Mr William Sidebottom (died 1849) applied for a licence for
the Plough Inn in 1840, but this was refused on the ground of the situation
being “very objectionable”. Another
application in 1841 was refused.
The Cornwall Chronicle of 2 September 1843 states that a
licence application was made by “William Peck, for premises at Evandale.
Objected to by Messrs. Wales, Cox and Hartley, as unnecessary.” The application was refused.
The Cornwall Chronicle of 1 August 1846 states that an application
was made to transfer a licence held by William Peck for the Plough Inn to
Steven Murphy. The transfer was reported
in The Britannia and Trades’ Advocate on 13 August 1846 as allowed on 3 August.
This suggests that the Plough Inn was licensed to William Peck somewhere
between 1843 and 1846.
The Launceston Advertiser of 3 September 1846 reported on the
application for renewal of a licence held by “John” (probably Steven) Murphy,
for the Plough Inn at Evandale. The
hearing was told that Murphy was suspected of Sunday trading. Mr. Breton and
Major Wellman spoke to the character of Murphy but Mr Wales said two houses
were sufficient for the necessities of Evandale; at the present time there were
four. The licence for the coming year was refused.
However, the Launceston Examiner Sat 5 September 1846 reports
the hearing slightly differently stating “Mr. Bartley objected to the
applicant. He held the license by
transfer from Launceston, but the license he originally held had been cancelled
by two magistrates for a breach of his recognisance; therefore he transferred a
nullity, and was selling illegally.”
This report stated that a Mr. Dry and a Major Wellman spoke
well of the applicant’s character but added that a Mr. Collett strongly
objected stating the house “had been most disorderly and very improperly
Steven Murphy is known to have been granted a licence for a
year in October 1845 for the Young Queen Hotel in Launceston but this licence
was transferred to a Mr Wicks in 1846 and Mr Wick’s application at the annual
renewal hearing of that year was refused on the grounds that the house was
ill-furnished and dirty, and strongly suspected of dishonest practices. So it
is likely that no licence had been transferred from Launceston as claimed by Mr
Bartley and that Murphy was operating on the licence transferred by William
The Launceston Advertiser of 24 September 1846 reports that
Stephen Murphy, of Evandale, put in an appeal about a licensing decision, but
did not appear when the matter was called and the matter was therefore not
Subsequently, the Cornwall Chronicle of 16 December 1846
advertised the following:
“TO BE LET, with immediate possession, together with
sixteen acres of land, the dwelling house lately in the occupation of Mr. S.
Murphy situate in the improving township of Evandale. The house contains ten
sitting and bed rooms, convenient kitchens, stables, sheds, and other
outhouses, and an extensive garden attached, is in a good state of cultivation,
and the whole would form a desirable situation for a boarding and day school,
the neighbourhood being populous and increasing. To a respectable tenant the
rent will be very moderate, and the proprietor would be happy if any one
required it, to let the house and appurtenances without the land which is
bounded by the South Esk River, and is considered one of the best pieces for
cultivation in the district. For further particulars, apply to Wm. Sidebottom
on the premises, Evandale.”
It seems that with no licence, Murphy departed the scene and
the owner of the place, Mr Sidebottom was now endeavouring to set up a
different use for the Plough Inn.
The location of the Plough Inn is not known. An advertisement placed in The Cornwall
Chronicle on 25 August 1858 stated that Bell and Westbrook had been engaged to
sell the Evandale Coaching Establishment belonging to Mr John Hanney who was
“proceeding shortly to England” and that this sale was to occur at the “Plough
Inn Yards” on 1 September. While this
was an Evandale business, it is quite probable that the “yards” referred to
were at the Plough Inn in Launceston.
It is noted that The Cornwall Chronicle of 6 October 1849
states that a William Murphy was granted a licence for the Plough Inn in
Longford. It is not known if the two
Murphys are related.
Blenheim, the imposing building at 16 High Street was by one
account (On the Convict Road), commenced in 1826 and another as circa
1832 as a hotel by John Williatt on part of a grant of 36.5 acres of land (or
372 acres according to K Von Stieglitz) on which he also built “The
Laurels”. The hotel was first licensed
on 29 September 1832 and was called the “Patriot King William IV” after the
then reigning sovereign.
The hotel was a rather grand establishment which included an
assembly room upstairs that was used for concerts, dancing and a meeting room
for the Masonic Lodge and other groups.
It was said to also have a skittles alley.
Outbuildings included a brew house, stables and loose boxes,
hay loft, blacksmiths, a cottage and accommodation for grooms. Some of these buildings were destroyed by
fire; the blacksmith shop and cottage were latter demolished.
Mr Williatt was generally well regarded as a person of good
character, however in 1838, he was convicted by the magistrate at Morven, for a
breach of the licensing act, in that he kept “open the outer door of his
house at improper hours”. Despite an
appeal of the conviction, “a patient investigation, confirmed the decision
of the magistrates”. One wonders now whether this conviction was just the
start of an ongoing stoush between Mr Williatt and the Assistant Magistrate for
Morven, Mr Robert Wales because in September 1840, he and Mr Wales had another
In September 1840, Mr Williatt applied for renewal of his publican’s. Mr. Wales objected strongly to a license
being granted and in a lengthy speech related in what manner he had been
insulted by Mr. Williatt. The Launceston
Advertiser of 3 September 1840 reported that Wales said the Williatt was “in
the habit of tampering with the constabulary, and by this means raising an
opposition against him in his magisterial office, and thereby enabled to
violate the laws with impunity”. The
report goes on to say “It was impossible, he said, to obtain a conviction
against Mr. Williatt on account of the intimacy which existed between him and
the constabulary of the district. He also objected to the situation of the
house— being so placed that no one could approach it without being observed, by
which an opportunity was afforded for allowing the escape of any person
improperly tippling upon the premises, he called upon his brother magistrates
to support him in his office.
A long discussion here ensued; most of the stipendiary
magistrates supported Mr. Wales, and on the other hand Mr. Williatt was
strongly supported by Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Sams; all of whom spoke in the highest terms of Mr. Williatt, and, from their
own personal experience, bore testimony to the good management, respectability,
and accommodation of his licensed house. A document to this effect was also
handed in, and read, signed by most of the magistrates in the neighbourhood.
The supporters of Mr Williatt did not forget to point out the honourable
testimony borne by Mr. Wales as to the efficiency and integrity of the police
under his jurisdiction, when he asserted that they were guided more by the
frown or the smile of Mr. Williatt, than by the fear of magisterial
displeasure, or the hope of magisterial commendation.
After a prolonged discussion, interspersed with loud cries
of order and chair, during which time a great deal of confusion took place,
inasmuch as, by way (we presume) of getting through the business with greater
celerity, every one spoke at once, the question was put to the vote, and Mr.
Williatt lost his license by a majority of 12 to 8”.
The Cornwall Chronicle of the 12 September drew the following
response by a contributor.
“The conduct of the Magistrate upon the occasion forming a
Bench for the granting of Licences to publicans, has been, for the past two or
three years, for the most part, unexceptionable; the public is, therefore, the
more astonished at the treatment received by Mr. Williatt at the annual
licensing day on the 1st of the present month; and, we are quite
sure, that every gentleman who sat on that occasion in his official capacity,
must sincerely regret having been misled with regard to Mr. Williatt, now the
facts of the case have become public.
Mr. Williatt has, for many years, kept the only public-house
at Evandale. He is a respectable man,
and his house has been remarked as one of the best, if not the best, conducted
licensed houses on this side of the Colony.
Gentlemen, when travelling have called, have been accustomed to receive
to good accommodation at the “Patriot King”, — the house too, being so quiet
and “unlike a public-house” that no person hesitates to make it his quarters.
It has been quite usual with gentlemen, disposed for recreation for a day or
two, to go out to Williatt’s, where they were sure to find the best attention,
-the best accommodation-, and actual retirement.
The house is in every way suitable for affording
accommodation to travellers and visitors except, perhaps, to those of that
class who would consider that house to be the best fitted for public
accommodation that afforded the largest tap-room, and in which rioting and
debauchery were permitted. Such folk Mr. Williatt had not accommodation for,
and, as a matter of course, his house was not patronised by them. Respectable
people had nothing to complain of, — but everything to be satisfied with.
Of Mr. Williatt we are borne out in saying, that he has
always maintained an independent character — his conduct has been unassuming
and just; he lives within his income,— pays his debts— and has an unencumbered
On the Licensing day— when Mr. Williatt’s name was read,
as a matter of course, for the renewal of his License—Mr. Robert Wales, the
Police Magistrate of Evandale, addressing the Bench, objected to it for stated
reasons, which the Magistrates took for granted were correct.
The Bench was bound to credit the assertions made publicly
by Mr. Wales, in his capacity of Police Magistrate, and without calling in Mr.
Williatt to hear the charges made against him, refused his licence.
Mr. Williatt denies the truth of many of the assertions
made by Mr. Wales to the Bench, and attributes his opposition to an ill feeling
towards him, Mr. Williatt. Mr. Wales gave as one reason for refusing the
License, that he had often summoned Mr. Williatt as a juror on Coroner’s
Inquests— that he had never attended and had advised other persons not to
attend when summoned. Now, Mr. Williatt states, that he was summoned on three
occasions, — the first he attended, and sat as foreman, — on the second he
attended, and sat at a juror, — and the third time he arrived at the Inquest
too late, for which he made an apology to the Coroner, who laid that his
absence was of no consequence, as the jury had easily been made up.
Mr. Williatt moreover asserts, that he had expressed his
willingness at any lime to attend on Inquests, and requested he might be called
upon at any time when a difficulty existed in composing a jury.
But presuming it to be the fact that Mr. Williatt did
refute to attend on inquests, was that a sufficient reason why the public
should be denied the accommodation of a respectable and orderly conducted
public house at Evandale?
Again. Mr. Wales complained that Mr. Williatt had more
authority over the constabulary than he had. — A strange confession for Mr.
Wales to make. He also complained of the
situation of Mr. Williatt’s house, he said that no one could approach it
without being observed, by which an opportunity was afforded for the escape
from it of persons improperly tippling. Logical objection that, of the Police
Magistrate, and singular too, that the house he proposed to license, (which, by
the bye, belongs to the owner of the house Mr. Wales lives in,) should be
objected to by another magistrate, because the floor of it was level with the
The objections made by Mr. Wales to Mr. Williatt license
would have come better from him had he not taken much pains on many occasions
to show an unfriendly feeling towards him. We learn from Mr. Williatt, that on
one occasion, about 9 o’clock on a, Saturday morning, Mr. Wales went into his
tap-room, where he saw a man lying on a bench. Without speaking to any one he
went to the Police Office, and shortly returned with a constable, whom he
directed to take the man to the watch-house for being drunk. The man, who
happened to be sober, refused to be taken into custody, alleging that he was a
free man and was sober. Mr. Wales then
called for Mr. Williatt and charged him in the Queen’s name to aid and assist
to take the man into custody for being drunk, Mr. Williatt refused, as the man
was sober and free, unless a warrant or some legal authority was produced for
For this refusal Mr. Wales threatened to take away Mr.
Williatt’s license and his assigned servant.
We refrain from commenting on the conduct of Mr. Wales in
this affair, understanding that Mr. Williatt has commenced legal proceedings
against him for damages.”
As a result of losing his licence, the hotel was operated by
Mrs Eleanor Perkins. Her licence was
granted by the Court of Quarter Sessions on 2 November 1840 (Cornwall Chronicle
4 November 1840). She attempted to get a
licence in Evandale for another hotel when Williatt’s licence was renewed but
her bid was unsuccessful.
The person referred to above as the owner of the house where
Assistant Police Magistrate Wales lived is Mr Thomas Fall. In 1843, Mr Fall took over the licence for
the Patriot King Hotel although the ownership of the building was maintained by
Mr Williatt. During his time as licensee,
Mr Fall set about constructing his own hotel in Russell Street. The Clarendon Arms, as it is currently known,
was completed in 1847 on the site of the old watch house and convict cells. It was first licensed on 2 September 1849,
but not until after another legal battle with Mr Williatt had ensued.
The Cornwall Chronicle of 5 September 1849 reported that Mr.
Thomas Fall’s application to transfer the “original license” for the Patriot
King William IV “to the premises lately erected by him at Evandale” was refused
on the ground that the transfer would be injurious to the proprietor of the
Patriot King, Mr. Williatt. The lawyer
for Mr Fall, Mr. Tarleton argued that “If you reject Fall as an original
holder, you must consider him as a new applicant.” This argument was persuasive, so ultimately a
new license was granted to Mr. Fall for the Clarendon, and Mr. Williatt’s put
in a successful application for the transfer of the original license for the
Patriot King back to him.
The Courier of 16 June 1849 carries the following advert –
“To let or lease from 1st September next,
1849 THOSE SUBSTANTIALLY-BUILT , and
EXTENSIVE PREMISES situate at Evandale, within 12 miles of Launceston, known as
the “PATRIOT KING WILLIAM the FOURTH” Inn; now in full trade. Established
in 1832. The house is large and replete with every convenience, and requisite
accommodation for a first-rate hotel. Brewhouse, cellar, commodious stabling,
loose boxes, coach and harness house, with lofts over the whole. Sheep and
cattle yards, and a well of excellent water on the premises. For particulars,
and to treat for the same, apply personally, or by letter post-paid, to the
undersigned. – JOHN WILLIATT. –
Elkington, near Evandale, June 11.”
In May 1853, Mr Williatt transferred the licence for the
Patriot King to William Wright. It is thought that Wright held the lease until
1857 at which time the remaining 18 months of the lease was put up for sale
(The Cornwall Chronicle 11 April 1857).
It appears that Mr John Duffell took up that offer as The Cornwall
Chronicle of 23 May 1857 states “Dr Wigan has commenced the practice of his
profession at Evandale, and will be found at his rooms, at Mr. Duffell’s, the
Patriot King Hotel, from 8 to 11 in the morning.”
Another advert in The Courier on 28 June 1858 shows that Mr
Williatt put the hotel out for lease for 5 years and Mr Duffell also took up
this lease. John Duffell was still
licensee in 1862 although a newspaper of the day gave his name as Duffett. By 1871, his wife, Dinah Duffell had become
licensee and would remain so until at least 1874.
In December 1873, Mrs Dinah Duffell, pleaded guilty to having
an illicit still in her possession, but in extenuation said she was not aware
that it was a still. After more than a decade at a pub, it was highly likely
she knew what a still was and what it looked like. She was fined £10 and costs.
In 1884, the property, then known locally as Duffell’s Hotel
was put up for sale but apparently was not sold and remained in the Williatt
estate. A notice published in the
Launceston Examiner of 24 June 1876 by Richard Chugg of the Macquarie Hotel
tells us “NOTICE.–As Mrs Duffell has closed the hotel, known as the Patriot
King, the undersigned will provide dinners, etc. for the accommodation of the public
attending the sales at the above place.”
In the 1890’s the house became the home of David Collins and
his family. He was at one time, Warden
of Evandale and later became Council Clerk.
Karl von Stieglitz states that the Collins family occupied the home for
60 years, however, we know from the Examiner of 8 Aug 1912 that the family did
not initially own the property. It was
in this year that the estate of the late John Williatt was again put up for
sale; “FOR SALE
The following desirable lots, situated in High-street
Lot 4, occupied by Mr. David Collins, 3a. 2r 29p.; large
Brick House and Brick Stables; weighbridge on this lot.
Lot 5 “Ingleside,” occupied by Mrs. Hawley, 3a.
1r. 29p.; comfortable W.B. Cottage, Brick Stable, Outhouses; Fruit, Vegetable,
and Flower Gardens.
Lot 6-Cottage and Land, 2a. 0r. 16p., adjoining
“Ingleside.” Lots 5 and 6 are offered together.”
The Macquarie Hotel was located on the corner of White Hills
Road (Barclay Street) and Macquarie Street and said by von Stieglitz to have
been built around same time as Royal Oak (1840). Now the establishment may have been built around
this time, but it is likely that it was later, because at a Licensing Board
meeting in December 1861 a new license was granted to Mrs. Richards for “a
house to be called the Macquarie Hotel”.
The hotel was destroyed by fire on 14 August 1887 so it had a
relatively short life. The Daily
Telegraph of 15 August reported the fire this way “The Macquarie Hotel was
totally destroyed by fire at 7 o’clock this morning. The building was empty
except the large room, which was used by the Evandale Brass Band to practice
in, and some of their forms and seats were destroyed. Mr Webber’s water-cart
came in time to save the adjoining shop, and the local fire brigade worked well
under the direction of the police.”
This report suggests it was not operating as a hotel at this time.
There was some surprise around town at the time that the fire
was not being investigated. It had
previously been deliberately set on fire but the flames had been extinguished.
The newspaper, The Tasmanian, of the 20 August that year reported “The whole
building except the brick walls was consumed in about two hours. The building
belonged to Mr. R. W. Chugg, and was insured for its full value.”
Ann Richards is known to have operated the hotel from 1862
till 1870 but she did not own it.
Solicitors were instructed by Mr. W. Atkin, Executor to the Estate of
the late Wm. Richards, to sell by auction, at their Rooms, on Monday, 20th
instant, at twelve o’clock, “that well-known property at Evandale, the
Macquarie Hotel, with cottage at the corner of Cambock and Macquarie Streets.
The Hotel which is in good repair contains 12 rooms, one of which is 41 x 16
feet, suitable for meetings or concerts, detached stable and outbuilding. The
cottage contains four rooms, substantially built. The land has a frontage on White Hills Road
of 250 links, and on Macquarie Street of 200 links. Title Guaranteed. Terms at sale. The above property must be
sold.” (Launceston Examiner 2 Feb 1865)
There is mention of the hotel in 1867 where an event was
catered for and reported in the newspaper. “The large room at the Macquarie
Hotel was densely crowded, and the applause was rigorous and genuine.” (The Cornwall Chronicle 21 Sep 1867)
In December 1871, Phillip Mullane was granted a renewal of
his licence for this hotel, so we know it was licensed in 1871 and 1872. The
licence was also renewed in December 1873 for 1874.
In May 1874 a former policeman Peter Smith made an
application to transfer the licence.
This application was refused on the grounds of poor character. The licensee at this time was likely Phillip
Mullane but it is not apparent if it was also owned by him. (We know from
latter reporting that the land was at one time owned by Mr Barrett.) Smith had
commenced the purchase of the property and now he was seeking the licence to
operate the hotel.
It was a perilous situation; he had paid money for a hotel he
could not legally run. Therefore a
subsequent application was made to the annual licensing bench in by Smith in
December 1874. “Messrs J. Whitehead
and R. H. Douglas constituted the licensing bench here on Tuesday, and they
renewed all the existing licenses. Mr Peter Smith applied for a new license for
the Macquarie Hotel. Mr Whitehead left
the bench, and declined to consider the application. Mr Douglas could not
constitute himself a licensing bench, and he also retired.” (The Cornwall
Chronicle 4 December 1874)
By May 1875, Peter Smith was before the Court of Bankruptcy
in Launceston. “Before my bankruptcy I kept the Macquarie Hotel, Evandale. I
was to pay £650 for the hotel to Mr Atkins, as agent for the owners. I paid
£100 on account of the purchase. I gave up possession in January to Mr Richard
Chugg on condition that he would arrange with Mr Atkins to take it on the same
terms that I had bought it.” (Weekly Examiner 22 May 1875)
The two fires mentioned above where not the only fire to have
occurred here. The Cornwall Chronicle 3
February 1875 reports “Fire at Evandale.— On Saturday night about 11 o’clock
a stable in the rear of the Macquarie Hotel, at Evandale, caught fire and could
not be extinguished until it burnt down, destroying a valuable horse and a ton
and a half of hay.” The horse belonged to Mr Richard Chugg.
Chugg continued to operate the Hotel through 1876 as attested
by the following from the Launceston Examiner of 1 April 1876. “PIGEON MATCH AT EVANDALE. (From our own Correspondent.) A capital day’s
sport was enjoyed by lovers of the gun at Evandale on Wednesday, the centre of
interest being a much talked of match between two well known cracks, Messrs W..
Russell and Jas. Rose, for £25 aside. There were a large number of visitors
from both town and country present on the ground, the spot chosen being in a
paddock not far from the Macquarie Hotel, Mr R. Chugg having the management of
the necessary details for the shooting. Mr Chugg had a refreshment booth on the
ground and provided an excellent dinner at the hotel for the visitors after the
conclusion of the sport.”
In May 1877, Chugg’s licence was transferred to Alexander
Wilson (The Hobart Town Gazette 22 May 1877).
The Hotel ceased to operate sometime during or after
1878. This is known because a licence
was issued to Alexander Wilson for 1878 (The Hobart Town Gazette 15 January
1878), however, a local correspondent for the town reported in the Launceston
Examiner of 18 Nov 1879 “I understand an attempt will be made to get a
license for the old Macquarie Hotel. We, the public of this municipality, do
not require any more houses of refreshment of this kind—just now, at any rate.”
The large room of the hotel was still in use for functions in
1884 because a wedding reception was known to be held in the hotel in February
of that year. (The Mercury 26 Feb 1884)
The land was subsequently cleared after the fire and in 1885 Visitors
to Evandale were encouraged “if they wish to note the many improvements that
are being pushed forward in the building line, ought not to neglect to take a
walk or drive round in the locality of the old Macquarie Hotel. They will there
see the commodious premises lately erected by Mr E. Atkins. The ground on which
they stand once belonged to the late Mr Barrett, and the building is a striking
contrast to the former bare paddock.(Daily Telegraph 23 Jun 1885)
The Hobart Town Courier of 3 October 1829 provides a list of
persons to whom certificates for Public House Licenses for Cornwall were
granted by the bench of Magistrates.
This list included Mr J Collins for the Jolly Farmer, South Esk
River. However the Colonial Times of 20
November 1829 states that a Public House Licence in the County of Cornwall was
granted to George Collins, for the Jolly Farmer, South Esk River.
George Collins lived on Collin’s Hill it what is now Briar
This makes the Jolly Farmer the first licensed premises in
the town. It was not to last
however. The Hobart Town Courier of 9
January 1830 tells a story of “a
regular pitched battle” that was fought on 30 December 1829, “near the
public house kept by Mr. Collins between James Glew, a man well known by the
lovers of pugilism in New South Wales and John Williams, the champion of this
place”. By this report, “upwards
of 700 persons, a greater concourse of people perhaps than was ever assembled
before on such an occasion in this island”, witnessed the event. Even the constables from Launceston did not
try to have the pugilists desist, the prisoners to return to their masters’
deserted farms, and the rest of the mob to disperse” Indeed, “that guardian of the public peace,
it appears, was busily employed making bets much against appearances, and it is
said (that being in the secret) he made a good job of it, for it is the public
opinion that it was a sold battle or what is called by the fancy a cross fight,
but so artfully had the plan been laid, and so successfully executed, that not
only several hundred pounds but thousands are said to have been won and lost,
and that cattle and horses have also changed owners upon the occasion”.
The article goes on to state “We trust the ringleaders of
this disgraceful occurrence will be punished as they deserve, and if any man
clothed with authority, has forgot himself so far as the constable alluded to
seems to have done, that justice will be awarded him for the sake of example to
others”. Such justice may have been
afforded to George Collins as the Launceston Advertiser of 20 September 1830
states “the Magistrates have granted licenses to three new applicants, and
have refused only one license, viz.. Mr. George Collins, near Gibson’s ford,
which license they refused to renew.”
The first licensee was John Morrison. Colonial Times of 9 Nov 1844 stated
that Mr Morrison had applied for a licence (22 September 1844) to keep an inn
at Evandale but it was refused “on
account of not being wanted, in the opinion of the Justices”. That report
goes on to say the case came on again on
but the decision was “deferred until the 22nd, when no doubt, having
heard the decision on this side in Mr. Bonney’s favour, their Worships will
grant the applications.” While
details of the decision on 22nd have not been found, we know that
Morrison held the licence in 1845 so we can assume it was granted. He held the licence until 1852 when he died on 11 May 1852 at the age of 44. His
wife, Eleanor Morrison took over the licence that same year. Mrs Morrison is known to have transferred the
licence to Mr Abraham Banks in February 1853 (Launceston Examiner, February 10,
Mr Banks held this licence until 1871, at which
time “Richard Hood was granted permission
to sell liquors in the Royal Oak hotel under the licence held by Abraham Banks,
until the next licensing meeting”.
In 1855, Mr Banks was involved in an interesting
case, one considered of considerable importance to all public house licensees,
had it been successful. It was “an information” laid by A. T. Collett Esq.
against Mr. Banks, at the Police office in Evandale. “It
involved having refused to receive the horse of a traveller, not being a guest
at his inn, on Sunday last, the 7th January. The circumstances were these: Mr.
Collett, who resides about two and a half miles from the township, drove to
Evandale in his gig for the purpose of attending divine service, when he found
Bank’s yard gate locked and secured, and was refused admission by Banks, and he
was compelled to put up his horse at a friend’s place. There was a full
attendance of magistrates (six), who unanimously dismissed the information,
contending that Banks was perfectly justified in refusing to receive on Sunday
any but travellers, and that persons coming to church could not be so
designated. Another information against Banks for refusing to admit Mr. Collett
into his licensed house on the Same day, in his capacity as a Justice of the
Peace, arising out of the former case, was withdrawn by Mr. Collett.”
Upon obtaining the licence from Mr Banks, Mr
Richard Hood soon set about leasing the business to someone else. On 9 October 1871, he advertised “To BE LET BY TENDER-That well known business
public house known as the Royal Oak Inn, Evandale. Tenders to be sent in on or
before November 1st , 1871. Not bound to accept the highest or any
tender. Apply to Mr R. Hood, near Trafalgar, Evandale.” It is not known how successful this attempt
was but we do know that Hood remained licensee until August 1874 at which time
he transferred it to Elizabeth Hanney.
The Hobart Town Gazette of 18 January 1876 shows that Hanney was granted
a licence until 31 December of that year.
The following year, the Hobart Town Gazette of 16 January 1877 states
that a licence was now granted to Thomas Trant until 31 December that
year. However, The Tasmanian 15 December
1877 carried an advertisement that stated “WANTED TO BE KNOWN. – THAT I, the
undersigned, have taken the Royal Oak Hotel, Evandale, lately in the occupation
of Thomas Trant, and I beg to solicit a fair share of patronage. Good
accommodation, stabling, etc. The best wines and spirits always on hand. –
HENRY VINEY, Proprietor.”
Viney held the licence until 29 May 1880 and the
Hobart Town Gazette states that the licence was transferred from Viney to
William Banks (1 June 1880). That
licence was renewed for 1881.
Mr Hood took back the licence in 1881 and held
it till 1886. In September that year he
advertised to let or sell the Royal Oak and records show that George Herbert
Wills successfully applied for licence and initially permission to continue
selling liquor from Hood’s Royal Oak. Mr Wills continued as licensee until July
1887, at which time, Mr. Benjamin Cutler made an application to transfer the
licence. Cutler was then granted
permission to sell under Wills’ license until next licensing day (normally
It seems that Mr Cutler was very quick to get
himself into the community by making his hotel available for many social
events. For example he hosted a pigeon
shoot in 1889 and used his licence to set up booths at various sporting
events. For example, in 1887 he provided
a scoring board for the pigeon shooting match at Longford and then “At the
Evandale Races in May 1888, Mr. Benjamin Cutler, of the Royal Oak, Evandale,
had a booth on the ground and did a brisk business, and also provided an
excellent luncheon.” (Launceston Examiner 3 May 1888). In September 1889 Cutler is also reported to
have provided an excellent refreshment and luncheon booth at a ploughing
competition of the Evandale Ploughing Association. Something he repeated in 1889. He did not confine himself to sporting
events; in 1889 he provided dinner and refreshments to the Morven St. Andrew’s
Benefit Society at the Council Chambers and then in 1890 he hosted a dinner for
the anniversary of the Benefit Society at his hotel.
Mr Cutler held the licence until 1892. The Launceston Examiner of 14 Oct 1892 states
that a solicitor, Mr J J Rumpff of Patterson Street Launceston had “for sale the tenant rights, furniture,
goodwill, and effects” for the Royal Oak.
In November 1893, Samuel Colgrave applied for a
Justices’ Certificate approving of him receiving a public-house licence. This may or may not have been granted. The Mercury newspaper of Hobart on 6 December
1893 records that “Evandale Licensing Bench has decided to close Royal Oak
Hotel, on the ground that it is not required for public convenience.”
Karl Von Stieglitz (1946) suggests the Imperial Inn was the
first “inn” in Evandale but was never licensed.
This author states that it was owned and built by John Williatt (1792 –
1875) who subsequently established the second licensed establishment in the
town, the Patriot King William IV in 1832.
Von Stieglitz asserts the Imperial Inn was later called
Ingleside. It had been a comfortable
home in its day but had fallen into disrepair and was eventually demolished and
only the stables remain. Von Stieglitz
reports that during demolition, “reminders of its original use, including
the Imperial Inn sign, were found, and among the litter under the floor was one
of the old fashioned, square, black gin bottles, still corked and full to the
neck with gin. In his surprise at this
discovery, the man at work on the job dropped his hammer on to the bottle, and
then to his horror saw its contents slowly gurgle away in the dust, leaving
behind only a tantalising aromatic smell.”
New evidence now casts doubt on the existence of the Imperial
Inn. Mr Williatt did not own the land
encompassing Ingleside Homestead until after the Patriot King was established
and if the Imperial Inn was operated by a previous owner, then it would have
been nothing more than an opportunistic sly grog shop and likely not to have
been as brazen as to display an advertising sign. Licences to operate a public house were
required from at least 1816 (The Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter 6
The Prince of Wales was said to be built by William
Sidebottom in circa 1836. Karl von
Steiglitz (1946) states that William Sidebottom came to Evandale in 1820 from
England and “Soon after arrival he built a tannery and boot factory—which
supplied Government and private contracts—with as many as 25 men working for
him, on Fyfe’s Corner, as some of us still call it, opposite where Mr. and Mrs.
L. C. Bean now live. This was a wooden building and later occupied by the
Halls, who at one time tried to obtain a licence for it as an hotel, but
failed. Later, Simon Fyfe had his stables there when he ran the coaches, but
during his son’s (John) tenancy after Simon’s death, the old place was burnt
down. William Sidebottom built a brewery at Evandale (William East was the last
brewer), near the Clarendon Hotel. He also built the Prince of Wales Hotel and
several other places from bricks made in the old brick kiln on Woodlands (now
part of Andora), which were delivered on the site for 5/- a hundred.”)
At the annual licensing meeting in 1842, Miss Eleanor Perkins
(who had been the licensee at the Patriot King William) and William Sutton both
applied for licenses at Evandale. The
Launceston Courier on 5 September 1842 reports “The sense of the meeting was
taken as to whether another house was required in the district. Upon a
division, there were six on each side, and the Chairman decided in favour of a
second house. The respective merits of the two applications were then
discussed, and a decision given in favor of Mr. Sutton by the Chairman’s
The Launceston Advertiser of 20 October 1842 carries the
following advert from Mr Sutton: “PRINCE
OF WALES, EVANDALE. – THE Undersigned, begs most respectfully to inform his
friends and the public in general, that he has taken those commodious premises
at Evandale, lately occupied by Mr. Sidebottom, which he has opened as an
Hotel. The premises having undergone a thorough repair, will afford every
accommodation to those who may favor him with a call.”
In 1843, Sutton was involved in a curious case reported in
the Launceston Examiner 30 August 1843. “On
Saturday week a novel kind of information was tried at the Evandale police
office, before Robert Wales and James Cox, Esquires. The following is an
outline of the case. A man named Peter Morgan, formerly in the employ of a
settler at Norfolk Plains, went to the house of Mr. Sutton, who keeps the
” Prince of Wales” inn, at Evandale, and gave into the safe keeping
of the landlady two promissory notes, one for £13 10s., the other for £51 10s.
He remained at the house drinking for nearly a fortnight, representing himself
(as there is reason to believe) as a man of property. As often as payment was
requested he gave a cheque upon the bank, until having repeated this process
three several times, Mr. Sutton thought it necessary to ascertain whether he
possessed any funds at the bank upon which he so largely drew. He accordingly
brought him in a gig to Mr. Henty’s, where he repeatedly said he had upwards of
£300. Certainly the man must have been labouring under some hallucination of
the kind, derived from the debauchery in which he had been indulging, for on
arriving at the bank he walked in with all imaginable consequence, and asked
for his £300! I The cashier, however, knowing nothing about him, he returned as
he came, in company with Mr. Sutton to the “Prince of Wales” once
more. He then gave the landlord a promissory note for £51, accepted by Mr.
Mitchell, his former master. Morgan had previously taken away two colts, which,
at his first coming to the house, he had left there. After giving Mr. Sutton
the bill he went away, but returned soon afterwards and demanded back his two
promissory notes. He was then informed that his account exceeded £110, and that
both the notes would be retained as part payment, and that unless he gave up
the colts summary proceedings would be adopted against him! The consequence of
this threat was the present in formation against Mr. Sutton, for taking a
promissory note in payment for liquor instead of the current coin of the realm,
contrary to the act of council. The bench considered the case fully made out,
and fined Sutton in the extreme penalty of £50, exclusive of costs. Mr.
Douglass, who appeared in his behalf, gave immediate notice of appeal.”
It is quite likely that because of this case, Sutton lost his
licence. We do know that Sutton owed money to Mr Sidebottom because The
Cornwall Chronicle of 19 Aug 1843 advertised a sale “Sidebottom v Sutton. – BY MR. FRANCIS. – On the Premises, known
as the Prince of Wales public-house, Evandale, on THURSDAY next, the 24th
August, at 1 o’clock precisely, under distraint for rent, unless this execution
is previously satisfied, – ONE Horse and Gig, two Colts, two Cows, and one Calf
– also – The Household Furniture, consisting of horse hair bottom chain,
tables, bedsteads, bed and bedding, kitchen utensils, etc. – Terms – Cash.”
In September 1843, the licence was granted to Patrick
Walsh. “Some argument took place
respecting the granting of this license, but it was ultimately carried, on the
consideration that two licensed houses were
better than only one, to prevent monopoly” (The
Cornwall Chronicle 2 September 1843).
The following year, the licence to Walsh was renewed (The Cornwall
Chronicle 7 September 1844). As owner of
the establishment, this licence was transferred to Mr Sidebottom in May 1846
according to The Cornwall Chronicle Sat 9 May 1846 and Launceston Advertiser 7
May 1846. However, the Cornwall
Chronicle of 1 August 1846 then states that an application was made to transfer
the licence from Sidebottom to William Peck.
The transfer was reported as allowed in The Britannia and Trades’
Advocate on 13 August 1846 on 3 August.
However, the Cornwall Chronicle of 2 September 1846 states
that at a hearing before Justices, a certificate to apply for renewal of a
licence as refused because “William Peck, Prince of Wales, Evandale.—Badly
conducted house and a dealer in licenses.”
(Peck had only one month earlier transferred his licence for the Plough
Inn in Evandale to take up the Prince of Wales.)
Peck must have been able to overcome this set back because he
did hold the licence for the Prince of Wales from 1846 to 1848.
John King was the next licensee, holding the licence until
1852. It is known that consideration of
an application from Mr George Smith, for the Prince of Wales Inn, Evandale,
formerly kept by Mr. King, was postponed until the 16th September 1852 but only
after the clerk of the
peace read a letter from the police magistrate of Morven, recommending the
rejection of the applicant on the grounds that “had he been a man of
respectable character, he might have obtained certificates of character from
several gentlemen, residents on the Nile.”
Douglas, solicitor, stated that the applicant had resided some years on the
Nile, and by a course of frugality, and honest industry, had collected a sum of
money sufficient to embark in the business of a publican; he was considered,
however, on hearsay evidence and idle rumours, as unfit for that business;
although there was nothing tangible against him. He (Mr. Douglas) begged an
adjournment, in order that be might produce satisfactory certificates of Mr.
Cornwall Chronicle of 18 September 1852, reports that at the re-scheduled
hearing Robert Wales, the Assistant Police Magistrate for Morven was reported
to have said — “My principal reason for opposing the license is because I
consider the applicant incapable of keeping an orderly house; I have known Smith
thirteen years, and in my opinion he is unqualified for the business of a
licensed victualler; I have no documentary evidence against him, but could, if
I were disposed, call up reminiscences anything but creditable to him. Besides,
public opinion is against him, and the Magistrates of Morven have protested
against his holding a license; applicant had recently conducted a tap nominally
for Mr. King — but in his (Mr. Wales’) opinion, virtually for himself; the
house since then had been badly conducted.”
But Mr Douglas, acting on behalf of Smith discharged his duty
fearlessly; “even though Magistrates spoke under excited feelings, were he
right he would not submit. Mr. Wales knew his client was being deprived of a
license on idle rumour; it was usual for the police to bring forward data on
which to condemn a man, not mere hearsay evidence; the fact of his client
having resided fifteen years in one district, without having incurred the
displeasure of any one — without even being known to any one — was prima facie
proof of the unimpeachableness of his character. Mr. Smith had not been fairly
dealt with, inasmuch as the sins of Mr. King had been visited on his devoted
head. How, he would ask, was Mr. Smith accountable for Mr. King’ s neglect? If
Mr. King had done wrong, why was he not punished? Surely they would not saddle
his client with Mr. King’s imperfections.”
Mr. Douglas was “in possession of a number of certificates
which he felt convinced would prove his client worthy of holding a license;
they were from persons, who knew Smith personally, and must have more weight
than an ipse dixet (an assertion without proof) of individuals entirely
unacquainted with him; he would lay the documents before the bench, leaving
them to make their own impression. Mr. Douglas contended that the bench should
adduce tangible proof before they refused his client’s application.”
The newspaper then reports that Mr. Douglas then read
favourable certificates from several people including George Collins, Jnr., Mr
H Glover and John R Glover. The report
continues “Mr Wales said, with regard to the respectability of the
certificates, he only knew of two in which he could place reliance, Mr. H.
Glover’s, and Mr. Collin’s; although he did not wish to reflect on the private
character of individuals, in the discharge of his magisterial duty he felt it
incumbent on him to state that Mr. John R Glover was too dissipated in his
habits to render his testimony worthy of belief; and he would simply enquire,
why did not Smith procure recommendations from the Magistrate of the district?
The fact of there being no magisterial recommendations proved him unworthy to
be entrusted with, a licensed house.
Mr. Douglas — The magistrates of the district were
unacquainted with the man, and consequently could not recommend him.”
Despite Mr Douglas’ efforts, the panel was guided by Mr.
Wales, and the vote was against Smith by a show of five to one – the
application was refused.
In 1852, Mr Edward Davis advertises “Prince of Wales,
EVANDALE. E DAVIS, late of Perth, begs
to inform his friends and the public in general, that having taken the above
spacious premises, and been to great expense to put them in complete repair,
trusts by civility, attention and moderate charges, to merit a portion of their
patronage. The beat of Wines, Spirits,
and Malt Liquors, always on band, well aired beds, superior stable and an
attentive ostler. Dinners provided for
large or small parties on the shortest notice.” (The Cornwall Chronicle 18 September 1852)
In February 1855, Davis once again takes to the adverts to
say that having been late of the Prince of Wales in Evandale, he has moved to
the Australian Wine Vaults in Launceston, (The Cornwall Chronicle 17 February
1855). It is suggested that Davis
transferred the licence to Mr Hall in 1854 because in December of that year,
Hall had his licence “renewed” for 1855.
Mr Hall has been recorded in the press of the time as Arthur
Samuel Hall and Samuel Arthur Hall. The
family notice announcing the birth of a son in The Cornwall Chronicle on 31
January 1855 states that it was S A Hall.
It is known that Samuel Hall held the licence until at least 1858.
It is not known by the compiler who had the licence from 1858
to 1862 but it is likely to have been Samuel Hall and William Sidebottom,
Jnr. It is known that William Sidebottom
Jnr held the licence in 1862 until August 1870, at which time, it was
transferred to Robert Saunders (Launceston Examiner 18 Aug 1870). Saunders then held the licence through to at
Edward Hardman held the licence from at least 1883 until
1891. On 28 June 1891, Edward’s wife, Jane Harriett, had a son. Just 16 days
later on 14 July she died at the age of 31.
This event must have had some impact of the decision to get out of the
hotel, because in November of that year Michael Markey submitted an application
for the licence. On 9 November 1891, a
correspondent of the Launceston Examiner (12 November 1891) reports that “Mr
Michael Markey, of the Prince of Wales Hotel, is suffering from severe
concussion of the brain, the result of a fall from a restive horse, and is in a
critical state. He died on 14 November
at age 44. His widow, Elsie Markey took over the hotel and ran it until 1903.
Thomas Fall built the Clarendon Hotel, starting in 1847,
while he held the licence for the Patriot King. In
September 1849, Mr Fall attempted to transfer the licence he held for the
Patriot King over to “premises lately erected by him”. This application was refused on the ground
that the transfer would be injurious to the proprietor of the Patriot King, Mr.
Williatt. The impasse was solved by
considering Mr Fall as a new applicant and allowing Williatt to apply for
transfer of Fall’s licence for the Patriot King back to himself.
Fall held the licence until his death on 4 September 1888. The Colonist of 15 September 1888 reported
the following: “The remains of the late Mr Thomas Fall were interred in the
Church of England cemetery, the service being conducted by the Rev. J.
Chambers. The funeral was well attended, notwithstanding that the day was cold
and wet. The Rev. Archdeacon Mason, the Hon. W. Dodery, Messrs. W. Atkins and
Maurice Nathan acting as pall-bearers. The deceased gentleman will be greatly
missed on the township, as he was a resident of 50 years. There were very few
houses here when he came to make Evandale his home, he was a large property
holder here and in Launceston, and having only had two in family, they are left
well provided for. He arrived in the colony in the barque Portland in 1832, the
late Mr and Mrs J. Cox, of Clarendon, being also amongst the passengers. The
vessel, it will be remembered, was wrecked at the Fourteen Mile Bluff. The
deceased succeeding in saving Mrs Cox from a water’ grave, but her son was
lost, the remains afterwards being interred at George Town. Mr Fall lost all he
possessed by the wreck, but he commenced business in Launceston, and removed to
Franklin Village, and finally settled at Evandale. After being in the colony a
few years, he married a Miss Russell, cousin of Henry Russell, the celebrated
composer and song writer. Although deceased had reached the age of 89 years, he
could read without spectacles and write freely within a few days of his death.
He never took an active part in politics, but was a shrewd observer and
criticiser of passing events, and was charitable in his disposition.”
After Fall’s death, and the rather long occupation of a
single licensee, there was a succession of short tenure publicans.
Oscar Bottcher became the next licensee. However, his tenure at the hotel ended
abruptly when he died in 1889. William
Atkins, acting executor to Mr Bottcher, applied for renewal of the licence on
24 October 1889.
Walter Smith followed and he lasted only to 1892 when, in
November 1892, Kate Nichols applied for a Justices’ certificate to allow her to
apply for the licence to run the Clarendon.
However, the Launceston Examiner of 30 March 1893 carried the advert “TO
LET-The Clarendon Hotel, Evandale, lately occupied by Mrs Nichols. This well
known hostelry, partly furnished, is now being thoroughly renovated, and will
be let to a suitable tenant on liberal terms. Apply W. ATKINs, River View,
Launceston Examiner 6 April 1893 reported that an application
to transfer the licence was made by William Atkins to Michael John Ryan and
this was later granted in May 1893.
Michael Ryan held the licence through to the turn of the century.
The first recorded use of the current name “Clarendon Arms”
located is in The Cornwall Chronicle of 26 July 1854. However, there are many later recorded
occurrences where the term “Arms” was not used.
In 1834, plans were finalised and St. Andrew’s Church of England was
officially opened in 1837 by the Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, Sir John
Franklin. The building was used as a place of worship on Sundays and a
school room during the week days. The new building was constructed with bricks
which were obtained from the abandoned works of the Evandale-Launceston Water
Tunnel. In addition the roof was covered in shingle.
There were two rooms, the chapel/school room and the master’s room. The
building was situated at the end of Church Lane in what is now the back of the
Rectory. The initial building was later used as a Sunday School before being
demolished around 1910.
In October 1838, a larger Church of England was required with a petition
requesting the Government assist in the erection of a more suitable building.
Consequently work began on a new church in 1841. It was a red brick building
with a square tower and the building was completed about 1844.
In 1869, discovery of large cracks were discovered which was caused by faulty foundations, and the church was finally demolished in 1871. The foundation stone for the present church was laid down on 30 November 1871 and building commenced using many of the original bricks. In May 17, 1872 the new church was consecrated and dedicated to St. Andrew.
hotels and inns of Evandale had to source the ales and spirits that they wished
to sell. Some of this would have been
produced on the premises and some would have been bought from producers and
importers. Even from the earliest times, there were debates as to the morality
of alcohol consumption and the economics of production versus importation. It is worth noting that spirits (collectively
called rum) where actually used as a form of currency in the early stages of
colonisation. This debate is exemplified
by the following from the Colonial Times 10 September 1830.
“A Correspondent, last week, called our attention to the
Committee appointed to investigate whether it be expedient or not to make some
alterations in the present system of distillation in this Colony; from what we
can understand, the simple question is this – are the importations of spirits
to be encouraged, or are such as may be manufactured in this Colony to have the
preference given them? There is no doubt but the pro and con have been very
ably discussed by the Committee in question, and no doubt the results of their
deliberations will prove that every point has been duly weighed and considered.
It has been stated to us that one of the reasons that would naturally tend to
levy a higher duty on Colonial distilled spirits, is the desire the Committee
have to encourage the consumption of less stimulating beverage, in favour of
the consumption of beer, they presume, that there are about 15,000 drinking
persons in Van Diemen’s Land, and they would allow at the rate of a hogshead of
strong ale for each individual-each hogshead will require four bushels of grain
to produce it and thus a consumption of 60,000 bushels of barley will be
consequent, which reckoned at 5s. Per bushel, will be £15,000 annually. This is
all very fine in theory, but in practice how would it prove? If the Colonial
distilleries were shut up, would one glass less of imported spirits be drank?
And if such duties were levied as to put a stop to importations or, if a higher
duty than the present be fixed – would not the greatest evil of a country
immediately follow? Would it not answer the smugglers’ purpose to commence
operations? Besides, another question arises, whether these 15,000 hogsheads of
beer which are to be drank annually are to be English or Colonial brewing? If
the former, valuing the hogshead at £5 each, it is only drawing £75,000 per
annum from the Colonists; if, on the contrary, it is supposed that these 15,000
hogsheads are to be supplied by our own breweries, well and good. But then, to
begin with, first see if those establishments are capable of supplying to that
extent, and then question whether the consumers would take to the beer as well
as they do to the dose.
None can desire more than we do to see the Colony dependent
on herself still more than she now is; many imported articles ought to have
been long ago prohibited, by raising the duties to such an extent that
sufficient encouragement would have been given to goods of our own manufacturing,
in preference to those of a similar description imported. But as to Colonial
distillation, where grain, the produce of the Island is to be consumed, it
stands to reason that every assistance should be given in order to prevent a
loss to the Colonists, by expending money in paying for that which is the
produce of other countries.
If, like England, our commerce was so great that something
like a balance of trade would be constantly requisite, that, would naturally
alter the question; but as we are, of the comparative few exportations which
take place from hence, the proceeds might all be returned in hard cash, without
England feeling the least inconvenience; therefore we say, it cannot be argued,
as some have maintained, that because we export oil, wool, and wood, we must in
return take goods out of the London markets. Everybody will acknowledge, that,
whenever it is possible to prevent the Colonists from importing that which can
be manufactured by themselves, it is a saving of capital to some part or other
of the community: and among such articles, Spirits of Colonial distillation may
be ranked foremost, for they not only consume a very large quantity of grain,
but likewise pay very considerable duty – benefiting the farmer, the
manufacturer, and the Revenue. As to the question of immorality, in allowing
the use of the ardent spirits, it is not for the Colonists to decide. Wise as
we may think ourselves, we cannot pretend to lead the way, and show the world
that we are philosophers who, because we consider stimulating liquors tending
to immorality, can do away with the use of them.
If in Europe illicit distilleries and smuggling be carried
on to such an extent, for the sake of a trifling gain, surely here, where
spirits are so much in demand, they would, by hook or by crook, be illegally
manufactured or imported.
The Committee, likewise, need not trouble their heads about
questions such as – which of the two ardent spirits, or malt liquors, are
productive of most mischief to the drinker, or of a greater tendency to
increase crime? – for there is a very old saying that would set it to rest,
viz., “Porter drinkers are porter thinkers,” no doubt meaning dull,
stupid fellows, with no life or energy; whereas spirits are enlivening and
stimulating, and have this advantage over porter and small beer – they much
sooner evaporate, and leave the drinker in his usual senses. If such a question
as that be allowed, certainly it should also be considered – whether, the many
who, as a matter of custom, get intoxicated once a day, should remain in that
state for 12 hours or for 24?
Following good examples is the best thing we can do. If
distillation is allowed in every other Colony, why should it be restricted by
levying such duties as would immediately prevent the possibility of continuing
the manufacture in Van Diemen’s Land? Why, in the name of goodness, should we
not be placed on the same footing as other Colonies-we will say, other similar
It was into this environment that the first breweries were
introduced to the Evandale area.
Karl von Stieglitz (Days and Ways in Old Evandale,
April 1946) states that William Sidebottom built a brewery at Evandale near the
Clarendon Hotel and that William East was the last brewer. One might assume
that if it was adjacent to the Clarendon Hotel, it would have been supplying
that hotel which commenced operations in 1849.
No record can be found of the first William Sidebottom (who died in
1849) of having operated this brewery.
The first record of the brewery located was from The
Cornwall Chronicle of 19 February 1859 which states “Tasmania Brewery –
Adjoining Mr. Fall’s Hotel. The undersigned begs respectfully to inform the
inhabitants of Evandale, that the above brewery, being completed and in full
operation, is now ready to supply them with a genuine and first-class article,
and trusts by strict attention to business, to merit a share of public
patronage. – William East – Feb 3”.
Mr East expanded the brewery in 1860 (The Cornwall Chronicle
1 Feb 1860) but by 1868, Mr East had either shifted operations or expanded to
Perth by taking up the Esk Brewery from Mr Ingram.
In the Launceston Examiner of 30 January 1868 he advertises
to seek good malting barley from the incoming crop of that year to be “delivered
at Evandale or Perth” but cites his location as Esk Brewery in Perth. The fact that he was prepared to accept
delivery to Evandale as well suggests he was operating both businesses.
This hypothesis is further supported by the following in the Launceston Examiner of 9 January
1868 “ESK BREWERY, Perth, Jan. 1, 1868. – The undersigned in returning his
sincere thanks for the very liberal support he has received since occupying the
above brewery, begs most respectfully to inform his numerous patrons and the
public generally that he has this day admitted Mr. John Sidebottom, of
Evandale, as a partner in the above business, which will in future be carried
on under the style and firm of WILLIAM EAST & CO.”
In March 1880, the land, brewery and chattels were put up
for sale by Mr East (Launceston Examiner 27 March 1880). The sale included “One
acre and 20 perches, more or less, of land situate in the parish of Chicester,
County Somerset, Tasmania; together with the brewery thereon erected, and known
as the Esk Brewery, and the machinery, vats, coppers, fixtures, and plant
belonging to the said brewery.” The
reason for the sale was non-payment of a mortgage (Launceston Examiner 29 June
No further mention has been found for a brewery at Perth or
Evandale has been found after this event.
It is also worth noting that J R Glover (the son of the
famous painter John Glover) did a pencil sketch of a brewery thought to be near
Evandale. The sketch was done circa
1850. At that time, the hotels operating
in the town were the Patriot King William, Prince of Wales, Royal Oak and the
Clarendon. It is known that the Patriot
King had a brew house and the Clarendon was only newly built and soon to get
its own adjacent brewery but unknown whether the Royal oak and Prince of Wales
had their own brewing capabilities. If
the sketch is taken to be an accurate interpretation of the surrounding
countryside, the brewery, if in Evandale, was not at any of these public