From the thirteenth century onwards, the alehouse became an ever increasing feature of English towns. Peter Clark, the sole authority on the history of English alehouses from the late middle ages to the early nineteenth century, in his work The English Alehouse 1200-1830, traces their development from rather rudimentary beginnings to their emergence as a "fully fledged" institution in the sixteenth century. In the middle ages, the selling of ale was a rather casual affair. There were laws appertaining to it, but ale-sellers, who tended to be women trying to earn some extra money, brewed and sold it to whoever would buy it in a variety of places; the market, the town, or from their home. Over the course of the fourteenth, and particularly the fifteenth century, the selling of ale became more sophisticated and located. Some women may still have taken ale to the market, but increasingly the selling and consuming of ale became located around the brewing place. Increasingly ale-sellers, who were now predominantly male, provided a "drinking room" where the customers could stay and drink their ale. As drinking encourages eating, so the provision of basic foods became common, such as bread, buns and cakes. Some of the larger establishments provided more substantial meals such as pies, and it appears that some London alehouses provided a variety of foods including fish and meat.(1) Also lodging services became an increasing feature. Generally speaking, the actual alehouses were small and shabby. The majority of them were little more than a one storied cottage, and had at best two drinking rooms and one lodging room. They were regarded as the most inferior of the drinking, hospitality institutions. The Inns and the Taverns were more sophisticated, offering wines and spirits, as well as beer, more amenities, and far superior lodging facilities. The social division was clear. Although it was not uncommon for wealthier individuals to frequent an alehouse - Samuel Pepys for example in the late seventeenth century went there often - in general the alehouse was the preserve of the lower orders,"handicraftsmen, workmen of all sorts, labourers, carmen," (2)"cobblers, tinkers, pedlars and porters"(3) as well as the humble poor. Peter Clark argues that the number of alehouses in England increased quite significantly during this period, which suggests a new found importance. In Canterbury between 1577 an 1596, it appears that the number of licensed alehouses doubled, and in Taunton, they rose by a third. (4) However, it is perhaps important to emphasise that the population of England was growing at a rapid rate in this period, and thus the number of social institutions had to increase if they were to keep a pace. To take the increased number of alehouses as evidence of a new found importance could perhaps be slightly distorting the picture.

Any assessment of the importance of any institution to the "life of a town" in early modern England is problematic. To begin with, the sources are scarce, and those that do remain can be contradictory, difficult to interpret, and perhaps biased. It is therefore difficult to try and reconstruct the importance of this institution, the role it played in society, and its prominence in the lives of the people. It cannot be said with absolute certainty who went there, much less why they went, when they went, and the experience of going. The history of the alehouse is rather like a jigsaw, but although some pieces may be missing, it is possible to put the rest together again and gain some insight into the role of the alehouse in the towns.

Peter Clark believes that one of the main reasons for the emergence of the alehouse as a prominent institution in the Tudor period, was the impact of the Protestant Reformation. In the middle ages, the parish church had dominated the life of the towns. It was in and around the church that the people celebrated the various Christian celebrations, festivals and feastings. It was where baptisms, marriages, and funerals took place, and where they watched plays and pageants. There were also the quasi-secular activities such as church-ales which were popular, and helped to raise money for the church and the indigent. The religious gilds of the town were also important in providing social occasions, as the members often got together for feasting and drinking. There were thus plenty of opportunities for people to drink in a communal fashion without having to frequent the alehouse. Neither was there an absolute need to frequent the alehouse for hospitality. In Catholic England, hospitality and charity to the poor was considered a moral obligation, and a "good work". It was therefore eagerly embarked on by the wealthy gentry who were eager to buy for themselves a place in Heaven. Monasteries also opened their doors to the traveller, providing him with food and a bed. Even if the monasteries did shut their doors in the face of the abject poor, these people could still resort to the welcoming huts of the hermits, or the solitary religious men and women who inhabited the towns. The religious and often the social gilds also offered accommodation. The Corpus Christi gild at York, for example, provided eight beds for the poor. However, with the Dissolution of the monasteries, gilds and chantries, under Henry the Eighth and his son Edward the Sixth, these provisions ceased. Protestantism was a more austere religion than Catholicism, emphasising sobriety of manners and surroundings. Protestants abhorred the ritualistic ceremonies and customs associated with the Catholic church, and after the Protestant regime was firmly established under Queen Elizabeth, following the brief reversal during Queen Mary's reign, there was a fervent campaign to suppress them. Church-ales were suppressed, as were many of the Church festivals and the religious plays. No longer was the church a centre of amusement and frivolity, but one of seriousness and sermons. Clarke argues that the demise of the church as a communal institution, and the rise of it as an elitist tool to control the behaviour of the masses, meant that the people of the towns now began to gather elsewhere, namely in the alehouse. By the late Elizabethan period the alehouse was an integral part of town life.

Arguably the primal importance of the alehouse lay in its role as a social centre. It was a place where the locals could meet up of an evening, talk, make friends, and wind down after a hard days work. For the very destitute, the alehouse was perhaps somewhere to shelter away from the bitter weather, a place where they could curl up before a warm welcoming fire, and take comfort in the company of others. For the young, the alehouse was a brief release from either parental or employer control. At least theoretically, Tudor and Stuart society was a "moral" society, and there was much pressure on young people to conform. The alehouse was a place where they could relax with their friends and lovers. It was increasingly at alehouses that celebrations and feastings both secular and religious, took place. christening feasts, churching feasts, funerals, marriage feasts were conducted there. Indeed, arguably the alehouse played an important part in the making and breaking of marriages. It was common for dowry negotiations to be made there, the betrothal to be celebrated there, and even marriages themselves were conducted there. In the Tudor period, and for a large part of the Stuart, laws on marriage were fairly vague. A simple exchange of vows, so long as they were witnessed, was considered enough, even if they were not made in a church, or before a minister. Such marriages would be clandestine, but still considered valid. A couple who declared before a crowd that they took each other to be husband and wife, no matter how vaguely, and then consummated that union, would be considered married by the community. It is possible that such services took place frequently in alehouses, especially after a little drink had livened people up. If marriages failed, then the alehouse was a place where couples could go to to free themselves of each other. The scenario immortalised by Thomas Hardy in The Mayor of Casterbridge, when Michael Henchard sold his wife Susan in the market place to a sailor, no doubt occurred in Tudor and Stuart England. "Wife-sale", usually by mutual consent, was accepted as a legitimate separation by the community. Arguably the alehouse was important in that it provided an outlet. By coming together, revelling in gossip, and discussing the shortcomings of their "betters", the people could get rid of their angers and frustrations. Arguably this acted as a safety valve as potential rebelliousness was transmuted into laughter and the making fun of those in authority. The alehouse was a suitable venue for this, as the people could slander their superiors, blaspheme and curse, virtually do what they liked, with little fear of being reprimanded, as the alehouse was a refuge from the eyes of the legal, political and religious world.

The alehouse was very much an entertainment centre. There would perhaps be ballad singers, humble players, or "wonders" to look at - an exotic animal or a deformed person which intrigued and fascinated a society which although was afraid of them, at the same time marvelled at them. If these were lacking, customers could amuse themselves by playing a variety of games such as cards, dice, backgammon, and for the hot blooded male, there was always the attentions of the prostitutes to succumb to. If these women happened to get pregnant, then the alehouse would be a refuge for them, where they could stay and deliver their child. This contributed to the well being of the town, for it meant that such women were not on the streets, homeless and begging, or relying on parish charity. Into the seventeenth century, as alehouses became more sophisticated, reading material such as newspapers and books were increasingly provided. Also alehouse keepers began to plan outdoor games and activities; dancing, football, bowls.

The alehouse was also important in that it provided an invaluable service to those coming and going from the towns. Although Mary Coate argues that following the Reformation the amount of religious traffic ebbed as people no longer made "pilgrims", the sixteenth century was still a period of immense geographic mobility, especially from the country to the towns. London in particular was a magnet, and drew people from all over. As people were making their way to the capital city, they needed somewhere to stay. The alehouse was perfect. Although the rooms were not particularly luxurious - sometimes a traveller even had to share the same bed as the keeper and his wife, accommodation was cheap, and better than a field or a barn where the shadowy figure of Death was always lurking. Traffic into the towns was particular dense on market and fair days when people from within as much as a ten mile radius would come to the town to sell their goods and purchase what they needed. The alehouse was a perfect stopping point in the journey. People could refresh themselves there, or if local, it was a place to visit while taking a break. For those hoping to settle in the town, the alehouse could be the first step in this process, acting as Clark and Slack argue "as a door of entry for the would be urban settler." (5) Although it was illegal for alehouse keepers to lodge "strangers" for over a night, this law often went unheeded, and many a person stayed their until they had permanent work, and could set up their own home. This was especially true of apprentices. Once they left their masters house, they perhaps had no immediate home to go to, and so lodged at an alehouse until they could set up on their own. Also the alehouse was important in that it acted as a kind of "job centre", where newcomers could hear from the locals of any jobs or livings available. Indeed, the alehouse was in general a centre of communication, where people arranged to meet each other, and flocked to hear the latest local, national, and political news. As Clark argues, it was a "point of contact".

However, the alehouse was far more than just a social centre. It also played a significant part in the economic well being of the town. Although many alehouse keepers were plagued with debt, the alehouse could be, and was in many instances, a thriving business. Ale was one of the only drinks available to the poor in this period, as water was often contaminated and deadly. There was thus always a healthy demand for ale. Moreover, although brewing ale was relatively simple, not everyone in the towns brewed their own as the equipment was rather expensive. Thus it was necessary for many people to purchase their ale. Many people, especially perhaps women who were in charge of providing food and drink for their husbands and children, went to the alehouse and bought a pail full relatively cheaply. Thirsty workmen would frequently send for jugs or pots of ale to consume while they worked. Frequently during the day servants and apprentices would pop in to the alehouse, and spend an hour or so drinking and eating their lunch. Therefore alehouses were a source of wealth to the towns, by serving a popular and basic need. Ale-selling could be a very profitable business. Indeed, some of the alehouse keepers initially went into the business for that very reason. Also brewing itself was becoming a profitable businessnow that most alehouse keepers were buying their ale rather than brewing it. As a result, brewing became more sophisticated. In some towns, the breweries came together forming trade companies in an attempt to curb competition.(6).

In Salisbury in 1563, a "common brew house" was set up and managed by the corporation, and its profits were given to the poor. Indeed, the town officials and the government were not slow to realize the potential of this, and there were attempts to use the profits from alehouses to help ease the problem of poverty in the towns. Dodd believes that it became quite common "to squeeze out of the publican's profits money for any important local enterprise short of funds." (8) also fines paid by unlicensed or defiant alehouse keepers were given to the poor.

The alehouse also helped the poor in another, rather indirect way. Clark argues that under the rather harsh living conditions of the Tudor and Stuart period, when prices were high, wages low, and employment not always easy to come by, the alehouse"provided an invaluable lifeline for the poor, helping them to survive the worst harvest years, when otherwise they might have starved." (8). Beier and Finlay suggest that one of the main reasons why alehouses were densely concentrated in the poorer areas of London, was because they were needed there (9). Not only did the alehouse provide ale and basic foods at cheap prices, but more importantly it seems that many alehouse keepers allowed for things to be paid for "on the slate". This meant that payment could be deferred until the person could pay. This practise admittedly led to the closure of some alehouses, whose keepers were perhaps exploited by their customers, but it seems in all probability that the benefits of the system, appreciated by the needy, meant that they were careful not to overload it and paid when they could. Also it appears that many landlords were willing to accept payment "in kind", which was undoubtedly an invaluable service for the indigent. The alehouse also acted as a kind of "financial centre" for the poor. They could pawn what little goods they possessed in return for money, or they could even offer them as security for a loan. It was also common for second hand goods to be sold there, which suited the poor man's budget. Also increasingly the alehouse was used as an alternative venue to the market. Not only did this have the advantage of being indoors, but it catered for those who could perhaps not afford to buy the large quantities of grain and other produce sold in the market place.

For the unskilled and the elderly, who had little hope of finding employment, opening an alehouse was a means of warding off poverty. To open an alehouse was relatively straight forward. No special training was required, entry was not controlled by gilds, regulation was lax, and most importantly, it did not require large amounts of capital. All that was needed was a few ale pots, and perhaps a bench for the customers to sit on. They did not even have to brew their own ale, as they could purchase it (on credit if necessary, or on a sale or return basis (10)) from the brewers. The keepers of an alehouse were guaranteed some income, and would probably earn enough to tide them over, even if they did not have another occupation. Indeed, it was frequent for alehouse keeping to be a secondary occupation. The sixteenth century in particular was a period of underemployment. Without earning extra money, many families would perhaps starve. Alehouse keeping was a convenient way of earning some extra income, and complimented nicely baking or butchering. However, alehouse keeping was also a secondary occupation amongst tailors, tanners, labourers and other workmen, who could leave their wives in charge while they went out to work. Indeed the running of an alehouse could be a "family business". Sons and daughters could be "employed" as servants, and younger children were frequently found amongst the streets of the towns, tying to attract custom.

However, there is perhaps the need to exercise some degree of caution in looking at the contribution of the alehouse to the life of English towns in this period. So far, only the benefits have been focussed on, and Peter Clark in his work has perhaps painted a rather too "rosy" picture of the early modern alehouse. Certainly the alehouse did make valuable contributions to town life, socially and economically, but the negative contributions cannot be ignored.

Clark's assertion that the alehouse was the prime social centre of the community following the Reformation, needs to be treated with a degree of caution. It is perhaps easy to exaggerate its social importance. N. J. G. Pounds would argue that in the early seventeenth century, the alehouse was actually declining in importance, as houses were becoming more comfortable, encouraging domestic pleasures such as familial reading around the fireplace. (11) Undoubtedly there are limitations to Clark's thesis. To begin with, the church was a place open to all - children, women, men, regardless of age and social position, (although there is reason to believe that the abject poor were discouraged from attending because they had not decent apparel) - but there is sufficient doubt over whether this was true of the alehouse. Alehouses were widespread, but in all probability the numbers they housed were small, and by no means did all the inhabitants of a town frequent them. Some may have been influenced by the Puritan arguments, and not all criticisms levelled at the alehouse were made by puritans, or others may have preferred to spend their evenings at home with their families, or where perhaps too tired to go out after working all day to go out. It is certainly questionable as to what degree the alehouse was a social centre for women. Clarke himself mentions that the alehouse was primarily a"masculine preserve"(12). Foreign ambassadors would have it that women were avid frequenters of the place, more so than men, but arguably if they did go there it was during the day, and perhaps then only to fetch the family's ale. On practical grounds alone it would be difficult for women to attend, considering the continuous demands of housekeeping and children, especially new born babies. Also, in the age of the double standard, it was not considered reputable for women to frequent alehouses alone. Clark argues that to counter this, many attended in groups, but in all probability, the number of men far outweighed the number of women. If women did attend, it was likely that they were single, where there with their lover, as a new wife, or of course to earn some quick money by selling themselves. Also, considering that many men may have gone to the tavern to be released from the cares of family and wife, they would not have taken kindly to their presence anyway. The alehouse may have contributed to the increasing segregation of the sexes, and arguably husbands returning home drunk, perhaps behaving violently, was not an ingredient for domestic bliss in the towns. Also it is likely that the use of the alehouse as a brothel contributed to the spread of venereal disease and illegitimacy.

The alehouse was also a considerable problem for the town officials. To begin with, the establishment of alehouses was difficult to control. Although from the mid-sixteenth century onwards all alehouses were to be licensed, there was an abundance of unlicensed premises throughout this period. In Oxford, in the reign of Charles the First, it was reported to William Laud that there were almost one hundred unlicensed alehouses in that town alone. Alehouses were believed to be everywhere. Thomas Dekker declared in 1632 that the streets of London were "but a continued alehouse".(13)There were far more alehouses in the towns than the officials could cope with, or desired. There were continuous attempts to suppress the houses, but this also posed several problems. To begin with it led to conflict amongst the governing elite, as there was constant disagreement over which alehouses to suppress. Some officials may have had a vested interest in keeping certain alehouses open, whereas others may have benefited from their closure. Consequently, "alehouses suppressed by one J.P. were often able to secure a license from another", (14) and there was thus "little hope of any amendment to be had." (15)Alehouses continued to flourish. Even during the interregnum when the Puritans were in power, they did not succeed in suppressing alehouses altogether. Secondly, it was difficult for the town officials to know how to adequately respond to the unlicensed alehouse. Many probably just turned a blind eye. To suppress them would not only suppress a popular institution that was serving the community, but could also mean that the alehouse keeper himself would be thrown into poverty, perhaps being unable to make a living any other way. Also, if he was sent to prison, then he would perhaps leave a young family to face destitution.

If the town officials could not so much as regulate the number of alehouses, then they certainly could not effectively regulate behaviour within them. Indeed, the internal activity of the alehouse was a concern to the officials. To them it stood out as "a symbol of social decadence and disruption." (16) They feared that the alehouse was a centre of corruption. It was certainly seen to be encouraging disobedience - the disobedience of children to their parents, servants and apprentices to their masters, and subjects to the state. The latter was particularly manifested in religion. It was not only a concern to the Puritans that many members of the lower orders preferred to spend their Sunday afternoons drinking in the alehouse, but to the town officials and the successive governments. Not only was it distracting them from godly pursuits, but their very non-attendance threatened the authority of the government and the law. It was also feared, with some justification, that the alehouse encouraged criminal and violent behaviour. Although for the most part the crimes committed in alehouses were petty crimes and ones that helped the poor immeasurable, some crimes were not so advantageous. The drinking of alcohol in large quantities frequently led to drunkenness, especially as beer was a stronger alcoholic drink and was becoming more widely available. All too often tempers frazzled and fights broke out, sometimes resulting in much damage, fires, serious injuries, death or even homicide. Also, as the alehouse presented a market for stolen goods, this possibly encouraged theft. Even some landlords were involved in criminal activities, although as Clark argues this was not likely to have been common, as the landlords needed to keep on the right side of the town officials if they were to avoid suppression. Unlicensed alehouse keepers did not want to bring unnecessary attention to themselves.

Also, although the alehouse made an invaluable contribution to the relief of poverty, in some respects it also contributed to it. It was a common assertion of the time that many men were spending what little money they had on needless drink and gambling, while "their wives and children are in extreme begging". (17) This point was probably exaggerated by the pious Puritans (they similarly accused the theatre of draining the money of the poor), but undoubtedly there was some ground to their arguments. In Dover, for example, Jane Jaffrey, wife of Nicholas Jaffrey, told how her husband would spend their money on ale, and would beat her if she asked him for money. He would also beat her if she went to the alehouse to bring him home - apparently a common occurrence. Also the unregulated making and selling of ale also exacerbated the problem of grain dearth. When harvests were poor, this meant that valuable grain was being used on ale, when it could have been more profitably used to make bread to feed the hungry.

It can be seen therefore, that the contribution made by the alehouse to the life of the early modern town was multi-faceted. To have emerged with such force in the Tudor period, and to have consolidated this in the Stuart era, alone suggests that the alehouse served a popular and a practical need. Although the alehouse may have presented some problems for the town officials, and encouraged petty crimes; drunkenness, violence and theft, the general contribution of the alehouse seems to have been a positive one. It provided invaluable help and comfort to the indigent, catered for the financial hardships of the lower orders, and was important in providing cheap accommodation for the traveller, trader, immigrant, and young men on completing their apprenticeships. It was also an important social and entertainment centre, where communal celebrations increasingly took place following the Reformation. However, arguably the most important contribution the alehouse made to the life of the towns in this period, was the comfort and solace it gave the young working men and women, who found in the "alehouse hearth, company and cup, that little cheer that made a life of hardship more durable." (18)
 
 
 
 
 

Bibliography
 

1. A. L. Beier and R. Finlay, The Making of the Metropolis - London 1500-1700 (London, 1986).
 

2. P. Clark, The English Alehouse - A Social History 1200-1800 (London, 1983).
 

3. P. Clark, The Alehouse and the Alternative Society , in Pennington and K. Thomas (ed.) Puritans and Revolutionaries (Oxford, 1978).
 

4. P. Clark and P. Slack, Crisis and Order in English Towns (London, 1972).
 

5. M. Coate, Social Life in Stuart England (London, 1924).
 

6. A. H. Dodd, Life in Elizabethan England (London, 1961).
 

7. F. G. Emmison, Elizabethan Life : Disorder (1970).
 

8. T. Harris (ed.) Popular Culture in England 1500-1800 (London, 1995).
 

9. N. J. G. Pounds, The Culture of English People (Cambridge, 1994).
 

10. S. K. Roberts, Alehouses, brewing, and government under the early Stuarts in Southern History 2 (1980).
 

11. K. Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (Yale University Press, 1992).
 
 
 
 
 

Endnotes
 

1. P. Clark, The English Alehouse - A Social History 1200-1800 (London, 1983), p.133.
 

2. London Pamphleteer (1620's) in Ibid., p.123.
 

3. Thomas Dekker in Ibid., p.123.
 

4. Ibid., p.50.
 

5. P. Clark and P. Slack, Crisis and Order in English Towns (London, 1972), p.139.
 

6. A. H. Dodd, Life in Elizabethan England (London, 1961), P.149.
 

7. P. Clark, op.cit., p.70.
 

8. Ibid., p.137.
 

9. A. L. Beier and R. Finlay, The Making of the Metropolis - London 1500-1700 (London, 1986).
 

10. P. Clark, The Alehouse and the Alternative Society , in Pennington and K. Thomas (ed.) Puritans and Revolutionaries (Oxford, 1978), p.54.
 

11. N. J. G. Pounds, The Culture of English People (Cambridge, 1994), p.168.
 

12. P. Clark and P. Slack, op.cit., p.141.
 

13. Thomas Dekker, in K. Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (Yale University Press, 1992), p.483.
 

14. Ibid., p.483.
 

15. Letter to Sir William Cecil from a Buckinghamshire J.P in

F. G. Emmison, Elizabethan Life : Disorder (1970), p.212.
 

16. K. Sharpe, op.cit., p.482.
 

17. P. Clark, The English Alehouse - A Social History 1200-1800 (London, 1983), p.126.
 

18. K. Sharpe, op.cit., p.484.