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
Sep 1817).
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
casting vote.”
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.”
“Mr.
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.
Smith’s character.”
The
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
least 1874.
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.
Thomas
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,
Evandale.”
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.
The
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
Settlements?”
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
1880).
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
houses.
