Brewing from at least the 1850s.

In 1895 Richard Chapman to King & Worsley, succeeded in June 1899 by Thomas William Elvey.

Marshall & Marshall, Steam Brewery, Silver Street, Dursley, Gloucestershire

The tied houses of the brewery were taken over by Godsell & Sons and the brewery sold for land development.

Thomas William Elvey pubs

The following information is courtesy of Paul Best

Mr Chas Workman, Patent Steam Brewery, Dursley.
June 29th 1853.
I have much pleasure in testifying to the high value of your Mashing Attemperator, also of your Catherine Refrigerator ; the latter enables me to cool my worts direct from the boiling back, consequently the worts are freed from the injurious effects to which they are subjected when obliged to remain in the coolers for several hours. Your little steam engine, as well as used for brewing, drives the Grist Mill and Chaff Machine, and I intend to apply it for other uses also. I have been in the trade for twenty-four years, and during all my experience I never used or saw a plant so much to my satisfaction as the one you erected for me twelve months since,

From Mr Charles Workman, Patent Steam Brewery, Dursley.
November 3rd, 1857.
After five years experience with your Patent Steam Plant, I believe it to be the most efficacious yet invented, both as regards extract, and as regards case. The Mashing Attemperator will not colour the wort in the slightest degree. My Bitter Ales (with Pale Malt and Hops) are almost as pale as water. M. Wicking, Esq., of the Southwark Brewery has tested my Pale Ales, and, if you ask him, will give you his opinion respecting them.

1851 census Charles Workman.
Dwelling 2 Silver Street, Dursley. Born, Kingstanley.

Charles Workman. Head. Age 53. Brewer. Born, Dursley.
Alfred Workman. Son. Age 17.  Born, Dursley.
Mary Ann Workman. Daughter. Age 15. Born, Dursley.
Joseph Workman. Don Age 13. Born, Dursley.
Sarah Workman. Daughter. Age 11. Born Dursley.
James Workman. Son. Son. Age 10. Born Dursley.
Jane Workman. Daughter. Age 8. Born, Dursley.
Mary Shipton. Servant. Age 25. Housekeeper.

1861 census Charles Workman.
Dwelling; Dursley.
Charles Workman. Head. Age 63. Brewer and Maltster.
James Workman. Son. Age 19. Mealman.
Mary Shipton. Servant. Age 34. Housekeeper.
Eliza Merrett. Servant. Age 20. Servant.  

1871 census Charles Workman.
Dwelling; Prospect House, Union Street, Dursley.
Charles Workman. Head. Age 73. Brewer.
Mary Workman. Wife. Age 46.
Eliza White. Servant. Age 17. General Servant Domestic.

1881 census Charles Workman.
Dwelling; Prospect House, Union Street, Dursley.

Charles Workman. Head Widow. Age 83. Retired Brewer.
Annie Tidey. Servant. Age 56. Housekeeper.

Charles Workman Deceased.

Notice is hereby given that, all creditors and other persons having any claims or demands against the estate of Charles Workman, late of Dursley, in the County of Gloucester, Retired Brewer, deceased (who died on the 9th day of September, 1883, and whose Will was proved in the District Registry at Gloucester of the Probate Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice on the 21st day of February, 1884, by the Reverend Edward Workman, now of Keighley in the West Riding of York, Wesleyan Minister, George Workman, of Newport in the parish of Blakeney, in the County of Gloucester, Gentleman, and Thomas Charles Albert Summers Dauncey, of Dursley, in the said County of Gloucester, Gentleman, the executors therein named) are hereby required to send the particulars, in writing, of their claims or demands to me, the undersigned, the Solicitor for the said executors, on or before the 14th day of April, 1887, after which date the said executors will proceed to distribute the assets of the said deceased amongst the persons entitled thereto, having regard only to the claims and demands of which they shall have had notice; and they will not be liable for the assets of the said deceased, or any part thereof, so distributed to any person or persons of whose claims or demands they shall have had notice.
Dated this 17th day of March, 1887.
H. J. Franoillion, Dursley, Solicitor for the Executors.

Source; London Gazette issue 25685 published March 22nd 1887.

Charles Workman Probate.

Personal Estate £6,148. 2 shillings and 5 pence.

Take Notice, that the Partnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, Edward Bloxsome, Benjamin Allen Weaver, and William Gibbon Cullen, in the business of Common Brewers and Maltsters, carried on at Dursley, in the County of Gloucester, under the style of firm of Bloxsome, Weaver and Cullen, was dissolved on the 30th day of June last. And take notice that all debts due and owing to the late firm will be received and paid by the said Edward Bloxsome and William Gibbon Cullen, by whom the said businesses are being carried on.
Dated this 7th day of September 1864.
Edward Bloxsome.
Benjamin Allen Weaver.
William Gibbon Cullen.

Source; London Gazette issue number 22896 published 23 September 1864.

July 1894.
The Old Established Freehold Eight-quarter Plant STEAM BREWERY, Known as CHAPMANS situate in the flourishing market town of Dursley, Gloucestershire, with Eighteen-quarter Maltings, range of Stabling, Cellars, Stores, and Office, Orchard and walled-in Garden, the whole forming a compact Estate, containing about two acres; also Thirteen Freehold and Leasehold Fully-licensed HOUSES and BEER-SHOPS, LAND, and other PROPERTY, principally situate within easy distance of the Brewery, the rental of the whole being estimated at about £500 per annum.

Messrs Cronin, Field and Blades
Are instructed by R. Chapman. Esq.,
TO SELL BY AUCTION.At the MASONS HALL TAVERN, MASONS AVENUE BASINGHALL ST., LONDON E.C. on WEDNESDAY July 25th, 1894 at 1 o’clock precisely (unless as acceptable offer is previously made) in three ;Lots.

Particulars & c may be obtained from the office No 1, Vernon Place, Bloomsbury Square, London.

King and Worsey Dursley 1899.

Notice is hereby given, that the copartnership heretofore subsisting between us the undersigned, John King and Frederick Worsey, carrying on business as Brewers, Maltsters, Wine and Spirit Merchants, and Mineral Water Manufacturers, at Dursley in the county of Gloucester, under the style of firm of King and Worsey, has been dissolved by mutual consent as and from the twenty-ninth day of June, 1899.
Dated this 29th day of June, 1899.
John King.
Frederick Worsey.

Source; London Gazette issue number 27065 published July 4th 1899.

1901 census Thomas William Elvy.
Dwelling; Bisley Old Road, Stroud.
Thomas William Elvy. Head. Age 45. Brewer and Wine and Spirit Merchant. Employer Born, Battersea.
Jane Elvy. Wife. Age 44. Born, London.
May Elvy. Daughter. Age 20. Born, Ealing.
Ethel Elvy. Daughter. Age 15. Born, Ealing.
Jessies T. Elvy. Son. Age 9. Born, Ealing.
Thomas Nash. Father in Law Age 79. Retired Surveyor. Born, London.
Ellen Nash. Sister in Law. Age 39. Born, St Pancras London.

Elizabeth Fook. Servant. Age 19. Parlourmaid. Born, Kerry, Wales.
Edith M. Howell. Servant. Age 27. Cook Domestic. Born, Boyton Wiltshire.
Flora English. Servant. Age 21. Housemaid Domestic. Born, Cirencester.
Annie R. Apperley.Servant. Age 15. Maid. Born Stroud. 

The Bankruptcy Acts 1883 and 1890.
In Bankruptcy. No 7 of 1906.

Re THOMAS WILLIAM ELVY of 18 Coleborne Road, Earl’s Court. London. S.W., lately 33 Blakeskey Avenue, Ealing, London., and carrying on business at the Brewery Dursley, Gloucestershire, Brewer, Wine and Spirit Merchant.

RECEIVING ORDER made 4th April, 1906; Date and place of First Meeting, 15th May 1906 at 2.30p.m. at Bankruptcy Buildings, Carey Street, London, W.C.: Date of Public Examination, 22nd May 1906, at 12 o’clock noon at Shire Hall, Gloucester.

NOTE – All debts due to the estate should be paid to me.
CHARLES SCOTT, Official Receiver.
Station Road, Gloucester.
3rd May 1906.

Thomas William Elvy, 18 Coleherne Road, Earls Court, London, lately 33 Blakesley Avenue, Ealing, London, and formerly of Stroud, and carrying on business at the Brewery Dursley, brewer and wine and spirit merchant, came up for examination on a statement showing gross liabilities £39,406 3 shillings 4 pence, of which £20,165 10 shillings 1 penny was placed down as expected to rank for dividend, and deficiency £10,642 19 shillings 11 pence. The cause of failure alleged by debtor were large expenditure on licensed properties, and household and personal expenses exceeding income for several years.
Mr Rowland Harker (instructed by Messrs Routh, Stacey and Castle solicitors, Bloomsbury) appeared for the trustee (Mr A. A. More of 3 Crosby Square, London) and Mr H. J. Francillion represented Dursley creditors.

Replying to the Deputy Official Receiver (Mr Herbert H. Scott) the debtor said he was 51 years of age. He commenced the business of a brewer at Dursley in June 1899, and he was before that connected with the firm of Marshall and Elvy, wine and spirit merchants, of New Oxford Street London. His father was the Elvy in the latter firm, and debtor went there as a clerk in 1874. He remained there in that capacity for ten years, and in 1884 he became a partner – one of four in the firm. His share was £1,000, which his father placed to his credit in the partnership books. His father died in 1892, and in December 1897, debtor retired from the firm, receiving £16,000 – made up of capital £6,000 and an additional £10,000. He was out of business until June 1899, when he purchased the Dursley undertaking from Messrs King and Worsey. The price was £28,000. He then had £22,000, but some of this was locked up in different ways, and he borrowed a sum from his brothers; £6,000 of the purchase price remained on mortgage. He never had a partner in the business, but ran it himself.

The Deputy Official Receiver: And after about seven years trading in addition to the £22,000 having gone, your statement shows a deficiency of £10,642. Is that correct?

Debtor: I believe it is.

Mr Scott: So that in seven years you lost something like £33,000.

Debtor: Not as much as that is it? Of course there is a tremendous lot written off for depreciation.

Mr Scott: Well, that is lose of course.

Replying further to questions, debtor said he was a trustee under his father’s will, but there were no undistributed assets, and he had no interest in it. He (the debtor) was insured for £500. He had not during the time he had the Dursley business speculated in any other way. At the time he took over that business there were 15 freehold, one leasehold, and one yearly tenancy house attached to it, and he afterwards purchased six other houses.

Asked how he accounted for the loss of capital, debtor said he spent too much money personally. His personal expenditure had been beyond his income.

Mr Scott: But that does not account for the whole of it, does it?

Debtor: That accounts for the whole of it.

Mr Scott: Does that account in round figures practically for £33,000 in seven years?

Debtor was understood to reply that it accounted for every farthing he had lost.

The Registrar: Do you mean to say you have been living beyond your means, and that accounts for £33,000?

Debtor: Not living beyond my means, no.

Further questioned, debtor said he accounted for his loss by depreciation of the licensed properties, the money he laid out on them, and to his expenses being beyond his income. He made out a balance sheet every year.

Mr Scott pointed out that a statement made in September 1905, showed a profit for the year of £3,542, and a surplus of assets over liabilities of £35,000; while in April 1906, when he filed his petition, a deficiency of nearly £11,000 was shown.

Debtor: That is because all that amount is written off for depreciation.

Mr Scott: You realise that if you had written off depreciation from time to time the statements would have shown no profit and no surplus.

The debtor was understood to reply that he did not write off depreciation when business seemed to be increasing. His personal expenditure, he said, amounted to £1,500 or £1,600 a year.

Replying to Mr Harker, debtor said he did not keep horses and carriages to drive about in, and he did not indulge in a motor. His furniture was warehoused in London, where he stored it some time back, when he determined to take a small house and live near the brewery.
The debtor was questioned as to his investments made by him after drew out of Marshall and Elvy’s. and he said he believed his private passbooks, were at present with his furniture, would account for the whole of the money he received when he drew out of Marshall and Elvy’s and what he received from other sources. His share under his fathers will was £6,644 and that went into the business. Asked where was the necessity when he had something like £23,000 himself at the time he bought the Dursley undertaking of borrowing £11,000 from his brothers and an additional £6,000 on mortgage and paying interest for these moneys, debtor said he had not all the money available. Some of it was invested in debentures which were “down” at that time.
Questioned as to whether his brothers, who lent him money, were to receive any of the profits of the business, he said they were not. They had no partnership interest at all. They were simply to receive 5 per cent on the amount they lent, and they held no security, merely a deposit note. He. of course, required capital to work with, and he also purchased a house shortly after taking over the brewery. He admitted that the purchase many of houses he bought later was nearly all borrowed.
Further questioned by Mr Harker, the debtor said when his daughter was married he did not make any settlement upon her, as he could not afford to do so. He could not make a settlement on her with borrowed money.

Mr Harker: Then you admit that you were living on borrowed money then?

Debtor: No, I don’t. My business was increasing year by year.

Asked if he spent some £20,000 on his personal living expenses in seven years, debtor said he was surprised.

He (debtor) had spent in no other way, and had given nothing away. He could not account for his loss in any other way. There were only three of them at the time, and he admitted that he had spent too much money. He had an excellent manager at Dursley in Mr Roberts, who was a practical brewer, but in addition he paid a Mr Burton £300. Hi business was to look to the books and things generally. He was the son of a very old friend of his, and he admitted now that £300 was more than he ought to have paid him. This £300 came through his passbook; he did not let it go through the ordinary accounts because he did not wish the other clerks to see what he paid him. Debtor admitted that the loans he received from his brothers did not appear in the balance sheets which he drew up. It was true that those balance sheets would have been misleading in that respect had he showed them to anyone else, but they were simply private statements got out for himself. Pressed further as to what had become of £20,000 in seven years, debtor said he wished he could tell them. He had not frittered it away. His personal and household expenses had been coming out of capital, and the £20,000 must have gone that way.
The registrar suggested that depreciation might account for some more of it, but Mr Harker replied that they had given credit for that, before arriving at the £20,000.

Asked why his brother William was proving for £6,255, whereas the original loan was only £5,000, bankrupt said he had lent him other moneys since.
He had paid his brothers 5 per cent interest throughout. It was correct that he obtained a loan of £1,000 from a brother-in-law named White as recently as last August. He told White that money was tight at that time, and he lent him £1,000 on an I.O.U. Mr Harker asked if the private passbook would show all these loans and what became of the amounts. Debtor said they would show the loans. He supposed the money went there the other went. Debtor admitted, in further examination by Mr Harker, that he some time ago executed a deed or charge which gave his brothers security, and Mr Harker remarked that this would have been wrongful preference, but the deed had been given up by the brother, who proved as ordinary creditors. He also admitted that shortly before he filed his petition he had paid sums to relatives for interest on loans.

Dated June 19th 1906.

The adjourned examination of Thomas William Elvy 18 Coleherne Road, Earl Court, London, lately 33 Blakesley Avenue, Ealing, London and formerly of Stroud, carrying on business at The Brewery, Dursley, brewer and wine and spirit merchant, was continued. Mr Frank Treasure appeared for the debtor, Mr Rowland Harker (instructed by Messrs Routh, Stacey and Castle, London) appeared for the trustee (Mr A. A. Moore 3 Crosby Square London) and Mr H. J. Francillon represented Dursley creditors.
Mr Harker explained the case of the last adjournment, and said that a new deficiency account had been prepared by the trustee and the debtor, and the trustee was now satisfied inasmuch as the deficiency statement accounted for everything but a balance of £702 17 shillings 1 penny., an insignificant balance in a case like this. He (Mr Harker) had several questions to ask debtor as to how he got rid of his money.
In answer to Mr Harker bankrupt said he did not live in bug style in Stroud. He kept two gardeners and a lad, and three servants and gave occasional tennis parties. He declined to admit that he lived on borrowed money, but admitted that he spent £2,020 in household and personal expenses in the second year in Stroud, and admitted it was extravagant. In 1901 the balance of his business profits over the interest he had to pay was £600, but he spent “2,579 in that year. He knew he was spending too much money at that time, but he did not curtail his household expenses. In 1902 his income was £560 but he spent £2,556. He knew he was living beyond his income but the business was improving, and he hoped to sell the brewery. In 1903 his profits were £1,200, he paid £900 interest, leaving £300 balance, but he spent £2,744 on personal and house expenses.

Mr Harker: Do you think it was justifiable when you had known for two years that you were living beyond your income to go and increase your expenses? Do you not appreciate now that you were spending your creditors money in a scandalous fashion and living on the fat of the land while your creditors were out in the cold?

Mr Harker, continuing, said in 1904 bankrupts profits were £1,379, his interest £1,308, leaving a balance of £71, but he spent £2,510. Why not stop? He knew in 1904 the profits of the brewery were decreasing (Debtor: Slightly) and they went on decreasing. In 1905 his profits were £833, his interest £1,277 but he spent £2,384.

Debtor did not admit that he then knew he was hopelessly insolvent. He further declined to admit that his bankruptcy was brought about by nothing more nor less than wilful extravagance, but he admitted he had spent too much.

Mr Harker said that in addition to his personal and household expenses he was paying Burton, his private secretary, £300 a year during a portion of this period. Mr Harker proceeded to quote figure to show Elvy’s earnings during his period at Dursley. His average yearly profits were £1,172, his average payments in interest £1,164, leaving him an annual income of £8, against which he spent an average of £2,365 a year, or with Burton, £2,586.

Mr Harker: £8 a year income, £2,586 expenses. Isn’t that extravagancy?

Bankrupt: I’ve no defence; I freely admit it; I’ve done wrong ; it was reckless but not wilful.

Mr Harker: Why not wilful? You knew your profits, you knew what you had to pay in interest, and you knew what you had spent.

Bankrupt said he knew his business increased in 1901 – 1903.

Mr Harker: But it was down in 1904.

In reply to Mr Treasure, bankrupt said that had he sold the brewery and received value for the work done there he could have paid 20 shillings in the £, and that was why he refused to admit the charge of wilful extravagance.

On application of Mr Treasure, the examination was closed on the usual terms.

Source; The Citizen October 9th 1906.


The rise and fall in the value of licensed properties which has taken place in recent years is particularly shewn in the vicissitude of this Brewery. It’s office, wine and spirit stores, malthouses and aerated water factory cover several acres, and it’s numerous freehold licensed houses are well known in the districts of Dursley, Uley, Cam, Newent, Gloucester, Arlingham, Stoneham, Kingstanley, Berkeley, Stone, Wickwar, Iron Acton, Coleford and Lydford, not only for their attractive appearance, but for the excellent condition in which the houses have been maintained.. We understand that about £40,000 has been expended upon Brewery and it’s various houses. The quality of the beer has been good, and yet notwithstanding these facts, when the Trustee in the bankruptcy of the late owner offered the property for sale by auction on t26th July last, the bidding did not reach the reserve.
Since the auction we understand Messrs Marshall and Elvy, Ltd., the well-known Company of Distillers in London and Glasgow have come the purchasers. The late owner, Mr T. W. Elvy, has, we are informed, never held any shares in the Company, and was not and is not directly or indirectly connected with it, though his late father, Mr Thomas Elvy and he were partners for some years in the old established business of wine merchants carried on under the style of Marshall and Elvy. In the year 1898, however, Mr Ernest C. Marshall acquired Mr Elvy’s interest and that of his family and about the same time also acquired the distillery of Messrs Harmer and Pearson, which has been established since 1763. Mr Ernest Marshall then sold the combined businesses to the Company of which he is now the managing director, and of which Mr Pearson is the chairman. Since it’s incorporation this Company has acquired a large number of properties, and not withstanding these days of depression in the licensed trade it has gone on increasing, and is now one of the best reputed firms of distillers in London.

Source; The Citizen November 22nd 1906.


Arrangements were concluded in London on Tuesday for the disposal of twenty-one licensed houses, in Dursley, Berkeley, Gloucester and elsewhere, the property of Messrs Marshall and Marshall Limited, the proprietors of the Dursley Brewery. The purchasers are Messrs Godsell and Sons, of Stroud. The sale marks the beginning of the end of the brewing business at Dursley, which has been one of the town’s industries for a long period. We understand that the final brew took place there on Wednesday, and it is the intention of the owners to sell the modern plant and offer the property as a building site. The news will occasion the utmost surprise in Dursley as there have been indications on all sides that Messrs Marshall and Marshall were pushing the business since they took over after the bankruptcy of Mr T. W. Elvy. The premises are extensive, and the offices, rebuilt only a few years ago, have a smart appearance. The machinery and plant are understood also to be of an up-to-date character.

Wednesday 10th April 1907.


This extensive premises upon which the brewing business has been conducted for a large number of years in Dursley were on Tuesday afternoon offered for sale at auction by Mr Nicholls (Messrs Geo. Nicholls, Howes, Young, Alder and Co) at the Old Bell Hotel. The 21 licensed houses which were tied to the brewery were recently sold by private treaty to Messrs Godsell and Sons, Stroud, so that as a brewery the premises were doomed. Speculation was rife as to what purpose the buildings would be adapted, the general impression being that the opportunity would be taken to further improve the housing accommodation of the town, as the property furnished an excellent site. There was a large company at the sale, and bidding rose rapidly from £800 to £2,500, at which figure the property was withdrawn. The modern plant at the brewery was subsequently sold in lots. 

Wednesday 15th May 1907.

Share this Page: