The Founding and Demise of the Joint-stock Malt House and Brewery in Benešov

The Founding and Demise of the Joint-stock Malt House and Brewery in Benešov Michal Horáček KEYWORDS: Brewing Industry — Bohemian Lands— Benešov— 19th Century— Business History This text is one of the outcomes of aresearch project studying the history of beer brewing in the Benešov region in 1872–1897.1 The text focuses on the context of the bankruptcy of the joint-stock company that founded abig malt-house in Benešov in 1872 that was later turned in part into abrewery. The operation of the joint-stock company is observed in the broader context of the changes in the society of the second half of the 19th century, including the changes in the beer brewing industry of the time. The connection with the specific local development in the relationship between the subordinate town of Benešov and the gentry at the nearby manor of Konopiště is also important, including the complicated relations between the bourgeois elites that were closely connected with the joint-stock company and the lord of Konopiště Eugen Lobkowicz. Apart from other points of view, this text also sheds light on the personal and institutional interconnectedness with the local Civil Loans Office (Občanská záložna). This office’s operation was closely connected with the operation of the jointstock company and led, in the end, to the final demise of the joint-stock company. The result of the failure was the 1887 decision of the general meeting to sell the bankrupt company to the new owner of Konopiště, František Ferdinand d’Este. The history of beer brewing in Benešov and its surroundings has been repeatedly described, mostly by regional researchers, but the time-frame of 1872–1887 is only mentioned in afew paragraphs in most of the works. These works also mentioned, though only marginally and vaguely, the connection between the joint-stock company and Občanská záložna. Some of the previous works focusing on the topic contain errors and fallacies about the time period and these errors have been copied in some more recent works. The history of beer brewing in the Benešov region was covered by local historian Jiří Tywoniak2 from the 1940s. It is most likely that his 1 This output was created as part of the project “Language, identity, history in the cultural transformations of the society”, subproject “Unmapped chapters of the history of beer brewing in the years 1872–1897” carried out at Charles University in Prague from the Specific university research in 2016. 2 Jiří Tywoniak, Zminulosti benešovského pivovarnictví. In: Padesát let tvořivé práce státního pivovaru vBenešově, 1897–1947, Benešov 1947, pp.9–15; Jiří Tywoniak, Zdějin OPEN ACCESS 8 WISOHIM/ESHP 27 findings were adopted in other works, mostly of encyclopedic character, by such authors as Pavel Jákl3 and Zbyněk Likovský.4 The work of František Gabriel, avery wellresearched history of beer brewing in the Podblanicko region, focuses on Benešov only marginally.5 For along time, the history of beer brewing is also the focus of the author of this text; his earlier works that are focused on this time period mostly map the construction development of the malt house and brewery and their technical and technological standards.6 Since there is practically no existing literature on the topic, the whole research was based on the study of source materials found in archives. The sources concerning the development of the joint-stock company and the background of its operation are unfortunately fragmentary and only partially preserved. To find the information about the formation and functioning of the joint-stock company and to identify the people involved with it, archive materials from the funds of the Bohemian governor’s office (České místodržitelství Praha, ČM) in the National archive in Prague (NA Prague)7 and the Regional Court of Tábor (Krajský soud Tábor, KS Tábor) in the State Regional Archives in Třeboň (Státní oblastní archiv vTřeboni, SOA Třeboň).8 The joint-stock company did not leave any coherent body of documents behind that would be stored in some of the state archives, or in the State District Archives in Benešov (Státní okresní archiv Benešov, SOkA Benešov), or in State District Archives in Prague (Státní oblastní archiv vPraze, SOA Prague). We are therefore dependent on other, more or less connected secondary resources. They are mostly documents related to the legal agenda and trade agenda stored in SOkA Benešov in the collections of the District Authority of Benešov (Okresní úřad Benešov, OÚ Benešov)9 and Archive of the town of Benešov (Archiv města Benešov, AM Benešov)10 or the construction agenda stored in the same collections.11 Some other secondary resources zemědělského průmyslu na Podblanicku, Sborník vlastivědných prací zPodblanicka (hereinafter as SVPP) 3, 1959, pp.97–112. 3 Pavel Jákl, Encyklopedie pivovarů Čech, Moravy aSlezska, Bd. I., Střední Čechy, Prague 2004. 4 Zbyněk Likovský, České pivovary 1869–1900, Prague 2005. 5 František Gabriel, Pivovarství vPosázaví ana Podblanicku vminulosti, SVPP 13, 1972, pp.145–167. 6 Michal Horáček, Nové poznatky kvývoji areálu sladovny apivovaru vBenešově vdobových souvislostech mezi lety 1872–1897, Středočeský sborník historický 43, 2017, pp.97–122; Michal Horáček, Neznámé kapitoly zdějin pivovarství vBenešově ana Konopišti vdruhé polovině 19.století, Kvasný průmysl 62, 2016, no.2, pp.56–59. 7 The same resource also contains some of the sources about the operation of the Občanská záložna. NA Prague, fund (hereinafter as f.) ČM (1850–1920). 8 Regarding the joint-stock brewery and malt house, only book inscriptions were preserved, not acomplete file. SOA Třeboň, f. KS Tábor (1850–1849). 9 SOkA Benešov, f. OÚ Benešov (1850–1946), inventory number (hereinafter i. n.) 575, Povolování živností jednotlivě and i. n. 595, Povolování živností jednotlivě. 10 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov (1850–1945), i. n. 984, Živnostenské záležitosti. 11 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 981, Stavební záležitosti. OPEN ACCESS MIcHal HOráčEk 9 were used from the same source of information, such as books with minutes of the town council meetings12 and the electoral registry.13 Some of the relevant information was found by accident, for example fragmentary information about the financial dealings of the Construction Trades Association (Spolek stavebních živností) in Benešov that was the holder of astake in the joint-stock company.14 The archive collections of the town’s financial institutions stored in the AM Benešov as well could only be used with regard to the connection between the joint-stock company and the local loans office.15 Contextual and often very valuable information could be found in the archive collections related to Konopiště domain and its business dealings. Regarding this, the fund of the Konopiště estate (Velkostatek Konopiště, Vs Konopiště), located in SOA Praha, should be noted,16 and also the Central Headquarters of the Hohenberg Estates in Benešov (Ústřední ředitelství hohenberských statků vBenešově, ÚŘHS), in the same archives.17 It was formed as late as 1887, but on its agenda, the information closely connected to the joint-stock company appears retrospectively. Apart from the archival documents stored in the state archives, the materials of the Cadastral office in Benešov (Katastrální úřad Benešov, KÚ Benešov)18 were used in the research and file of building No.306 stored in the Construction and Urban planning department of Municipality of Benešov (Odbor výstavby aúzemního plánování Městského úřadu Benešov, Stavební archiv) was also used. Apart from the archive collections periodical publications from the period under review were also an important source of information, and both regional and national19 newspapers were used. In 1885, the newspaper “Hlasy od Blaníka”20 was founded and it focused on the situation of the joint-stock company and the Občanská záložna in fine detail. Apart from specific articles on the topic, “Hlasy od Blaníka” also helped to reconstruct the atmosphere and character of life in Benešov in the period. Noteworthy information can also be found in regional newspapers of later years.21 The list 12 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 199–203, Zápisy oschůzích městské rady. 13 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 1006, Volby— seznamy voličů. 14 SOkA Benešov, f. Spolek stavitelský, i. n. 9, Pozvánky na schůze (1881–1912) and i. n. 19, Deník příjmů avydání (1872). 15 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 992, Městská spořitelna ajiné hospodářské ústavy aspolky. 16 SOA Praha, f. Vs Konopiště (1584–1943). In the collection there is also archive material labeled Úpisy na akciový pivovar asladovnu vBenešově 1872, i. n. 816. In fact, this material contains alist of stockholders in the malt house and brewery in Střížkov close to Benešov that was founded in the same era. 17 SOA Prague, f. ÚŘHS (1816–1921[1924]). 18 KÚ Benešov, insert of the Hlavní kniha [Main book] no.306. The material regarding the Hlavní kniha archived in SOkA Benešov in the collections of the Okresní soud [District Court] is unfortunately not organized and accessible. 19 Mainly Národní listy, 1861–1941. 20 Hlasy od Blaníka: časopis věnovaný zájmům kraje Podblanického, 1885–1914. 21 For example Blaník— List československé strany národně socialistické, 1919–1939. OPEN ACCESS 10 WISOHIM/ESHP 27 of periodicals includes contemporary magazines published by the professionals in the area of beer brewing and malting.22 To put the information into abroader context, the available academic literature on the topic of development of beer brewing and malting in the time period23 was also used, as well as literature focused on entrepreneurship, modern business elites24 and financial institutions.25 The works concerning financial institutions such as civil loan offices in Benešov region were mostly older, but they did not did not focus on Občanská záložna in Benešov and its impact specifically.26 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION27 In Benešov, beer was brewed as early as the 15th century, just as in the Konopiště domain. The bourgeoisie of Benešov originally brewed beer in their own houses. Later, anumber of buildings were built specifically for the purpose. The gentry allowed the bourgeoisie to brew and sell beer indefinitely in 1595 but this privilege was revoked after the Thirty Years’ War, which affected all the breweries in town. In the following decades, only the gentry produced beer in the brewery of Konopiště and they were also the only ones selling it. The bourgeoisie tried to change this state of affairs from the end of the 18th century and repeatedly in the first half of the 19th century in order to have the privilege to brew beer again. They did not did not accomplish this until 1802 when the appellate court confirmed that the town of Benešov holds the brewing right and can therefore produce and tap beer. However, this privilege was in conflict with the release agreement between the town and the authorities of Konopiště dominion from the same year under which the town of Benešov partially released itself from dependence. In 1830s, there were attempts to start abrewery and plans were drawn up for its construction, but this building was never actually built especially for financial reasons. The process of liberation and the status of a“town under protection” was the first step towards anew form of relations between the town and the nobility. This relationship was changed for good in 1848, at least on paper, with the end of mano22 Mainly Kvas: časopis pro pivovarnictví, vinopalství, vinařství achmelařství, Kvas, 1873–1940. 23 For example Radoslav Daněk, Ostravské pivovarnictví véře kapitalismu, Ostrava 2014; Michael Viktořík, Vznik sladovnického průmyslu ajeho vývoj do roku 1918 (se zvláštním zřetelem kolomouckému sladovnictví). In: Pivo lepších časů, 2007, pp.81–103; and elsewhere. 24 Jiří Štaif (ed.), Moderní podnikatelské elity, Prague 2007. 25 Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša (eds.), Finanční elity včeských zemích (Československu) 19.a20.století, Prague 2008. 26 Jan Hájek, Počátky arozmach českého záloženského hnutí ve třetí čtvrtině 19.století, Hospodářské dějiny— Economic History 12, 1984, pp.265–315; Jan Hájek, Počátky moderního peněžnictví na Benešovsku— a) Spořitelny. SVPP 33, 1993, pp.153–176. 27 Based on M.Horáček, Nové poznatky kvývoji areálu, 2017, pp.102–103. OPEN ACCESS MIcHal HOráčEk 11 rial administration. The second half of the 19th century saw not only the change of the nobility-town relations, but also achange of the social and economic development that brought about new conditions of business (modern trade law from 1859), and new economic conditions (for example, arailway was built connecting Benešov with other towns and regions in 1871). During the second half of the 19th century, beer brewing underwent complex economic, social, technical and technological changes. These changes, which were equally taking place in the wider social context, changed beer brewing from acraft into amodern industry based on science. Along with that, the whole structure and organization of beer production, the structure of ownership and the relations between the owners in the new conditions changed as well. In 1869, the archaic propination right that had been blocking many towns from building breweries was revoked. The structure and shape of trade outlets also changed. This transformation brought about many changes, but despite them, many old bonds and relationships remained and influenced the future. The nobility— the owners of the Konopiště domain, the Princes of Lobkowicz, entered this era with atraditional brewery (and with their estate in debt). The bourgeoisie in Benešov were openly ambitious and wanted to strengthen the economic role of the town and to start amodern company. THE FOUNDATION OF THE JOINT-STOCK COMPANY The joint-stock company that aimed to build and manage the malt house and crop market was created by authorization of the Ministry of Interior in Vienna issued on February 10, 1872. On 13th June of the same year, the Bohemian governor’s office approved the articles of association.28 At this time, the company started to offer shares to public at anominal value of 200 gulden. In all, 1 000 shares were issued so the registered capital was to be 200 000 gulden with an option to increase to 500 000 gulden.29 The joint-stock company wanted to attract the local peasants who were expected to become stock-holders in the company as well as suppliers of the crops. The man behind the whole project was František Urbanides, one of the most important people in town.30 He and his family and many of his friends were among the town’s rich31 and bought most of the shares in the company. The town itself bought some 28 SOA Třeboň, f. KS Tábor, unprocessed material, item no.16/2006, book 29, Protokolace firem, společenské firmy, Akciový pivovar, sladovna atržnice Benešov, folio 21. 29 NA, f. ČM, II. manipulační období 1884–1900, Spolky na venkově, i. n. 8942, Akciový pivovar, sladovna a tržnice na plodiny v Benešově 1881–1888, Stanovy akciového pivovaru, sladovny atržnice na plodiny vBenešově, approved by c. k. Governor’s office on August 11, 1876, no.35 528/1876. 30 František Urbanides was (apart from other roles, as mentioned below) Deputy Mayor of the District, member of the town hall council and member of many other institutions. Compare with Národní listy 25, March 22, 1885, no.80, p.7. 31 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 1006, Volby— seznamy voličů, Seznamy voličů pro volbu obecního výboru (1864–1874). OPEN ACCESS 12 WISOHIM/ESHP 27 shares32 and some of the guilds in the town did so as well.33 It seems that targeting the peasants as potential shareholders was not was not very successful as almost one third of the shares worth 60 000 gulden were bought by the local Občanská záložna, managed at the time by František Urbanides (more on the role of Občanská záložna below). The joint-stock company has been presented as abourgeois company in the existing literature, however, František Eugen, the Prince of Lobkowicz, became one of the important shareholders.34 The Prince of Lobkowicz was also, according to the articles of the company, elected as the chairman of the board of directors by the first general meeting. The board of directors was the highest authority of the company. If we take alook at the other names on the board, its vice-chairman was František Urbanides and most of the other seats were taken by his friends.35 The board of directors consisted therefore mostly of the richest people in town who were often also in the town’s leadership and as importantly, in many cases, they were also members of the board and leadership of the Občanská záložna.36 During the general meeting, the weight of each member’s vote was equal to the value of the shares he owned. Asuitable piece of land on the outskirts of Benešov, near the road to Tábor, was chosen as the construction site for the joint-stock malt house. The construction started in the spring of 1872 and immediately became popular with the local residents. The large site with two tall kilns looked imposing in the small-town of Benešov and served 32 At the time, the members of the town hall council and later also some of the town’s mayors were personally interested in the joint-stock company. Compare with SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 199, Zápisy oschůzích městské rady, report from the 3rd meeting held on January 17, 1873. Regarding the stock share of the town, compare SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 200, Zápisy oschůzích městské rady, report from the XXXII. meeting held on November 5, 1875, point 15. 33 Compare with SOkA Benešov, f. Spolek stavitelský, i. n. 19, Deník příjmů avydání (1872), Účet spolku stavitelského vměstě Benešově pro rok 1872. 34 František Eugen, the Prince of Lobkowicz, was amember of Bohemian Diet representing major land-owners (Velkostatkářská kurie) and later representing chambers of trade and commerce (Kurie obchodních aživnostenských komor) for the České Budějovice region. The Prince was an astute businessman trading with the nobility consisting of major Bohemian landowners. Apart from the business activities, he also took part in the local government and in the 1870s and 1880s, he served as the District Mayor. He resigned from all the public offices and commercial efforts in 1887 when he sold his indebted estate of Konopiště to František Ferdinand d’Este. Compare with Okresní zastupitelstvo benešovské, Hlasy od Blaníka 3, 1.dubna 1887, no.7, non-paginated; and elsewhere. 35 SOA Třeboň, f. KS Tábor, unprocessed material, item no.16/2006, book 29, Protokolace firem, společenské firmy, Akciový pivovar, sladovna atržnice Benešov, folio 21. 36 Ibidem. Compare also NA, f. ČM, I. manipulační období 1856–1883, Akciové společnosti, banky, hospodářská společenstva, záložny, i. n. 3994, Občanská záložna v Benešově, zapsané společenstvo s neobmezeným ručením 1874–1881, Účetní zpráva Občanské záložny vBenešově za rok 1875 on January 1, 1886 and SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 199–203, Zápisy oschůzích městské rady. OPEN ACCESS MIcHal HOráčEk 13 as aproof of the ambitions of the joint-stock company.37 The floor of the malt house with an area of 2 400 square meters and the two kilns were built to produce up to 2 000 tons of malt per year.38 The construction plans were drawn up by Akciová společnost strojírny, formerly Breitfeld, Daněk & Co. in Prague.39 At that time, this company was famous for the construction of many plants in the food-processing industry.40 Along with the construction of the malt house site, the joint-stock company started to look for ahead of production for the plant. Despite the fact that experience was listed among the requirements for the position, and names of some of the experts of the time41 were mentioned in the engagement process, the position was filled by Hugo Macháč, who was only 21 years old at the time.42 In reality, the plant was managed by the Board of Directors, and Hugo Macháč managed production only. The joint-stock company was making every effort to finish the malt house construction as fast as possible, but the work started most likely as late as 1873/1874, the reasons for this delay being unclear. This was possibly the start of the decline of the company that eventually led to its commercial failure. Based on the news in the press, the malt house started to buy crops for the season 1872/1873 so these crops were most likely not used at all and went to waste.43 The ambitious plant was, however, finished, approved and put to use in the summer of 1873.44 JOINT-STOCK MALT HOUSE AND ITS FAILURE The joint-stock company running the malt house participated in public life in the malting and beer-brewing segment. Hugo Macháč became amember of the Organization for the Beer Brewing Industry in the Kingdom of Bohemia (Spolek pro průmysl pivovarský vkrálovství Českém) and he took part in its events regularly.45 The malt house promoted its produce and offered it repeatedly in professional beer-brewing periodicals and at contemporary agriculture fairs.46 But despite all the efforts, 37 Akciová sladovna vBenešově. Národní listy 12, April 19, 1872, no.107, p.5. 38 Rudolf Urbanides, Vznik azánik akciového pivovaru. Blaník 9, May 12, 1928, no.19–20, p.2. 39 Stavební archiv, file of building nr.306, Protokol zkomisního vyšetření za povolení stavby on April 3, 1872, no.173. 40 Regarding the constructional and technological form of the malt house compare M.Horáček, Nové poznatky kvývoji areálu 2017, pp.105–107. 41 Akciová sladovna vBenešově, Národní listy 12, April 19, 1872, no.107, p.5. 42 Compare with Ze spolku pro průmysl pivovarský vkrálovství Českém, Kvas 3, January 1, 1875, no.1, pp.13–14 and Podlehl poranění, Národní listy 23, November 23, 1883, no, 279, p.3. 43 Průmyslový ruch na venkově. Národní listy 12, June 16, 1872, no.164, p.3. 44 Stavební archiv, file of building nr.306, aletter from the Municipal Authority of Benešov addressed to the Board of Directors of the joint-stock malt house from July 8, 1873, no.397/1873. 45 Compare with Ze spolku pro průmysl pivovarský vkrálovství Českém, Kvas 3, January 1, 1875, no.1, pp.13–14. 46 Compare with Souborná výstava spolku pro průmysl pivovarský vkrálovství Českém, Kvas 3, June 1, 1875, no.6, pp.125–127. OPEN ACCESS 14 WISOHIM/ESHP 27 the company was basically unsuccessful from the start. The malt house in Benešov started to operate in the beginning of an economic crisis that hit hard the food production industry. The company was therefore likely to lack enough trade outlets and sufficient demand. This was always aproblem for produce of malt houses in general and it was not al ahandful of the minor share caused just by the crisis. Between 1860s and 1870s, big malt houses were being built in the fertile lowlands of Haná (and in other places), their main aim being export.47 Their existence necessitated agood knowledge of the market and having useful contacts, and malt production was an industry with trade outlets divided among ahandful of rich malt producing dynasties. This division of the market excluded new, smaller businesses lacking useful contacts.48 It is possible that the bourgeoisie of Benešov were among these excluded businesses and their only trade outlets could be found in the regional market. The poor agricultural region of Benešov was an area with apopulation decline and difficult conditions for industry development. The network of archaic breweries was diminishing. In 1875, there were only 13 breweries in the Benešov region with yearly production of only 65 196 hectoliters.49 The local production was concentrated in afew bigger companies, most of which had their own malt house. The planned capacity of the Benešov malt house could cover the production of 140000 hl of lager,50 which equals the yearly production of four larger industrial breweries of the time.51 It is obvious that the plans of the joint stock company differed significantly from the reality of the market from the start and the malt house was not was not successful. After two years of operation, the board of directors decided to turn apart of the malt house into abrewery.52 This decision was confirmed by the general meeting on October 24, 1875.53 The malt house was reduced to half of its original size and at the beginning of 1876 abrewery was built on asite in the left part when looking from the street. This brewery could produce up to 15 000 hl per year.54 The director of the malt house, Hugo Macháč, became the master brewer in the new brewery. 47 Václav Vilikovský, Dějiny zemědělského průmyslu vČeskoslovensku od nejstarších dob až do vypuknutí krise hospodářské, Prague 1936, p.619. 48 M.Viktořík, Vznik sladovnického průmyslu, pp.84–85. 49 Josef Bernat, Statistische Uebersichts-Karte der Bier-Production im Königreiche Böhmen, Prague 1875. 50 Compare with Jan Tille, VII. Výroba sladu apiva. In: František Červený— Václav Řehořovský (eds.), Technický průvodce pro inženýra astavitele, Prague 1899, pp.107–108. 51 Compare with Výsledek výroby piva roku 1875 pivovarů vČechách, Kvas 4, September 15, 1876, no.18, pp.380–381. 52 SOkA Benešov, f. OÚ Benešov, i. n. 575, Povolování živností jednotlivě, Benešov— sladovna (1875–1881), aletter from Hynek Gabriel (the mayor of the joint-stock malt house) addressed to Okresní hejtmanství Benešov on December 23, 1875, no.10 417. 53 SOA Třeboň, f. KS Tábor, unprocessed material, item no.16/2006, volume 29, Protokolace firem, společenské firmy, Akciový pivovar, sladovna atržnice Benešov, folio 35. 54 Regarding the constructional and technological form of the malt house compare M.Horáček, Nové poznatky kvývoji areálu 2017, pp.108–109. OPEN ACCESS MIcHal HOráčEk 15 JOINT-STOCK BREWERY AND ITS FAILURE As the joint-stock company was dealing with economic problems, the decision to change apart of the production line to abrewery turned out to be probably the worst possible decision. The fact that the managing board decided to start abrewery showed alack of foresight regarding the economic situation and contemporary developments in the brewing industry. In the first five years after 1869, 25 new breweries were founded in the Bohemian Lands as areaction to the cancellation of the propination laws. Between 1874 and 1888, only 9 were founded as aresult of the economic crisis. One of them was the Benešov brewery which was the only brewery founded in the year 1876.55 The fact that the board did not understand the law that revoked the beer brewing regulations resulted in more financial loss on the part of the unsuccessful company. All the breweries that started their production in the twenty years following 1869 were obliged to pay a5 000 gulden deposit to the so-called “Propination Fund” [propinační fond] that was supposed to be divided after 1889 between the holders of the brewing right and that was set according to taxpayers’ lists from 1713 regarding beer brewing (and distillery) of some burghers and according to the tax assessment filed in 1748 and 1756.56 The board of directors interpreted this incorrectly and thought that if they hold the right to brew beer at the time of the foundation of the brewery, they will avoid the payment. According to the appellate court’s decision from 1802, the town of Benešov held the right to brew beer.57 Based on the decision of the town council, the town transferred the rights to the joint-stock company (this was not aproblematic decision as it basically concerned the same people).58 But this interpretation was against the purport of the law cancelling the propination law meant to protect the traditional producers and sellers of beer and did not apply to the newly founded breweries. The joint-stock company was therefore forced by the authorities to pay the 5 000 gulden anyway.59 Adispute between the Prince of Lobkowicz and the joint-stock company turned out to be abigger problem and most likely the reason for the demise of the brewery. The decision to turn part of the malt house into abrewery must have met with the Prince’s disapproval, as the Prince himself ran abrewery that supplied the region. The new company in Benešov was therefore seen as his competitor. This is why the name of František Eugen disappears from the list of the joint-stock company officers 55 Regarding the abolition of propination law and the no. of the breweries founded compare Zrušené právo propinační, Kvas 17, February 1, 1889, no.3, pp.62–65. 56 Ibidem, p.64. 57 Compare J.Tywoniak, Zdějin zemědělského průmyslu, 1959, p.99. 58 SOkA Benešov, f. AM Benešov, i. n. 200, Zápisy ze schůzí městské rady, minutes of XXXIX. meeting held on December 31, 1875, point 18. 59 Regarding the discussion about the interpretation of the law and the official debates about it, compare SOkA Benešov, f. OÚ Benešov, i. n. 575, Povolování živností jednotlivě, Benešov— sladovna (1875–1881). OPEN ACCESS 22 WISOHIM/ESHP 27 1873 that made many industrial companies bankrupt. This story is, however, much more complicated as it characterizes its time and the changes that society was going through back then. The transition from traditional to modern society plus the abolition of serfdom in 1848, the adoption of afree trade law in 1859 and, specifically in the beer brewing industry, the abolition of the archaic propination laws in 1869, these were was not as straightforward as it may seem. The relations from the past often played their role in the decades to come, the old bonds and roles that were formed along with the relationship between the nobility’s estate and the dependent town remained. The case of Benešov is specific because of another factor. It shows that in order to start asuccessful business in those days one needed contacts, experience and business acumen, not just capital and resources. The burghers of Benešov had none of that when they founded the joint-stock company and this was reflected immediately in the degree of success of their company. The only thing they could rely on, and only in the beginning, was capital. But it was not their own capital— it was transferred from the funds of Občanská záložna. The connection with this institution is the third characteristic trait of the operation of the joint-stock company as well as of the broader developments in Benešov in this era. It shows the short-sightedness and lack of responsibility on the part of the local financial (as well as bourgeois and business) elites when it comes to managing other people’s money. The financial resources cumulated from the deposits of the small farmers and craftsmen were used to start ajoint-stock company and the company’s success or failure were up to them. One-sided attempts to keep the non-profitable company going therefore had to result not only in its own failure, but in the failure of Občanská záložna as well. The founding of the joint-stock malt house and later of the brewery was supposed to elevate the traditionally rural area in an economic sense and bring prosperity to the local farmers. Often, the impact of the Czech element that was behind the whole project was also mentioned. However, after fifteen years of operation of the jointstock company connected to Občanská záložna, the whole business ended up in the possession of Austrian Archduke František Ferdinand d’Este, while the farmers of Benešov became debtors of (Bohemian) German financial institutions through the process of transferring the mortgages. Other farmers from the region ended up as victims of distraint as their whole possessions were used to secure the debts of the bankrupt Občanská záložna. Thus the press of that time could not be more wrong when it reported from Benešov in 1872, that “It cannot be doubted that our malt house has agreat future ahead as Benešov lies in the middle of afertile and agriculturally advanced land, at the crossroads where many roads meet. Also, the farmers are offered away to better capitalize on their produce. Capitalists also get an opportunity to better invest their money. As the business is based on these natural and solid fundamentals, its success in the future is assured.”102 102 Akciová sladovna atržnice vBenešově, Národní listy 12, March 31, 1872, no.89, p.3. OPEN ACCESS MIcHal HOráčEk 23 This text has attempted to describe the main characteristics of the background of the failure of the joint-stock company, the main motives behind its operation and the form of its connection to Občanská záložna and the mechanisms of their joint success and failure. The work on this topic that was not treated previously was complicated by the fragmentary character of the extant archive materials. May this contribution be helpful in the future and serve as abasis for further research on the topic. The research is far from being finished and more light can be shed on it with access to the archives of the District Court in Benešov. The fact that several documents dating from the time of the joint-stock company’s operation were accidentally found in the archives of the Construction Trades Association in Benešov is also promising and makes it possible for the body of knowledge about this subject to broaden and for the subject to be studied in yet more detail. OPEN ACCESS