A shorter version of this article was read at the International Congress on the Social History of Alcohol, May 13–15, 1993, Huron College, University of Western Ontario. I am indebted to Scott Haine, Jessica Gerard, Madeleine Hurd, Alma Topen (Scottish Brewing Archive), and Thomas Brennan for helpful comments and advice

1. A good overview of the system's development is provided in Rowntree, Joseph and Sherwell, Arthur, The Temperance Problem and Social Reform, 4th ed. (London, 1899), ch. 5.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., 277–78, 301.

3. Johnson, James, The Gothenburg System of Public-House Licensing: What It Is, and How It Works, 2nd ed. (London, 1902), 246–49;Google ScholarGould, E.R.L., Popular Control of the Liquor Traffic (Baltimore, 1895), 17–19, 27–28. I am especially grateful to Madeleine Hurd for advice on this and the following paragraph.Google Scholar

4. Rowntree and Sherwell, Temperance Problem, 435.

5. Hawkins, K.H. and Pass, C.L., The Brewing Industry: A Study in Industrial Organisation and Public Policy (London, 1979), 27;Google ScholarVaizey, J.E., “The Brewing Industry”, in Effects of Mergers: Six Studies, ed. Cook, P. Lesley (London, 1958), 401–2;Google ScholarGoadby, Edwin, “England and the Gothenburg Licensing System”, Fortnightly Review 63 (1895): 176.Google Scholar

6. Shiman, Lilian Lewis, Crusade Against Drink in Victorian England (New York, 1988), 229–36;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDingle, A.E., The Campaign for Prohibition in Victorian England: The United Kingdom Alliance, 1872–95 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980), 169–77; David W. Gutzke, Protecting the Pub: Brewers and Publicans Against Temperance (London, 1989), 123–24, 126–28.Google Scholar

7. Brown, James B., “The Temperance Career of Joseph Chamberlain, 1870–77: A Study in Political Frustration”, Albion 4 (1972): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. The best surveys of rational recreation are Bailey, Peter, Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Contest for Control, 1830–85 (London, 1978), chs. 3, 4; Robert Storch, “The Problem of Working-Class Leisure: Some Roots of Middle-Class Moral Reform in the Industrial North, 1825–50”, in Social Control in Nineteenth Century Britain, ed. A. P. Donajgrodzki (London, 1977), 138–62.Google Scholar

9. Two corporations and about a dozen members of the landed classes and the Anglican clergy experimented with Gothenburg principles in their pubs in the late Victorian era. None of them formed trust companies or did much catering. Mordaunt, Osbert, “Reformed Public-Houses”, Economic Review 9 (1899): 93–98;Google ScholarEvidence of the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws, 1899, 34 (Cmnd. 9075), 127–36, 169–77;Google ScholarRowntree, Joseph and Sherwell, Arthur, British “Gothenburg” Experiments and Public-House Trusts (London, 1901), chs. 2, 5–6, 9;Google ScholarShadwell, Arthur, “A Model Public-House and Its Lessons”, National Review 35 (1895): 632–40;Google ScholarGordon, Peter, ed., The Red Earl Spencer, 1835–1910, vol. 2 (Northampton, 1986), 250–51. Familiar with the concept of disinterested management, some of them—Rev. Osbert Mordaunt and Frederick G. L. Wood (later Meynell)— became prominent members of the national Gothenburg companies.Google Scholar

10. Chester recounted the origins of the Refreshment Association in Evidence of the Royal Commission, 83–126.

11. Ibid., 136; Cripps, Reginald, Public-House Reform, with a Short Account of the Public-House Trust Movement (London, n.d. [1901]), 10–11;Google Scholar and idem, Notes on Public House Reform (London, n. d. [1910]), 9.

12. Bishop, of Chester, “Pioneering in Public-House Reform”, Chamber's Journal 86 (1909): 775; Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 21–22, 27–28, 31.Google Scholar

13. Manifesto of the Public-House Reform Association (reorganized the following year as the People's Refreshment House Association), quoted in Rowntree and Sherwell, Temperance Problems, 390; Gould, , Popular Control of the Liquor Traffic, 84;Google ScholarBishop, of Chester to Editor, The Times, 08 2, 1892;Google Scholaridem, “Successful Public-House Reform”, North American Review 158 (1894): 526. Also see idem, “The Reform of the Public-House”, Humanitarian 3 (1893): 323, 325.

14. Rowntree and Sherwell, Temperance Problem, 391–92; idem, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 47, 107.

15. Evidence of the Royal Commission, 125; Hesketh, Everard, “Public House Trust Companies”, Economic Journal 12 (1902): 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Evidence of the Royal Commission, 106; Cripps, Public-House Reform, 11; Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 22, 27, 35, 37–38.

17. Cumming, A.N., Public-House Reform: An Explanation (London, 1901), 24;Google ScholarPublic House Reform: The People's Refreshment House Association (London, n.d. [c. 1907]), 16;Google Scholar Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 18.

18. Cumming, Public-House Reform, ch. 8.

19. In 1907, the Refreshment Association managed ten such houses held by trust companines federated to the Central Trust. Central Public House Trust Association, London School of Economics and Political Science, 1907 Annual Report, 40.

20. Evidence of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales), April 10, 1930, 960.

21. Cumming, Public-House Reform, 28–29, 81–82; Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 107; Booth, Charles, Life and Labour of the People in London, vol. 17, Notes on Social Influences and Conclusion (London, 1902), 111;Google ScholarPart, Alexander F., The Public-House, Trust: Some Answers to Critics (St. Albans, n. d. [1904?]), 10, 18;Google Scholar Chester, “Pioneering”, 776.

22. Evidence of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales), April 1, 1930, 916; Cumming, Public-House Reform, 84, 86, 88, 90.

23. Cumming, Public-House Reform, 120, 132; Pease, Edward R., The Case for Municipal Drink Trade (London, 1904), 99.Google Scholar Between 1896 and 1907 Scottish coal companies took the initiative independently in creating about twenty Gothenburg pubs, and in some of them— Armadale, Cowdenbeath, Hill of Beath, Kelty, Newbattle, Newtongrange, and Standburn— miners had a managerial role. Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, 65, 77; Cumming, 117; Licensed Victualler and Catering Trades' Journal, May 21, 1902; Walker, John, The Commonwealth as Publican: An Examination of the Gothenburg System (London, 1902), 88–89Google Scholar, 92, 105. The coal companies have not been discussed here because their pubs reflected uncoordinated efforts, and, though adopting disinterested management, did little to alter the context of drinking. Food sales, too, made little headway, and recreational activities were separated from drinking premises. The following provide detailed information: Durland, Kellogg, Among the Fife Miners (London, 1904);Google Scholar testimony of Carlow, Charles (managing director of Fife Coal Co.), Evidence of the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws, 1898, 38 (Cmnd. 8822), 210–20;Google Scholar Rowntree and Sherwell, ch. 7; Walker, ch. 8; Anderson, Alasdair, The Dean Tavern: A Gothenburg Experiment (Newtongrange, 1986).Google Scholar

24. Central Public House Trust Association, 1901 Annual Report, 12.

25. Hesketh, “sTrust Companies”, 334–46; Licensed Victualler and Catering Trades' Journal, October 2, 1901; Central Public House Trust Association, Annual Reports: 1901, 12; and 1907, 42; Cumming, Public-House Reform, 128, 140.

²⁶Central Public House Trust Association, 1903 Annual Report, 18;MacNaghten, Russell E., “Public House Trusts”, Canadian Magazine 25 (1905): 135;Google Scholar Cumming, Public-House Reform, 131–33.

27. Roberts, Chalmers, “Temperance Reformers as Publicans”, World's Work (1903):Google Scholar 525; Cumming, Public-House Reform, 11.

28. MacNaghten, “Public House Trust”, 135; Thorne, Robert, “Good Service and Sobriety: The Improved Public House”, Architectural Review 159 (02 1976): 108;Google Scholar Central Public House Trust Association, 1903 Annual Report, 18, 84.

29. Daily Chronicle, January 13, 1904; Pease, Municipal Drink, 98; Central Public House Trust Association, Annual Reports: 1903, 28, 30; and 1904, 16.

30. Central Public House Trust Association, 1903 Annual Report, 16, 137.

31. Ibid., 76–77; Chester, “Pioneering”, 775–76.

32. Central Public House Trust Association, Annual Reports: 1903, 15, and Craufurd's Memorandum Prepared for the Consideration of the Executive Committee, 137–39; and 1904; 16; PRHA Instructions to Managers, quoted in Cripps, Public-House Reform, 9–10.

33. Central Public House Trust Association, Annual Reports: 1904, 17; (illustration) 1907, 19.

34. Evidence of the Royal Commision on Licensing (England and Wales), April 1 and 10, 1930, 925, 956; “The Public House of the Future”, Country Life, September 16, 1916, 329.

35. Central Public House Trust Association, 1907 Annual Report, 25; Topham, Fred, Public House Trusts and Distinterested Management in England: Experiments in Public House Reform (London, n.d. [1907]), 18;Google ScholarGrey, Lord, “The Public-House Trust”, Chamber's Journal 3 (1913): 634.Google Scholar

36. Public Record Office, HO 185/343: Grey to Lord D'Abernon (copy), June 3, 1915; Part, Alexander F., Disinterested Management in England: The Public House Trust (n. p., n.d. [1913]), 24;Google Scholar and Home Countries Public House Trust, 1915 Annual Report, 7. For other examples of the Home Countries Trust's phenomenal food trade at working-class pubs, see Part, Alexander F., A Short Account of the Herts and Essex Public House Trust (London, 1908), 16, 18;Google Scholaridem to Editor, Morning Post, January 11, 1916.

37. Grey, “Public-House Trust”, 634–35; testimony of Frank Nicholson (Brewers' Society chairman) to the Committee on the Disinterested Management of Public Houses, November 12, 1925, reproduced in Brewers' Almanack for 1926, 88. The evidence collected by the Committee evidently was destroyed.

38. “Hertfordshire Trust Public-House”, Country Life, 02 22, 1908, 263–65;Google Scholar Grey, “Public-House Trust”, 634–65; Part, Alexander F., “Licensing Reform: A New Policy”, Nineteenth Century 77 (1915): 68.Google Scholar

39. Williams, Ernest Edwin, The New Public-House (London, 1924), 65;Google Scholar Evidence of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales), April 1, 1930, 925; Part, Alexander F., The Part House Trust: Its Influence upon the Temperance and Lincensing Problems (n.p., n.d. [c. 1913]), 29;Google Scholaridem, “Licensing Reform”, 68.

40. Waters, Chris, British Socialists and the Politics of Popular Culture, 1884–1914 (Stanford, 1990), 3–4,Google Scholar 22–26, 29–31, 33–35, 40–41.

41. Craufurd, H.J., “Constructive Temperance Reform: The Present Position of the Trust Movement”, National Review 44 (1904): 900–10;Google Scholar [idem], “National Sobriety”, Quarterly Review 196 (1902): 363–65.

42. Smith, J.H., Grayshott: The Strong of a Hampshire Village (Petersfield, 1978),Google Scholar ch. 7; also see Rowntree and Sherwell, “Gothenburg” Experiments, ch. 4. Scottish socialists also became fervent advocates of disinterested management. Paton, Daniel C., “Drink and the Temperance Movement in Nineteenth Century Scotland” (Ph.D. diss., University to Edinburgh, 1976), 295.Google Scholar

43. Vasey, Daniel E., The Pub and English Social Change (New York, 1990), 42–43;Google Scholar see also Davis, Ben, The Traditional English Pub: A Way of Drinking (London, 1981), 11;Google Scholar and Oliver, Basil, The Renaissance of the English Public House (London, 1947), 19,Google Scholar 21–22. Robert Thorne more willingly accepts the indebtedness of the state management scheme and the improved pub movement to the architectural ideas that the trust movement pioneered. Thorne, Robert, “The Movement for Public House Reform, 1892–1914”, in Diet and Health in Modern Britain, ed. Oddy, Derek J. and Miller, Derek S. (London, 1985), 251;Google Scholaridem, “Good Service and Sobriety”,ibid., 110.

44. Cumming, Public-House Reform, 139–40; Central Public House Trust Association, Annual Reports: 1906, 24; and 1907, 26; Chester, “Pioneering”, 777; Brewing Trade Review, September 1, 1921.

45. Formerly the Home Counties Public House Trust Company, which in turn represented an amalgamation of several regional companies, including one in Hertfordshire.

46. Cumming, Public-House Reform, 127–28; Directory of Directors, 1901; Minute Books of Board Meeting, Barclay, Perkins & Co., Greater London Record Office, August 27, 1923, Acc. 2305/1/17, 497, and June 19, 1924, Acc. 2305/1/18, 277. I want to thank Courage & Co. for permission to consult these records.

47. Report of the Committee on the Disinterested Management of Public Houses, 1927 10 (Cmnd. 2862), 7; Cripps, Public-House Reform, 12; Central Public House Trust Association, 1907 Annual Report, 39–44; William, G. Prys and Brake, George Thompson, Drink in Great Britain, 1900 to 1979 (London, 1980), 363–65.Google Scholar