided into three categories: the old brewhouses inthe city centre, the new industrial breweries in the sub-urbs, and a number of other small or medium-sizedbreweries.

Originally the right to brew beer was enjoyed byburgesses of the royal boroughs. It came to be attachedto specific houses, as a form of heritable property. The

Journal of the Brewery History Society52

°

v v

v

owners of these houses either brewed their own beer,perhaps with the assistance of professional brewers, orarranged with others to brew on their behalf. The brew-houses which operated in 19th century Prague were theirdescendants.

The powers and monopolies of the guilds were cut backin the 1730s,19 but the prohibition on importing outsidebeers into Prague continued. It was subject to excep-tions, for instance in favour of certain ecclesiasticaldignitaries and noblemen, and in practice was frequent-ly evaded, not least because Prague beer in the mid andlate 18th century was often of very poor quality. Decreesof 1788 finally allowed publicans in Prague to obtainbeer supplies freely from any brewery, so putting an endto the monopoly of the citizen brewers. The number ofbrewing-right houses actually operating as brewerieshad declined from 129 in 1748 to 89 in 1788, fell furtherto 51 in 1828, and by 1850 there were only 40.20

In the decade before Bohemian Breweries Ltd.’s arrival,the total output of the Prague city brewhouses, nowabout 30 in number, was rising. This was due essential-ly to the progressive management and expansion of afew of them, notably U Primasu (which was modernisedunder the ownership of the Wanka family, and was thefirst in Prague to convert to bottom fermentation), UŠtajgru, described below, and U Hermannu and UKrízovníku.

However, the output of the suburban concerns was ris-ing even faster, thanks in particular to the new industri-al breweries in Smíchov and Nusle.21 Other breweriesof respectable size were located in Liben, Práce, Košíre,Hlubocepy and Vršovice.

Table 1 shows the Prague and district breweries operat-ing in March 1885, in order of production. These figuresare for this specific month; production will of coursehave varied over the year - indeed, Smíchov generallybrewed more than Nusle. In the 1890s and 1900s thesuburban breweries - new ones were also built inHolešovice and Královské Vinohrady22 - then greweven faster, and many, although not all, of the smallerbreweries declined or closed altogether. Of these Pragueand district breweries, the three which were acquired byBohemian Breweries Ltd. were the new Liben brewery,U Štajgru and Práce. Although not the very largest, theywere nevertheless all substantial concerns.

Liben

Liben (Lieben or Altlieben in German), a village a fewkilometres east of Prague, on the Vltava river, was thesite of a Jewish ghetto in the 17th and 18th centuries. Thecastle was the summer residence of the mayors of theOld Town of Prague. The cadastral map from the early19th century23 shows a village consisting of one mainstreet, running north-south with a bridge over theRokytka stream, together with the castle and the ‘Jewishtown’ (Judenstadt) on the north and south sides of theconfluence of the Rokytka and the Vltava.

During the 19th century Liben developed into an indus-trial suburb of the city with engineering and chemicalworks, tanneries, a Belgian gasworks and even anEnglish steam plough factory. By 1890 it had a popula-tion of some 12,000. It was created a borough in 1898and incorporated into Prague in 1901 as Prague 8 dis-trict.

There already existed an old-established brewery in thesuburb, the Zámecký pivovar (Castle Brewery) by, notsurprisingly, the castle. It was owned by the city ofPrague and leased to various tenants. Although it had atone time been comparatively important - in 1860 it wasthe Prague district’s fourth largest brewery, with an out-put of 15,050 veder24 - production had declined and thecity council eventually decided to close it in 1899.25

The first brewery to be acquired by BohemianBreweries Ltd., the Nový pivovar or (První) parostrojnípivovar (New Brewery or (First) Steam Brewery) inLiben, was founded by a Prague hop dealer, AlbertGoldfinger, in 1869.26 The existing buildings on the sitewere converted into a malthouse and new fermentingrooms, cellars, ice house, cooper’s shop, stables andother buildings were added.27 The capacity of the newbrewery was said to be 100,000 veder, roughly 167,000hl.28

Albert Goldfinger did not own his new brewery forlong; he sold it to his former partner Emanuel Kallbergand his sons in 1875, although retaining a leaseholdinterest. In 1878 Goldfinger was declared bankrupt inrespect of his separate business as a dealer in hops, maltand beer in Prague, as well as his interest in the brew-ery, which he had run in partnership with Jan Benešuntil Beneš’s death in 1876. Goldfinger died in 1880,


°

°

v

v

v

v

v

vv

v

°

°

°v v

v

v

v

v

and in July 1881 Karel Knobloch bought the brewery,maltings, mill and land from Goldfinger’s estate for150,000 zl.29 After Knobloch himself died in March1888 the brewery - which continued to trade under hisname30 - may have been owned for a short time by hisbrother-in-law Raimund Kubík, possibly as executor,but it was his widow Marie Knoblochová who sold it toHolcomb and/or the English company in 1889.31

Goldfinger’s brewery was powered by steam from theoutset, and Knobloch - who was head brewer as well as

owner - reequipped it with plant for steam drive and atwo-floor kiln from J. Martinka & Co.32 Production inthe brewing year 1875/76 was 24,075 hectolitres,declined to 18,525 hl in 1877/78, but then increasedsteadily under Knobloch’s management to reach 51,102hl in 1887/88.

Two pubs in Prague which are known to have sold theLiben brewery’s beer in 1878 are U Lankocu in Elišcina(now Revolucní), and the tavern of the guild of builders,masons and stonemasons in Kozí námestí.33


Brewery Production (hl)Prague District

Nusle 6900Smíchov (share company) 6400U Primasu (Wanka) 4500Liben (Knobloch) 3300U Štajgru (Reitler) 2700Práce 2600Vršovice 1950Hlubocepy 1850Košíre 1596U Hermannu (Urban) 1454Únetice 1425U Krízovníku (Kwaysser) 1368Pakomerice 1352Smíchov (Stejskal) 1152U labute (Klicka) 1150Michle 950U Virlu (Schary) 864U Bucku (Bunata) 850Horní Krc 800U Kornelu (Labut’ka) 720Dolní Krc 700Troja 700U Rozvarilu (Pollak) 700U Voštipu (Zvolský) 672U Sladkých (Rubeš) 650U Kleeblattu (Kunz) 648Kbely 624Bubny 600Jinonice 600U Fleku (Pštross) 600Smíchov (Preisler) 560

Brewery Production (hl)Prague District

U Fáfu (Dörfler) 528Braník (Dominikánský) 500U Myslíku (Veselý) 432U sv. Tomáše (Stanek) 432Brevnov 400Cerný pivovar (J. Pflanzer) 384U Bachoru (Vališ) 384Liben (Tichý) 350Na Libušince (Šaroch) 336Dejvice 324Klecany 304U Klouzaru (Janácek) 300Strahov (Reznícek) 288U Karabínských (Hlasivec) 288U Sedleru (Kostka) 288U Cecelických (Fanta) 270Roztoky 252U bílé kobyly (Zítka) 240U modré štiky (Nebeský) 240U Šenfloku (V. Pflanzer) 240U Palmu (Tereba) 216Zábehlice 216Motol 200U Šálku (Milde) 192Vysocany 150Kunratice 144Chotec 120Tuchomerice 120Statenice 38Zdiby 32

Table 1. Prague and district breweries in March 1885.

Note. Národní listy, 4 April 1885, Prager Tagblatt, 5 April 1895. Spellings of some names have been standardised. The figure for UFáfu has been corrected from 328 to 528 and that for Na Libušince from 386 to 336. It is not impossible that there are furthermistakes in some of the figures for the district breweries.

v

v

v

v

v

vv

v v

v v

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v

v

v v

vv

v

v

v

v v

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

v

v

v

°

U Štajgru

The second brewery to be purchased by the British com-pany was situated in Nové Mesto, the New Town ofPrague, founded by Charles IV in 1348. The areaencompassed Václavské námestí (Wenceslas Square)and Karlovo námestí (Charles Square) - to use theirmodern names - U Štajgru being built between Štepán-ská and Vodickova streets, which lead southwards off

Wenceslas Square, with entrances from both roads.34

The two houses of which it was formed were in thesame ownership from at least 1790, when they werepurchased by Wenzel and Maria Saukup. The house inŠtepánská street (then No. 594) was called BeymSteiger, the brewing right was attached to the house inVodickova street (then No. 527).35 The name suggeststhat it was owned at one time by a person called Štajgror Steiger, but there seems to be no record of him. From


Map 1. Prague and district.

Note. Prague and district in the late 19th century, showing the seven parts of the city (1 Staré Mesto, 2 NovéMesto, 3 Malá Strana, 4 Hradcany, 5 Josefov, 6 Vyšehrad, 7 Holešovice-Bubny) and locations of selected brew-eries; the three owned by Bohemian Breweries Ltd are marked with a solid black square. City centre brewhousesother than U Štajgru are not shown.°

°

°

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

Vysocany

LibenHolesovice

Budny

7

45

U Štajgru

1

2

3

Kr. Vinohrady

KosireSmíchov 6

Vrsovice

Nusle

Michle

Hlubocepy

Branik

Práce

Horní Krc

°

v

vv

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

1805 the house numbers were 630 and 699, and whenstreet numbers were introduced 630 became Štepánská67 and 699 became Vodickova 34.36

In the 1820s the two houses were recorded as belongingto Wenzel Saukup, and in 1839 and 1843 to the heirs ofFranz Saukup.37 Johann Gindrzich was the brewer and

possibly the owner in c.1847-51. The propertiesbelonged to the wealthy Kittl family (a later member ofthe family was the opera singer Ema Destinnová, 1878-1930, daughter of Emanuel Kittl). From 1869 the ownerwas Katerina Kittlová (a directory of 1871 recorded thetwo houses as belonging to Johann and Katharina Kittl,and listed Katharina Kittl as brewer and distiller since1869).38 They passed in 1874 to Alois and BedrichProcházka (in 1877 the two houses were recorded as inthe ownership of Alois and Maria Procháska orProchaska),39 and then to František Zverina.40 Thebrewery was leased to Julius Reitler, the owner of thebrewhouse U Klouzaru, from 1875 to 1887.41 Zverinaresumed possession in November 1887 and restartedbrewing, his beer being on sale from December.42 FromZverina it passed via Simon and Allen to BohemianBreweries Ltd. in 1889.

The origin of the brewery’s alternative name, theNational Brewery, is unknown. The Czech formNárodní pivovar is frequently attested, for example inadvertisements for concerts which appeared in theCzech-language press in the 1880s and 1890s. It seemsto have been introduced by Zverina.


Map 2. U Štajgru and surroundings in the mid-19th century,based on Jüttner's plan of Prague of 1816 (extracts repro-duced in Lydia Petránová, Domovní znamení staré Prahy,Prague 1991) and the cadastral map.

Key to house numbers:

699 and 630 (shaded): U Štajgru

Other brewhouses:796 and 625: U Primasu (U Ludikaru, Beym Ludeger) withDvorní pivovar (Hofbierbräuerei)

Brewing-right houses no longer brewing:698: U Cisteckých703: U Rajsu791: U Bohuslavu (Beym Bohuslaw)794: U Prášku795: U Beránku (U Pekarku)

Other houses:697: U desíti panen (Bey 10 Jungfrauen)700: U stríbrného soudku (Zum silbernen Vaßel)

Month Production Month Production

January 1879 2940 December 1883 3000

June 1879 2640 January 1884 3240

July 1879 3240 April 1884 2820

August 1880 3240 May 1884 2940

May 1882 3060 October 1884 3000

October 1882 3000 November 1884 3480

November 1882 2940 December 1884 3180

June 1883 3300 January 1885 3180

September 1883 2700 March 1885 2700

October 1883 2880

Table 2. Production figures (hl) for U Štajgru during JuliusReitler’s tenancy.

Notes. Posel z Prahy, 27 February 1879, Ceské noviny drívePosel z Prahy, 17 July 1879, 24 September 1880, 7 June, 7November; 7 December 1882, 5 July 1883, Národní listy, 4October, 6 November 1883, 5 January. 6 February, 5 May, 7June, 7 November, 4 December 1884, 7 January 1885, 6February, 4 April 1885, Prager Tagblatt, 5 April 1885.

v v

v v

v v

v v

Václavské námestí

Vodickova

V Jáme Štepánská

v

v

v v

v

v

°

°

°

°

°

°

°

v

v

v

v

°

°

vv

A new brewing plant, designed by Kristian Grassauer,for infusion mashing and with indirect steam heatingwas installed in U Štajgru in 1860 during Jan Kittl’sownership. This was one of the first examples of thisbrewing technology, which was then adopted by manyBohemian breweries in the late 19th century. A steamboiler and hoist from Martinka & Co had also beeninstalled, either under Zverina’s ownership or after thepurchase by the English company, by 1891.

U Štajgru was one of the larger Prague brewhouses, andindeed had been the largest until the early 1880s, whenit was overtaken by U Primasu; in 1880 output reached35,100 hl.43 Production figures are available for somemonths in 1879-85 (during Julius Reitler’s tenure): themonthly output was usually about 3,000 hl, rangingfrom 2,640 in June 1879 to 3,480 hl in November 1884(see Table 2).

Práce

The third brewery to be acquired by the English compa-ny was in Práce (or Prác; Pratsch, Pratsche or Bratsch inGerman), then a hamlet in the parish of Zábehlice a fewkilometres south-east of Prague, now part of the city(Prague 10 district). According to the early 19th centurycadastral map, Pratsch was a small group of buildings -the castle, mill and brewery - by a millpond and mill-stream fed by the Botic brook, with half a dozen cot-tages. In 1871 there were 13 houses with 109 inhabi-tants.

The brewery was a medium-sized concern. It and itsmaltings’ origins are unknown, but could date back to1710, the year in which the Práce estate, of which thebrewery formed part, was acquired by the Dominicanpriory of St. Mary Magdalene, Malá Strana, Prague. Inthe 18th century the brewery produced about 600 hl ayear, exclusively for the use of the priory. After the dis-solution of the religious foundation in 1784, as a conse-quence of the policies of Emperor Joseph II, the estatewas bought by the Meissner family.44 Josef Kašparbought the estate from František and Alois Meisler in1868, and developed the brewery into an important con-cern; it was powered by steam, and was the first in theregion to use exclusively pure yeast strains. Kašpar (likeKnobloch in Liben) equipped it completely with plantcompatible for steam drive, two two-floor kilns from

Martinka, plus equipment purchased from Novák aJahn. Annual production was about 14,000 hl in the1870s, rising to 40,620 hl in 1888/89.45

Josef Kašpar (who also owned a brewery in PanenskýTýnec, a small town north-west of Prague) was deputychairman from 1882 and chairman from 1890 of theBohemian brewing trade association, Spolek proprumysl pivovarský v království Ceském (BöhmischerBrauindustrieverein).46 In 1886 he was a member of thecommittee set up with a view to establishing a Czechbrewing research institute. When a new provincial dutyon beer was proposed by the Bohemian parliament in1889, it was Kašpar who chaired a conference of repre-sentatives of trade organisations of brewers and publi-cans called to discuss ways and means of opposing theduty.47 After ceasing to be involved in the Práce brew-ery, he was instrumental in establishing the new brew-ery in Královské Vinohrady near Prague in 1893. Hewas clearly a prominent man in the brewing trade.

Kašpar was the brother-in-law of Karel Knobloch, whopreviously co-owned the aforementioned PanenskýTýnec brewery. Karel brewed here between 1876-81,after which he bought the Liben brewery. His father,Josef Knobloch senior,48 also brewed in Práce in about1873-75 and was the first chairman of the brewing tradeassociation.49 These links may explain in part why theEnglish company selected these two breweries for pur-chase.

Incorporation of the company

The Bohemian Breweries Ltd. was incorporated as acompany in England on 13 June 1889. The memoran-dum of association defined the company’s objects as to‘adopt and carry into effect’ the contracts made withSimon, Halcomb and Allen & Co. and:

To carry on in Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, the

Colonies and elsewhere, the trade or business of common

brewers, distillers, wine, spirit, and aerated and mineral and

other waters, manufacturers and merchants, maltsters, hop

merchants, and licensed victuallers …50

The memorandum and articles were signed by sevenpersons: G.H. Sutcliffe (the accountant who had beeninvolved in the negotiations in Prague), Thomas Baines


°

°

v v

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v

°

v

v

°v

(a solicitor from Clapham) and five others described as‘gentlemen’, G.F. Down, W.H. Chace, W. Mitchell, A.E.Keeley and J.A. Cicognani. As was customary, they

each agreed to subscribe to a nominal one share, but,apart possibly from Sutcliffe and Baines, played no fur-ther part in the company’s affairs. The documents were


Figure 1. First page of the Memorandum of Association of the company.

drafted and presented for registration by Markby,Stewart & Co, solicitors, 57 Coleman Street, London.

The nominal capital was £280,000 divided into 28,000shares of £10 each (on which £280 stamp duty was dulypaid). The registered office was at 8 Great WinchesterStreet, London; moving to to 22 Basinghall Street,London. in 1890, to Blomfield House, London Wall,London two years later and finally, in 1898, to 7 Poultry,London. The secretary was Charles Jackson, later suc-ceeded by Henry Edgar Rodwell. The directors wereCoghlan McLean McHardy (chairman),51 Lieutenant-Colonel Duncan Stewart, formerly of the 92nd GordonHighlanders, Hector John Gurdon-Rebow, FrancisGeorge Horne, Arthur Drummond Forbes and CharlesPage Wood.

There were personal connections with other brewingcompanies. McHardy was also chairman and Stewart adirector of St. Pauli Breweries Co. Ltd., Bremen. Twodirectors had links with British breweries: Gurdon-Rebow was chairman of the Manchester Brewery Co.Ltd., and Page Wood a director of Taylor’s EagleBrewery Ltd., also of Manchester.52

The prospectus

Once the company had been formed it was necessary toattract investors to buy the shares so as to finance thepurchases of the breweries. A prospectus of the compa-ny was therefore published in The Times whichdescribed the breweries in some detail, as expert reportshad been obtained from accountants and valuers. TheLiben brewery was introduced in the following terms:

Lieben Brewery. - Owing to the recent death of the proprietor

[Knobloch], the present is considered a favourable moment

for converting the business into a limited company, and, by

the introduction of new capital, still further developing the

trade, which, according to a certificate given by the present

proprietor, has steadily increased from 16,000 hectolitres in

1881 to 51,200 hectolitres in 1888, and confirmed, as regards

the last two years, by the report of Messrs. Deloitte, Dever,

Griffiths, and Co.53

The report drawn up by the London brewery valuer,John Bridges, (who took a few shares in the company)was then quoted:

Lieben Brewery (situate in a suburb of Prague within a

quarter of a mile of the Lieben Stations on the Austro-

Hungarian State Railway, and the Austrian North-West

Railway) is substantially built and fitted on the most approved

principle. There are extensive ice, beer, and other stores, two

malt-houses, cooperage, small foundry, a capital residence

with large garden (occupied by the late proprietor), a

manager’s residence, workmen’s dwellings, &c., also

excellent stabling, and other out-houses. The buildings are

principally of stone, and with the yards, cover an area of

6,265 square yards. Adjoining the above is a desirable water-

mill and three cottages, with an enclosure of land connected

therewith for inundation during the winter months for the

production of ice - this adjunct renders it an important and

valuable feature, as large quantities of ice are utilized in the

brewing and storage of beers, which is thus obtainable at a

nominal cost. Included in the purchase is a valuable enclosure

of land (contiguous to the brewery) suitable for building

purposes, having an area of 39,739 square metres (about 10

acres). The supply of water is obtained from a well, and, in

addition to this, a continuous service is laid on throughout the

brewery and malt-houses from the Prague Water Company.

The brewery is now capable of producing 37,500 barrels per

annum, but, with an additional outlay of about £10,000, its

capacity could be doubled. The output for last year was

31,034 barrels, and this is the average for the last three years,

as shown by the Government returns. The several properties

are freehold, and form a compact estate, to which is attached

a sound business, and with additional working capital and the

proposed outlay it may be confidently anticipated the present

trade will be doubled, as the beers are in great demand, being

of superior quality to most of the beers sold in the city and

neighbourhood, attributable to the excellent properties of the

water, and of which there is an inexhaustible supply.

U Štajgru was described as follows:

The National (Stajgrü) Brewery stands on 6,350 square yards

of land in the centre of the city, with extensive frontages in

two important thoroughfares. It is fully described in the

extracts from the valuer’s report, printed below.

The freeholder [Zverina] only resumed possession in

December, 1887, after the premises had been for many years

in the hands of a tenant, and has, since then, leased a number

of beer halls, [54] thereby permanently securing a largely

increased profit, as may be judged from the following

comparison of the sales verified from the Government

returns by Mr. John H. Bridges, the valuer.


°

v v

v

The Distillery adjoins the Brewery, is a valuable adjunct to

the business (the profits being estimated by Messrs. Deloitte,

Dever, Griffiths, and Co., in their detailed report, at £6,959

for the past 12 months), and is fully described hereafter.

The prospectus then quoted from the report by Bridges,which painted an optimistic picture of the business:

The National Brewery has been established nearly three

centuries, and restored and rebuilt in the year 1858. It is fitted

with a modern plant in excellent working order, and capable

of producing 100,000 hectolitres (60,000 barrels) per annum.

The plant can be increased to any extent at a nominal cost,

there being ample space for enlarging it. The sales for the

year ending 30th April last were 39,544 hectolitres (24,700

barrels), but from the increased trade from month to month

during that period, a much larger output can be confidently

anticipated for the current year.

The Distillery is permanently licensed by the registered

regulations of last year, and cannot fail to remain an

immensely profitable adjunct to the brewery. The plant is

comparatively new, having been refitted during the year

1887-8. Its capacity is 30,060 hectolitres (675,000 gallons)

per annum. The restaurant is carried on under a permanent

management, by which the brewery receives the large retail

profits of an immense beer trade. There is also an extensive

bottle trade, which, with the restaurant, represents a

consumption of 135 barrels weekly.

The business and residential premises comprise six shops and

18 private residences and tenements, all let to respectable ten-

ants, realizing 10,960fl. (£913 per annum).

It also quoted from the accountants’ report by Deloitte,Dever, Griffiths & Co:

We have also examined certain accounts shown to us that

have reference to the profits stated to have been earned by the

National Brewery and Distillery in Prague. The entire

expenditure is based upon an estimated cost of production per

hectolitre, which the absence of proper accounts renders

impossible to verify in the usual way, but we satisfied

ourselves by comparing estimates with actual invoices for

purchase, and market prices current, and by making careful

inquiry into the principle of assessing the estimates that the

same are reasonable, and may be accepted with the above

explanation.

The combined profits for the 12 months to 31st May, 1889,

on the brewery, restaurant, and tap, bottled beer trade and

distillery, are estimated at

25,991 2 3

Finally, the prospectus portrayed the Práce brewery asfollows:

Prace Brewery. - The property is most substantially built in

the form of a parallelogram, and covers an area of about

4,380 square yards. It includes a brewhouse on the Tower

principle, capable of turning out 75,000 barrels per annum,

two malthouses, malt, barley, and hop chambers, ice and other

cellars, cooperage, brewer’s residence, and cottages. The plant

has all the modern appliances for minimising labour.

Adjoining is a water-mill fed by the Weinbach Rivulet. This is

connected with a reservoir enabling ice to be obtained at a

minimum cost, and in addition there is a well with water

within 3ft. of the surface, the supply from which can be dis-

tributed over the brewery, buildings, and yards by means of a

force pump. The water is found exceptionally adapted for

brewing, a fact fully confirmed by the superior quality of the

beer.

The three breweries U Štajgru, Liben and Práce, togeth-er with the distillery attached to U Štajgru, were to bebought as going concerns, and the local managementwas to remain in place, in particular Dr Zwerina of theNational Brewery and Herr Kaspar of the PráceBrewery.

The aggregate purchase price was fixed at £398,000which was stated to include book debts, loans to cus-tomers, stocks of beer, and stocks of malt, hops andbarley. Part of the sum would be paid in cash, part inshares, and £40,000 would be left on mortgage at 5%.

According to the report in Národní politika,55 Bridges’svaluations of the breweries were broken down as follows:


1888Jan

1888Feb

1888Mar

1888April

1888May

1888June

1888July

1888Aug

Hectossold

1276 1464 1710 1765 2399 2819 2668 3016

1888Sept

1888Oct

1888Nov

1888Dec

1889Jan

1889Feb

1889Mar

1889April

Hectossold

2631 3250 3158 3528 4151 3754 4105 4068

° v

v

v

v

That made a total of £371,600 or 4,452,000 zl, ratherless than the agreed price of £398,000. It was also notedthat debts burdening the properties to the amount of£42,000 would remain on the books and take priorityover the 6% debentures.

Purchase of the breweries

One of the newly formed company’s first acts was toratify on 31 July 1889 the agreement mentioned abovewhich had been made on 1 June 1889 between GeorgeHarold Sutcliffe and John Simon and Messrs Allen &Co.

This agreement was for the sale to the company of

All that Freehold Brewery and Distillery [containing about

Six thousand five hundred square yards or thereabouts]

known as Stajgru or National Brewery situate in the

Wassergasse and Stephansgasse in the City of Prague in the

Kingdom of Bohemia and Empire of Austria [as then

possessed by John Simon and in the occupation of Ferdinand

Zwerina] …56

at a price of £213,000. £133,000 was to be paid in cashand the remaining £80,000 either in cash, shares ordebentures issued by the new company or any combina-tion of these.

On 28 July 1889 it was reported that the contract for UŠtajgru was to be signed on that day at the office ofPrague lawyer Dr Ignaz Wien, who was acting for theEnglish company; Dr Thomas Cerný was acting for DrZwerina. The Böhmische Escompte-Bank had beeninstructed to provide Dr Wien with the first instalment

of £27,000, or about 325,000 gulden.57 The vendor wasthus not Simon, but Zverina.

The contract was duly signed in the morning of 28 or 29July in Dr Wien’s office, and the signatures thennotarised at the office of notary Dr Komers. The formaltaking of possession followed in the afternoon on thepremises, Dr Wien having previously paid Dr Cerný the£27,000.58

As to the price paid, Politik reported this as 1,300,000fl., 700,000 fl. being paid immediately in cash and theremainder in instalments. According to a more detailedreport in Bohemia, however, the total price was1,260,000 fl., broken down into 700,000 fl. for the actu-al brewery business and 560,000 fl. for land, machinery,beer and malt stocks, and tied houses. Of this, 800,000fl. was payable in cash, with a first instalment of£27,000 (about 325,000 fl.) being paid on the signing ofthe contract, and the remaining 460,000 fl. would bepaid to Zverina in the form of priority shares in the com-pany.59 The price of 1,260,000 fl. (about £105,000) infact represented a very substantial reduction from the£213,000 originally agreed.

A few days later Politik - the newspaper which had pre-viously railed against the English sea serpent - remarkedthat, although the sale was said to have been completed,there were still sceptics who found it hard to believe.This was mainly because of astonishment at the exag-gerated purchase price:

When for a business which was purchased not long ago for

not quite 400,000 gulden, more than three times that sum is

now suddenly offered, it is surely not unjustified to take the

view that there is no sound basis for the affair. To be sure, it

is said that the seller will receive only a largish part of the

purchase price in cash and take the remainder in shares in the

company, which means that the price is reduced to some

extent, since the shares cannot be accorded any great value.

But the whole venture was said to be unsound:

The entire brewery company seems to be a risky speculative

undertaking. Who knows the men who are at the head of the

undertaking? What guarantee do they offer for the future? It is

always only English capital that is spoken of. Yet it appears

that the founders do not scorn continental money either, for

why are they inviting subscriptions from the continent too?


National Liben Práce

Land £ 45000 12600 5200

Buildings £ 55000 35000 30000

Machinery £ 24600 7400 9800

Compensation £ 80000 36000 32000

Total £ 2046000 91000 76000

v

°

v v

v v

v v

v

v

Why are they sending even Prague firms hundreds of their

shares for them to be placed? We are aware of cases in which

those firms have sent the shares straight back again because

they suspect that something is wrong with them. The founders

want to get rid of the shares so that they can make a fat profit

and leave further worries to the share owners. Someone is

going to get hurt in the whole business.60

Politik further commented that the ‘brilliant’ deal madeby the owner of U Štajgru apparently had a very conta-gious effect, as the English company was reliablyreported to have received offers to sell from 16 morebreweries in Bohemia.

Another objectionable feature was the company’s chas-ing after tied houses:

To ensure sales of the future products of the English company

at least to start with, a real hunt for pubs is being staged, and

numerous agents - among whom a hairdresser is prominent by

his particular enthusiasm - are running around in Prague and

district, negotiating for the lease or sale of larger taverns for

the English company, with exaggerated prices being offered.

This would cause severe damage to our native brewing

industry. Our pub and hotel owners will probably not be

snared by the foreigners.

Not all Politik’s criticisms seem fair. The directors of thecompany may have been strangers in Prague, but theywere not unknown to the British brewing industry; therewas no difficulty in selling the shares in Britain; and thegobbling up of tied houses, which may have been newto Prague, was normal behaviour for a British breweryat that time, even if enthusiastic hairdressers were notalways involved. Nor, for that matter, were newlyfounded Czech companies all paragons of thrift, if thebankruptcy notices in the local press are any guide. Aswill be seen, however, the comments on the exaggerat-ed price paid were not unjustified.

The agreement with Halcomb and Allen & Co. of June1889 was likewise adopted by the company on 8 August1889, a few days after the U Štajgru agreement. Thiswas a contract for the sale to the new company for£185,000 of

all that Freehold Brewery situate in the Parish of Lieben near

Prague in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the Empire of Austria

as then possessed by Marie Knobloch together also with all

that Freehold Brewery in Prace near Prague aforesaid as then

possessed by Herr Josef Kaspar …61

Agreement was reached on the sale of the Liben andPráce breweries in August 1889. Isidor Heller, a Praguebusinessman, acted as intermediary and was also report-ed to be negotiating for the purchase of other breweries.The prices agreed were said to be 712,500 fl. for Libenand 600,000 fl. for Práce, so that the original price of£185,000 was reduced considerably, to about £110,000.An initial payment of £10,000 (about 120,000 fl.) was tobe made to Dr Friedrich (Bedrich) Kaufmann, the locallawyer representing the vendors, again with funds pro-vided by the Böhmische Escompte-Bank. Half of the£10,000 would then be passed on to the owner of Liben,half to the owner of Práce. The English company wouldhave full ownership only when the final instalment waspaid; until then the breweries would remain in the pos-session and operation of the previous owners.62

Again Politik was hostile. In its view, the purchase pricefor Liben and Práce was just as ‘exaggerated’ as that forU Štajgru. It noted that Kašpar and Zverina, who togeth-er with two Englishmen would form the managingcommittee, would receive an annual salary of 10,000 fl.each. The newspaper also reported that a furtheracquisition was to be made, the Nusle brewery for the‘fabulous’ sum of 1,200,000 fl. The newspaper addedsarcastically that it was not difficult to guess how largethe dividends would be for the fortunate shareholders.63

The final instalment of the purchase money for U Štaj-gru was paid on 30 September.64 A few days later theformer owner František Zverina was appointed com-mercial manager of the brewery and distillery - or not.An announcement to that effect appeared in Národnílisty, on the basis of a letter signed by Zverina, but waspromptly contradicted by a letter from Eduard Krüznerunder the stamp of the company, denying all knowledgeof such an appointment; the newspaper published bothunder the heading ‘What is the truth?’ Although theoriginal intention had been for Zverina to manage thebusiness, it was in fact Krüzner who got the job; he hadbeen appointed technical manager and controller of thethree breweries earlier that month. He had managed abrewery in California and presumably spoke English.65

Antonín Nolc, formerly brewer at Košíre, was thenappointed brewer at U Štajgru, and a Mr Novotnýaccountant.66


°

°

°

°

°

v v

v v

v v

v v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

Meanwhile, on 10 October 1889, the contract for theLiben transaction was finally concluded. The vendorwas Mrs Knoblochová, not Halcomb or Allen & Co.:

Yesterday in the notarial office of Dr Janka the contract

concluded between the English share company “The

Bohemian Breweries Limited” as purchaser and Mrs Marie

Knobloch as vendor of the brewery in Liben was signed by

the parties. Dr Ignaz Wien, advocate in Prague, and London

solicitor Mr Robert Johnson acted as representatives of the

company The Bohemian Breweries Limited, and Dr Fritz

Kaufmann, advocate in Prague, as the lawyer for the previous

owner.

The first instalment of approximately £46,000 was paidto Mrs Knoblochová in cash.67

At a meeting in London on the following day, thechairman, McHardy, was thus able to state that the firsttwo purchases had been completed. The third, Práce,probably followed soon after.

It had been agreed by the company that Allen & Co.would be allotted 810 ordinary shares and John Simon1,500 preference shares, as part of the purchase moneyfor U Štajgru. However, as mentioned below, furthernegotiations took place and disputes arose about thepurchase, and in February 1890 Simon renounced hisright to 1,200 of his preference shares. It was later also

agreed that Halcomb would be allotted 350 ordinaryshares as part of the payment due to him for Liben andPráce.68

A further agreement of May 1890 finally settled thequestion of payment. £11,750 was still owed, afterallowing for various expenses, and of this £500 waspaid to Allen & Co. in cash and the remainder, in theform of 1,125 ordinary shares, to be allotted to Allen &Co. or as they should direct.69

In February 1890 the Austrian authorities in Viennagranted formal authorisation for the English company tocarry on business in Austria, with Alexander WentworthForbes as the company’s local representative.70 The out-going owner of the Liben brewery, Marie Knoblochová,marked her departure from Liben by a charitable gift tothe local poor of 1,000 zl, distributed by the local coun-cil.71

The shareholders

The nominal capital of Bohemian Breweries Ltd. of£280,000 consisted of 14,000 ordinary and 14,000 pref-erence shares of £10 each. The articles stated that thecompany’s profits, after paying interest on borrowings,were to be applied first to the payment of a preferentialdividend of 7% per annum on the preference shares.72


Figure 2. Signatures of the directors and secretary and the company seal on the agreement of 6 May 1890.

°

v v

v

v

v

v

The shares were offered to the public in July 1889; thelists opened on Thursday 18 July and closed at 4 o’clockon Friday 19 July. Only 11,000 of the ordinary shareswere available, the remainder being held back in case itlater proved necessary to increase the working capital.Mortgage debenture bonds of 6% were also issued.

The constituent general meeting of the company tookplace on 11 October 1889. The chairman, McHardy, toldthe meeting that the ordinary and preference shares hadbeen fully subscribed, apart from those reserved for thevendors of the breweries, and paid for almost in full.Satisfactory progress had been made with the actualpurchases of the breweries, although buying three sepa-rate businesses cost much time and effort, especially inview of their situation abroad and the requirements offoreign law; U Štajgru and Liben had been purchased,and Práce would be within a week or two. Five of the sixdirectors had visited Prague and satisfied themselves ofthe position of the breweries.

McHardy had to inform the shareholders, however, thatit had turned out that the profits of U Štajgru had beenexaggerated. A reduction of the purchase price had

therefore been agreed, and he was confident that theexpectations of the corresponding profits were wellfounded. He also informed the meeting that the directorshad given their earnest attention to the future working ofthe properties, and had secured the services of a gentle-man of great skill and experience as manager inPrague.73

The total number of shares taken up as 25 October 1889was 9,520 ordinary and 12,646 preference. This repre-sented an issued share capital of £221,660, of which£156,320 had been paid by that date, £23,100 consid-ered as paid as part of the U Štajgru purchase, and£42,240 was still unpaid.74

Shares were taken up by 133 shareholders. They typi-cally came from the upper middle classes and most ofthem lived in London or the Home Counties. Some heldpublic office, as members of Parliament (Hon. A.E.Gathorne-Hardy, G.J. Shaw Lefevre), magistrates, offi-cers in the army and navy (such as Rear Admiral JohnOmmanney Hopkins), a clergyman of the Church ofEngland (W.R. Lloyd, Westcott Vicarage, Guildford), aclerk to the Parliament (H.J.L. Graham), and even a


Figure 3. Signatures of Dr Simon and Allen & Co. on the agreement of 16 July 1890.

°

°

°

v

v

chief inspector of the Criminal InvestigationDepartment (G.H. Greenham).75

An investment company by the name of The AmericanBreweries and General Securities Trust Ltd. had a smallshareholding (74 and 92). This company was set up inJuly 1889, almost contemporaneously with theBohemian Breweries company, with the object ofinvesting in shares primarily in American brewery com-panies; one of its original directors was C. PageWood.76 This company and the Schloss Brothers part-nership of London and Manchester, merchants, were theonly corporate shareholders. Allen & Co. apparentlydisposed of the shares allotted to them.

The directors by no means had controlling holdings,either individually or collectively; it is true that FrancisGeorge Horne was the largest shareholder, but even his1,665 shares (910 ordinary and 755 preference) repre-sented only a comparatively small proportion of thetotal share capital.77 The chairman, McHardy, had 25ordinary and 25 preference shares (other McHardys,perhaps members of his family, held some more);Stewart likewise had 74 ordinary and 92 preferenceshares; Gurdon-Rebow had 50 preference, Page Wood36 ordinary, and Forbes only 25 ordinary shares.

Fraud and bad weather

The venture was not an instant success. At the compa-ny’s first A.G.M. on 30 December 1890, a year and ahalf after formation, Lt-Col. Duncan Stewart - now thechairman in place of McHardy - told the shareholdersthat sales of beer had been ‘very unfavourably affectedby the unusually cold and wet weather which prevailedin Prague last summer and autumn’, and ‘the influenzaepidemic which prevailed at Prague had also had a greateffect in the reduction of the sales’. The profit for the 16months to 30 September 1890 amounted to £19,783.The Liben and Práce breweries had nevertheless per-formed reasonably well. Sales at Liben had been main-tained at the high amount of the previous year, sinceadditional custom had been secured which had counter-balanced the unfavourable season, while at Práce thefall in sales was attributable partly to the unfavourableseason and partly to the fact that some distant customerswere now being supplied from another brewery. Theproblem was U Štajgru.

Stewart said that the expectations of the company hadnot been realised with regard to the National Brewery(U Štajgru). At the associated distillery, the amount ofspirit produced had been limited by legal enactment,but additional tanks were now being put in by the man-agement which would enable a substantial increase inproduction. As to the decline in sales on the NationalBrewery, that had been caused - apart from the badweather - by mismanagement: it had turned out that thebusiness was ‘conducted on very unsound princi-ples’.78

The bad weather was real enough, not merely a conven-ient excuse, although it must be said that the figures forproduction and sales of the various local breweries donot appear to demonstrate any prolonged problems.Prague was hit by flood waters on 3 September 1890and on the next day two arches of the Charles Bridgewith the statues of Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xaviercollapsed into the Vltava. Other parts of Bohemia,Austria and Germany also suffered during the year. Thelow-lying parts of Liben were under as much as 3.5metres of water. The Castle Brewery suffered consider-able damage and its cellars were flooded.79 The Englishbrewery, being on slightly higher ground, probablyescaped direct damage.

At the next A.G.M., which was held in London on 25January 1892, Lt-Col. Stewart again complained of a‘cold and wet summer’. He also noted that the insuffi-ciency of the company’s working capital had caused agreat deal of trouble and put them to serious inconven-ience.

According to the report presented by the secretary,H.E. Rodwell, production figures for the three brew-eries for 1890/91 were 53,797 hl at Liben, 39,783 hl atPráce, and 27,687 at U Štajgru, making a total of121,077 hl. A new brewhouse with a capacity of 70,000hl and new cellars for 40,000 hl had been installed atLiben. New cellars were now being constructed at Práce.

Despite the increase in production, and despite the factthat the profit and loss account showed a surplus of£8,458, no dividend could be paid. This figure was areduction on the previous year, and this had been causedby the increased cost of hops, amounting to £3,900.There had been savings of £2,615 in expenditure onmalt, sundries, and the keep of horses, but costs had


°

°

°

v

v

v

v

vv

v

v

v

risen by £3,756 in respect of fuel, salaries, generalexpenses, taxes, duty, and bad debts.80

There was considerable dissatisfaction, and one share-holder, L.R.C. Boyle, even ‘characterized the prospec-tus as a tissue of misstatements’. On a proposal byBoyle, seconded by another shareholder (Hon. HenryBrand, the later Viscount Hampden), a committee wasset up to investigate and report. It was to consider in par-ticular whether any money could be recovered from thevendors of the breweries. The committee’s report waspresented at the adjourned A.G.M. on 8 March 1892. Itwas clear that the company had been the victim of fraud.

The committee said:

We have convinced ourselves that the price given for the

Lieben and Prace breweries, although high, was not

extravagant, but that the price given for the National Brewery

was in excess of its actual value. It seems that the vendor of

the National Brewery gave Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths,

& Co. certain figures showing cost of production per

hectolitre … the figures thus given showed a rate of profit so

extravagantly high, as compared with that of the other two

breweries, that it is difficult to understand why the

accountants did not have their suspicions sufficiently aroused

to cause them to make some further inquiries. If they had

done so they would have discovered that these figures were

quite untrustworthy … [They] are of opinion that, notwith-

standing this unfortunate over-estimate of the value of the

National Brewery, the shareholders have in these three

breweries a valuable property …

The directors who stood by the company had beenplaced in a difficult position, and it was ‘entirely owingto the exertions of Colonel Stewart and Mr Horne, whowere deserted by three of their colleagues, that the com-pany has still a future before it’. The three directors whohad bailed out must have been three out of McHardy,Gurdon-Rebow, Forbes, Page Wood and EssexEdgeworth Reade (a director during 1890). It was nowproposed that the board should be strengthened by theaddition of L.R.C. Boyle, J.G. Grenfell and Monsieur deNeufville, and this was done.

Mr Dever, of Deloitte’s, said that it was in absolute goodfaith that his firm had made the report. Whatever fraudhad been practised by the vendor had deceived them, aswell as the directors and the valuer.

The directors, said Stewart, had not brought legal pro-ceedings against those who had perpetrated the fraud, asthey did not expect that the offenders would have anymoney to pay damages. They could have started crimi-nal proceedings to get the persons sent to prison, but, hesaid, ‘the directors had the satisfaction of knowing thatone of them was already there’.81

At the same time, there was a dispute over commissionbetween the firms of Edwards & Co. and Chadwick &Co., which related to Bohemian Breweries Ltd. withoutdirectly concerning the company. Edwards & Co.claimed that they were due a commission for introduc-ing Simon to Chadwick & Co. A first legal action wassettled, but in further proceedings Edwards claimed foradditional commission. The defence essentially was thatAllen had not acted as Chadwick’s nominee and that,while 163 shares in the Bohemian Breweries companyhad been allotted to Chadwick & Co., this had been indischarge of any claims they might have had against thecompany. The case came to trial on 6 May 1892 beforeMr Justice Wills and a jury, and the plaintiffs’ claim suc-ceeded.82 This did not prevent Herbert Edwards andHarry Saunders from going bankrupt in 1892.

The 1891 Jubilee Exhibition

Amid the problems related above, Bohemian BreweriesLtd. was none the less able to exhibit the beers from itsthree breweries at the Jubilee Exhibition of 1891, heldin Prague from 15 May to 15 October as a celebration ofBohemian science, industry and culture. Marking thecentenary year of the first international exhibitionorganized in the city, it was originally promoted by bothCzech and German businessmen. However, theGermans withdrew and, at least partly as a result of theirboycott, it became a Czech national celebration. TheEnglish company was an exhibitor, with its own pavil-ion, and a member of the exhibition’s guarantee fund.83

Guidebooks to Prague for tourists gave detailed descrip-tions of the exhibition, including its restaurants. Thus aFrench-language guide noted:

A g[auche] du bassin inférieur des fontaines lumineuses, non

loin de l’allée, on trouve un grand restaurant “Bohemian

Breweries Limited”, où l’on sert des bières fabriquées dans

les brasseries de cette compagnie. Une assez bonne cuisine.


[To the left of the lower basin of the illuminated fountains,

not far from the avenue, may be found a large restaurant

‘Bohemian Breweries Limited’, where beers produced in this

company’s breweries are served. Quite good cooking.]

and a German-language edition from the same publish-er mentioned more briefly ‘die Restauration Bohemianbreweries limited’ to the left of the fountain. One won-ders how good the ‘assez bonne’ cuisine was.84 Therestaurant also hosted musical performances, forinstance by traditional Bohemian bagpipers.

It is not known specifically what kinds of beer were onsale at the exhibition, but Czech breweries in this peri-od generally produced mainly pale beers of medium orlower strength, together with smaller quantities of otherbeers. According to figures for 1888/89 quoted in theshort introduction to the brewing industry (written byFrantišek Chodounský) in the exhibition catalogue,85

Czech beers varied in gravity from 9° to 20°, but mostwere 10°.

Prizes were awarded to the best exhibitors and in cate-gory III.B(a), ‘Beer’, the Bohemian Breweries Limitedwas one of five breweries to receive a prize in class2c: not the very highest award but nevertheless anhonourable achievement.86

The second and final part of this article will appear inNumber 150 of Brewery History.

References

1. Prague at this time consisted of seven districts, see Map 1.

According to provisional figures from the census of 31

December 1890, the population of the city was 181,895 and

of the suburbs 176,649. About 84% of persons in the city

spoke Czech and about 15% German.

2. Brewers’ Journal, 15 May 1892, pp.217-8.

3. Presumably John Bell Allen, formerly of 38 Old Jewry,

London, commission agent and company promoter, who was

bankrupt in 1891: London Gazette, 12 December 1890 and

other dates.

4. The correct form of the surname is Knoblochová (in

Czech, men and women have different surnames) but the

English and German documents generally refer to her as

Knobloch. Note also that surnames may appear in Czech,

German or hybrid spellings (e.g. Zverina, Zwerina; Kašpar,

Kaspar); similarly, the same Christian name may appear as

Bedrich or Friedrich, as František or Franz, and it is often

impossible to determine which version the person concerned

preferred. The English-language documents tends to use

German spellings, but without diacritics. In this article no

attempt has been made to standardise the orthography of

names.

5. Politik, 30 July 1889 (this and other newspapers consulted

on the website of the Národní knihovna Ceské republiky

(National Library of the Czech Republic),

http://kramerius.nkp.cz).

6. Bohemia, 31 July 1889.

7. Prager Tagblatt, 28 and 31 July 1889 (Pilsen), 29 August

1889 (Starý Plzenec) (Prager Tagblatt consulted on the

website of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Austrian

National Library), http//:anno.onb.ac.at).

8. The company was The Grand Hotel, Prague (Limited):

Prager Tagblatt, 19 September, 5 and 10 November 1889;

The Times, 30 and 31 July, 1 August 1889.

9. Kaiserliches Patent, womit eine Gewerbe-Ordnung für

den ganzen Umfang des Reiches, mit Ausnahme des

venetianischen Verwaltungsgebietes und der Militärgrenze,

erlassen, und vom 1. Mai 1860 angefangen in Wirksamkeit

gesetzt wird (R.G. Bl. Nr. 227) (Austro-Hungarian legislation

consulted on the website of the Austrian National Library,

http://alex.onb.ac.at).

10. From the Latin propinatio, meaning drinking to

someone’s health. In the sense of the sole right to make and

sell alcoholic beverages, the Oxford English Dictionary

records the English word in relation to Poland, but not to

Bohemia; similarly, the 1909 edition of the German

encyclopaedia Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon (6th

edition, Leipzig/Vienna 1909, vol. 16, p.384) relates the

concept to Poland, Galicia and Bukovina; it was not due to

expire in Bukovina until 1911. A Galician propination loan

was issued in 1889.

11. Gesetz vom 30. April 1869, über die Aufhebung des

Propinationsrechtes, wirksam für das Königreich Böhmen

(German), Zákon, daný dne 30. dubna 1869, pro království

Ceské, o zrušení práva propinacního (Czech), Landes-

Gesetzblatt für das Königreich Böhmen, Zákonník zemský

království Ceského, 1869, No 55.

12. The Austrian unit of currency was the guilder or florin

(German: Gulden, Czech: zlatý), abbreviated to fl. or zl. It

was divided into 100 (formerly 60) Kreuzer or krejcar (kr.). In

1892 the crown (Krone, koruna, K) was introduced at the rate

of 2 crowns to 1 guilder.

13. The fund was intended to compensate the owners of


v v

v

v v

v

vv

v

breweries and distilleries for the loss of their monopoly

rights, but in practice, when it came to be distributed in 1890,

there was insufficient money to satisfy the claims in full.

14. In Pilsen, for example, the Bürgerliches Bräuhaus

(Mešt’anský pivovar) lost its brewing monopoly, and the

Erste Pilsner Actien-Brauerei (the later Gambrinus) was set

up in 1869: Wenzel Suchý, Bürgerliches Bräuhaus in Pilsen

1842-1892, Pilsen 1892, p. 237.

15. It was reported in 1889 that a large number of

applications were being made to convert businesses into

limited companies in Austria, especially beer breweries and

sugar factories. As the authorities had to check the

relationship between the real value of the assets and the

proposed share capital in each individual case, the procedure

could take a long time: Prager Tagblatt, 21 October 1889.

16. There were 18 breweries producing over 100,000 hl a

year: 10 in Lower Austria, 3 in Bohemia, 2 in Hungary, 2 in

Styria and 1 in Salzburg. The largest of all was Anton

Dreher’s brewery in Schwechat outside Vienna (423,770 hl),

followed by Mauthner & Sohn, St. Marx, Vienna (381,330

hl), Mešt’anský pivovar, Pilsen (363,040 hl), AG der Liesinger

Brauerei, Liesing near Vienna (253 939 hl), and Hütteldorfer

Bierbrauerei AG, Hütteldorf near Vienna (206,048 hl): Prager

Tagblatt, 11 December 1890, referring to statistics from the

Ministry of Finance. Compare the previous year’s figures

reported in Prager Tagblatt, 7 August 1889. By 1896 there

were 24 breweries in the Cisleithanian (non-Hungarian) half

of the monarchy producing over 100,000 hl a year.

17. Gabriela Basarová and Ivo Hlavácek, Ceské pivo, Prague

1999, p.74.

18. Národní listy, 25 September 1891. Their only client in

Britain was the Austro-Bavarian Lager Beer Brewery and

Crystal Ice Factory, Tottenham, London, the first brewery in

Britain to be designed for bottom fermentation. The Latin

American breweries, which for some reason were listed

together with England, were J.C. Plagemann, Valparaiso;

Fabrica de cerveza y hielo, Santiago; and Fabrica cerveja

Bavaria, Sao Paulo. Among the other European breweries

were Van Vollenhofen (Amsterdam), Weiner (Astrakhan),

Costis Lambro (Athens), Luther (Bucharest), Carlsberg

(Copenhagen), Löwenbrauerei (Dortmund), Reisewitz

(Dresden), Pripp (Gothenburg), Sinebrychoff (Helsinki),

Richard (Kiev), Lilienfeld (Lviv), Phénix (Marseille),

Colosseum (Munich), Hofbräuhaus (Munich),

Waldschlösschen (Riga), Kalashnikov (St Petersburg), Pfaff

(Tallinn), Chopin (Vilnius), Bayerische Staatsbrauerei

(Weihenstephan) and Schaup (Zipf). See also František

Chodounský (ed), Príspevek k dejinám ceského pivovarnictví,

Prague 1891, p.155 (consulted on http://kramerius.nkp.cz).

19. Karel Malý and collective, Dejiny ceského a

ceskoslovenského prava do roku 1945, Prague 1997, pp.169-

70.

20. See Karel Urban, ‘Príspevek k dejinám pra�ského pivo-

varnictví z let 1750-1850’, in Chodounský, Príspevek, pp. 99-

130.

21. The Akcionárský pivovar na Smíchove, or in German

Actienbierbrauerei am Smichow, was established in 1869 as a

share company. Brewing started in 1871, and by 1901/02

output had risen to 510,000 hl. This is the present

Staropramen brewery, still brewing in 2011 as part of the

StarBev group. The brewery in Nusle dated back to 1694 but

was modernised in the 1890s, and became a share company in

1897. Production in 1901/02 was 90,300 hl.

22. The brewery in Vinohrady, Mešt’anský pivovar na

Královských Vinohradech, or in German Bürgerliches

Bräuhaus in Königl. Weinberge, was set up in 1893, as a

share company. In 1898/99 it brewed 107 050 hl. The

brewery in Holešovice, První prazský mešt’anský pivovar, or

in German Erstes Prager bürgerliches Bräuhaus, was

established in 1895, as a share company. In 1901/02 it

produced 112 625 hl. The brewery built by the industrialist

Ringhoffer on his estate in Velké Popovice, south-east of

Prague, also sold large quantities of beer in the city.

23. The ‘imperial prints’ of the cadastral maps (those drawn

up to show the value and ownership of land as a basis for

taxation) can be viewed at http://archivnimapy.cuzk.cz. See

also Historicky at;as mest Ceske republiky, sv. 14, Praha

Liben (Prague 2006).

24. Chodounský, Príspevek, p. 150.

25. The city council originally intended to lease it to První

prazský mešt’anský pivovar, the large brewery in Holešovice,

which put in a better offer than the existing tenant Jan Štolz

(Stolz), a brewer who had worked at one time in the Aabenraa

brewery in Denmark and married a Danish wife, Anna

Kelting. The council then decided to cancel the tender

procedure and close the brewery instead. Stolz claimed that

he had put in a low offer because councillor Neubert and

ex-councillor Vendulák, who were also directors of the

Holešovice brewery, had assured him that they would not

make an offer. Neubert and Vendulák then brought a

prosecution for defamation against Stolz and another

councillor, Wenzel Lada. Proceedings against Stolz were

dropped after he made an appropriate statement. At an

adjourned hearing, several deputy mayors and councillors

gave evidence, and Lada had to admit that his comments had

been based on incorrect information, whereupon the charge

was withdrawn and he was acquitted: Prager Tagblatt, 12

August, 30 September, 8, 22 October 1899.


v

v

v

v vv

v v v v

v v

v

v

v

v v

v v

v v

26. Albert Goldfinger was registered as a dealer in hops and

other goods in May 1869, at Zlatnická (Goldschmiedsgasse)

6/1128-II, Prague. He later traded in partnership with

Emanuel Kalberg or Kallberg. He was also registered as a

maltster in Liben in 1873: Allgemeines Adress- und Handels-

Handbuch, Prague 1871, p. 17; Prazský denník, 10 June 1873.

27. Polák states that it was the buildings of Gotlas’s calico

works that were converted, but a comparison of the cadastral

map with later plans indicates that it was not those but a

nearby group of buildings called Schetelka or Šotelka. The

brewery also appears on maps 54 and 56 in the Historicky

at;as mest.

28. Polák, p.49. See Goldfinger’s advertisements in Národní

listy, 18 June, 9 August 1874 and other dates. A Viennese

vedro was about 0.57 hl, a Bohemian vedro about 0.57 or

0.61 hl; the Viennese unit was more commonly used. The

metric system was introduced from 1871.

29. Národní listy, 26 July 1881. Goldfinger’s bankrupt estate

was finally wound up in 1884: Národní listy, 10 July 1884. A

Mr Prokeš may have owned or leased the brewery briefly in

1880.

30. Thus in an advertisement of August 1888 recommending

its main depositary Alois Válek, Zizkova trída 124, Karlín,

the brewery was called ‘Parostrojní pivovar v Libni Karla

Knoblocha’, (Steam Brewery in Liben of Karel Knobloch),

and in another advertisement of April 1889 for a special

bottled beer called Libenský granát, also mentioning Válek, it

was referred to as ‘První parostrojní pivovar K. Knoblocha v

Libni’ (First Steam Brewery of K. Knobloch in Liben):

Národní politika, 26 August 1888, 7, 8 April 1889.

31. Zbynek Likovský, ‘Kde se pivo varí’, in Dagmar

Broncová (ed), Kniha o Praze 8, Prague 1996, p.37. The

announcement of Knobloch’s death, apart from specifying

that he died at 1 p.m. on Thursday 1 March 1888, following a

long illness, of kidney problems at the age of 43, makes it

clear that he was survived by his widow Marie Knoblochová,

his six children Klementina, Marie, Karel, Ervina, Raimund

and Hedvika, his father Josef, his brother Josef and sister-in-

law Marie, and his sisters Pavlina (married to Josef Kašpar),

Karolina (married to Raimund Kubík) and Berta (married to

Karel Bohuslav): Národní listy, 3 March 1888.

32. ‘Ceské strojnictví’, in Chodounský, Príspevek, p.152.

33. Bohemia, 10, 12 March 1878.

34. Wassergasse and Stephansgasse are the German names

for Vodickova and Štepánská streets, although the name

Vodickova in fact derives not from the Czech word for water

(voda) but from the name of a rich 15th-century butcher, Jan

Vodicka.

35. Jaroslaus Schaller, Beschreibung der königlichen Haupt-

und Residenzstadt Prag, vol. 4, Trier 2004 (originally

published Prague 1797), pp. 335, 344, citing land register

entries L.C. 55 f. 15 and L.C. 64 f. 123 p. v. No 527 was

described as ‘bierbräuberechtigte’ (enjoying the brewing

right) while No 594 had ‘Feuergerechtigkeit’ (the right to use

a fire to carry on a craft) and a garden. According to Urban,

the owner in 1725/26 was Josef Posecký: Urban, in

Chodounský, Príspevek, table at end of volume.

36. Prague houses thus have two numbers, the (red)

registration or conscription numbers (Czech: císlo popisné,

abbreviated to cp) and the (blue) street numbers. In the case

of the registration numbers, the Roman or Arabic numerals

after the hyphen indicate the district of the city.

37. Verzeichniß der Häuser und deren Besitzer in der kön.

Hauptstatdt Prag, Trier 2011 (originally published Prague

1820); Verzeichniß der Häuser (sammt Benennungen) und

deren Besitzer, Trier 2011 (originally published Prague 1832);

Verzeichnis der in der königlichen Hauptstadt Prag befind-

lichen Häuser, Trier 2010 (originally published Prague 1839),

pp.39, 41; Verzeichnis der in der königlichen Hauptstadt Prag

befindlichen Häuser, Trier 2011 (originally published Prague

1843).

38. Allgemeines Adress- und Handels-Handbuch, pp.24,

496, 503. She was also listed as a publican at No 699-II: ibid,

p.107. This was probably the brewery identified only as

‘Kittl’ which brewed 29 128 veder in 1860 and was the

largest in Prague at that time: Chodounský, Príspevek, p.149.

The Kittls also owned two other Prague brewhouses, U

Lemonu (Lehmannu) and U Reitknechtu (Rajtknechtu):

Zbynek Likovský, Majitelé, nájemci a vedoucí pracovníci

pivovaru Ceských zemí 1869-1950, supplement to Kvasný

prumysl, Prague 1997-8, p.108; Zbynek Likovský, Drzitelé,

provozovatelé a vedoucí pivovaru Ceských zemí 1869-1989,

Prague 2010, p.161.

39. Verzeichnis der Häuser der königlichen Hauptstadt

Prag, Trier 2007 (originally published Prague 1877), pp.15,

16.

40. This František Zverina (1859-1924) should not be

confused with his contemporary and namesake František

Zverina (1861-1926), who was a brewer, owner of the

Petrovice brewery, brewing school teacher and holder of

various offices in trade associations.

41. The Reitlers were Jewish. When Julius Reitler’s father

Jakub died in 1877 in his hundredth year, the funeral

procession left from U Štajgru for the Jewish cemetery in

Blevice. The mourning relatives were Julius, his brothers

Josef, Karel and Nathan and their wives from the Kaufried,

Heller, Goldberger and Kohn families, his sister Terezie Löwy

and her husband Abraham, and Jakub Reitler’s 18


°

v v

v v

v

v

v

v v

vv v

v

v v v

v

v v

v

v v

v

v

v

v v

° ° ° °

°

v

v

° v

v

°

v

grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren: Posel z Prahy, 8

March 1877.

42. See Zverina’s advertisement in Národní listy, 6

November 1887.

43. Prazský denník, 1 December 1880; the figure is thus for

the brewing year 1879/80. Only the suburban breweries in

Smíchov and Nusle brewed more beer than U Štajgru.

44. F.V. Konecný, ‘Z galerie a historie ceskomoravských

pivovaru a sladoven: Bývalý pivovar na Prácích v Praze

XIII’, Kvas, 1946, pp.235-6; Zbynek Likovský, ‘Pivovary’, in

Pavel Augusta (ed), Kniha o Praze 10, Prague 1997, p.80;

Polák, p.95. Meissner and Meisler are probably variant forms

of the same family name. The estate can be traced back to

1357, and there is a reference to a hopgarden in 1617, so that

it may be assumed that brewing was carried on, at least

domestically, long before 1710.

45. Chodounský, Príspevek, pp.153, 161; Likovský, Ceské

pivovary 1869-1900, p.185. One known outlet for Práce beer

in Prague was U Helmu in Vodickova ulice.

46. Ladislava Soukupová and František Frantík (ed), Pivo -

Slad - Chmel od A do Z. Ceské, moravské a slovenské osob-

nosti, Prague 2004, p.80. The association was founded in

1873: Príspevek, pp.206, 209. Kašpar was also involved with

sugar factories and a local savings bank, and was a local

politician and member of the provincial assembly. He died in

1907 at the age of 73: Národní listy, 3 March 1907, Národní

politika, 4 March 1907.

47. Prager Tagblatt, 3 November 1889.

48. The steam brewery in Panenský Týnec (Jungferteinitz in

German) was opened in 1871 by Josef Knobloch senior and

Karel Knobloch; it was known as Knoblochuv pivovar

(Knobloch’s brewery) to distinguish it from the other brewery

in the town. Kašpar owned it (with Pavlina Kašparova) from

1876, and leased it to various tenants. After his death it

belonged to Václav Kašpar until its closure in 1909: Pivo -

Slad - Chmel od A do Z, p.86; Likovský, Majitelé, p.112,

Drzitelé, p.167, Ceské pivovary 1869-1900, p.168, and

Pivovary ceskoslovenského území 1900-1948, p.177.

49. The 1871 directory recorded the Práce firm as Josef

Kašpar, registered on 7 May 1868, with Josef Knobloch being

authorised to sign on behalf of the firm: Allgemeines Adress-

und Handels-Handbuch, p.68. The newspaper report of the

ceremonial laying of the foundation stone of the Panenský

Týnec brewery (the stone was struck three times first by the

parish priest, then by representatives of the brewery and

various dignitaries such as the local postmaster and doctor,

and finally by two local schoolboys, who were then tapped

three times on the backside with a ruler to help them

remember the occasion) actually referred to Mr Knobloch

senior as the owner of the Práce steam brewery near Prague,

whose beer was sought after by the foremost Prague

publicans and popular with the public because of its

excellence: Národní listy, 28 April 1870.

50. The National Archives (TNA), reference BT

31/4467/29130 (dissolved company files), Memorandum and

Articles of Association.

51. Also spelt M’Lean M’Hardy.

52. Page Wood was also a director of The American

Breweries & General Securities Trust Ltd, mentioned below,

an investment company which owned some shares in

Bohemian Breweries Ltd. By 1898 he was chairman of

Taylor’s Eagle Brewery and of Springwell Brewery Co. Ltd.

(Heckmondwike), and a director of Daniell & Sons’

Breweries Ltd. (Colchester), Gillman & Spencer Ltd, Parker’s

Burslem Brewery Co Ltd, Tamplin & Sons’ Brewery,

Brighton, Ltd. and J. & J. Yardley & Co. Ltd.

(Wolverhampton), and also of the Licenses Insurance

Corporation Ltd. Also by 1898, Gurdon-Rebow was chairman

of Daniell & Sons and Tamplin & Sons, as well as the

Manchester Brewery Co., and a director of Farnham United

Breweries Ltd., Hull Brewery Co. Ltd., and the American

firm of Emerald & Phoenix Brewery Co. Ltd. He was also

connected with several other new brewery companies, often

set up with the aid of company promoter Osborne O’Hagan

and entrepreneur J.R. Ellerman: Gourvish, T.R & Wilson,

R.G. (1994) The British Brewing Industry 1830 - 1980.

Cambridge: C.U.P.

53. The Times, 17, 18 July 1889.

54. One of these was the former Dreherovská pivnice in

Smíchov, acquired in 1889: Národní politika, 31 January

1889. By contrast, in January 1889, in a press announcement

addressed to the officials and workers of the State railway

company, Zverina declared, to avoid further confusion, that he

had never supplied his beer to the provisions department of

the railway station: Národní politika, 18 January 1889.

55. Národní politika, 3 August 1889, citing Kvas and Ceský

Lloyd. There is evidently an error in the figures for Práce,

which add up to 77,000. The report also gave details of the

company’s share capital and the names of the directors, not

always spelt quite correctly.

56. The agreement is summarised in slightly different

wording in the preambles to the agreements of 21 August

1889 and 6 May 1890 (TNA, cited above); the words in

square brackets appear in one or other but not both versions

of the text. Ferdinand is a mistake for Franz. It is curious to

see this typically English legal language used to describe

property in Bohemia; the actual transfer will have been done

by a legal act, presumably in German, in accordance with


°

v v

v v

v

v

v

v

v

v v

v

v

v v v

v°

v

v v

°

vv

v

v

local land law.

57. Prager Tagblatt, 28 July 1889.

58. Národní politika, 29 July 1889; Bohemia, 29, 30 July

1889; Prager Tagblatt, 30 July 1889; Národní listy, 30 July

1889. The date is uncertain, as the Prager Tagblatt and

Bohemia reports refer to the events taking place ‘today’ or

‘yesterday’ 29 July, while the Národní listy and Národní

politika reports state that the signing took place ‘yesterday’ or

‘on Sunday’ 28 July.

59. Politik and Bohemia, both 30 July 1889.

60. Politik, 3 August 1889. The article concluded by

pointedly noting the sale of the Grand Hotel to an English

company for a high price on the basis of scanty accounts and

optimistic forecasts.

61. As described in the later agreement of 8 March 1890

(TNA, cited above).

62. Prager Tagblatt, Národní listy and Bohemia, all 11

August 1889. The first two reports are virtually identical in

content, except that the Czech-language one uses the spelling

Breveries instead of Breweries in the company’s name; this

was a not uncommon mistake.

63. Politik, 11 August 1889.

64. Národní listy, 1 October 1889. That the date was 30

September rather than 1 October is proved by the Times

report of the meeting of 11 October 1889.

65. Národní politika, 18 September 1889; Národní listy, 9,

10 October 1889. Krüzner, who was born in Moravská

Trebova in 1850, brewed in Lanškroun before going to Boca,

California; he later brewed in Velké Brezno and ended his

career at Zatec. He died in 1904: Likovský, Majitelé, p.126,

Drzitelé, p.188; Pivo - Slad - Chmel, p.98.

66. Národní listy and Národní politika, both 17 October

1889. Nolc (Noltsch) also brewed inter alia at Karlovy Vary,

Ostrov, Horní Slavkov and Horní Schönbach: Likovský,

Majitelé, p.166, Drzitelé, p.246.

67. Prager Tagblatt, 11 October 1889; Národní listy, 12

October 1889.

68. TNA (cited above), agreements of 21 August 1889, 4

February, 8 March and 16 July 1890.

69. TNA (cited above), agreement of 6 May 1890.

70. Prager Tagblatt, 27 February 1890. Consent had

previously been given in December 1889 by a committee of

the Ministry of the Interior: Národní listy, 6 December 1889,

citing Fremdenblatt, and Prager Tagblatt and Národní

politika, both 6 December 1889, citing Die Presse.

71. Národní politika, 18 November 1889.

72. TNA (cited above), Articles of Association, clause 7.

73. The Times, 12 October 1889; Prager Tagblatt, 18

October 1889 (giving the date of the meeting as 12 October).

74. TNA (cited above), Summary of Capital and Shares

made up to 25 October 1889.

75. Other trades and professions represented - usually only

by one or two persons each - were barrister, solicitor, doctor

of medicine, ophthalmic surgeon, stockbroker, bullion broker,

produce broker, actuary, average adjuster, mortgage broker,

accountant, assayer, land agent, engineer, civil engineer,

contractor, station master (W. Ross, Great Southern Railway,

Cork), brewer (J. Dewing or Dearing, Bridlington, later of

Great Grimsby), butcher, clerk and coachman.

Others - apart from those for whom no occupation or rank

was stated - were described as merchant, manufacturer,

proprietor or land owner, and many were recorded simply as

‘gentleman’. Two were peers: Earl Bathurst and the Earl of

Egmont, and two were sons of peers who later succeeded to

the title.

Of the shareholders, 14 or about 10% were women. They

were classified by marital status, as married woman or lady,

widow or spinster, with one exception (a lady’s maid).

Shareholders from outside the London area included Dr J.H.

Davidson, County Asylum, Chester, and Dr W. Wilson,

Pendleton, Manchester. Ireland was represented (besides the

Cork stationmaster) by several members of the Browne

family of New Ross.

The principal holders of ordinary and preference shares were:

Ord Pref Total

Francis George Horne, gentleman,

14 Royal Exchange, London 910 755 1665

John Biddulph Arnold, gentleman,

35 Haymarket, London 784 368 1152

Arthur Clarges Loraine Fuller, gentleman,

2 Whitehall Gardens, London 411 422 833

Hon. William Henry Peregrine Carington,

Royal Court, House of Lords 367 460 827

Schloss Brothers, Ethelburga House,

Bishopsgate, London 367 460 827

Juliana Elizabeth Barclay and Emily Barclay,

spinsters, Rokefield, Dorking 200 400 600

James Bacon, Hillside House, Stevenage,

Hertfordshire 183 230 413

Donald Clark, gentleman, 123 Beaconsfield Road,

Tottenham, Middlesex 183 230 413

John Moore, manufacturer, 1 Finsbury Pavement,

London 183 230 413

John George Parker, civil engineer, 4 Water Lane,

London 183 230 413

Robert John Price, barrister,


v

v

v

v

v

v

104 Sloane Street, London 183 230 413

James Steains, 9 Mincing Lane,

London 183 230 413

Henry John Lowndes Graham, Clerk of the Parliament,

22 Lennox Gardens, London 200 200 400

Henry Riversdale Grenfell and

William Smellie Graham, gentlemen, 8 Great Winchester

Street, London 200 200 400

Another 7 shareholders had 200 or more shares:

Ord Pref Total

Edgar Hanbury, gentleman, Eastrop Grange,

Highworth, Wiltshire 0 300 300

Maria Fuller, widow, Rokefield, Dorking,

Surrey 100 200 300

John Rowland Banks, gentleman, 3 Tokenhouse

Buildings, London 0 200 200

George Coyte, average adjuster, 23 Birchin Lane,

London 200 0 200

Harvey St. John Oscar Thompson, produce broker,

38 Mincing Lane, London 200 0 200

Rear Admiral John Ommanney Hopkins, 29 Warwick

Square, London 100 100 200

John Morrison, gentleman, Rushmead Priory, St Neots,

Huntingdonshire 100 100 200

About 80 shareholders had fewer than 100 shares - indeed,

the smallest holdings were two of just one ordinary share

each (E.G. Bell, who sold his share in 1895, and G.F. Down).

Most shareholders held both ordinary and preference shares.

76.The Times, 10, 11, 12 July 1889. The directors of this

company were also all directors of the Commercial Union

Brewery Investment Corporation Ltd. The American

Breweries company was put into liquidation in 1897 and

finally wound up in 1901.

77. Shareholders had one vote each for the first 10 shares,

then one vote for every 5 shares up to 100, and then one vote

for every 10 shares: TNA (cited above), Articles of

Association, clause 81.

78. Brewers’ Journal, 15 January 1891, p. 11. According to

figures later quoted by Národní listy (15 January 1892),

apparently in response to incorrect data published elsewhere,

the accounts to September 1890 showed a profit of £8 234, of

which £6,393 was distributed as dividends and £1,000

allocated to the reserve fund; so it seems that the company

actually paid a dividend at least once in its life.

79. Prager Tagblatt, 16 October 1890.

80. The Times, 26 January 1892; Kvas, 1 February 1892,

p.62; Brewers’ Journal, 15 February 1892, p.61. The report in

Kvas was sceptical about the bad weather as an explanation

for the lack of a dividend.

81. Brewers’ Journal, 15 March 1892, pp.119-20. The name

of the delinquent is not stated.

82. Brewers’ Journal, 15 May 1892, pp.217-8. The report -

which is not entirely clear - refers to Simon as ‘Dr Simonds,

the owner of a brewery called the National Brewery at

Prague’.

83. Bohemian Breweries Ltd. occupied pavilion No 84, and

the other breweries with their own pavilions were the

Smíchov brewery, the two Pilsen companies, and the

Schwarzenberg and Lobkowicz breweries, while the Benešov

brewery was accommodated in the pavilion of its owner

Archduke Francis Ferdinand d’Este. These were all larger

firms founded or refounded in the late 19th century, and

owned either by shareholders (Smíchov and Akciový pivovar,

Pilsen), brewing-right-holders (Mešt’anský pivovar, Pilsen),

or magnates (Lobkowicz, Roudnice, and Schwarzenberg,

Trebon). The fact that the English company was among them

indicates a degree of ambition on its part. Its pavilion was

centrally placed between the Palace of Industry and the

Machine House, not far from the illuminated fountain.

Other breweries also exhibited their beers, and there was a

joint stand promoting the brewing industry, with a model of

Poupe’s brewery of 1791. Publishers of trade journals

attended, as did coopers, distillers, maltsters and others. The

exhibition was also a showcase for the Czech engineering

industry, including firms which supplied equipment to the

brewing industry, such as the above mentioned Br. Noback a

Fritze.

The breweries not only exhibited their wares, they also sold

them in large quantities to the thirsty public. Total beer

consumption during the exhibition was more than 25,000 hl,

including over 2,500 of beer from the Pilsen Mešt’anský

pivovar (Bürgerliches Bräuhaus) in Petzold’s (Pecold)

restaurant, 2,400 hl of beer from the Schwarzenberg brewery

in Trebon, in third place the English company with 2,200 hl

of beer from U Štajgru and Práce, then 1,200 hl from První

akciový pivovar (Actien-Brauerei) of Pilsen in the restaurant

of Adalbert Hlawa (Hlava), 800 hl from the Roudnice

brewery, and 700 hl in the other Schwarzenberg bar. The

Smíchov brewery also had large sales in its own restaurant. In

addition to the restaurants set up by breweries and publicans,

there was also a central bar established to dispense Prague

beers and 15 ‘country’ ones on draught.

It was recorded that over the two days 28 and 29 June (which

were unusually good days for the restaurateurs for various


° v

v

v v

v

v

v v

reasons) 153 hl of beer, 250 loaves of bread and 2,000 rolls

were consumed in the Bohemian Breweries restaurant,

whereas Pecold’s sold 123 hl of beer, the Trebon bar 119 hl,

the Smíchov brewery restaurant 92 hl, and Hlava’s 65 hl; total

beer consumption during those two days was about 1,000 hl.

The Bohemian Breweries restaurant was thus one of the

biggest in terms of beer consumption, although others sold

more food. Incidentally, the American Bar sold 860 glasses of

sherry, 1,140 portions of iced punch and 956 portions of ice

cream: Vseobecna zemska vystava 1891 v Praze. Hlavni

katalog, Prague 1891 (consulted on http://kramerius.nkp.cz);

Josef Stanek, Blahoslaveny sladek, Prague 1984, pp.267-8;

Narodni listy, 18 July 1891.

84. Guide-Vilímek Prague et l’Exposition nationale de 1891,

Prague 1891, p.179; Vilímek’s Führer durch Prag und die

Ausstellung, Prague 1891, p.IV-22 (both consulted on

http://kramerius.nkp.cz).

85. Všeobecná zemská výstavá 1891, p.LXXXVII. See also

Chodounský, Príspevek, p.137, for similar figures for 1890.

86. Národní listy, 4 February 1892. Five breweries were

hors concours and 29 were awarded prizes in categories 1a,

1b, 2a, 2c, 3a, 3b and 4a. When the exhibition closed, the

Bohemian Breweries pavilion was offered for sale at a ‘very

low price’: Národní listy, 13 October 1891. Also at the end of

the exhibition, there were crowds in the streets of Prague, and

Josef Novák, a foreman at the U Štajgru distillery, was sub-

jected to anti-Czech abuse (‘Cechische Bagage!’), but a rein-

forced police presence prevented serious trouble: Národní

listy, 19 October 1891.


°

v v

v v

BREWERY HISTORY Brewery HistoryGerman-language newspaper Politikreported: The sea serpent [i.e....

Documents

Transcript of BREWERY HISTORY Brewery HistoryGerman-language newspaper Politikreported: The sea serpent [i.e....