Knottingley and Ferrybridge Online West Yorkshire
 
 
 
Amazon Advertisements
 
Knottingley and Ferrybridge Local History

A HISTORY OF CARTERS' KNOTTINGLEY BREWERY
VOLUME ONE

CHAPTER ONE

GAGGS, CARTER & CO.

By the mid eighteenth century Britain was the foremost commercial nation in the world. An extensive overseas empire was protected by her powerful navy and serviced by a vast merchant fleet. The empire was a source for raw materials and provided a market for finished goods. Enriched by the profits from trade, British merchants were willing to venture surplus wealth in new business opportunities and thereby promote a favourable financial climate for industrial development. The plentiful amounts of natural resources such as water, coal and iron ore accelerated industrial development and this was further stimulated by a rapid growth in population which created increased demand for goods which expanded the domestic market.

Technological advance was accompanied by a reorganisation of commercial activity prompting the abandonment of inhibitive and outmoded trade regulations while the establishment and proliferation of country banks provided a medium by which surplus capital was made available for investment. Thus, by the advent of the nineteenth century a new business psychology was engendered which presented middle class men of private means, energy and ambition, with hitherto unparalleled opportunities for profitable investment in the the booming economic conditions created by the Industrial Revolution.

In this burgeoning socio-economic climate a business partnership was formed at the turn of the nineteenth century to promote the establishment of a commercial brewery within the township of Knottingley. The three-man partnership of Edward Gaggs, Mark Carter and Robert Seaton thus embarked upon a venture which was destined to last for more than a century.

The precise circumstances which led to the formation of the business partnership are lost in the mist of the past, as indeed is the exact date. The three participants were most probably part of a limited social circle of professional people of at least moderately substantial means who, aware of the potential wealth to be obtained by careful investment, decided to pool their financial resources in the hope of increased prosperity.

Each of the partners came from a prosperous family with long established business connections which had conferred upon them considerable social status within the local community.

The Gaggs family were resident at Knottingley at least as early as the seventeenth century. (1) A conveyance of 1684 by the Lords of the Manor gave possession of a cottage situated at Rackey (sic) Green to Michael Gaggs (2) but the family owed its prosperity to the local limestone industry which developed apace during the following century. (3) By the closing decades of the eighteenth century the Gaggs' were in possession of the Manor Farm, having purchased the same, together with a quarter of the manorial rights, (4) and were already acknowledged as a public benefactors. Wiiliam Gaggs, a medical practitioner within the town and surrounding district during the last quarter of the century provided the location for the first Methodist chapel within the town and he and Henry Gaggs subscribed 31-8-0 each towards the cost of the chapel's construction in 1799. (5) Somewhat earlier records reveal one Thomas Gaggs as a publican of the town (6) and one of the signatories on a petition for the rebuilding of St. Botolph's church in 1751. (7) Thomas Gaggs may have been a minor member of the family, however, for with his demise his widow, Mary, became the licensee which hardly suggests an occupation one might expect concerning a person within the mainstream of the Gaggs family.(8) Conversely, Thomas and Mary Gaggs could well have provided the link with the victualling trade which formed the basis for the subsequent business relationship between Edward Gaggs and Mark Carter.

The Carter family were descended from an ancient line of that name based at Kempstone, Berkshire. (9) The Yorkshire branch of the family was, however, resident at York during the seventeenth century. By the following century, Thomas Carter (1730-91) was in residence at Potters Grange near Howden, having probably moved there following his marriage in 1762. The move to Howden may have occurred due to a connection with the brewing trade for by the late eighteenth century the family owned a brewery and traded as wine merchants within that town and by the early decades of the following century also owned another brewery at nearby Market Weighton. (10) It was at Howden that Thomas Carter's family, consisting of three sons and two daughters, was raised. The youngest child, Mark, (1777-1853), was the one who moved from Howden to live at Knottingley around the turn of the nineteenth century. Mark Carter's motive in making the move is not known but one may conject that following the death of his father, Mark, with a portion of his fathers estate, a knowledge of the brewing trade gained from service in the family business and an awareness of widening commercial opportunities for common (i.e. public) brewers, decided to establish a brewery of his own. Knottingley was the ideal centre for such an enterprise, being a thriving inland port which ensured the passage of materials and, with its numerous inns to cater for the maritime trade, a steady demand for the product of the brewer's trade. In addition, the population of the township, in common with the national trend, was undergoing substantial growth. (11) Yet another advantage was the fact that the town whilst possessing no existing brewery, was sufficiently distant from the area served by the established family concerns and yet afforded easy contact with the same.

Robert Seaton was a partner in the family owned bank at Pontefract. In common with many provincial banks of the period Seatons' banking interests had developed as the result of informal transactions arising from the family's trading links. The patriarch of the family, John Seaton, traded as a grocer and tea merchant (12) but it is clear that the Seatons' in the course of their regular business found it profitable to lend sums of money at regular rates of interest to business acquaintances. Simultaneously, having acquired a trustworthy reputation, the family were entrusted by farmers and traders attending the local market, with the safe-keeping of their takings. The increasing number and profitability of such transactions resulted in their formalisation through the establishment in 1787, of a banking service in partnership with John Perfect of Pontefract which gradually replaced the original family business. (13) Again, the exact date of the business transition is not known but the process had been finalised well before 1773 when John Seaton, banker of Pontefract, provided financial support for the establishment of a flint mill on Brotherton Marsh and the construction of the first pottery at Ferrybridge. (14) In 1800 John Seaton is named as the owner of the Windmill Inn, Pontefract. (15) The public house was closed at that date, however, suggesting that Seaton's ownership may have been due to foreclosure on the property, arising perhaps, from financial default on the part of the former owner rather than an operational interest on Seaton's part. However, possession of the property reveals a connection with the victualling trade which may indicate the interest of Robert Seaton with the brewing partnership formed about that time.

The banking business thrived as seen by reference to the poll list of 1807 which names Robert Seaton, John Fox Seaton and John Seaton as bankers at Pontefract together with Charles Gervas Seaton, banker, Leeds, all being designated as 'Esquires. (16)

Nevertheless, the banking business experienced many vicissitudes during the first decade of the nineteenth century as shown by the changes of title under which the business was conducted. Until 1806 the bank traded as Perfect, Seaton & Co. and then as Seaton & Co. during the following two years. The period 1808-11 reveals the names John Seaton Sons & Fox, and John Seaton Sons & Foster, and more generally, Pontefract Old Bank. The banking services were not confined to Pontefract alone, however, but covered an area from Huddersfield in the west of the County to Selby in the north-east.(17) As private bankers the Seatons' could legally issue their own banknotes. A number of the notes issued by the bank during these years are still in existence covering a wide range of denominations and bear the name of Robert Seaton as well as others connected with the business. (18)

Robert Seaton's connection with Mark Carter could well have originated at Howden for records of the eighteenth century show both families resided within the town and the surrounding district. (19) Indeed, it is not improbable that the connection with Gaggs may have its origins there for members of that family were also resident at Howden in the following century and perhaps even earlier.(20)

Each partner brought individual qualities to the partnership. Carter, with his practical expertise, developed during his years within the family brewing concern; Gaggs, the elder partner, his local contacts arising from his career as a lime merchant and vessel owner and Seaton with his knowledge of the local business community and financial affairs. The partners exemplified the concept of 'gentlemanly capitalism' which provided the dynamic for the practical application of the laisse faire doctrine propounded by Adam Smith a generation earlier and their partnership was formed at a time when free market assumptions had gained public acceptance.

In terms of capital the establishment of a small country brewery at the start of the nineteenth century required a few hundred pounds only. The basic apparatus: a small furnace, copper, mash tun and fermentation and cooling equipment, together with barrels and necessary tools for the process of production, were easily met from the resources of family, relations or friends. However, in an industry in which monetary transaction was the norm, cash shortages could well arise from the necessity to maintain considerable stocks of the basic raw materials as well as storage of the end product. (21) Finance was further constrained by the conditions of company law which stipulated that the parties forming a business partnership kept all personal estate strictly separated from business capital. (22) A brewhouse, unlike most other emergent industries, could not easily be adapted from any other existing building for the design of a brewery was dictated by the lay-out of the apparatus appropriate to the process of production. (23) Furthermore, in the event of a new brewery being established it was required by law that the site be laid open to thorough inspection by the Excise officers who not only dictated the terms necessary for obtaining official approval but also forbade any subsequent alteration or modification without notification and consequent inspection and reapproval. (24) It was therefore necessary for the partners in the Knottingley enterprise to seek an existing brewhouse for the commencement of their business.

A document dated 1st April, 1809, indicates the location of the first brewery operated by the partners. The document is a notification of the surrender of a lease granted to Edward Gaggs and Mark Carter by Benjamin Atkinson of Knottingley and states: -

"......we intend to give up onto you on the tenth day of October next the Possession of All the Buildings and Premises which were on the Eighteenth day of July one thousand eight hundred and one demised to us for the term of eleven years from the tenth day of October then next for the purpose of carrying on the Brewery Business......." (25)

Thus, it is clear that the partnership had been formed and had acquired a site by the 10th October 1801 and was operational shortly after that date.

It is interesting to note that the surrender of lease bears only the signatures of Gaggs and Carter thereby suggesting that the law concerning mutual liability which applied to Seaton's position as a partner in the Pontefract Bank restricted his role within the brewing company to that of a 'sleeping partner'.

The actual site of the brewhouse is conjectural but examination of the maps of the township of Knottingley at the relevant period show that Benjamin Atkinson possessed a site of 2 acres 1 rood and 35 perches in extent situated at the junction of Hill Top [Weeland Road] and Chapel Street. (26) The site was that of the Old Hall, the
mansion house previously associated with the Wildbore family, former manorial lords of the township. (27) The mansion was served by a series of ancillary buildings including a substantial brewhouse which together with adjacent outbuildings well served the needs of the partnership. The lease of the premises was a shrewd action, providing a prime site and reducing considerably the initial costs of establishing the business.

Initially, the company seems to have supplied domestic clients who either had no brewhouse attached to their properties or in keeping with the developing trend, had abandoned the customary practice of domestic brewing, purchasing supplies from the growing number of common brewers. Simultaneously, the latter trend was also applicable to the local innkeepers who found it time consuming and increasingly uneconomical to compete with the emergent professional brewers and therefore increasingly relied upon them for their stock. (28) Within a few years of its establishment, however, the brewery, trading under the name of Gaggs, Carter & Co., began to seek retail outlets of its own to absorb its expanding production.

In 1805 the firm purchased its first company owned house, the Hope & Anchor Inn, South Baileygate, Pontefract. (29) Two years later the company had prospered to the extent that preparations were underway to transfer the business to a nearby site. A letter to Robert Seaton from one Joshua Scott, dated 16th July, 1807, acknowledges the receipt of two bills totalling 1,050 in respect of the purchase of Mill Close, Hill Top, Knottingley, and conveys his good wishes in regard to the purpose for which the land was purchased. (30) Scott was probably the representative of the unidentified vendor.

The Enclosure Map of 1793, shows Mill Field, lying between the River Aire to the north and Weeland Road to the south, belonging in part, to Misses Horsefall of Storthes Hall, near Huddersfield, descendants of the Ingrams, formerly lords of Knottingley Manor.(31) The ownership of the land is confirmed on the map of 1800 drawn by Clark and Senior, trustees of the Horsefall estate. The map bears an amendment noting the sale of Mill Field to the Aire & Calder Navigation Co. at an unspecified date. A further pencilled amendment states: -

"The rem (sic) sold to Gaggs, 10 acres 0 roods 10 perches". (32)

Further detail of the purchase is contained in a document of April, 1808, which shows Mark Carter in possession of land formerly belonging to Miss Horsefall and lying adjacent to a holding slightly in excess of 10 acres belonging to Edward Gaggs. (33) A memorial of a deed dated September, 1809, released a:

".......parcel of land .....at the eastern end of Mill Field, Knottingley, being part of a certain piece of land lately purchased of Miss Horsefalls (sic) and others by Edward Gaggs, containing 3 acres now in possession of Edward Gaggs, Mark Carter and Robert Seaton and divided from the remainder of the said fold." (34)

It is clearly evident that from 1807 the partners were taking active steps to transfer their company to a new location at Mill Field, Hill Top, only a few hundred yards from their existing site.

The imminent development of the Mill Field site and the expansion of the productive capacity of the firm is further indicated by a business transaction undertaken late in 1807. A business agreement dated the 21st November that year between Gaggs, Carter & Seaton and James Wadsworth, common brewer, of Pontefract, took the form of a bond issued to Wadsworth in return for all his stock in trade, malt, hops, ale copper, tubs, barrels, fixtures, utensils, carts, horses and all things belonging to his existing brewery, to the first named parties. It was agreed that the effects would be sold at a valuation fixed by independent assessors or a mutually chosen umpire. Wadsworth agreed to give up his business "which he hath carried on for several years in Pontefract" and not set up in business as a common brewer either directly or through representatives elsewhere in Pontefract or within twelve miles thereof nor allow any part of premises held or occupied by him to be used or converted into a common brewery.

The co-partners were granted access to Wadsworth's Old Church Brewey site for the space of six months following surrender of occupation by Wadsworth. (35) It was also agreed that the premises would not be used as a common brewery for the space of thirty years hence with the agreement becoming null and void and Wadsworth paying an immediate fine of 1,000 in the event of any default to honour the terms agreed. (36)

Even allowing for the ongoing prosperity of the Knottingley brewery company it seems unlikely that the sums involved in the above transactions could be met from company profits. An indication of financial support from 'external' sources is seen by reference to two documents dated 14th January, 1808, and 23rd April, 1808. The documents reveal that Mary Gaggs, widow, of Knottingley, provided sums of 1,300 and 300 respectively at an annual rate of interest of 5%. The bonds carry the name of John Seaton, banker, brother of Robert Seaton, suggesting that the sums were underwritten by the Pontefract Bank which bore their name. (37)

The connection between brewers and bankers was quite a common one from the late eighteenth century. Not only did they belong to the same social class but the rise and development of both types of business followed a parallel course as the demographic and socio-economic transformation of society assisted the prosperity of both groups. (38) As one authority has pointed out, in their distinct way each served the needs of industrial society upon which the prosperity of the nation increasingly depended; the banker by providing financial stability and the brewer its social counterpart, by promoting beer as the drink of the working man, thereby contenting the masses, stimulating agriculture and countering the worst excesses of gin and other spirits. (39) The value to a developing company of a co-partner who was also a banker was clearly immense and may well have been a key factor in enabling Gaggs, Carter & Co., to expand so quickly following its establishment.

In the pre-railway era the scale of business was confined to the local market, being defined generally as the area which could be daily served by horse-drawn transport. Comparative safety from the threat of competitive trade rivals brought Mark Carter to Knottingley and was the underlying reason for the acquisition of Wadsworth's brewery. The monopoly of local trade was reinforced by indirect control the brewer exercised over the innkeepers of the district he supplied. In the early nineteenth century it was common practice for the local brewer to supply a publican with his first delivery, payment for the same being made one month later and based upon the amount sold, with any unsold or unconditioned beer being returned. To promote sales and thereby obviate transport costs brewery representatives frequently visited the public houses they supplied to tend to the condition of the cellars and the stock. The Brewer had a genuine interest in the purpose of such visitations for as the manufacturer of a perishable commodity the reputation of his company and therefore of its future business would suffer should the product be sold in a poor condition. However, the system gave a degree of control over the innkeeper by making him the de facto sales agent of the brewery rather than the owner of the product sold. (40) A more clearly defined control was engendered by the publican becoming the debtor of the brewer. At the most simple level debt accrued through the innkeeper being unable to pay his outstanding bill and either seeking or being offered a loan to cover the debt. A more involved form of indebtedness arose from the overreaching ambition of the publican to improve the volume of trade or counter rival competition by improving his premises. The former situation frequently arose after beer pumps were introduced. The installation of the pumps allowed barrels to be left in the cool cellar thus creating additional space within the house for customers. Prompted by the saving on wages through the reduction of the number of 'pot-boys', the publican often sought to refurbish his rooms to take advantage of the extra space. Such improvements were often undertaken with the financial assistance of the brewer for which the publican usually provided a note of hand or bond pledging the lease of his premises as security for the repayment of the loan. (41) The formalised loan was favoured by the brewer over the informal mutually recognised tenancy agreement since the former ensured the supply of beer by the brewer for a specified period of years and avoided the expense of repair and maintenance of the property involved. The informal mutually agreed system was a more flexible, short-term arrangement, frequently imposing terms on the brewer and theoretically enabling the financially indebted publican to transfer his debt to another creditor with the probable loss of a retail outlet by the brewer. (42) On occasion, however, the debts of the publican were too diverse or too large to prevent bankruptcy. An early example of such a situation involving the Knottingley Brewery is seen in the Bill of Sale of 11th July, 1810, whereby John Longwood, a Wakefield publican, was compelled to sell all his possessions, with the sole exception of the clothes worn by himself and his family, for the token sum of ten shillings. The sale arose because Longwood was unable to clear debts totalling 160-19-4, of which 109-9-9. was owed to Gaggs, Carter & Seaton for goods delivered and sold, together with the sum of 21-9-7. owed to Thomas Carter of Howden, Spirit Merchant, and 30. to Seaton & Co., Bankers, Pontefract, for money loaned to Longwood. (43)

Another example concerns the release of the Hen & Chickens public house, Church Lane, Pontefract, by William Hutchinson on the 8th November, 1813. The premises, together with all household goods, implements, fixtures and fittings occurred as the result of a debt owed to Gaggs, Carter & Co.. The sum of 75-5-0. was paid by the Company in accordance with the valuation made by one Thomas Foster of Pontefract two days earlier. (c.f. Appendix 1. infra) After deduction of the debt and expenses arising from the sale, Hutchinson was left with 18-13-3. An incident mentioned in the Bill of Sale provides an interesting glimpse into the legal customs of the period. The document reveals that Hutchinson placed his creditors "......in full possession by delivering to them one Chair in the name of all Goods and Chattles mentioned and described in......the annexed Schedule...." (44)

Unfortunately, no record has been found of the use to which the Company made of the two public houses mentioned above. but one presumes they formed part of the chain of company owned houses started by the earlier acquisition of the Hope & Anchor, Pontefract. The details concerning the Wakefield house shows that even in the period before the advent of the railways the Company were supplying goods to locations well beyond the immediate vicinity of the brewery.

About the same time that the first of the abovementioned sales took place a fundamental change occurred in the structure of Gaggs, Carter & Co.. In 1810 Seaton & Co. suffered a severe financial setback which resulted in the failure of the Pontefract Bank and this in turn brought down the other banks with which the Seaton family were associated. (45) The crisis seems to have arisen from the trade recession caused by the embargo on trade with Great Britain imposed by Napoleon's Continental System. Seatons' Bank made loans to companies hit by the recession and in the process issued more private banknotes than their financial reserves could cover. A rush on deposited money left the Bank with insufficient time for Seatons to negotiate the conversion of notes to hard currency by the realisation of additional assets, particularly as the conversion depended upon loans from companies which were themselves feeling the effect of the crisis. Following the bankruptcy Assignees were appointed to realise the assets of the Seaton family, including the personal properties and monies belonging to the wives of the bankers in order to enable payment of a dividend. Two meetings were held at the Red Lion Hotel, Pontefract, in the summer of 1811, but the creditors had a considerable wait before the assets were fully realised by the Assignees. (46)

As the law as applied to banking concerns held all partners liable for debts to the full extent of their individual assets this rendered inevitable the withdrawal of Robert Seaton from the brewery partnership. By agreement with the Assignees dated 15th April,1811, Edward Gaggs and Mark Carter agreed to purchase Seaton's third share in the original partnership of the Knottingley Brewery. The agreed purchase price was 1,650 of which 650 was required to be paid before 15th July, 1811. and the sum remaining to be paid before 13th February, 1812. A deduction of 102-8-7. was allowed to the partners from the first stage payment in lieu of liquor and other goods supplied to Seaton and also to discharge all debt arising from Seaton's connection with the partnership. (47)

The collapse of Seatons' Bank left the remaining partners with some further claim on Robert Seaton's estate. The details are unclear but seem to have involved a third party against whom the partners were unable to proceed at law. The situation is revealed in correspondence between J[ohn] F[ox] Seaton and Gaggs and Carter written from London where the former had taken up residence following bankruptcy. A letter of 20th December, 1813, states that the writer had suffered a number of "lapses and untoward circumstances" since residing in the Capital. The difficulties had apparently been outlined in earlier correspondence but Seaton stated that his brother would pay 100 of the sum demanded by his former partners and that John Seaton himself would pay the outstanding balance as soon as possible. From this we may gather that Gaggs, Carter & Co. were pressing for payment of money due to the Company, indicating that the amount due was either quite a substantial sum or that the business was in need of all available cash. John Seaton requested "a little further indulgence" assuring the creditors that "your money is most perfectly safe and you may depend on receiving it the very moment I have possession of it." (48)

In the event Seaton's expectations were unfulfilled, as revealed in a further letter dated 21st November, 1815. In this letter Seaton stated that it is a frequent cause of regret that he has been unable to pay the balance of the debt due to the Company on Gatcliff's bill. Seaton blamed untoward events for the default but said that the chief cause was Gatcliff's obstinacy which arose from the knowledge that the brewery company was unable to proceed against him directly. Seaton requested a copy of the bill for the amount outstanding and promised any form of security demanded against the same, so that he could effect payment on their behalf. Upon receipt of the money, Seaton undertook to send it to Knottingley, reiterating his previously expressed hope that the debt could have been met from alternative sources but stated that this hope he had been thwarted in consequence of stock on "our exchange in Rio de Janero falling from 98d.per [share] down to 68d."

In conclusion Seaton again assured the partners that although their money was long overdue it was, nevertheless, perfectly safe. (49)

The outcome of the situation is not known but despite the setbacks experienced from the failure of the Pontefract Bank the brewery business continued to prosper. The acquisition of property to provide retail outlets continued as shown by an itemised bill of 2nd November 1820, for drawing up a conveyance of sale by Benjamin Branford and his wife for business premises in Knottingley. The covering letter from the Company's solicitor also reports that he is successfully searching on behalf of Gaggs, Carter & Co. (as the firm was now retitled) in respect of the lease of premises at Kippax. (50) The process of expansion in relation to the actual brewery site and the purchase of company property steadily continued during the following decades as shown in subsequent chapters. Suffice it here to note that the effect of the crisis arising from the failure of Seatons' Bank appears to have had a minimal effect on the day-to-day operation of business conducted by Gaggs, Carter & Co. The prompt purchase of Robert Seaton's stock in the Brewery company by his former partners doubtless ensured that public confidence in the company was retained.

Nevertheless, Seaton's withdrawal created a void in the structure of the company which must have caused some concern for the future of the company. Negotiations took place within the Carter family as a result of which Thomas Carter of Howden, brewer, and John Carter Wine and Spirit merchant, of Howden, brothers of Mark Carter, each purchased a sixth share in Gaggs, Carter & Co. A letter from Thomas Carter, dated 25th February, 1812, enclosing bills to the value of 1,000 states that the enclosed bills are "......the last payment of our purchase of Mr R.Seaton's share of the Brewery & Co." (51)

Apart from the obvious relief and financial benefit the purchase of Seaton's share engendered the transaction brought a degree of kinship which was invaluable in a business in which secrecy was a key factor in maintaining the individuality of the product. (52) Something of the business confidences wrought by such kinship is evident in a letter sent by John Carter of Howden to his brother, Mark dated 13th November, 1814, in which John wrote,

"I cannot say how the new plan of working our liquor is to answer yet, I have tried [it] once and it was very fine. I have tried on a second trial but have not broached [it] yet. It is rather more worked in the vat than the first and I expect it will be better in consequence."

A terse postscript adds;

"Barley at Cave [an agricultural village near Howden] at 36 [shillings] per Qt -  the best." (53)

Again, on 27th February, 1821, in acknowledging monies sent by Mark, John Carter added;

"Mr Waddington has been offering his ale to my customers at 16d. per Gal[lon]. I am afraid I shall be forst (sic) to settle for 15d." (54)

The points of information revealed in the letters indicate something of the competition within the brewing trade which was to gain increasing momentum during the following half century or more. Not only does the reference to Waddington bespeak the practice of undercutting existing prices in order to obtain additional retail outlets but also reveals how such competition invariably led to the development of the 'tied-house' system to counter trade encroachment for the earlier letter requested that Mark Carter bring or send the sum of 700 due to John. The money was required quickly

"As I have to pay for the [public] house I bought at Barlby this week or the fore-end of next."

Clearly, the Howden based brewery was seeking to expand its outlets by purchasing public houses to be tied to the company wares.

In 1836, Mark Carter, then 59 years of age, decided to retire from the business. Mark's successor was the eldest of his three sons, John, who was then 34 years old. The decision of the elder Carter to withdraw from the trade was a carefully considered move as evidenced by the elaborate settlement outlined in the deed of gift, dated 1st February,1836, which formalised the transfer of responsibility for the business from father to son. (55) The settlement followed a long established pattern within the brewing trade whereby sons inherited control of the business by means of a legal agreement outlining the terms of settlement. (56)

Mark Carter held a third share in the concern at the time of his retirement. Edward Gaggs held an equal share, whilst the remaining third was split evenly between John Carter of Howden, Mark's brother, and Elizabeth, the widow of the other brother, Thomas Carter of Howden, who had died in 1829. By the terms of the settlement, all Mark's holding in the brewery was made over to his son, John, who in return agreed to pay his father the sum of 200 per annum, by quarterly instalments for the remainder of Mark Carter's life. In the event of Mark predeceasing his wife she was to receive the sum of 50 followed by quarterly payments of 80 for the remainder of her life. Upon the death of the last surviving partner, John undertook to pay his younger brothers, Thomas Mark and William Edward Carter, the sum of 950 within one calendar year at the rate of 4% interest, the proportions and conditions to be specified by Mark Carter either by deed or by the terms of his will. Provision was made for John Carter to pay the stipulated sum before the appointed time subject to the approval and consent of his father. The payment was, in fact, made on the 26th July, 1853, following Mark Carter's death that year. (57)


 INDEX  |  NEXT>


 

Site constructed and maintained by Michael Norfolk
This website is Copyright 2000-2011 [Knottingley and Ferrybridge Online] All Rights Reserved
| HOME PAGE | SITE INDEX | LETTERS | MEMORIES | PHOTO GALLERY | GENEALOGY | LATEST PHOTOS |
| YORKSHIRE ANCESTRY | PONTEFRACT WEBSITE | IMAGES OF YORKSHIRE | OO GAUGE GARDEN RAILWAY | CONISBROUGH WEATHER STATION |