STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

OTHER LAND PURCHASES

During the life of the CHSC they made other property and land purchases. It's sometimes difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind these from the original minute book entries, we simply get a bald statement of facts. However in other cases the reason is obvious from the context and in at least one, the purchase of the Parrock Estate from the Trustees of the Baptist Chapel, the reason is clearly laid out. I'll get round to the Parrock later, let's have a look at the acquisitions in chronological order.
In March 1890 the CHSC bought Wellhouse Mill for £8,000. Apart from dealing with the necessary modernisation of the plant and buildings the directors were looking forward and could see deficiencies in boundaries and access. There is a plan of the mill attached to the Bracewell sale document of 1887 and to the north, east and west the mill site is bounded by land owned by A B Royds of Rochdale. From other research we know that Billycock Bracewell not only bought the land for his mill but the freehold as well. Crucially, the remaining Royds' land blocked access to Skipton Road on the north side and the present Wellhouse Road to the west of the mill was restricted in width with any improvement blocked by Royds. Wellhouse Road from the south west corner of the mill up into town existed but if used as the main access would be very restricted.
It seems from my research in other areas that the piece of land bought by Bracewell was part of the Mean Laithe Estate. The original Bracewell purchase was an island in the middle of this holding apart from the southern boundary but this was of no use for access as what is now Valley Road didn't exist. My reading of what follows is that the CHSC board decided to address the deficiencies of the site by buying the remainder of the estate. I can't say if they received any assurance from Royds as to whether this was possible before buying Wellhouse but this would have been sensible. The advantages if they could make the purchase were obvious, they would have a frontage on Skipton Road and the ability to realign what became Wellhouse Road from Skipton Road to the existing portion of road up into the town to allow for a rational building line and an adequate road. So my case is that the purchase of the Mean Laithe land was a sensible acquisition which improved Wellhouse Mill. Let's see what the minutes reveal. Remember that this initiative started while the board were fully occupied in modernising their new acquisition. This was evidently high priority.
September 9th 1891. That Mr Atkinson be appointed surveyor for the building land adjoining Wellhouse Mill on Mean Laithe Flatt and that he commence at once at 2½% commission for surveying and laying out for building purposes and be paid as the land is sold. [To the best of my knowledge Mean Laithe Flatt was land originally connected with Wellhouse Farm on Church Street. The board have evidently decided on what use they mean to make of the land. Atkinson is dividing the remainder up for sale.]
November 4th 1891. That Fred Blezzard’s tender be accepted for the Mean Laithe Flatt pasture at the yearly rent of £10 and pay all rates and taxes. [Grazing of the land, the technical term is agistment. Interesting that they are starting to manage the land before the conveyance is completed, there must have been some legal mechanism like an exchange of letters of intent that allowed them to act as landlord.]
January 11th 1892. That Messrs Barrett, Smith and William Holdsworth pay a visit to Skipton to see Mr Robinson, manager of the Craven Bank and request that he allow the company to draw a cheque to pay for the Mean Laithe Flatt Meadow and also to see the Surveyor of Taxes about the excessive tax put on the Wellhouse Mill property.
January 13th 1892. That a cheque be sent to Mr Hartley, Colne, to pay for the Mean Laithe Flatt, £1,151-7-5. [Remember our multiplier of 100x, this is a major outlay.]
February 3rd 1892. That a cheque for £2-18-2 be sent to Mr Hartley in respect of the rent [ground rent] for Mean Laithe Flatt. [Evidently Royd's still own the freehold. This raises the interesting point about the complications this would presumably cause when individual plots are sold.]
June 29th 1892. That Mr James Edmondson be asked to sign the agreement for the sale of land and be requested to pay a deposit of 10% and pay the remainder of the purchase money on the 1st of September and the same agreement to apply to Edward Smith. [Mean Laithe Flatt]
[Numerous references follow re fencing, gates for access, draining the land and installing access roads.]
April 13th 1893. That Mr Richard Kendal be accepted as tenant of Mean Laithe Flatt at an annual rent of £7-1-8 from the 2nd of February last and that he be informed of the acceptance. [Almost certainly grazing.]
August 3rd 1893. That Mr Atkinson, Architect of Colne, be instructed to value the unsold portion of land on Mean Laithe Flatt and give a certificate so the proper value of the land may be recorded in the company’s books.
August 16th 1893. That having had Mr Atkinson’s report that the value of the unsold portion of land on Mean Laithe Flatt estate is £800 we put the value at £600. [An interestingly pragmatic decision which effects tax.]
November 22nd 1893. That the Common Seal of the Company be affixed to a conveyance of a plot of land for building purposes containing 1,230 square yards upon Mean Laithe Flatt Estate from the company to Mr Edward Smith [A local building contractor who often worked for the company] for the sum of £249-1-6 in the presence of the chairman (Dr J D Roberts) the vice chairman (Johnson Edmondson) and of George Proctor their secretary who were authorised to sign the conveyance. Res. That the Chairman, vice chairman, G Wilkinson, Edward Smith, Thomas Dent, Proctor Barrett and W Holdsworth be a committee to meet Mr Landless regarding the diversion of Wellhouse Road. [In 1911 Matthew, Watson and Landless of Colne were valuers and insurance assessors. I'm not sure who Landless is acting for, as far as I am aware the conveyance of Wellhouse Mill hasn't been signed yet, he may be acting for the Craven Bank.]
Feb 21st 1894. That the Common Seal of the Co be affixed to an agreement made between the company and Proctor Barrett for the sale to the latter of 707 square yards of land, part of the Mean Laithe Flatt estate, for the sum of £114-14-6. That the Common Seal of the Co be affixed etc. agreement between CHSC and Proctor Barrett for sale to him of 1279 square yards of Mean Laithe Flatt land for £270. [Proctor Barrett was a very active local builder.]
November 7th 1894. That we do not at this time accept any offers for land on Mean Laithe Flatt and that Mr Atkinson write to the applicant to this effect. That we sell the land by auction at the Seven Stars on Tuesday evening November 20th 1894 and that Mr Atkinson and Mr Edmondson arrange with Matthew Rawlinson [Barrett directory 1896 records him as auctioneer and furniture dealer at 8 Church Street, Barnoldswick.] as to the terms of the sale. Res. That we at once proceed with the extension adjoining WH Road and that we utilise as far as possible the old materials from the mill. [Demolition of the redundant engine house and associated buildings and the planning for the extension shed can go forward now the land available has been assured.]
November 14th 1894. That Mr Atkinson take particulars of land at Calf Hall and arrange for it to be put up at auction on Wednesday Nov 24th along with Mean Laithe plots. [Surplus land, dead money, sell it.]
November 28th 1894. Mr W H Atkinson’s report of the sale of two plots off Mean Laithe (viz. Lots 2&3) by auction to W Holdsworth [Local builder.] and Proctor Barrett and Lot 4 of the land at Calf Hall to Standing and Son for the total sum of £366-13-0 less expenses of sale (£3-8-5) and enclosing cheques value £33-1-7 being balance of deposit less expenses; having been read, it was resolved we accept the same.
May 15th 1895. That we approve and adopt the terms come to with BUDC by the deputation appointed at the last meeting to wait upon the council as to the taking over of Wellhouse Road and converting the same to a public highway at once and taking it over in its present condition. The company to pay all groundwork, to put in another grate to take off surface water and conduct same into reservoir, to channel the side of the road adjoining the company’s shed extension now being proceeded with, to open out the road into Skipton Road and fence off the company’s land in a line with the rails at present fencing in the company’s property and to pay the council £30 towards the cost of putting the road in proper repair. [A good move, gets Wellhouse Road off the CHSC’s back and assures the access to Skipton Road. The land between the mill and Skipton Road was never built on during CHSC tenure and is always referred to as Wellhouse Yard. At one point in the later history of the company it was let to the National Showman's Guild and the annual fair was held on the site.] That the common seal of the company be attached to a conveyance of a plot of land, part of the Mean Laithe Flatt, containing 783 square yards from the company to P Barrett for £141-19-3. Res. That ditto 733½ square yards to L Holdsworth £134-13-9. In presence of etc. Res. That ditto 707 square yards of CH Estate to Joseph Standing for £90. Registered, sealed etc.
May 30th 1895. That we charge the the last two buyers of the plots at Mean Laithe and the plot at CH two months interest at 5% per annum. [Slow payers?]
January 15th 1896. Application having been made for a plot of land, part of Mean Laithe Flatt. Res. That we offer the same at 4/6 per yard. The company to find room to tip, he to take off sod and replace. [Levelling the site? The borrow was tipped on Wellhouse land near the dams.]
May 5th 1896. That the seal of the company be affixed to an agreement for the sale of a plot of land, part of the Mean Laithe Estate, containing 1276 square yards for the sum of £287-2-0 to Thomas Dent and William Holdsworth, the purchase money to be paid on or before June 17th 1896 after which date interest at the rate of 5% per annum to be paid half yearly on the 1st of January and 1st of July in each year until the payment of the purchase money. Sealed etc. Res. That the Abstract of Title for the above plot be prepared by Hartley and Pilgrim the co’s solicitors.
December 2nd 1896. Sale of a plot of land from the Mean Laithe Estate 1276 square yards from CHSC to Thomas Dent and William Holdsworth for £287-2-0. Conveyance signed and sealed. Res. That the interest due under the agreement be reduced from £6-3-0 to £3-1-6.
This is the last reference in the minutes to the Mean Laithe Estate. I think the minutes make it quite clear what the board wanted to do, assure themselves of adequate road access, rational boundaries and generally tidy up the inadequacies of the site. They have succeeded, I'll save you the bother of reckoning up the sale prices recorded in the minutes, they have drawn £1,197-11-0 against an outlay of £1,151-7-5, cleared the outlay and gained land to improve their original investment in the mill.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

There is one other matter at Wellhouse which causes them concern, they do not own the land in Eastwood Bottoms where they access the essential water supply from the well in the Bowker Drain. They eventually solve this problem but late in the day. We shall look at this matter later.
January 23rd 1903. Res. That we purchase from the Butts Mill Company Ltd the Butts Mill and Ouzledale Mill for £19,000. This consideration to include all loose effects with the exception of new stores and coal. [The Butts Mill Company weren't doing very well and I suspect that one of their main tenants, Stephen Pickles, might have had a hand in this acquisition. He had experience of the CHSC board because of his tenancies with them and as Butts was not well run, plagued by stoppages due to breakdown caused by bad management, he probably thought that CHSC ownership would be an improvement. This acquisition completes the takeover of the textile assets of Bracewell and Sons. I'm sure the directors were aware of this and it would have given them some satisfaction.]
The next purchase is the Parrock. This is the land between Butts Mill and the houses on the north side of Walmsgate. If you remember, this was the director's first choice for building their new shed in 1888 but was superseded by the offer of the land at Calf Hall. We narrowly missed having to discuss the Parrock Shed Company!
Let's start with a repetition to remind us of the early consideration of the Parrock. On the 3rd of November 1888: 'Meeting of the new shed company at Mechanic’s Hall (Jepp Hill). Discussions as to site'. “The meeting considered details of a new site which had been offered to them at the foot of Calf Hall Lane. It was decided to see the proprietors of both the Parrock site and the Calf Hall site and get the lowest prices off each of them.” On the 17th of November 1888: 'Meeting in Seven Stars Assembly Rooms. Shares to be £25. Initial share capital to be £10,000. £6000 of this taken up at the meeting'. “Meeting in the Seven Stars Assembly Room on Thursday the 8th of November. John Lowcock of Blackpool had offered land at the bottom of 'Cow Foot Lane' [Calf Hall Lane] on very favourable terms and offered to become a shareholder. It transpired that the Chapel Trustees were not able to sell the Parrock. The 'Cow Foot Lane' site was best as they were first takers of the water. Brooks Banks then showed how a mill with 800 looms could return 10% on capital. It was then proposed and accepted that the shares would be £25 each and not £5. Shareholder's names were taken and the meeting became private. £6,000 is already taken up and building is to start at Christmas.”
Sixteen years later Barlick was a boom-town. Let's step back to 1890, look at what was happening and try to put ourselves into the frame of reference of the board of the CHSC. The town was being transformed, every existing road was ripped up to install modern water supplies and a water-carriage sewage system. The success of the cotton trade was driving expansion by financing new mills and as a consequence new housing. The population was growing and the CHSC was aware that some of their larger tenants were entertaining notions of moving out into their own mills. Though some of the later mills described themselves as shed companies they were actually partnerships building for themselves, not true shed company business models. However, this didn't mean they would close their doors to tenants who could fill their space and maximise the benefits of investment.
Most of the new mills by 1914 were built to take advantage of the canal for condensing water but due to more efficient engines at least two were built on natural water sites which had not been viable twenty years earlier, Westfield and Fernbank. All these factors combined and the board started to be concerned about the possibility of a shed being built on the land next to Butts Mill, the Parrock, which they had almost bought as a site for their original mill. We have seen that the CHSC did not have absolute ownership of the riparian rights on Calf Hall Beck, the section which ran alongside the boundary of the Parrock was theoretically the property of the Trustees of the Baptist Chapel but they had never been a threat. The opening of the biggest new build yet at Bankfield in 1905 may have been the trigger which started the board thinking. Let's look at the evidence in the minutes.
March 28th 1906. That P Barrett be authorised on behalf of the company to make enquiries in his own name as to the plot of land adjoining Butts Mill known as 'The Parrock'. [Had the Trustees advertised the land for sale?]
April 4th 1906. That P Barrett be deputed and empowered without limit as to price but in consultation with Mr A King to buy the plot of land adjoining Butts Mill known as 'The Parrock' and containing 9,100 square yards. The meeting was informed that probably £1,200 would buy it and it was considered to be cheap to the company at this price, the feeling of the board being that should a shed be built on the site by any other party than the company, the results as far as the water supply to Calf Hall and Butts Mills would be very serious. [I am confused. How could loss of this land affect the water supply to Calf Hall Shed which is upstream? Are we to understand that after sixty years of use as a mill Butts still hasn't got control of the Calf Hall Beck? All the evidence points to this. The most likely explanation for the use of 'Calf Hall' in the minute is that it is shorthand for CHSC. However we have got a clear statement of the motives driving the decision.]
April 11th 1906. That Messrs Horsfield, Baxter and Wilson be deputed to interview the Trustees of Bethesda Chapel with reference to the sale of the Parrock. After the interview they reported that the Trustees were agreeable to receive a deputation after tenders had been opened and that they would favourably consider the company in disposing of the land. Res. That P Barrett be asked to tender £1,250 and the company tender £1,300. [I'm quite surprised that they have committed the information about Proctor Barrett to the legal record of the minutes. In effect they are documenting collusion between two bidders to manipulate the sale price of the land by using a stalking horse. Not very Christian!]
April 18th 1906. That Messrs Barrett, Slater, King and Dent be deputed and authorised to purchase the Parrock if it can be obtained at reasonable cost. The meeting was informed that some person had offered 3/1 per square yard and it was therefore thought that if the company offered 3/3 per yard they would become the purchaser. [How do they know this? Do you get the feeling that CHSC have a mole on the Trustees? I don't know for certain but it would surprise me if nobody on the board worshipped at the chapel.]
April 25th 1906. A letter was read from the Trustees of Bethesda church confirming the purchase of the Parrock at 3/3 per square yard and giving the company the option of purchasing a cottage thereon for £120. [Notice the speed of all this. I get the feeling that they have wind of a rival moving on the Parrock. They could have very strong grounds for appearing to be paranoid.]
June 27th 1906. That W Holdsworth be instructed to investigate the purchase of the end house opposite the Calf Hall Shed which may be required at some future time for the purposes of constructing a road from the Parrock. [The board has already demonstrated that they are well aware of the importance of access and boundaries in their treatment of the Mean Laithe Flatt land and Wellhouse Mill.]
July 4th 1906. A letter was read from the Baptist Trustees with reference to the purchase of the Parrock informing the board that the Commissioners were not prepared to authorise the sale until the purchaser undertook to pay all the expenses of the Trustees which of course included the surveyor's fee. [Later, in 1907, it becomes clear that this refers to the Charity Commissioners.] Messrs Barrett, King and Wilson paid a visit to the Trustees during the meeting in order to ascertain the meaning of the latter clause but on their returning they explained that the item was a sum of £20 already paid to Mr Dent of Nelson, a surveyor. The directors expressed the opinion that this was not the bargain and that if the company pay it, the trustees to refund the amount or alter the conditions of sale.
February 27th 1907. Brown, Charlesworth and Wood reported that there was no written conveyance to the Bethesda Trustees of that portion of the Parrock which abuts Calf Hall Lane. [From 'History of the Baptist Church in Barnoldswick' by the Rev E R Lewis: “The first emphatic reference to the church as a properly organised society is dated 1661. In that year certain property consisting of a messuage, barn, croft and garden, which had been held in trust by three of the members named Christopher Edmondson, Henry Higgins and Matthew Watson, was conveyed to one John Taylor another member. He in 1694 transferred it to David Crosley the minister of the church, who in 1705 transferred it to an elder of the church, named John Barritt, who ultimately bequeathed it to the Society as a meeting house for the perpetual use of the Baptists at Barnoldswick. That identical property still remains in the possession of the church”. This conveyance could have included the land called the Parrock, if not it was added piecemeal after 1661 and this could account for the subsequent problems encountered in the title. Some of these were solved by getting affidavits from elders who had knowledge of past custom and use.] Res. That they be instructed to procure a good Legal Title by affidavit or otherwise. [We may be looking at the basis of the problems with title that Harold Duxbury told me still existed as late as the 1980s.]
March 20th 1907. Res. That the common seal of the company be affixed to the conveyance and memorial dated March 16th for the purchase from the Trustees of the Baptist Chapel of the paddock (Parrock) adjoining Butts Mill and containing 10,612 square yards for the sum of £1,834-9-0.
April 17th 1907. Mr Atkinson of Colne attended and produced four plans relating to the Paddock (Parrock) three of which were for the erection of a weaving shed and one to utilise the land for cottage property. Plan no. 3 showing a shed capable of holding 1300 looms with its warehouse abutting on Butts Mill property appeared to meet with the greatest approval, the other plans showing only 1200 looms. Res. That a General Meeting be called as early as convenient “To consider the question of developing the Parrock recently purchased by the company”.
Meanwhile, on April 24th 1907. Res. That the Parrock be lent to a committee arranging a horse show on Saturday May 11th 1907.
April 29th 1907. Considerable discussion took place with regard to the position to be taken up by the directors at the extraordinary meeting which would follow this meeting to consider how best to use the plot of land known as the Parrock but no resolution was passed.
Extraordinary Meeting, Seven Stars Hotel, April 29th 1907. The business being to consider the development of the Parrock, recently purchased by the company. Dr Roberts presided and there were present other[sic] 52 members of the company. The chairman expressed a desire that the shareholders should do nothing to jeopardise the position of the company. Consideration of the question was opened. Mr Brooks was of the opinion that by erecting a weaving shed on the site based on the plans of the architect at a cost of £17 per loom the shareholders would obtain a return of 5% on their capital.
The secretary [George Proctor] pointed out that Mr Brooks had under-estimated the expenditure by £200 based on the actual expenditure at Calf Hall Shed and that only £400 depreciation had been taken instead of £552-10-0 and that had he taken the correct expenditure and depreciation at the proper rate of 2½% he would have shown a net return of 3¼% only. The secretary also pointed out that the additional cost of materials, both to the company and to the respective tenants, and the small return on capital made the scheme impractical. The company, he said, was already the largest room and power company in England but it owed £25,000 on loans and mortgages and that a better investment would be provided for shareholders by buying off these loans rather than erecting a new weaving shed. He estimated that the value of the present shares to be 30/- each and was of the opinion that it was unfair to the shareholders to put them in the position of either having to put up new shares required to erect the new shed or to sell their options at a sacrifice. After considerable discussion by the shareholders it was resolved that seeing it is not advisable at the present time to erect a weaving shed on the plot of land known as the Parrock, the question of erecting a shed thereon be deferred for the present.
What strikes me is that nobody has mentioned the extra power needed for the new shed. The Musgrave engine and its associated plant at Butts is loaded to near-capacity already. Despite being a big engine it runs slowly and has a suspect gear drive to the shaft. There is also the question of the boiler and economiser capacity. 1300 extra looms would demand at least another 700hp and the repercussions of taking this out of the existing plant would have been a significant additional cost. Of course it may be that this was raised but not minuted. If this is the case it is a surprising omission.
May 8th 1907. Res. That the price to be paid per horse per week for grazing the Parrock be 5/- for not more than three horses. [This is the first of many references to the use of the Parrock for grazing to gain an income.]
I won't burden you with the multitude of entries in the minutes that follow concerning the Parrock. Suffice to say that it was used for a variety of purposes and over the years was sold off piecemeal for various purposes including a roller skating rink, to the Conservative Club for a bowling green (this is the origin of the Conservative Club's involvement in the betterment charges after WW2 for Butts Mill.) and house building.
My main interest in the Parrock is the reason why it was bought, to stop any competitive development as loom space. One thing seems certain, if it had been developed independently as a rival mill it would have needed an engine and boiler house with space for coal storage. It couldn't have held more than 800 looms (remember Brooks Banks giving this number in 1888?) with no room for expansion. As such it would not have been viable. The fact that someone appears to have been considering this development says much about the mania for mill-building that pervaded Barlick at the time. It also raises the question of the motivation of the CHSC board. I get a distinct impression that the main cause of concern was always any interference to the water supply from the Calf Hall Beck. Remember that they have this problem already at Wellhouse. I know I keep banging on about the importance of cooling water and riparian rights but it is easy to forget today just how important this was in the director's minds.
There are several other small land transactions over the years, mainly aimed at tidying boundaries and giving scope for extensions should they be needed. I leave you to search for these in the minutes. Only two of these need be mentioned here.
March 24th 1909. The secretary read a letter from the architect in which he stated that the probable cost of the proposed extension at Calf Hall Shed for 276 loom spaces would be £2,960 exclusive of alterations to the engine. [Nice to see that this consequence has been recognised. The engine is hard pressed as it is without extra load. There is also the question of boiler and economiser capacity.]
December 7th 1910. Res. That the common seal of the company be affixed to the conveyance of a plot of freehold land containing 3400 square yards called Hippen Croft and abutting on the company's land at Calf Hall. The price being £450 and £10 for share of drain. In the presence of T Dent, Proctor Barrett and the secretary. Seal to be affixed also to the copy of the conveyance and the memorial. [For archiving at Wakefield.]
November 2nd 1910. Mr Metcalfe, manager, attended from Burnley Ironworks Co and Mr Lomas from the office of W H Atkinson with regard to the proposed extension at Calf Hall Shed. Mr Metcalfe explained that a new HP cylinder would be needed, 33 sets of wheels, alterations to the lineshafting etc. and that the whole of the works would cost £1,100 of which the cylinder was £320, new wheels in the old shed £220 and wedge pedestals £140. The alterations proposed by Mr Metcalfe were to increase the speed of the engine from 59 to 80rpm to enable the additional 400 looms to be turned by increasing the horse power from 553 to 700 and reducing the overload, at present 22%, to 17%. [Note that this is approaching twice the original design load and nothing is being done to strengthen other parts of the engine. A hostage to fortune?]
Mr Lomas presented the draft plans of the extension showing that it would contain 414 looms and that the shed level will probably be 6ft above the present shed levels. He was requested to get out the probable cost and submit this to to the next meeting of the directors. [Notice that the number of looms has risen from 276 to the efficient unit size of 400. The extension, always known as Monkswell Shed, was completed on time within the budget and fully tenanted until the beginning of WW2. A successful development.]
December 21st 1910. Tenders were opened for the proposed extension at Calf Hall Shed and it was resolved that the following be accepted subject to each contractor agreeing to complete the work by July 1st 1911 and that the work be commenced at once:
Architect's Estimate Lowest tender
Contractor, Dent and Sons 1594 2018
Joiner, Feather 320 442
Ironfounder, BI 582 768
Slater, P Smith 248-9-9 255
Plumber, C B Merrill 202-2-6 195
Plasterer, William Smith 100 120
Total 3046-14-3 3798
[Good information about the cost of such a build in 1910. Worth noting that the absence of well known Barlick contractors might be a reflection of the general building boom in the town at the time.]
Just one more land purchase, I include it because I have always found it slightly ironic that it took the board so long to get round to it. We start on May 15th 1912. 'That the question of the purchase from Mr Roundell of the land at Wellhouse on which the well is situated be considered next week. [The well giving access to the Bowker Drain water in Eastwood Bottoms behind Wellhouse Mill. This initiative never came to anything, the board were always conscious of the fact that they did not have control of this essential resource.]
October 29th 1919. The Gledstone Estate agent wrote asking the company if they were prepared to make an offer for the small plot of land upon which the well at Wellhouse Mill stood (in Eastwood Bottoms) and for which the company pay £10 per annum. [Never pursued.]
February 16th 1956. Wellhouse Mill water supply. Mr Duxbury suggested that it might be an advantage to CHSC to acquire land adjoining Wellhouse Mill through which the Bowker Drain ran if the owners would sell at a reasonable price. [The Bowker drain is a mystery enfolded in an enigma. It was the main supply of water for the dams at Wellhouse Mill from 1853 onwards, had been the subject of court cases and was the supply of water to the well in Eastwood Bottoms in land owned by the Roundell Estate to whom CHSC are still paying an annual rent. I had many verbal evidences that use of the water in the drain was always seen as vaguely illegal, certainly everybody clammed up when I got on the subject. Harold knew more than most about the drain and as contractor for Rolls Royce he re-piped much of it with 9” concrete pipes. RR did this because they used water from it for foul water supplies at Bankfield Shed. You'll get some idea of the clandestine nature of any enquiry if I tell you that one evening a roll of plans was popped through my front room window in King Street in the 1980s and I never knew who was responsible. However, these plans of the Bowker Drain show how well it was surveyed and what concerns us here is that one of the drawings is dated January 1955 and I suspect that by February 1956 Harold Duxbury was involved in contracting for improvements to the drain for RR. This may be what is at the root of his advice above.]
September 20th 1956. The offer of Proctor Barrett and Son to sell to CHSC the land at Eastwood Bottom was considered. In view of the importance of securing the water supply to Wellhouse Mill: Res. That the two plots of land as described in the last minutes should be bought for £1000 but the land and buildings in Vicarage Road were not required. [Sir Amos Nelson, owner of the Gledstone Estate, died in 1947 and in the ensuing years the estate was broken up. It looks as though Barrett and Son have bought the land, possibly with house building in mind but then decided not to go forward because of either lack of demand for housing after the post-war council house building at Coates or the nature of the land, not the best residential building site as it was low lying and had bad access. There is also the possibility that Barrett's bought the land speculating that they would be able to sell it on to the council for housing but this fell through when land further up the hill to the east at Coates was used instead.]
December 20th 1956. Res. That the common seal of CHSC be affixed to the conveyance and memorial of the land agreed to be purchased from Proctor Barrett and Son for £1,000 comprising the plot of just over one acre bounded by Crow Nest Syke on the west and Back Roundell Road on the East together with land of approximately seven acres between Skipton Road and Long Ing Shed. [This not a high price for development land. One suspects that Barrett's might have been in trouble and forced to sell. As a guide, I was looking for a farm to buy in 1959 and paid £2,000 for a good house and seven acres of land at Hey Farm in Barlick. At that time, any of the upland farms on the surrounding hills could be bought for £50 an acre, buildings included.]
The board subsequently sold much of the land retaining only those parts that contained the well. I regard it as ironic because after a century of Wellhouse Mill not having a totally secure supply of condensing water the problem was solved four years before the engine stopped and the need for the water ended.
There is one more transaction we need to look at, it was an outlier but deserves our attention.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

In April 1907 during discussions as to whether to build an extension for Butts Mill on the Parrock, George Proctor stated that CHSC was “the largest room and power company in England” and one would think that he would know. I remind you of this because what follows was first a contribution to this assessment and second, was a perfect example of the value of having advisers who had a wide knowledge of what was happening in the textile industry outside Barlick.
May 17th 1905. Res. That the secretary be instructed to offer the Craven Bank the sum of £6,400 for their interest in the weaving shed and premises known as Viaduct Shed at Colne, exclusive of machinery, book debts and stock subject to a ground rent of about £43 per annum. The purchase date as from December 31st last, interest of 5% on purchase price to commence on the 1st of May. That as the secretary is not asking for any commission on the purchase of this shed he be permitted, for his own use, to accept any honorarium that the Craven Bank may give him after the completion of the purchase. [This is an insider deal!]
Evidence of robust trade. The CHSC evidently feels confident it has the capacity to manage another shed as an outlier in Colne and expects the net return to be more than the 5% interest on what is in effect a loan from the Craven Bank. Here again we have evidence of the involvement of George Proctor and his contacts in the trade, he has seen an opportunity and shared it with the board. [For a full description of Viaduct Shed see Shackleton, 'The Textile Mills of Pendle'.] CHSC were to run the mill until 1919 when they sold it to one of the tenants, Thomas Hargreaves. Note that this sale was during the ephemeral post-war re-stocking boom, a smart move. There is a connection with Calf Hall Shed as Joseph Hawley built both Calf Hall and Viaduct and completed the latter in 1890. At the time CHSC bought it there were 608 looms under four tenants: Thomas Hargreaves, 250 looms. Edward Riley, 114 looms. Cowgill and Hacking, 144 looms and the Viaduct Manufacturing Co with 100 looms. The engine was a Burnley Ironworks cross compound rated at 400hp and had a rare three-flued Lancashire boiler made by Yates and Thom of Blackburn working at 120psi. There was a Green's economiser with 120 pipes.
May 24th 1905. The secretary read a letter from the Craven Bank in which they stated that the offer to purchase Viaduct Shed for £6,400 on the terms passed by the resolution of the directors at their last meeting was accepted. [The fact that it was in the ownership of the bank suggests that there had been a charge on it held by the bank and that the original owner has liquidated.]
June 21st 1905. Res. That the common seal of the company be affixed in the presence of Dr Roberts and Thomas Dent and two of the directors and the secretary to the Assignment dated June 16th 1905 of two plots of land and a weaving shed and premises known as Viaduct Shed situate at Colne in the County of Lancaster from the Craven Bank Ltd to the Company for the sum of £6,400. The plots contain 152 and 6,813 square yards respectively and are subject to a yearly ground rent of 343-10-8.
January 2nd 1907. Res. That Mr Wood be authorised to re-let the space about to be vacated at Viaduct Shed to the existing tenants on the same terms as hitherto providing the change is carried out without cost to the company. [This entry seems to confirm that Teddy Woods is acting as manager of Viaduct Shed on behalf of the company, semi-detached ownership and management. In 1910 an extension was added. ]
June 5th 1912. The secretary gave particulars of the extra cost of coal during the strike from which it appeared that the additional charge to the tenants would be about 3/9 to 4/- per loom at Calf Hall and 2/8½d per loom at Viaduct Shed. [I append this reference to demonstrate that Local Disadvantage applied in bad times as well as good. On the face of it one would expect national coal prices to have equal effect but evidently not so. The increase at Viaduct is very small compared to Barlick.]
August 6th 1919. Res. That the question of disposing of Viaduct Shed be deferred for six months. [Cliff edge! We know with hindsight that the climate is going to worsen after July 1920. Worth mentioning that many large mills, mainly spinning mills, were recapitalised during the re-stocking boom after WW1 at what later looked like ridiculously high figures and a lot of money flowed out of the industry in consequence. See 'Lancashire Under the Hammer' by Ben Bowker (Published in 1928 by Leonard and Virginia Woolf.), the classic critique of these policies by the editor of the Lancashire Evening Post who understood the industry. The market for weaving sheds wasn't as frenetic but there was an air of speculation around in the post war boom. More evidence of the widely-held belief in the trade that a cyclical dip in trade was always followed by an expansionary resurgence. In this case they seem to have missed the fact that was not an old-fashioned trade cycle, it was change in trading patterns on a global scale caused by the disruption of a World War.]
Special meeting Seven Stars Hotel. November 3rd 1919. P Barrett chair. Full board present. A desire having been expressed that the company should dispose of its Viaduct Shed property seeing that values were rising and that this appeared to be an opportune time for obtaining a good price it was resolved that Viaduct Shed be sold providing not less that £20 per loom be obtained for it. Res. That George Proctor be empowered to negotiate the sale of the property on the above understanding and that he be paid a commission of 5% on the purchase price. [A smart move and one detects the hand of George Proctor here. I suspect that he already had Thomas Hargreaves lined up as a buyer.]
December 10th 1919. With reference to the instructions to the secretary to sell Viaduct Shed: Res. That we confirm the sale of Viaduct Shed, shops and house to Tom Hargreaves and Sons (one of the existing tenants) for the sum of £21,750 on the following terms of payment: £2,000 deposit. (Already paid). £9,750 on January 1st 1920, £10,000 on July 1st 1920, the balance of the purchase money to be subject to interest at 6%. [Give GP his due, he doesn't hang about! Sold at the top of the market.]
June 16th 1920. In view of the payment of the balance on Viaduct Shed by Messrs T Hargreaves and Son on June 30th it was resolved that the mortgage of £5,000 be repaid to the Exors of W Thompson and that the amounts borrowed from the Bank of Liverpool on the War Loan be also repaid.
From numerous entries in the minutes we see that Viaduct was never a problem. It made the CHSC a profit every year and they had to spend hardly anything on maintenance. Bought for £6,400, less than £3,000 spent on the extension and sold for £21,750 15 years later at the top of the market. Game, set and match to George Proctor I think!
The thing that strikes me in this overview of the CHSC and its land and property acquisitions is that they were cautious but once they were convinced of the merits of a case they pressed on with no internal dissent that can be detected from the minutes. The only one that slightly puzzles me is the 1956 purchase at Wellhouse but I suspect that there may be slightly more to that transaction than meets the eye. Harold Duxbury was a smart operator and if you search the minutes and tot up the prices obtained from the sale of parcels of the land in Eastwood Bottoms you'll find there was a handy little profit. Reading between the lines of the minutes I'd lay a small bet that inside knowledge was a factor in the transaction. One of the headings that I'd love to address is the CHSC intelligence network! I'm afraid that's a pipe dream, it would be pure speculation but in my own mind I'm certain that this resource existed and was very efficient.
We have more work to do on the early days of the company. How did they manage to hit the ground running?
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

[From the look of the page views you are all keeping up well. Good! This isn't the most riveting stuff in the world but I promise it gets more mechanical soon!]

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY

I want to look in greater depth at the period before the first annual general meeting of the CHSC in April 1889 using contemporary evidence and what we can learn from the minute books. Both the conveyance of February 1888 and the first entry in the minute books show clearly that a company limited by guarantee had been formed and a company seal designed and made as it was used on the conveyance. Following the initial sale of shares they must also have opened a bank account and instituted a system of accounting to record the spending of money on essential set-up expenses but we have no trace of these.
What were the contemporary norms in company formation? The repeal of the Bubble Act in 1825 opened up the possibility of capital formation by the issue of shares to the public. The Joint Stock Acts of 1855/1866 refined this process by allowing a public company to be limited by guarantee. In other words the shareholder's liability in the case of failure was limited to the extent of their shareholding, in the case of the directors there was often an additional limited penalty. I had experience of managing a charitable company limited by guarantee when I was project director for the Ellenroad Trust and at that time there was a further penalty in that if wrongdoing could be proved on the part of the board, say by trading when insolvent, their liability was not limited and their personal assets could be sequestrated.
Early reaction to the concept of limited liability was mixed. Some saw it as a retrograde step in that it enabled management to abdicate from what was seen to be proper responsibility. In the old partnerships failure was heavily punished by loss of personal estates and this was seen to be a just outcome. When I first started to take an interest in textile history I came across the phrase 'The Oldham Limiteds' and found that this referred to the 154 cotton manufacturing companies founded to build or operate cotton mills in Oldham, predominantly during the joint stock boom of 1873–1875. It has been estimated that by 1875 about 75% of Oldham mill workers held shares in the Limiteds. Gladstone is reported in 1867 as saying that “the working class had become an association of small capital holders employing other people”.
So, in 1888 we can be sure that the concept of the limited company was accepted and well understood in the wider textile industry. The subject would be discussed on the 'change in Manchester and accountants and lawyers in the major textile towns like Proctor and Proctor in Burnley would be familiar with limited company formation and administration. The question that arises is when the concept was first used in our district. When James Nuttall started to build the new Coates Mill in 1864 there is a report that the erection was delayed because of lack of capital. I suspect that this was a partnership rather than a limited company. The Craven Bank in Skipton was registered as a limited company in 1880. I am almost certain the Long Ing Shed Company was limited from its inception in 1886 and could have been the first in Barlick. Our promoters were aware of the possibility, what interests me is how well they understood the process of forming and administering a limited company.
Looking at the minutes of the first annual meeting of shareholders on April 27th 1889 and applying my local knowledge to the names of both the elected directors and the shareholders who proposed and seconded them, I can find no evidence to suggest that any of them had intimate knowledge or experience of limited companies. Of course, I could be mistaken, some of them may have already been shareholders in other companies. One of the things that first struck me about the minute books is that they hit the ground running. The style and format of the first entry is the same that was followed right through the company's history. They understand the conventions of the format and the protocols to be followed in conducting meetings. Motions are proposed and seconded, resolutions are passed. The concept of weekly meetings of the board of directors and half yearly shareholder's meetings is immediately established and hardly ever deviated from. The only slightly amateurish note I detect, and I realise I may be doing the two gentlemen a disservice, is the appointment of John Lancaster the local postmaster as auditor and John Hartley, a furniture dealer as secretary. As I shall suggest below, there may have been a good reason why the promoters didn't immediately avail themselves of professional services.
I need to step back here to before October 1888. The Bracewell Brothers collapse and the subsequent fire sale in 1887 by the Craven Bank was doubtless the subject of much comment on the Manchester Exchange. Remember that one of their assets was a large, well-known foundry and engineering works in Burnley. I know of one man who would have intimate knowledge of these events and who was already active in other businesses in the district. I have no concrete evidence but I'm almost certain he was acting as secretary for the Long Ing Company. This man was George Proctor of Proctor and Proctor, accountants, 3 Grimshaw Street in Burnley. In his business dealings he would have frequent meetings with George Robinson, manager of the Craven Bank in Skipton who was obviously well connected with local business. We will see that within four years, George is secretary for the CHSC and instrumental in setting a higher standard of management and book-keeping.
Besides being an accountant, George was an investor. He had interests in many concerns and became owner of the Big Mill Company in Earby and a major partner in the Earby private gas undertaking. He was well known in the district and eventually resided here. In the 1891 census he is noted as living at 106 Manchester Road, Habergham Eaves, Burnley. However the minutes for July 22nd 1891 mention negotiating with the Barlick gas company for the connection of C G Bracewell's former residence, Bank House, to the mains. This always puzzled me because the CHSC never owned the property but this initiative suggests a linkage. On March 15th 1893 when he was appointed secretary George's address was given as Bank House so I assume he had bought it sometime before the gas connection, perhaps during the fire sale of the Bracewell assets in 1887. Directories are usually accurate and Barrett for 1896 reports George as living at Bank House. In the census for 1901 his address is given as Throstle Nest, a comfortable house on the old road in the centre of Thornton in Craven. Enough evidence I think to show he had more than simply a business connection with the area before 1888, he was house hunting. If there is a candidate for the 'man behind the scenes' who advised and guided the promoters, he is my choice. I have another, albeit fragile clue. The first minute book used by the directors was made by Waterlow Brothers and Layton Ltd, general stationers and manufacturers of account books, 24 and 25 Birchin Lane, Cornhill London. Is it too great a leap of imagination to imagine George telling the promoters, “start as you mean to go on”, and providing the first minute book from his supplier in Burnley?
You may be wondering, as I often have, why George didn't play a more public role before 1893 if he was advising the promoters. We know from his track record that the formation of a shed company was right up his street and after 1893 he is a force inside the CHSC, we suspect the directors were acting for him on the gas supply before 1891. I wonder how many plausible company formations George had seen and how many failed to live up to their early promise. There is no evidence of him being intimately involved on a personal level with the promoters of the CHSC and it may well have been that he held them at arms length until he was satisfied that they were more than a flash in the pan. At the same time I can well imagine him taking steps to secure his later position by making sure that the directors knew that once they had proved their worth he would come on board. In the minutes for March 15th 1893 we find the following entry; Res. 5th. That Mr George Proctor of Bank House be the secretary of this company at the rate of £30 per annum. On March 29th two more resolutions; 'Res. That the resignation of Mr John Hartley as secretary of the company be accepted. Res. That Mr George Proctor of Grimshaw Street Burnley be and is hereby appointed Secretary of the company at the salary of £30 per annum from this date'. On September 2nd 1893 at the half year shareholder's meeting we find, 'Res. That Mr Ed. Foden be appointed auditor for the ensuing year at a salary of £3-3-0.'
I have no hard evidence but it would surprise me if Mr Foden is anything other than an employee or an associate of George Proctor. I suspect that this is the reason why the promoters started with what looked like a couple of temporary appointments as secretary and auditor. One thing is certain, the influence of George Proctor can be clearly seen in the director's actions after 1893. Book-keeping, methods of accounting and the internal administration of the board are tightened up and we know that George is feeding the board information and advice on strategy.
There is another strong piece of evidence which appears in the minutes before George's direct participation as secretary. A month after the first meeting, on May 15th 1889, we find the following resolution, 'That Messrs Holden’s letter asking for terms for room and power be replied to. The terms to be that they pay per annum 39/- per loom and £90 for one tape machine for a term of three years subject to alteration if necessary at that time.' This the start of the harvest we will gather from the minute books, hard evidence of what the rent payable by tenants was. As time goes by the tenancy agreements alter in complexity and later on in format, we shall look at this in detail. At the moment what interests me is how the directors arrived at this first decision on prices. Was it a direct steal from what I am sure they knew about the prices at Long Ing or advice from George based on his experience? Remember that Long Ing was almost certainly getting the benefit of George Proctor's experience of rents charged in other shed companies. Whichever source was used, this price was related to local standards and was a good starting point. There was a formal tenancy agreement to be entered into and signed and George almost certainly provided an initial draft for this. Even the early agreements were more complicated than this minimal report in the minutes suggests.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

It isn't until October 17th 1900 that we first find evidence in the minutes of the increasing complexity of tenancy agreements, 'Res. That the letter dated 17th October as drafted by the secretary in which the terms of renewal for all the tenants of the company on the 31st October are set out be approved and sent to Mr S Pickles as representative of the tenants. The terms are that the present rent of 39/- per loom per annum should be raised to 43/7. For each increase or decrease of 6d per ton in the price of coal the rent should vary by 6d per loom per annum. The tenancies to be yearly ones from the 31st of October terminable by either party giving the other six months notice in writing at the end of any month in any year.' We know from the minutes that in communicating with the tenants George frequently uses comparative examples of rents and conditions in other towns, this can only come directly from his involvement with other shed companies.
On balance I think we are safe in assuming that before embarking on the flotation of CHSC the promoters took advice, they would certainly talk to George Robinson at the Craven Bank and it may be that he recommended they contact George Proctor. What is certain is that they had a viable administrative structure in place before the first shareholder's meeting which stood the test of time and only needed slight adjustment in detail as they progressed.
I'm sure that you will have also realised that my assessment of the structure and how they arrived at it proves that they were using the example of existing shed companies. This reinforces my case that the specifics we can extract from the CHSC minutes are directly applicable to the room and power sector as a whole. I see this as being a major recommendation for the use of the evidence of the CHSC minutes in any assessment of the wider North East Lancashire sector, they were not operating in a vacuum but applying an existing business model.
There is one last area I want to examine before we discuss specifics, the relationship of CHSC to the community in general and the tenants and shareholders in particular.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH BARLICK AND THE TENANTS

The death of Bracewell and the collapse of his interests in 1885 was a severe blow to Barlick. The professional classes, small tradesmen and retailers saw not only an immediate fall in income but a bleak future. Those mill workers who still had a job at Clough Mill and Coates Shed must have felt insecure. I have no doubt that there was much debate about the future of the town and as we have seen, unemployed people in rented accommodation voted with their feet.
From my general research I get the feeling that long before Billycock died, there was an undercurrent of discontent and a desire for change amongst the budding entrepreneurs we have noted taking space in those mills that would allow tenants. These men seem small fry when compared with the Bracewells but their rapid transition into major manufacturers in the new shed companies suggests that they had been doing well, had accumulated experience and amassed not only capital but credibility with the bank. Names like Pickles, Nutter, Edmondson, Brooks, Slater and Widdup first appear as small manufacturers, often combined with retail trade, and soon become prominent as large tenants in the room and power sheds before eventually building their own mills. There had been one faint glimpse of the future when Nuttall built the new Coates Shed specialising in weaving but it never developed beyond a small mill.
The first significant breakthrough was the announcement in 1886 of the formation of the Long Ing Shed Company. This came so close after Billycock's death and before the collapse of Bracewell and Sons that I suspect its gestation was not initiated by the collapse but by pressure for space from existing small manufacturers. Long Ing was designed as a large modern weaving shed holding 1,200 looms and within a year of opening was extending to provide another 400 loom spaces for the Brooks Brothers. Note the multiple of 400 spaces, the ideal unit size. This is clear evidence of demand and the availability of capital. The fact that CHSC could attract £6,000 investment as soon as shares were offered to the public reinforces the point. From the evidence of the minutes the greatest proportion of the remaining £4,000 came from local sources.
Once Long Ing Shed was up and running I don't think it takes too big a leap of imagination to suppose that news that another modern weaving shed was going to be built would be received with enthusiasm in the town. With hindsight we can see that any optimism was well founded, the population figures tell the story: 1881, 4,028. 1891, 4,131. 1901, 6,381 and 1911, 9,703. Bear in mind that in 1886, as near as we can tell, the population fell to about 2,500 with the migration of the displaced Bracewell workers. The promoters of CHSC were well-known and respected, they were trusted and the speed with which their proposal gained acceptance and was acted on indicates pent-up demand.
We have another source of evidence that sheds light on public attitudes towards the new company. We have no way of knowing how many of the initial shares were bought by mill workers, if the example of the Oldham Limiteds is anything to go by there would be at least a few small investors. There was another factor, in 1888 there was no easily accessible way to use savings to generate interest, public banking was in its infancy. From the first days of the company loans were accepted from potential investors who weren't necessarily shareholders but these were all relatively large amounts. In the minutes for May 3rd 1894 it was resolved that small loans be accepted from shareholders at 4½% interest and shortly afterwards this same opportunity was extended to anyone who wanted to invest. As a comparison, bank interest rate between 1890-1900 was rising slowly from about 2% to 4%. We can't identify the extent of these small loans from the balance sheets and accounts but from the frequency of references to them in the minutes we can be certain that they existed and were a useful source of capital.
It would appear that there was a social cachet in lending money to the company or owning shares. These small shareholdings eventually became an embarrassment because due to partiple inheritance they were scattered more and more thinly. In 1981 I interviewed Victor Hedges, one time senior partner at Proctor and Proctor and secretary for the CHSC. I asked him about this and he told me that in later years it got to the point where it cost more to send the dividend payments out than they were worth. In December 1952, as secretary, he tried to remedy this situation; 'Res. That a letter be sent to shareholders pointing out that there were a number of very small holdings which involved the company in considerable expense in cheque stamps, postal charges etc and offering therefore to act as a go-between between members wishing to sell their small holdings and other members wishing to purchase them at the present market price of 10/- per share.' He told me that there was a limited response but no real improvement. Harold Duxbury told me that when the company was wound up they had a lot of shareholders on the books that they couldn't contact, a local solicitor was given the job of finding them but the last I heard there were still unclaimed shares. Harold was of the opinion that many of these 'orphan' shares would never be converted, the families who owned them saw them as talismans or family heirlooms rather than financial securities.
On the whole, the impression I have is that there was always a measure of public affection and pride in the success of the company. In April 1907 during discussions as to whether to build an extension at Butts Mill, George Proctor stated that CHSC was “the largest room and power company in England” and one would think that he would know.
This general impression of the CHSC relationships with the town led me to speculate on the differences between family firms and a democratic board. In both cases the motivation was essentially to make profit, the difference is that a family firm was private to the point of secrecy. This doesn't mean that they were any more or less worthy in their actions but the board of CHSC were definitely open to public scrutiny. Their responsibility was to the investors in the town who supported them and I think that their personal reputation was important to them. Any assessment of how this influenced their actions as directors must be subjective. All we have are occasional glimpses in the minutes of leniency towards staff and almost paternalistic behaviour when dealing with tied house accommodation.
My own opinion is that whilst there were undoubtedly kind men on the board who loved their children and dogs, their collective actions were usually based more on pragmatism then beneficence, what was best for the business? Having said this there is one entry which is almost affectionate. On April 19th 1956, 'It was reported that following the accident to his foot, Tom Marshall the engineer at WH had suggested that he should ease off a little and that £1 of his wage should be transferred to Ernest Marshall his son. The feeling of the meeting was that Tom Marshall should not suffer financially and that Harold Duxbury have an informal talk with him on the matter'. May 17th 1956, 'Mr Duxbury reported that as suggested at the last meeting he had had a word with Tom Marshall and arranged that he should take things easier but that he should suffer no reduction in wage. He had also arranged that Tom's son Ernest be given a bonus of £1 per week'. The engine at Wellhouse was still running but its days were numbered. I may be wrong but I detect a note of nostalgia and affection for both the engine and the old engineer. A nice entry, make your own minds up.
We need to look at relationships with the tenants. In the early days when demand for space outstripped supply, manufacturing profits were high and those lucky enough to gain a foothold in the shed realised the advantages of being able to enter the trade at such a low threshold of investment, the relationship between the board and its tenants was trouble free. Indeed, it can be argued that the board felt so secure that they developed a slightly autocratic manner in their dealings with the tenants. The relationship tended to deteriorate during the cyclical down-turns in trade which the weaving industry was always prone to. However, the universal experience was that until 1914, a fall in trading activities was always followed by a resurgence to even higher levels of activity and profit and this improvement often silenced any grumbling in the ranks. Paradoxically, it was rapid capital accumulation by the manufacturers in the good times that sparked more serious problems from the board's point of view.
Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. If he has a full order book, buoyant demand and a good rate of profit it follows that if he had more looms he could make more money. Quite a few of them were operating 400 loom sets and knew they could fill 1200 but there was no space. In the early days CHSC could accommodate this burgeoning demand to a large extent by buying mills or extending the existing ones but eventually they reached their limit. Another possible solution open to the tenants was to buy shares in the CHSC and participate in the dividend generated by the rents they were paying. The big problem with this plan was that shares didn't often come onto the market and the reason for that was that apart from any sentimental attachment to them, they were a good investment. After a subdued start, the shares settled down at 5% dividend. In 1900 there was a fall caused by higher coal prices due to troubles in the mining industry. At that point CHSC raised the rents and instituted coal clauses in the agreements to protect them against further problems caused by problems outside their control. From 1906 onwards the dividend rose to 10%, there was a small bonus paid in 1910 and a further 25% bonus in June 1911. It wasn't until 1914 that the dividend fell, never to recover, as the industry entered the war and the long decline from 1920 onwards.
High profits between 1890 and 1900 in manufacturing built up the tenant's stock of capital and another avenue of escape opened. Eight large modern weaving sheds were built in the town financed by capital accumulated under room and power tenancy. This was the biggest benefit the shed companies bestowed on the town, it fuelled explosive growth not only in the mills but in housing and infrastructure. It should be noted that there was another unforeseen legacy implicit in this which came from a surprising source. The Bracewell hegemony had done Barlick a disservice by retarding growth at a time when the rest of North East Lancashire was booming so we were late starters but this conferred advantages. The weaving industry had standardised shed design, developed better engines, boilers and management systems and when Barlick eventually expanded it did so with the latest technology. The tortoise had overtaken the hare. By 1914 there were more looms in Barlick than could be operated by local labour and it became common for country weavers to lodge in the town during the week and go home to their villages at weekend.
After 1920 and the start of the terminal decline in the industry relations with the remaining tenants deteriorated. It can be quite depressing to read the minutes detailing the interminable disputes over coal prices and allowances for stopped looms due to bad trade, plant breakdown or renovation. It wasn't until 1940 when all weaving in the CHSC sheds stopped for the duration of the war that the disputes stopped. We shall see that there were alterations in the business model after 1945 and these were to prove far less contentious but that's a long way in the future.
The bottom line with the tenants was that all was well if they were satisfied. The problem was that this didn't happen too often and they could be as autocratic as the company. Major manufacturers like Stephen Pickles or James Nutter controlling almost 2000 looms apiece were not going to be easily controlled by anyone. They were powerful men and we will see how James Nutter's decisions closed Bankfield Shed in 1934 and denied weaving at Wellhouse during WW2. The closure of Butts Mill in 1933 was largely caused by Stephen Pickles re-arranging his interests. The factor that saved CHSC from the normal vicissitudes of corporate life was that though they were a public company, the market for shares was always private and closely controlled. The directors could not be raided by a rival bid.
We've set our scene, we have a good idea of the local circumstances and the environment the CHSC is working in. Time to look at some specifics and extract direct evidence from the minutes.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TENANTS. SOME BASIC INFORMATION

Forgive me if I become pedestrian again and tell you things you already knew. One of the most common errors historians make when explaining a specific is to make the assumption that the reader has knowledge of the general. Nowhere is this more true than in any description of a technical subject. I still remember how long it took me in the early days of my interest in textiles to grasp the essential difference between the Great wheel and the Saxony wheel, essential to understanding mule spinning and continuous spinning. Don't worry! We don't need this information to understand weaving. However, many people speak glibly of 'cotton weaving' but don't have any clear understanding of what it entailed.
The process the Room and Power companies were providing accommodation for in Barlick was the weaving of plain cotton cloth on simple Lancashire looms. This was the business of the vast majority of mills in North East Lancashire, what was often described as 'Burnley Printers' or, with slightly less respect, the mills that wove this bread-and-butter cloth were known in the trade as 'Rag Shops'. Grossly unfair actually because some of the plain cloths were high quality and made with the best grades of cotton yarn. By the end of the 19th century this trade was a mature technology, textile machinery had been perfected and standardised and specialised manufacturers had established themselves in central locations like Blackburn or Accrington and dominated the market. You were just as likely to see a Howard and Bullough tape sizing machine in Preston as in Barlick. A worker moving from one town to another would walk into essentially the same environment wherever he or she went. The construction of the mills was standardised, the modern girder shed with heavy gutters supported by cast iron pillars which carried the power transmission shafts and the distinctive saw tooth roof was standard. Ideally this was what was known as a 'north light' shed. All the glass faced as near due north as possible as this avoided direct sunlight entering the shed and gave the most consistent lighting conditions, one of the essential prerequisites for good work. Incidentally this was true world wide. It can be slightly disconcerting to see a typical Lancashire cotton mill on the Nevsky Prospekt in St Peterburg and realise it was full of Platt Brother's machinery from Oldham and driven by a Galloway engine from Manchester.
To make cloth a manufacturer needed looms. The industry standard was a 40” reed space loom which wove cloth about 36” wide. As the looms were a standard design, this meant that the floor space needed to accommodate the loom was well understood. See the architect's description of the new shed at Calf Hall in the report of the engine christening in December 1889: “The shed will hold 828 looms at 40” reed space and gives 40¼ square feet to each loom (33,332 square feet), the largest he thought, in the district with 22¼ square feet warehouse space for each loom (18,444 square feet)” This accepted criterion meant that the shed space needed to accommodate a given number of standard looms in a weaving shed was easily calculated.
In order to weave successfully, the weaver's warps in each loom needed to have the requisite type and number of ends (individual threads) for the cloth construction that was to be woven. Further, these warp threads had to be treated with size, a mixture of water, gum, a starch and tallow to give them additional strength and stop them 'penning up' as the warp withstood the friction of the healds and reeds. This 'penning' was the shedding of loose surface fibres which could block the dents (gaps) in the healds and reeds, raise friction loads and tension in the threads and lead to breakages. The composition of the size also varied with the demands of the cloth customer. For these reasons the ideal was that a manufacturer had his own tape sizing machine so he could closely control the process.
This is a good place to clarify an item of plant connected with the tape sizing machine. An essential prerequisite of taping weaver's warps was that the process had to be uninterrupted. If the machine was stopped during the production run the current weaver's warp being made was badly damaged by excessive contact with the steam heated drying cylinders. The tape was driven by the main engine via the shafting during engine running hours but provision had to be made for driving it when the engine stopped at breakfast or dinner time. In exceptional circumstances overtime might need to be worked after normal mill hours when the engine was stopped. This need for independent power was catered for by having a single cylinder steam 'donkey engine' next to the tape. The drive shafting for the tape machine was separate from the main transmission shafting and was driven from that source by a heavy leather belt. By moving this belt from a fast to a loose pulley the tape shafting could be disconnected from the main transmission shafting. This was done using a large fork controlled by a lever to shift the belt sideways. This fork mechanism also controlled the belt from the donkey engine to the main shafting. The tapers always knew when the main engine was due to stop and before this happened they started the donkey engine and once it was warmed and up to speed they operated the fork lever which simultaneously disconnected the main drive and connected the donkey engine drive. This was a seamless operation, the tape machine was not affected and kept running when the main shafting stopped.
So, whenever a tape machine is mentioned bear in mind that this includes the donkey engine. In case you are wondering, the drive between the dedicated tape shafting and the tape machine itself was also transmitted via a fast and loose pulley system which allowed the tape to be stopped at any time for maintenance or gaiting up. One more thing, in normal circumstances the tapers made sure that they had stopped taping, that is to say they had completed a weaver's warp and stopped the tape machine, before the engine stopped. The next time the machine started all the warp threads that had been inside the machine and spoiled by excessive drying when the tape stopped were wound through, cut off and discarded as waste before starting on a fresh weaver's warp and continuing as normal.
Another essential process was the warp preparation stage where weaver's warps from the tape machine were united with their healds and reeds ready for installation in the loom, this needed minimal machinery, in the early days it depended mainly on skilled manual workers. Only one more machine was essential, a cloth plaiting and measuring machine for converting cloth on the roll direct from the loom into folded piles which could be bundled for dispatch.
In practice, each manufacturing unit was divided into two sections, the weaving shed and the warehouse. All the functions of the firm apart from weaving took place in the warehouse which also served as storage space for loom-ready weft, tapers beams from the spinners, cloth awaiting dispatch and ancillary accommodation like the overlooker's workshops, the office and often the toilets. The room and power rent of a fixed figure per loom and tape machine was structured to include the warehouse space as this too could be standardised on so much space for so many looms.
This system was flexible and in theory could accommodate a manufacturers specific requirements in terms of loom numbers. However there was an ideal unit size embedded in the standard machinery. One tape sizing or cloth plaiting machine could deal with the output from 400 looms. The tape machine's demands for process steam and power on normal cloths was well understood so the tape price was always calculated on 'one tape for 400 looms'. This meant that both from the manufacturer's and the shed company's point of view a 400 loom unit was the ideal size. I put this point to Victor Hedges when I interviewed him and he agreed. He said that the most economic mills that Proctor and Proctor dealt with were 1200 loom sheds containing three 400 loom units.
Another factor came into this, the rule for sizing an engine for a given weaving load was always half a horse power for each loom, this included the ancillary power needed for the warehouse. A 600hp engine driving a mill containing 1200 looms could be run successfully from one large boiler. This boiler would be hard pressed when dealing with process steam as well, particularly when the size for the tape machines was being boiled to break down the starch molecules. As we will see later, the additional heating load in winter caused many problems and in practice most of the later 1200 loom sheds had two boilers. In the early days of the CHSC smaller numbers of looms per tenancy were accepted without question but we shall see from the minutes that unit size increasingly became a deciding factor when there were multiple applications for space.
We need to take account of one more factor which was crucial to economic management of the mills, I have never seen this discussed thoroughly in all my research. The reason that I know about it is because I had the problem when I was engineer at Bancroft Shed. It is the most important single factor in the economics of running a steam-driven shed.
The biggest single expense in running a mill is coal consumption and in normal circumstances it is the only variable. All other running costs are either fixed or relatively constant. The old manufacturers running their own mills had a very simple method of keeping a health check on their running costs. They accepted that all costs were constant apart from fuel and did what was often a weekly calculation of coal burned against yards of cloth woven. This crude comparison was reliable enough to flag up problems as they arose. This calculation was slightly different for a shed company. It was coal burned against the number of looms generating rent. In both cases, if the number of looms running and hence, cloth production, decreased, the overhead of the fixed and constant costs has to be divided between fewer looms and therefore the unit expense of each loom (or unit of cloth production) rises. In effect, if the number of looms halves, the fixed expense per loom doubles. If a shed company was to recoup this cost, the loom rent would have to double but obviously the tenants would never agree to this. In the later days of the CHSC when loom numbers were falling and allowances for bad trade were being demanded by the tenants it became increasingly difficult to make a profit. We are not directly concerned with government policies in the later days of the industry to reduce capacity but it's worth noting that when they eventually acted they subsidised loom-scrapping in each mill instead of encouraging scrapping of entire mills and the concentration of the remaining capacity in full sheds. By doing this the former they reduced the economic viability of individual sheds and this was a major factor in the eventual extinction of the industry.
The bottom line is that the price structure of the rents was predicated on running a full shed. As soon as there was empty space the company had to take some sort of action. We shall see in the later history that this resulted in more complicated tenancy agreements and eventually triggered the move away from rental agreements to a commercial lease of space. In the end these became repairing leases where the tenant was responsible for maintenance of the property.
I think we have a clear picture now of what the manufacturers were doing inside the shed. It's time to look at the devolution of responsibility, exactly what was the shed company providing in return for the rent? Where were the demarcation lines?

Image

The donkey engine at Bancroft showing the belt transmission system in the ceiling.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
plaques
Donor
Posts: 8094
Joined: 23 May 2013, 22:09

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by plaques »

The one thing that is not generally known about the flat belt pulley system is that the running profile of the pulley is not flat but is of a slight domed shape. The belt will rise to the top of the dome keeping itself central. There is a mathematical ratio for wheel diameter and rise of dome.
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

Quite right P. I have only come across one exception in practice. This was on John Ingoe's straw-burning traction engine 'Annie'. It was built by Paxman and the flywheel was original and always intended for flat belt drive. It was CI but had a one inch thick steel rim shrunk on it which was definitely intended for driving as it was originally a portable engine but had no dome on it. It was very difficult to line up exactly for driving machinery.

Image

Heavy driving on the estate saw riving wet larch in 1991 at Harewood House.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

The shed company contracted to provide acceptable weatherproof accommodation, power for the tenant's plant and machinery and steam for process and heating to statutory standards in winter. The main lineshaft driven by the engine served cross shafts in the various spaces in the mill and the tenant took power from drums on the shaft via leather belts to the individual machines. In case you are wondering, this power could be applied or disconnected by moving the driving belt from a fixed pulley which drove the machine to a loose pulley which spun without driving. This was controlled by the weaver using a simple lever-operated fork through which the belt ran on each machine. The shed company provided the leather driving belt as this came under the heading of power transmission. The company was responsible for all maintenance and repair of the structure. The tenant was responsible for their own plant and general housekeeping. Clear cut, no ambiguities you might think, but hold on a minute!
The beauty of having the detailed information contained in the minutes is that we can see matters like these in close focus. It can be quite surprising to see an agenda of very weighty items and then find considerable attention being given to what seem to be trivial items, one of these is broken windows. At first glance one would suppose that this is structural and therefore the responsibility of CHSC but this was quite often not the view taken by the directors. The attitude seemed to be that the company would ensure that all window glass was in place and unbroken when a tenancy was taken up but thereafter it became the responsibility of the tenant. I can understand this in terms of low level windows broken by carelessness, or in some cases by workers seeking ventilation in summer, but there are instances of them being charged for broken roof lights at high level. I fail to see how this could have been supported.
Another instance of a grey area is cleanliness, in particular the regular sweeping down of surfaces that have collected the fine cotton 'dawn' that is an inevitable consequence of weaving. This dawn was highly flammable and in extreme cases can be explosive. I have been told by weavers who worked in gas-lit sheds that very often when the gas was lit, the dawn would fire and a blue flame race across the roof of the shed. It appears that this regular accidental ignition could keep the danger of serious ignition at bay. However, the factory inspector could demand that surfaces and shafting be swept and we see instances where this requirement has been passed to the tenant but they refuse to do it on the grounds that anything at high level is the company's problem and CHSC had to sweep the shafting and ceilings.
The provision and maintenance of toilets was a perennial problem. Again, it would seem to be clear cut, CHSC made the initial provision but the tenant was responsible for their condition. Unfortunately it wasn't that simple, we have to look more closely at the minutes to find out what could go wrong. We should remember that when Calf Hall Shed was being built on a green field site Barlick was in the first phase of installing a modern water carriage sewer system. There was no mains sewer at the site in 1889 so the lavatories were the pail toilets which had to be emptied at intervals by the local council, what was known as the Night Soil system. On September 11th 1889 during the build we find, 'Res. 4th. That the privies inside the shed be built with brick and whitewashed with calcium'. A week later; 'Res. 2nd. That the secretary write to the Sanitary Inspector [Skipton Rural Sanitation District. Barnoldswick Local Board wasn't formed until November 1890.] for information regarding the expense of emptying the closet tanks at the shed'. So far so good but on October 1st 1889 there is a bit of a rethink, 'Res. 2nd. That the privies be removed from inside the shed and be built outside the warehouse at the south west corner'. [Harold Duxbury once told me that if privies were built outside the main building they were not subject to local rates, perhaps the directors had only just realised this. Harold also thought that this was an incentive to manufacturers to place them outside as this was seen to be more hygienic, to put it bluntly, they smelled awful. One wonders why the architect, Mr Atkinson, hadn't realised this.]
In addition to the bucket toilets there appear to have been urinals as well for the men. On February 1st 1899, 'Res. That the urinal in Holden’s warehouse be connected with the new drain if practicable'. This raises the question in my mind as to what the existing disposal method was. From other entries it looks as though it was a simple pipe to a soak-away outside. I leave it to you to imagine what the standard of hygiene was, certainly far lower than would be acceptable today. There are frequent references to complaints from the BUDC Sanitary Inspector asking for improvements particularly after revisions to the Factories Acts.
As late as September 5th 1906 we find, 'Res. That Mr Bennett, BUDC surveyor, be requested to empty the closets at Calf Hall Shed on Saturday afternoon in future'. Even though some toilets had been upgraded to tipplers in the other mills the original pail toilets at Calf Hall were still being used and the smell caused by emptying them in working hours was a problem, remember that Saturday morning working was the norm. Eventually they were converted to 'tipplers', these were a primitive water carriage toilet with an intermittent automatic flush. This got rid of the smell when emptying the pails but introduced another problem, blockages.
On September 1st 1897, 'Res. That notices with respect to the throwing of waste or other materials into the closets which might injure the tipplers be printed on tin and affixed in the closets at Wellhouse Mill'. This is an interesting one. It’s a clash between the ethos of the manufacturers and that of the CHSC. At this time weavers were very tightly controlled as to how much waste yarn they generated. All waste had to be taken into the warehouse and inspected by the clothlookers to determine whether it was legitimate waste like yarn package ends or culpable waste like 'stabbed cops' [Carelessly mounted mule cops on the spike in the shuttle. They had no paper or wooden centre.] which were a sign of bad work by the weaver. Persistent production of avoidable waste could eventually lead to a weaver being dismissed so they developed strategies for clandestine disposal. Ernie Roberts once told me that in his weaving days he used to go into work thin and go out fat because he stuffed stabbed cops in his shirt and took them home to burn on the fire. Another way to get rid of waste was to throw it in the water closets and this resulted in blockages which were the responsibility of the CHSC and not the manufacturers whose policies generated the problem. I had similar problems at Bancroft Shed in the 1970s, not with weaving waste but with the advent of paper knickers! We also know from this entry that the closets were tippler toilets which were normally flushed by domestic waste water, one wonders where this came from in the mill. On February the 10th 1904 we find, 'That tenders be invited from Varley, Barrett, Smith, Brooks and Brown for a ½” water supply to Council standard from certain points to the tipplers as pointed out by Mr Hogarth, engineer at Butts'.
The pail toilets survived until a surprisingly late date. On July 13th 1939 we find this entry, 'Correspondence from BUDC was referred to concerning the conversion of pail toilets to water closets in Butts Cottage and Calf Hall Yard. Res. That the council be authorised to convert the toilet at Butts Cottage and also the closet in Calf Hall yard providing that they would connect the Calf Hall closet to the company's own water supply'. The pail toilets were by then obsolete and the council were withdrawing the night soil service. One small insight into this which demonstrates how misleading assumptions can be. It would be quite natural to assume that this meant that no night soil would be collected under any circumstances. Not so, the night soil tanker was still making its regular rounds in Barlick as late as the 1980s. They were emptying the downstairs commodes of disabled people who could not climb the stairs to the house toilet.
One last ray of light on this subject. On December 12th 1900, 'Res. That we carry out the Factory Inspector’s suggestions viz. Closets in front of the Laundry at Wellhouse Mill to have painted on one ‘Gentlemen’ and on the other ‘Ladies’'. Only a small matter but did this mean that in the early days these distinctions weren't important? Were they unisex? It's small clues like this that enable us to get a picture of the conditions in the early mills. It is so easy to make false assumptions from our modern frame of reference.
I have another small puzzle about the division of responsibilities in the shed. Until the 1930s the standard method of illuminating the company's sheds was gas lighting from the town's mains. It's clear from the minutes that the original provision and maintenance of gas pipes and the pendant lights was always seen as the responsibility of CHSC, the only time this was deviated from was if a manufacturer needed extra lighting, say for a machine he had moved for his own convenience. Each manufacturer paid for their own gas and this was measured by meters in each portion. As part of the supply system it seems obvious that the provision of these meters would automatically be down to the company but there are multiple entries in the minutes which show that this was not the case. On September 20th 1905, 'The Craven Manufacturing Co requested the company to supply larger meters in their shed and to rearrange the gas pipes ready for the changes in tenancy. Res. That they be allowed to use the existing meters but any new or larger ones must be provided by themselves'. In later years all meters were the property of the supply company.
As in so much research into old records, a nil return can often indicate a possible fact. There is no mention anywhere in the minutes of the replacement of gas mantles. Given the director's partiality for recording minutiae I have always taken this as an indication that the manufacturers replaced their own.
The standard finish for the brick lined walls inside the shed and warehouse and all the plastered ceilings was whitewash. The Board of Trade Factory Inspector was usually the arbiter of when this was done and he was also very keen on the boiler and engine houses, the standard seems to have been to whitewash or wash down once a year. Exterior painting of woodwork seems to have been at the company's discretion.
There was another use of whitewash which was always seen as the responsibility of the company. A classic north light shed didn't suffer from direct sunlight through the windows and so there was no problem from this source in terms of shed temperature in summer. However, this orientation meant that the matt grey roof slates received full sun and could get very hot. This heat was radiated into the windows opposite and it was common practice to whitewash the exterior of the window glass early in June to cut down on transmission of this heat into the shed. This was always a CHSC responsibility as they were seen to be responsible for shed temperatures and ventilation. Interestingly, apart from calls for better ventilation, especially in tape rooms, high shed temperatures in summer very rarely caused complaint. One gets the impression that the manufacturers realised that this was an Act of God and that the company couldn't do a lot about it.
This was definitely not the case with heating in the winter. Before we look at the minute book entries we should understand the special circumstances that applied to heating cotton weaving sheds. As a general rule, cotton processing is most efficient at the temperature and humidity in which it was grown. It was a very experienced cotton spinner who told me this and he reckoned that a good average was seventy degrees Fahrenheit and more than seventy percent humidity, this held true for weaving as well. The big problem in the sheds was that any direct form of heating like fan-assisted thermoliers tended to dry the warps and cause them to weave badly. Low level heating pipes were an unacceptable obstruction and the universal solution until the end of the weaving industry was a network of two inch steam pipes suspended just below the ceiling and supplied with steam at boiler pressure. Under this system some heat was radiated downwards but most of it rose by convection to roof level, the coldest part of the shed. The consequence was that it was a very inefficient system. I have spent more hours than I care to remember during winter steaming a shed from midnight onwards and watching the shed temperature actually fall for the first couple of hours as the hot air rising forced the cold air under the ceiling down to floor level. The Factories Acts varied over the years, as far as I am aware there was no requirement for a minimum temperature before the Factory Act of 1901. Regulation 5 decreed that the minimum temperature should be 50F but allowed half an hour after starting for this temperature to be reached. In 1918 the regulation was changed to not less than 50F at starting time (6am) and at least 55F by 6:30am. The temperature should not fall below 55F at any time during the day. The regulations were voluntary until 1929 when they became compulsory and were still at that level when I was running Bancroft Shed in the 1970s. Despite all these regulations over the years the weavers still complained and the engineer strove for economy.
Heating was a very heavy load on the boiler. To give a rough idea, the consumption of coal at Bancroft Shed when I was engineer was thirteen tons a week in summer and up to thirty five in winter, the difference being entirely due to increased heat losses. The consequence was that unless a mill was very well equipped with steam raising capacity, steam for the heating system had to be cut back or stopped completely once the engine was started and the process steam demand for the tapes came on line. In the case of CHSC, because of the constant expansion of the sheds, steam raising capacity always lagged behind demand. I don't think there is a single year in which there were not repeated complaints from the manufacturers in all three mills as soon as the weather became colder. I've noticed that it was only in exceptional cases that the factory inspector intervened, I have an idea that they recognised the faults inherent in the system and that pressure from them could not make any difference. The problem retreated to some degree later in the CHSC history because they had to install additional higher pressure boilers to meet the power requirements imposed by adding extensions to the sheds. When this happened the usual method adopted was to dedicate the new high pressure boiler to the engine and use the lower rated old boiler for process and heating steam. Later on the load on the engines decreased as loom numbers fell and the high pressure boilers could cope with both loads.
You will notice that in this overview of the relationship between the tenants and CHSC I haven't addressed the question of rent in detail. There is a lot of detailed information and it needs a dedicated chapter. However, I may have done enough to fill in some of the gaps, describe some of the everyday problems and give a clearer context in which the rental structure can be understood. Before we look at that in detail, we need to examine another aspect of the management of the mills. The directors' understanding of technology.

Image

The 1200 loom weaving shed at Bancroft Shed in 1977. Essentially, nothing had changed since the end of the 19th century except that the original gas pendants are now electric lights. You can see the cross shafts and individual belt drives to each loom and the two inch steam heating pipes above the looms.

Image

Night soil men in King Street Barnoldswick in 1982.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

THE CHSC AND TECHNOLOGY

One of the fundamental requisites for success in designing and running a steam-driven mill is to manage the technology of the plant in the most efficient and economical manner. Reduced to the barest essential, the business of a shed company was to produce rotative power for their tenants by burning coal. The CHSC directors had to be either renaissance men or have access to the best advice. We have seen that the promoters came from non-engineering backgrounds and it is a safe assumption that they must have had good advice in the early days of the company. One wouldn't expect a baker, jeweller or furniture dealer to be an expert in company formation, the same holds true for technology. Small things like the misspelling of common technical terms by the minute-taker betray occasions when he was out of his depth. In modern terms we would say that they were on a very steep learning curve and the question I want to address is how they managed this situation, what were their sources of advice and how good were they.
The first technical decision they had to make was what type of textile mill they wanted to run. Was it to be the old model of a combined mill or did they want to specialise. They had enough examples both in Barlick and further afield to be quite certain that specialised weaving was the future. The next hurdle was the level of technology in the design of the building and the type of motive power. Here they were well advised first by their architect Mr Atkinson of Colne and also by the experience of the men who I think were their main advisers, George Robinson of the Craven Bank and George Proctor who had extensive experience from his role as secretary to other shed companies. I don't think I have to defend this statement in respect of George Proctor because of his intimate involvement with similar firms but you may wish to question my faith in George Robinson as an arbiter on technical matters, he was a bank manager, not an engineer.
We have good evidence to justify this assertion. On March 12th 1890, 'It was proposed by Proctor Barrett and seconded by Edward Smith that the Calf Hall Shed Company Ltd purchase the Wellhouse Mill for the sum of £8000 on the terms offered by Mr George Robinson'. After only a year of trading, expansion was to be effected by buying Bracewell's old mill which had stood empty for over three years. [Note that the bank sold Butts in the same year.] The question that arises is why were Butts and Wellhouse empty and unsold in a climate of buoyant demand for weaving space? George Robinson clearly knew the answer and also the solution. As Bracewell and Sons' banker he had watched the decline of their interests and knew that the days of the combined mill were over. Further, he evidently knew that one of the contributory factors was the old-fashioned power plant. The boilers were all Cornish single flue and the engines were unmodified Yates beam engines over fifty years old. The sale price of Wellhouse Mill quoted in the minutes is £8,000 but it soon becomes apparent that there were conditions imposed. Before the mill was transferred to the company the old engines were to be scrapped by the bank and CHSC had to agree to install a modern horizontal engine. The new engine demanded higher steam pressure and it was implicit in the deal that new boilers also would be required. It was quite obvious that these had to be the later, twin-flued Lancashire boilers. George Robinson was forcing CHSC to modernise.
Again, on January 23rd 1903, 'That we purchase from the Butts Mill Company Ltd the Butts Mill and Ouzledale Mill for £19,000. This consideration to include all loose effects with the exception of new stores and coal'. In the case of Butts, George Robinson had done exactly the same thing in 1889 before the sale of the mill in 1890 to the new Butts Mill Company for £8,000. He scrapped all the engines forcing the purchasers to buy and install a second-hand Musgrave horizontal engine and modern boilers. Hence the £11,000 rise in the value of the property.
It isn't hard to understand the bank's motives in pursuing this policy. There was a possibility that were going to have to accept a charge on the properties as security for loans to the buyers. It was in the bank's interest to make sure that if they became liquidator they had modern well-equipped mills to sell, they had been trying to sell the unmodified mills for three years in what should have been a seller's market. This is why I assert that George Robinson, even though he was not an engineer, was well qualified in 1888 to advise the CHSC on basic technology.
This disposes of the question of the initial advice to CHSC on formation. The next thing to address is what, if any, resources were available for further technical advice and services. I need to step back here and look at the role played in Barlick by the Bracewell hegemony. The management of the mills wasn't the only sphere in which it had been a dead hand on progress.
In the early domestic textile industry the crude looms and spinning wheels could be made and serviced by local carpenters and blacksmiths. Even a big concern like the corn mill could be maintained using these local resources. The development of the waterframe by Arkwright introduced the need for iron foundries to make small castings and clockmakers to cut the gears. In accounts of early engineering, the term 'wheel-maker' almost always refers to people who could manufacture gears. The advent of the water-powered factory system demanded another skill, the millwrights capable of heavy manufacture and fitting who made the water wheels and transmission systems. In Baines directories for 1822 and 1823 John Bracewell of Bancrofts is reported as 'millwright of Barnoldswick', I think this the John Bracewell born 1782 who, in White's directory for 1837 is reported as a cotton spinner at the water twist mill at Gillians. This is the only reference to the early engineers in Barlick I have found. After 1800 when steam engines became available the boiler-making industry was born and engineers were needed to build and maintain a new generation of prime movers. In the early days plant maintenance was done by the engine and boiler makers, they were the only people with the skills and the necessary machining capacity.
We have no evidence for who serviced the first engines in Barnoldswick at Clough, County Brook and old Coates Mill, all installed before 1830, we aren't even sure who the engine makers were or where they were based. The lack of specific evidence suggests that the early service industry in Barlick consisted only of carpenters, blacksmiths and tinsmiths leaving heavy maintenance to the engine and boiler makers. All this began to change after William Bracewell erected the first purpose-built steam powered mills at Butts and Wellhouse in 1846 and 1853.
We know that in his early career after he left home in Earby, William Bracewell moved to Burnley and went into partnership with his brother-in-law Samuel Smallpage who had married his sister Mary. He was primarily interested in cotton manufacturing but built up local contacts and in about 1860 he went into partnership with a man called Griffiths and bought the Marsland Ironworks, Burnley, built in 1817. Griffiths dropped out of the partnership shortly afterwards. On William’s death in 1885 this asset was sold for £20,000 and became The Burnley Ironworks, we shall meet them frequently in the CHSC minutes.
When William first saw an opportunity, shifted his attention to Barlick and built his mills in 1846 and 1853 he equipped them with Yates beam engines built in Blackburn and presumably used the same firm for his maintenance and service requirements. These early engines had faults and it may have been the expense of using the engine makers for maintenance that prompted his move into engineering in Burnley in 1860. Marsland's might even have been doing engine repairs for him, they were closer than Blackburn. He still had the technical problems but at least he wasn't allowing someone else to profit from his misfortunes. Marsland's were engine makers when he bought the firm and after 1860 the firm built some very large engines so he had his heavy engineering resource. Incidentally, his access to engineering expertise may have been what prompted him to re-boiler Butts Mill in March 1862 during the slack trade caused by the Cotton Famine. [Evidence of Richard Ryley's diary March 22nd 1862.]
In addition he established a mechanic's shop at Wellhouse Mill and found a good engineer, Peter Bilsborough. Bilsborough had an assistant called Shepherd and these two men were his local resource, only calling in the Burnley men when the job was beyond their capacity. This must have been a satisfactory arrangement because it remained in place until the collapse of Bracewells in 1886/87. At that point Peter Bilsborough stepped sideways and became a coal merchant based in the station yard at Barlick, he was to become a major supplier of fuel to the CHSC for many years. There is some anecdotal evidence that Shepherd attempted to carry on as an engineer based at Wellhouse but never made a success of it. The result of the typical Bracewell strategy of owning and controlling his technical resources was that there was no incentive for independent local engineers to get a foothold. The nearest we had got to this by the end of the 19th century was a small firm of general engineers and smiths serving the Earby branch of the Bracewell family, Henry Brown and Sons in Albion Street in Earby but they were not capable of tackling the heaviest repairs.
In terms of engine maintenance resources and technical expertise, in 1889 CHSC had the same problem as Bracewell in 1846 and had to use the same resource, go back to the engine makers. The 1889 Calf Hall engine was built by William Roberts of Phoenix Foundry at Nelson and the new Wellhouse engine by Burnley Ironworks, Bracewell's old firm. From the minutes it becomes obvious that Burnley Ironworks became the favoured firm for maintenance because on September 22nd 1897 we find, 'That the Burnley Ironworks Co be requested to send Mr W Clegg to indicate and overhaul the [Roberts] engine at Calf Hall Shed and that Messrs Roberts, Brooks, Edmondson and Wilkinson form a deputation to meet him'. From this point onwards, until a better solution was found, CHSC used BI for most of their heavy engine repairs. They also used two Skipton firms, Varley's and Ellison's for some heavy castings and millwright's work.
On May 10th 1899 we find, 'That new brackets be made for the air pump [part of the condenser on the engine] at Wellhouse by the new mechanic'. This 'new mechanic' is a man called Sutcliffe who rented the Mechanic's Shop at Wellhouse, the directors have addressed the gap in their service facilities and encouraged this new starter on their premises. This was the same strategy adopted by William Bracewell for small engineering jobs but using his own men. On March 14th 1900 we find, 'That the Mechanic’s Shop be offered to Henry Brown of Earby at the same rent as the present tenant, £25 per annum'. Sutcliffe had failed but Henry Brown’s uncle, John Duxbury of Crook Carr Farm in Barlick, was a shareholder in the CHSC, he has had a quiet word with Henry and tipped him off that the Mechanic’s Shop at Wellhouse Mill was coming vacant. Henry took the tenancy and in 1908 engaged a local man called John Albert Pickles as foreman at Wellhouse, he had worked as a skilled machinist at BI after serving his apprenticeship in Brown's shop at Earby. Johnny Pickles was a master engineer and becomes very important to CHSC. I have no direct evidence but I know that Henry Brown Senior was well-regarded in the profession, it was on his recommendation that BI took Johnny on as a machinist. Henry Brown knew where to go for a good man in 1908 and I think Teddy Wood at Proctor and Proctor was also involved in the same circles and knew of Johnny before his move to Henry Brown and Sons. I can't say who instigated the appointment but I don't doubt it was seen by CHSC as a good development.

Image

Young John Albert Pickles as an apprentice to Henry Brown in his Earby shop.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

On October 16th 1929 we find, 'It was reported that H Brown and Sons had filed their petition in bankruptcy. The rent owed by them had been cleared by contra account'. By this time Henry Brown and Sons had developed into a firm capable of dealing with the heaviest breakdowns and had built a new foundry at Havre Park to replace the Ouzledale tenancy. By encouraging them and Johnny Pickles who was the driving force that lifted Brown's game the directors had nurtured an efficient local engineering asset. The immediate result of Brown's failure was that the CHSC had lost this valuable resource.
At this point in the CHSC story Teddy Wood, George Proctor's partner, takes a lead role. As well as being a competent secretary, director and eventually chairman of CHSC he also had a keen interest in technology. He and Johnny Pickles were friends, respected each other and between them they were an excellent technical resource for the company. I suspect that Teddy first met Johnny when he was working at Burnley Ironworks. Brown's 'failure' was not really a failure as they paid out 19/6 in the pound after liquidation, more a crisis of confidence caused by the Marsden Building Society withdrawing credit in hard financial times. However, at one stroke CHSC had lost their local engineer and his essential foundry. What followed is an excellent example of enlightened management.
Teddy Wood went to see Johnny at his home in Federation Street and on November 20th 1929 we find, 'That the plant recently in the ownership of H Brown and Sons (In bankruptcy) be purchased from R S Windle, the trustee, for £425 and that it be loaned on hire purchase to a company to be formed, at 6% instalments to be paid monthly over a period of five years'. From the evidence of Newton Pickles, Johnny's son, what actually happened was that Teddy told Johnny to go down to the mechanic's shop and put a chalk mark on the machines he wished to retain. When Teddy saw that Johnny had marked almost everything he recommended that the directors buy the lot. This 'company to be formed' was J A Pickles and Son, it rented the Mechanic's Shop at the same rent paid by Browns and went on to become one of the most respected engineering firms in the district, outliving the CHSC. Before this overture from Teddy Wood, Johnny Pickles had raised a £500 loan from his aunt in Kelbrook, called in favours from his friends and was going to start up independently. The CHSC initiative was obviously the better bet so he took it.
There remained the problem of the foundry, an essential resource in the technology of the time. Henry Brown had rented Ouzledale Foundry from CHSC and ran it in partnership with a man called Watts who was the ironfounder. After WW1 Watts left the partnership and Henry engaged a young man from Keighley called James Cecil Ashby as foreman founder. In 1920 Brown's had bought land at Havre Park,erected a new foundry and moved their casting operation down there. In 1929 when Henry Brown and Sons failed at Havre Park James Cecil was out of a job. Teddy Wood went to see him and encouraged him to restart Ouzledale Foundry on his own account. I once asked Harold Duxbury why there was no evidence of this action in the CHSC accounts at the time and he said that CHSC had allowed James to take over the foundry rent free and rather than complicate the accounts they simply ignored the matter until the enterprise became profitable enough to pay rent. The company had taken a pragmatic decision and nurtured another essential resource, this was not charity it was good business. The success of the strategy can best be assessed by looking in any modern trade directory, you will find that the Ouzledale Foundry is still a major company in Barlick albeit on a larger site at Long Ing. The fact that we still have this asset in the town is a direct consequence of the CHSC's management strategies in 1929.
I think it's worth noting that there is no hint in the minutes of any discussions about these two initiatives but there can be little doubt that they happened, were agreed quickly and any necessary resolutions recorded. This informal process was an important part of the management of the company, we know the facts behind this incident from other sources. Newton told me that Teddy Wood told his father that 'he couldn't be doing with him not being able to work on all these mills” Teddy had other Proctor and Proctor interests in mind as well as CHSC. We are safe in assuming that similar discussions, informal intelligence and assurances lie behind much of the evidence we see recorded in the minutes.
Mechanical engineering wasn't the only area of technology where the company needed expertise. On April 27th 1892 we find. 'That the secretary write to Burnley Ironworks reporting an article on putting composition in boiler'. It would appear that the directors were aware of an advance in the science of boiler feed water treatment and were seeking advice from a reliable source. This is the tip of an extremely large iceberg and we need to make sure we know what is involved.
Boiling water in an enclosed vessel to make high pressure steam is dangerous and demands expert management and supervision. In the early days of steam boilers they exploded with distressing frequency. As was often the case at that time, Manchester, being the centre of the region where most boilers were operating, was a pioneer in addressing the problem. In 1854 a man called Williamson owned Bridgefield Mill in Rochdale and in September of that year the boiler exploded killing 10 workers, one of whom was the engineer, William Taylor. At the subsequent inquest, William Fairbairn, the Manchester engineer who first proposed the twin flued Lancashire boiler, was called as an expert witness and in the course of his investigations found that the cause of the disaster was that Taylor, knowing the engine was always short of steam, had placed weights on the safety valve to raise the pressure. Normally, the boiler never reached this limit as the engine kept the pressure down but on the morning in question it had stopped unexpectedly. While the plant was idle, pressure rose, the safety valve didn't operate and the boiler burst. It was the Bridgefield Mill explosion that finally convinced Fairbairn that boilers had to be better supervised in the interests of profit and safety. On the 19 September 1854 the Mayor of Manchester called a meeting in his Parlour at Manchester Town Hall with some of the of the most eminent engineers and manufacturers in Manchester and they formed the Manchester Steam Users Association which in turn heralded the birth of the great engineering insurance companies which are still supervising boilers to this day.
Thanks to this initiative, by the time CHSC entered the field they had a reliable source of insurance, inspection and advice on the technical aspects of boiler operation. Once a year there had to be a statutory inspection and the insurance companies encouraged their surveyors to make unannounced occasional visits. Just like your domestic kettle, a boiler builds up scale on the internal surfaces and the amount depends on the the cleanliness and chemical composition of the water pumped into the boiler to keep the water level up as steam is produced. The inspectors would report and criticise on any dangerous build up of scale in the boilers but didn't officially advise on chemical treatments as this would be a tacit acceptance of responsibility.
All the CHSC boilers were fed with surface water from condenser ponds containing insoluble matter which was precipitated as sediment and soluble elements which dissolved in the water and were deposited as scale particularly on surfaces directly heated by hot furnace gases. The first reference we find to this matter is on February 24th 1891, 'That Mr William Perry supply a cask of soda for Calf Hall Shed boiler'. This is before the enquiry was made of BI that we noted above. All I can say is that while we must give the directors credit for recognising the problem we can give no marks for their solution, adding soda is a very crude strategy and virtually useless. On September 15th 1897 we find, 'The secretary read the report of the Scottish Boiler insurance Co on the state of the company’s boilers. The report stated that on all the boilers large accumulations of scale had been made through neglect and also that several parts of the boilers were corroded and required attention'. I will not bore you with a full range of reports in the minutes but I can assure you that on occasions scale over ¾” thick was reported. This is a dangerous level because it can insulate the furnace tubes from the cooling effect of the water allowing them to become red hot, lose integrity and fail catastrophically. It also reduces the efficiency of the boiler and increases coal consumption. Various suppliers are tried and on September 6th 1916 we find, 'That the next barrel of boiler composition for Butts Mill be ordered from Charles Southwell, 57 Dale Street, Manchester'. The reason this entry caught my eye was that this firm supplied me with boiler composition at Bancroft Shed sixty years later. The longevity of the firm was due to its expertise, they recognised very early that the key to successful water treatment was to analyse the water and tailor the treatment to suit the individual boiler and water supply. Unfortunately this initiative was never followed up and right through the minutes we see occasional changes in supplier, it wasn't until after WW2 that the search for the perfect boiler composition appears to have been concluded.
A similar general problem can be found in the selection and sourcing of cylinder oil for the engines. The oil used to lubricate steam engine cylinders is specialised because it has to retain its lubricating qualities at high pressure and temperatures as well as withstanding the emulsifying effect of water which is always present with saturated steam. This becomes even more important if the steam is superheated to improve engine efficiency and gain more power. The strategy of superheated steam was adopted at both Butts [Oct. 27th 1915] and Wellhouse [Nov. 9th 1927] but there is no indication that a different oil was used. Newton Pickles, Johnny's son, told me that this was very common and they had to rebore many high pressure cylinders that had worn because of inadequate lubrication under superheated steam.
I often wonder how influential the mill engineers of the town were and whether the frequent changes in oil and boiler composition suppliers in the early days can be explained by conversations in the Commercial Inn on Church Street where that elite of the working class aristocracy, the engineers, gathered for a pint. These informal groups of senior workers were common and influential, I have evidence of the same being true of overlookers and winding masters in the mill forming similar loose associations. When I took over the engine at Bancroft shed I found that a high temperature oil used in foundries called 'core oil' was being used for cylinder lubrication. When I asked the old engineer why he used it he told me that his engineer mates in Colne had recommended it as being efficient and cheap. It may have been cheap but it was totally unsuitable for cylinder lubrication. The interesting thing is that before I made any change after taking over the engine I consulted with the engineer on a large colliery winding engine and he told me that Walker's Century Oils from Stoke on Trent supplied all the National Coal Board winding engines so I persuaded the management to change over to the more expensive but correct oil. They in turn were impressed by the fact that an organisation as big as the NCB used it. Incidentally, it was the same engineer that recommended Southwell's of Manchester for the boiler composition. In both cases I was fully satisfied, my directors realised the benefits and we used the same suppliers until the mill closed in 1978. All this was due to my informal network. We should take note of one other possible influence. I have reliable evidence that the engineer at Victoria Mill in Earby rose from his bed of sickness to collect his Christmas Boxes from suppliers. Never discount the effect of a backhander to the engineer who controlled the orders!
In the matter of lubrication the CHSC was not best served by the engine makers because it was in their long term interest to have regular re-boring jobs or even replacement of cylinders. I have often noted that engines in their original condition usually have totally inadequate lubrication of the low pressure cylinders and I suspect that this may have been a semi-deliberate policy.
From 1900 onwards the directors had the resource of Henry Brown's engineering experience and used it. However Henry was never an engine man and it wasn't until Johnny Pickles established his reputation after 1908 that we detect improvements which, whilst it was never noted in the minutes, stemmed from conversations between Teddy Wood and Johnny. They were personal friends and Teddy used Johnny's expertise for the other mills that Proctor and Proctor acted for. On September 25th 1918 we find, 'He [Teddy Wood] also gave particulars of the proposed alterations to heating at Butts Mill and Calf Hall Shed which will probably cost in the region of £350 to £500'. This is almost certainly the installation of a condensate return system to collect the pure, pretreated and hot resource of condensed water from the heating mains which had previously been allowed to run to waste and return it to the boiler. Johnny Pickles was a firm advocate of this efficient strategy and I have evidence from his son Newton that in later years he sold many such installations to mill owners by offering to do the work free in return for half the savings in coal for a specified number of years, it always worked! By 1910, twenty years after the formation of CHSC the directors had the beginnings of an adequate technical support system in place.
Hindsight is perfect vision, we shouldn't be too hard on the directors for any technical failings. In most cases they were not only dealing with their own lack of knowledge but with rapidly advancing technology. This applied to their engineers as well. Ideally the engine tenter should always have been an able man abreast of the latest developments but we have many examples in the minutes of their inadequacy in the early years. Simple tasks like indicating the engine, taking up wear in bearings and valve-setting were delegated to the engine makers at great expense when they should have been done by the engineer.

Image

Charlie Southwell testing the boiler water at Bancroft on one of his regular visits in 1976. He liked coming himself because of the engine and the fact that he and I got on so well together.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

This may be the place to flag up a circumstance which was not peculiar to the CHSC, it was a national problem. The surprising reality is that even today there is no formal qualification for operating land-based boilers and engines. At sea the qualifications are very strict and a Marine Engineer’s Certificate is a very valuable qualification, in the days of steam ship-propulsion the boiler insurance companies actively recruited marine engineers for this reason. In 1897 there was a Bill in Parliament [60 Vict. Steam engines and Boilers. (Persons in charge)] to apply marine regulations to land based plant (excepting agricultural and those in the Queen's service) but it was withdrawn on July 12th because the session had run out of time due to a state visit so we inherited a situation where two men are working in the boiler house and engine house producing vast quantities of power to run the mill with no formal qualification. This applied to all mills, the only qualification was ability and experience. Add to this the fact that the 'engine tenter' was seen to have the best job in the mill and this explains why so many of these jobs passed from father to son. Firebeaters and engineers were quite literally born into the job and this was not necessarily the best training. We have evidence from the minutes to support this assertion.
On May 23rd 1923 we find, 'It was reported that the engine man at Butts Mill, Albert Hogarth, was intending to send in his resignation on Friday May 25th to terminate his connection with the company by one week's notice, to finish on June 1st. Res. That his resignation be accepted and that Charles Watson be appointed engine man in his place at the same wage. George Henry Watson, his father [engineer at Wellhouse Mill], attended the meeting and undertook to be responsible for his son's behaviour'. [This is the culmination of a long laid plan, George Henry has been bringing Charles on as a firebeater and oiler and training him to look after the engine.] On August 1st 1923 we find, 'It was reported during the meeting that Butts Mill engine was stopped for breakdown. That the Wellhouse engineer, George Henry Watson, be asked to take charge at Butts and that his son be transferred from Butts to take charge at Wellhouse'.
I know from Newton Pickles that what had happened was that Charlie Watson had been careless and got a slug of water in the engine which cracked the LP piston. This cylinder was 56” in diameter and the piston was a big lump weighing two tons so Charlie was fortunate it didn't smash the cylinder as well, a very serious mistake. Henry Brown and Sons were given the job of making a new piston and installing it. It was the biggest casting they had poured at Havre Park up to then [By 1923 Browns had moved their foundry from Ouzledale to the new premises.] and Newton remembers his mother taking him to the foundry at 2am to see it. The glow in the sky was mistaken for a fire and the fire brigade turned out. Dennis Pickles, no relation, machined the piston and it was installed successfully. This was a major step forward for Henry Brown and Sons, they had proved that they had the skill and resources to rectify a major breakdown, machining a 56” diameter piston would be seen to be a big job even today.
A year later on September 17th 1924 we find, 'It was reported that a new set of brass steps [bearings] had been ordered by the engineer at Wellhouse Mill for the crank [flywheel] shaft without consulting the managing director and that he had been running hot, using water on the bearings for a week previously'. [This is young Charlie in trouble again, these are big lumps of brass.] On November 26th 1924, 'It was reported that the engine man at Wellhouse Mill was not giving satisfaction and that at a meeting of tenants the secretary had been informed that the engine had not been running at proper speed for some time. During the meeting it was reported that Wellhouse Mill was stopped due to want of steam. Res. That the engine man be discharged forthwith and that the managing directors be authorised to engage a new man at a wage of £4-5-0 per week. That in the meantime Henry Brown and Sons be requested to take charge of the running of Wellhouse Mill engine. Mr Pickles attended the meeting and undertook the management'. [Notice that Johnny was there immediately. Was it him that brought the news?]
This is a sad story of ambition thwarted and hopes dashed. One wonders what passed between George Henry and his son, the old man would take this personally. Shortly after this series of events Teddy Wood presented the directors with a list of jobs needed on the Wellhouse engine and Henry Brown and Sons were given the work. I have little doubt that while he was running the engine Johnny made a little list and got together with Teddy, in that respect the system was working. Note that as well as having Henry Brown and Sons as providers of heavy engineering services, they had a resource if they needed an engine tenter at short notice. Newton Pickles spent a large part of his working life running engines when the regular engineer was sick or disabled and did the same for me in the 1970s at Bancroft Shed.
To complete the story of Wellhouse engine, on December 24th 1924, 'That the appointment by the managing director of Mr William Watson [No relation] of 57 Halifax Road Rochdale as engine man at Wellhouse Mill at £4-5-0 per week be confirmed'.
Billy Watson was to prove a brilliant appointment and was engineer at Wellhouse until 1940 when he left to go back to a large Rochdale engine and Tom Marshall took over. Newton Pickles learned his engine tenting from Billy, he was eight years old in 1924 and he called in at the engine house every morning on his way to school, Billy soon had him running the engine and starting it after breakfast time. If he was valve-setting in an evening Newton was with him, Wellhouse was in good hands.
This may be the place for a story which sheds light on the informal nature of the structure of the engineering service industry at the time. One Monday morning in 1930, shortly after Johnny had set up on his own at Wellhouse Mechanic's shop he grabbed Newton one morning and said “Come with me, they're stopped at Clough”. Newton was 14 years old and this was part of his on the job training. When they arrived at Clough engine house two of Johnny's experienced men were trying to start the engine after working on the valve gear over the weekend. Every time they applied steam to the engine it rolled over half a turn and bounced back. After several more adjustments and ineffectual starts a small voice piped up from the back row, “It never will start will it. The valves aren't set properly!”
This was the 14 year old Newton and of course his interjection sparked a furious row, how dare this kid walk in and tell them they didn't know their job! Harry Crabtree, the more experienced of the two fitters said “Hang on a minute, let's hear what Newton has to say. We aren't getting anywhere”. Newton took Harry down to the low pressure eccentric and showed him what he had spotted while watching them trying to start, the eccentric had been slackened as part of the repairs and re-tightened 180 degrees out of position because the fitters hadn't noticed that a rocking lever in the drive train to the valves reversed the rod movement. The eccentric was put back to the original position, the steam valve opened and off she went, “Ticky Tock” as Newton put it. At this point Johnny shoved his bowler hat to the back of his head and said “Right, that's it. I won't be coming out to breakdowns any more, you'd best send for Newton!” The surprising thing is that this is exactly what happened. Newton was sent to do the initial diagnosis whenever there was trouble with an engine and the only problem he had in the early days before his expertise became generally known was getting grizzled old engineers to realise that sending a fourteen year old lad to advise on engine running wasn't a joke! Nothing I know demonstrates the reliance on experience and expertise rather than formal qualification better than this story.
There is one other technical matter I want to draw attention to as an example of where hindsight can be so dangerous. In this case I know exactly what should have been done but it may not have been quite so obvious at the time. Do you remember me saying that the Butts Mill Company installed a second-hand Musgrave engine from Bolton when they bought the mill from the bank? This engine was universally disliked by everyone I have talked to about it. It was too big, ran too slow and had gearing problems from when it was installed in 1890 until 1934 when CHSC eventually stopped the mill because of bad trade in the weaving industry.
One of the things CHSC found when they bought Butts in 1903 was that the transmission shafting in the mill gave constant trouble. I suspect the basic cause was vibration in the shafting emanating from the gear drive on the engine. Both Calf Hall and Wellhouse engines were installed using the modern method of cotton rope driving from the engine to the second motion pulley on the lineshaft into the mill, Geoff Shackleton thinks that Calf Hall was the first Roberts engine built using this method. Cotton rope gearing never gave any problems with vibration as the ropes were a cushioned drive. The Musgrave engine at Butts had been designed using the earlier principle of a large jack gear mounted in the side of the flywheel meshing with a lesser diameter gear on the lineshaft. Properly made and with accurately made gears this is a perfectly acceptable and trouble-free way of transmitting power. The similar size Roberts engine at Pendle Street mill in Nelson was built in 1892 with machine cut double helical [herring bone pattern] gears and never gave any problem. However, the Musgrave had old fashioned cast iron gearing and the teeth were as cast. Gears made like this can be very good if properly made and installed but unfortunately, as it turned out, there was almost nothing right about the Musgrave gearing at Butts. The Yates engine at Long Ing used the same drive and had similar problems.
Let's have a look at the evidence from the minute books: July 15th 1903, 'That Messrs Ellison and Co be requested to overhaul the shafting and report on the piston at Butts Mill and get a tender for the work'. [I think Ellison's of Skipton had been given this task because they were associated with maintenance of the Musgrave engine for the Butts Mill Co and understand the problem from experience. For instance, they may have stripped the piston out at some time for inspection, there is no point repeating such a major task if it can be avoided.]
On April 13th 1904, 'That Messrs Slater, Brooks and Dent form a committee to examine the driving wheel and spur wheel of the engine at Butts Mill as to their condition'. April 20th 1904, 'That Messrs Ellison of Skipton be requested to chip the cogs in the flywheel [jack wheel actually] of the Butts Mill engine'.
Being made of cast iron, it was possible to chisel off any high spots on the teeth of the gear in an attempt to quieten it by improving the mesh. This is a very complicated subject, I don't intend to go deep into the technicalities but will quote Newton Pickles on this subject: “You can't chip to pitch”. This means that if there is a fundamental mistake in the original casting of the gear segments resulting in a discrepancy in the Pitch Circle Diameter of the gearing it can't be rectified by chipping, only alleviated, the problem will re-occur. This was the problem with the gears on the Musgrave engine.
On May 8th 1906 , 'That Burnley Ironworks be requested to send a man to chip the main flywheel teeth [the jack wheel] and adjust the main pedestal. April 29th 1908 , 'It was reported that the flywheel needed chipping and it was resolved that Ellison's of Skipton be instructed to put the work in hand. August 16th 1911, 'That Burnley Ironworks be requested to examine the wedges in the flywheel at Butts Mill when next in town'.
These are wedged cotters which secure the joints between the castings which make up the flywheel. It was quite common for them to loosen over time especially if the wheel is subject to vibration, I think we can assume that this is the case with the Musgrave engine because of the faults in the gearing.
December 17th 1913, 'The Burnley Ironworks Co reported on the Butts Mill flywheel as follows: “On December 13th we made an examination of the fly spur wheel and pinion at the above mill and beg to submit the result of same. The teeth, as far as can be seen, are sound but badly worn, the original shape on the driving side being destroyed completely. These require chipping to shape. This is very urgent if you require the wheel to run for long as owing to the jarring action on the teeth all the joints throughout the wheel are moving and wearing. The condition of the arms and segments are as follows: The letters given are those marked on the wheel. Segments G and J are broken. Areas of C, D, E, I, J and L are sprung open at the boss end showing that the cotters are not doing their work properly or the arm ends are broken. This cannot be seen without stripping the wheel. The flywheel keys [stakes] are slack and require taking out, cleaning and re-fixing. The pinion [second motion] appears to be in order with the exception of the teeth which are the same as the fly spur and require chipping. The governor requires overhauling and re-pinning as the majority of the pins are worn. We would advise you to have these faults attended to without delay as the wheel is rapidly becoming worse. Res. That Burnley Ironworks be instructed to do what they deem to be necessary to put the wheel and governor in order'. The directors probably took other advice after this terrible report and on January 7th 1914 we find , 'That Messrs Wilson and Barrett visit Burnley Ironworks with regard to the Butts engine'.
They have a serious problem here. The gearing on the Musgrave was never right and things are coming to a head. There is no direct evidence from the minutes as to how much work BI did on the wheel and in itself this seems to indicate that they did no more than replace some broken gear segments and re-fit the flywheel stakes. They must have done a decent job because the gear and flywheel aren't mentioned again until March 10th 1926, 'That H Brown and Sons be instructed to examine the fly wheel at Butts Mill'. Whatever Browns found was evidently rectified and there is no further mention of the gear in the minutes. However, from what Newton Pickles told me his father kept a close eye on it and no doubt acted immediately he saw a problem developing, the engine ran without further report until finishing in 1934.
I don't want to give the impression that I think the CHSC directors were remiss. They were on a steep learning curve and in this respect they were no worse, and perhaps a lot better, than others in their position. This was certainly the case compared to Long Ing. One of the main shareholders there was George Rushworth from Colne, an engineer and scrap merchant. I have an idea that George saw two routes to profit from his investment, one as a shareholder and the other as their tied engineer. Unfortunately he wasn't as good an engineer as he thought and there is a lot of evidence of breakdowns through bad work. Long Ing wasn't a reliable mill until the late 1930s when Stephen Pickles bought the remaining shares from Rushworth's and got what was by then Henry Brown Sons and Pickles in to sort the plant out. This cured the problems. It's interesting to speculate on whether having an engineer like George Rushworth on the board was an advantage or a liability. Perhaps the lack of engineering expertise on the CHSC board gave greater freedom to find the best solution to a problem.
With hindsight, the most economic action at Butts would have been to bite the bullet in 1903 and replace the defective gears with modern machine cut replacements. I suspect that by the 1930s the directors would have agreed but this is no basis for criticism. In 1903 they were focussing on other aspects of their new mill at Butts. On June 24th 1903 we find, 'The secretary read the correspondence with ref to the Craven Manufacturing Co's tenancy at Butts Mill and gave particulars of the coal consumption at Calf Hall Shed, Wellhouse Mill and Butts Mill. In the case of Butts Mill, for the four months ending May 31st the cost was 15/2 per loom per annum with Monk Bretton coal at 11/6 per ton with 6d for carriage. In the case of running Wellhouse Mill and Calf Hall Shed together the cost was 13/1 per loom per annum with Altham coal at an average price of 11/1 per ton delivered in the boiler houses'. This discrepancy of 2/- per loom per year between Butts and the other mills was a serious matter.
On November 6th 1912, nine years later, 'It was reported that the consumption of Altham coal which was now 14/2 per ton was as follows:
Mill Looms Looms/ton HP Looms per hp
Calf Hall 51½ tons 1659 32.2 738 2 ¼
Butts, 53 tons 1930 36.4 700 2 ¾
Wellhouse 70 tons 2330 33.3 970 2 ½
Interesting figures. Despite being universally disliked the Musgrave at Butts not the most inefficient engine. I think the crucial lesson from these figures, all other things being equal, is that the Butts transmission system is the most efficient. It's taken nine years but the measures adopted at Butts have resulted in an impressive improvement. This was good technical management because despite its inherent problems the engine is as economical as the other mills.
It was no random walk that led CHSC to having George Robinson, George Proctor, Teddy Wood and Johnny Pickles looking after them. We have to conclude that despite any shortcomings, they at least knew how to pick good men.

Image

The new low pressure piston at Butts. By any standards this was a big task and it says a lot about the progress Henry Brown and Son had come under Johnny Pickles as foreman. Note the large gear on the side of the flywheel. This is the cast iron jack wheel that gave all the trouble.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

THE RENTS AND TENANCY AGREEMENTS BEFORE WW2

Bearing in mind that we have already established that any evidence we find in the CHSC minutes on rents and tenancy agreements is almost certainly representative of other shed companies in North East Lancashire, one of the exciting aspects of the evidence to me is that it gives us concrete information about the cost, terms and conditions of the tenancies. Having said this, I must immediately sound a warning note about the levels of rent charged. As we trace the CHSC policies through the course of the minutes we shall come across comparative examples of rents in Colne, Nelson and Burnley which demonstrate that there was a price differential between Barlick and these towns, the Barlick rents were higher.
Anyone who is familiar with the wages structure agreed between the unions and manufacturers in the North East Lancashire textile industry will have come across 'The Uniform List of Prices to be paid to Weavers in the Cotton Manufacturing Industry', often referred to as the 'Blackburn List'. My copy is the famous 1937 edition which contains the adjusted prices after the More Looms agreements subsequent to 1932. On page 52 there is a sub-heading numbered 41 with the title 'Local Disadvantage Allowances'. These were deductions from the Standard List wages allowed to manufacturers for 'local disadvantage' as prescribed by the industrial courts. These varied over the years but in effect they were recognition that manufacturers in towns which were outliers from the main industry were under a local disadvantage because of higher costs and could therefore make a reduction in wages to maintain profitability. We need go no further into the Uniform List but it is worth noting that the rates are incredibly complicated and it was often said that a union official who had grasped the data and knew how to interpret it was the ideal man to have as a senior administrator, if he could understand the list he was a top man. What concerns us is that the concept of Local Disadvantage was accepted and well understood by the industry.
The Barlick manufacturers used local disadvantage to modify the weaver's wages. The shed companies used the same mechanism to modify rents, the essential point being that this meant they were higher. Just as the weavers resented a reduction in wage, the tenants were not happy with higher rents and we come across many instances of protest against this. At the moment I simply want to flag up for readers that whilst the tenancy structure used by the CHSC and the effects of national circumstances like coal prices and government legislation are directly comparable with the North East Lancashire shed companies as a whole, there is always a differential between Barlick prices and the other towns. We shall quantify the amount from the evidence but once we have recognised it we can make a direct comparison with other companies.
I make no apology for the density of the evidence that follows, there is no gain without pain. This is prime source material that can be trusted. What follows are minute book entries, any contribution from me is in italics. One clue as to what I see as important. We can trace the structure of the agreements with tenants from the heady days at the end of the 19th century to the difficult conditions in the modern industry. The main lesson for me is how the CHSC management strategies evolved to accommodate these changing conditions.
May 15th 1889. That Messrs Holden’s letter asking for terms for room and power be replied to. The terms to be that they pay per annum 39/- per loom and £90 for one tape machine for a term of three years subject to alteration if necessary at that time. [Very simple and I suspect that any conditions which applied were almost a given. At this early stage the board didn't feel the need for a lot of clauses. If there were any there is no clue and we never get to see the full contract, all we have is the evidence of the minutes. Note that this is before Calf Hall Shed started in November 1889.]
November 7th 1894. The secretary [George Proctor was appointed March 1893] informed the meeting of the result of an interview he had had with Mr Holden. Mr Holden offered to take room and power for 410 or 420 looms at the same terms as present with 6 months allowance for gaiting up. He would like however to have the whole of the front warehouse. Mr Joseph Windle attended before the directors and offered to take room and power in the extension at Wellhouse Mill for about 400 looms at 39/- per loom per annum if the company would provide sufficient warehouse room and allow him twelve weeks for gaiting up; this the directors promised to do. [A buoyant demand for room and power is driving CHSC forwards but note the concession of a 'grace period' to allow the looms to get into full production. In later years when tenants were thin on the ground extended grace periods were used as bribes to encourage tenants to move. At that time Barlick must have been overrun by carts carrying looms from mill to mill!]
February 9th 1898. A written application was made by James Nutter and Sons, B&M Holden and S Pickles and Sons (Calf Hall Shed) and Messrs A Pilkington, Joseph Windle, W Bailey, and Boocock Brothers (Wellhouse Mill), tenants of the company for a re-adjustment of the rent for Room and Power on the grounds that the present price (39/- per loom per annum and £90 for a tape for 400 looms) is in excess of that paid at Earby, Foulridge and other mills in Barnoldswick and asking that the directors receive a deputation from them. Res. That the secretary be instructed to reply saying that after very careful consideration the directors could not see their way to make any reduction from the present price. The secretary stated that the price of best slack coal delivered at one of the Nelson mills was 6/8 per ton and the rent of looms 38/- per annum (average in Nelson for a modern shed). Best slack delivered at Barlick Railway station is 7/3 per ton and, with cartage, at the shed 7/10, a difference of 1/2 per ton. This additional cost of coal amounts to 2/- per loom per annum so that from the company’s standpoint the rent at Barlick is 39/- minus 2/- which is 37/- per loom as against 38/- per loom in Nelson. As to tapes, the average in Nelson is £85. Taking 3 tons of coal per tape per week at 1/2 per ton increased cost of coal the additional cost would be £9-2-0 per annum so that the company is only charging, as compared with coal cost at Nelson, £80-18-0 per tape. S Pickles rent of tape £90 for 416 looms, a comparative price of £77-8-9. J Nutter £90 for 414 looms, £77-17-1. B&M Holden £90 for 414 looms ditto.
[George Proctor is using his wide experience, doing his homework and presenting a good case. The irony of this application by the manufacturers is that they saw no problem in applying the ‘Local Disadvantage’ rule to weaver’s wages on the grounds that as they were at the end of the railway line and an outlier of the main weaving districts their profits were less. It's a different matter when it is applied to them, one law for the rich and another for the poor.]
February 26th 1898. The secretary reported with reference to the tenant’s application that he had let during the last year 1100 looms on yearly tenancy at 39/- per loom per annum for 40” reed space looms and £90 per tape. 560 looms at 38/6 for 40” reed space and £95 for tape on a ten year lease. 1200 looms at 38/- per annum on a seven year lease. Room and Power in Earby is 38/-. [Again, GP is drawing on his experience of acting for other shed companies to defend the CHSC actions.]
December 19th 1898. That we let Room and Power to James Moorhouse for 400 looms for ten years from 1st January 1899 on the following terms: 400 looms of 42½” slay space [same as reed space] at 39/- per loom per annum. Tape sizing machine £90 per annum for 420 looms. Tape overtime 1/- per hour. ['Overtime' is running the tape outside engine hours which means a firebeater has to be on duty to keep steam pressure up for process and the donkey engine which drove the tape machine when the main engine was stopped.] Three month’s rent to be always due and payable in advance on the 1st day of each month. The rent to commence on the 1st day of May 1899. The tenancy may be terminated on the 31st of December 1903 by Mr Moorhouse giving six month’s notice in writing. The company undertake to keep the temperature at 60 degrees in winter and to provide extra steam pipes for that purpose. If too cold after these precautions the company undertake to brick up the side windows. The company further agrees to erect an office and to lime-wash the wall opposite the warehouse windows'. [To get reflected light.]
March 14th 1900. That the rent of all the company’s looms be increased 2/- per loom from the 1st of April next. That Dr Roberts (failing him W P Brooks) P Barrett and the secretary form a deputation to meet the directors of the Butts Mill Company at the Craven Bank, Skipton, on Friday next and that they be authorised to inform them as to the rise of 2/- and to ascertain if they are prepared to follow us in this increase. That the same deputation previously appointed, together with the secretary, be instructed to meet the directors of the Long Ing Shed Co on Tuesday night to inform them of our decision as to the increase in rents. That a meeting of the directors be held on Tuesday night next at 7pm to receive the report of the deputation. [It's evidently important to CHSC that they are in step with the other landlords.]
March 20th 1900. The deputation appointed to wait on the Craven Bank reported that all the tenants at Butts Mill held leases of 7 or 10 years and that 4 or more years had yet to run. The leases did not contain a coal clause. [The lack of coal clauses is a serious problem for the Butts Mill Co, they did not take knowledgeable advice when writing the leases. ‘Coal clauses’ were a mechanism for adjusting rents on a sliding scale during the term of the contract consequent on coal price variations, fuel was the major expense. The same mechanism was often included in yarn and cloth contracts transacted on the Manchester Cotton Exchange, these covered other costs such as wages as well. The effect was to inject automatic stability into trading and allowed companies to trade with confidence at very narrow and competitive profit margins. This was fine when there was plenty of demand but in the end it proved to be an Achilles’ heel for the industry in the terminal decline after 1920. The importance of the exchange contracts in this context is that the manufacturers understood the principle and already operated under it in other transactions.] 'The deputation appointed to meet the directors of the Long Ing Shed Co reported that the Long Ing Co were quite willing to advance rents 2/- per loom per annum from 1st of April next'. [The inability of the Butts Mill Co to act in concert with the other two companies was not a big problem because they were no threat. They were not trading profitably with consequences we shall see in January 1903.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

March 28th 1900. A letter was read from the Cotton Manufacturer’s Association [Barlick manufacturers, they often act for the tenants in any dispute.] stating they could not meet tonight owing to the absence of two or three of the principal tenants. Res. That we approve the suggestion of the secretary with reference to the increase of rents, that each tenant be written to and offered an increase of 2/- per annum per loom and that the matter be left in his hands. [George Proctor smells a rat here in the dilatory behaviour of the Barnoldswick Manufacturer’s Association, he isn’t falling for any stalling tactics. Legally, because of the way the agreements are written, the company can terminate them, usually with six months notice, and offer new terms. This is what he is going to do. There follows a rearguard action by the tenants but eventually they agree to the increase.]
October 17th 1900. That the letter dated 17th October as drafted by the secretary in which the terms of renewal for all the tenants of the company on the 31st October are set out be approved and sent to Mr S Pickles as representative of the tenants. [The CHSC tenants were evidently acting in concert and Stephen Pickles as a major manufacturer was their choice for spokesman.] The terms are that the present rent of 39/- per loom per annum should be raised to 43/7. For each increase or decrease of 6d per ton in the price of coal the rent should vary by 6d per loom per annum. The tenancies to be yearly ones from the 31st of October terminable by either party giving the other six months notice in writing at the end of any month in any year. [I checked the increase of 6d per loom for 6d in coal price against the original because in some other agreements this was 5d per ton. 6d is the figure clearly noted in the minutes. There are other instances where we find this confusion, I have no explanation beyond noting that there is always the possibility of mistakes in the minute-taking.]
January 25th 1901. That in consequence of an erroneous impression amongst our tenants that the directors promised a reduction in rent from the 31st of December last, the rent from the 1st of January 1901 will be 42/6 per loom per annum with a proviso that should the average price of coal burned during the present half year be less that 12/11 per ton delivered, the same will be allowed on the rent account for June next in accordance with the agreement entered into between the tenants and the company on October 31st last. This arrangement not to be in any way treated as a variation of the said agreement. [Communication problems are not just a modern phenomenon! The problem arises from different interpretations of when the sliding scale alterations in rent due to coal prices come into effect. The tenants seek the decrease from the day the coal price reduces while the CHSC reckons the date to be when they have finished burning the expensive coal. It is noticeable that this complaint doesn't arise when the coal price goes up and CHSC are burning cheaper stock. Why are we not surprised by this? Anyone who has followed modern debates on energy prices will recognise that this syndrome is still alive and well.]
March 6th 1901. The secretary reported having received a letter dated February 28th 1901 signed by the tenants of the company in which they stated that they had decided to pay rent at the rate of 41/- per loom. (Although agreements were signed October 31st 1900 for rent on a sliding scale. See minutes.) Res. That the secretary be authorised to demand the payment of rent in full and failing payment he be authorised to sign distress warrants for the rent. [A distress warrant is a legal instrument which authorises the company to enforce payment of a debt by seizure of the debtor’s goods. This is a valuable sanction available to the directors as a last resort, there are many entries demonstrating that it was used.]
July 10th 1901. The secretary reported that the rents charged to the tenants were at the rate of 41/3 3/5d [Difficult to transcribe this, it is 41/- plus three and three fifths of a penny] per loom per annum from 1st of April last, the same as the Long Ing Shed Co Ltd.
March 25th 1903. [CHSC bought Butts Mill in January 1903 and now face the task of bringing the Butts tenants into line with Calf Hall Shed.] The secretary reported that Mr John Wilson's tenancy at Butts Mill would terminate on the 31st of March and that he [George Proctor] had proposed the following terms for the continuation of the tenancy: 'The tenancy of the shed which is capable of holding 404 40” looms but in which he has placed 436 looms at an average width [reed space] of 34” be as follows; 40/- per loom for 404 looms and 20/- for 32 looms. £90 per annum per 400 looms for his tape. Other conditions of the tenancy be as the CH and WH tenants'. [The standard tenancy was based on 40” reed space looms.]
April 8th 1903. That the basis of rent for the Butts Mill tenants be as follows: 40/- per loom for the number of looms the shed is capable of holding on a 40” basis and 20/- for each loom more than the capacity on the above basis. £90 per annum for the tape per 400 looms (actual) in the shed with a sliding scale of 6d per loom for each 5d per ton in the price of coal. That the secretary be instructed to write to all of the tenants (Except those having leases.) informing them of the resolution and asking them if they are agreeable and will comply with the same. [It looks as though the Butts Mill Co has let their space on a different basis than CHSC practice. From what I can gather, even though the minute-taker uses the word lease at times, the standard CHSC contracts were tenancy agreements which could be terminated by either side on a six monthly basis. A fixed term lease put the tenant in a far stronger position. We will see later that after 1937 CHSC started to use the mechanism of the lease to give themselves greater security.]
June 3rd 1903. A letter was read from the Craven Manufacturing Company [The Craven Manufacturing Company was started in 1900 at Butts Mill by Stephen Pickles and his brother. It was a separate entity to S Pickles and Sons at Calf Hall Shed.] which stated that their arrangement with the Butts Mill Company was to pay the rent three months after it became due and that they had paid a shilling per loom per week less than the Long Ing Shed Co whose rate at the present time was 37/7 1/5d per loom per annum. Res. That the Craven Manufacturing Co be informed of the terms of the resolution passed on April 8th last with reference to the price for room and power at Butts Mill. And that the secretary be instructed to take such steps as were necessary to enforce the arrangement by giving notice to terminate the tenancy if necessary. [These are times of buoyant trade and CHSC know that the tenants can afford the adjustment. Smart operators like Stephen Pickles know that they know this but will try to get any advantage they can. I am reminded of Kipling's description of the intelligence war on the NW Frontier of India as 'The Great Game'. The Barlick equivalent for the manufacturers was constant guerrilla warfare with the shed companies to gain an advantage.]
July 1st 1903. That the saving in coal effected by the stoppage of the engine in any of the company's mills be allowed to the tenants of that mill or mills in proportion to the number of looms possessed by each tenant provided that this allowance shall not be granted to any tenant of the company who has not agreed to the terms fixed by the directors. [Clever stuff! An incentive to the rogue tenants to stop quibbling over new terms and fall into line. Note that the amount of the reduction is in the control of the directors. Note also that the basic rent carries on even though the engine is not running. I have always wondered about the legality of this as one would think that by stopping the engine against the will of some tenants the CHSC had broken the terms of their agreement. However, there must be some clause in the agreements I know nothing about because this is never advanced as a counter argument by the tenants.]
July 15th 1903. The secretary gave particulars of Horsfield Brother's warehouse room at Butts Mill showing that they had 2.12 square yards per loom and that to provide them with 2.5 yards per loom (on account of inconvenience) would cost £4-1-3 per annum. Res. That this amount to be allowed from the annual rent paid by them. [A smart move by Horsfield Brothers, Butts is an old combined mill converted to weaving and in order to do so there were compromises made in the proportion of warehouse space to looms run. Standard allowances of space were incorporated into the design of new sheds like Calf Hall and so this problem didn't arise. Horsfield's have realised this and used it in the guerilla warfare that was negotiation of rents.]
December 9th 1903. The secretary reported that he had taken the measurement of the warehouse occupied by the Craven Manufacturing Co at Butts Mill and that there were about 1550 square yards for 685 looms being 2.263 yards per loom. To provide 2.5 yards per loom will require an addition of 162½ yards to the present warehouse which, at a cost of £1 per yard would mean an annual cost to the company of £6-10-0 per annum. It was resolved that taking into account the very inconvenient arrangements of the rooms and the quantity of gas needed to light them, that the rent from January 1st next be the same as the other tenants but with an allowance of 1/- per loom for these inconveniences. [This was one of Stephen Pickles' companies and he was a sharp operator. He has noted what Horsfield's have achieved. The Great Game again.]
December 30th 1903. With reference to the tenancy of the Craven Manufacturing Company which will terminate on the 31st of December 1903, the secretary reported that he had informed them of the basis upon which the tenancy could be renewed. Viz. 40/- per loom per annum and £90 per 400 looms for the tape with an allowance of £34-5-0 for inconvenient warehousing. They however requested the Company to allow them a deduction of 4 4/5d per loom on account of the fall of 4d per ton in the price of coal in April last. It was eventually arranged that the allowance asked for should be granted provided that the allowance for warehousing be reduced to £30 per annum. Res. That seeing that the tenants at Wellhouse Mill and Calf Hall Shed pay 39/7 1/5d per loom, that this be the basis for Butts Mill from the 1st of January 1904 and that the arrangement made by the secretary with the Craven Manufacturing Co be approved. [Normally the CHSC directors were more obdurate than this but I suspect that they were perhaps prepared to be more flexible in the process of standardising the Butts Mill tenancy agreements. They could also be unsure of their ground in that there was the possibility of confusion as to when changes in coal prices took effect.]
April 13th 1904. The secretary was prepared with information as to the rateable value of the Company's premises but it was resolved that seeing that Butts Mill is rated at a low rate the figure be not read out. [!!] The secretary stated however that the increase in rates of 8d in the pound would mean 4d per loom per annum to the CHSC. [Rates were relatively stable and in the early days were not used in pricing loom space on a sliding scale like coal. However, in any general increase they were taken into account.]
November 11th 1904. That the rent of the company's premises after the 31st of December next be as follows. Viz: 41/- per loom per annum with coal at 10/3 per ton at the wharf or station with an increase or decrease as the case may be of 6d per loom for such 5d per ton in the price of coal. That any increase in the total rates on the premises from the present time be paid by the tenants (by increase in rent) and that any reduction in the total rates be allowed to the tenants, in proportion to their looms and that no allowance be made for the holidays. That the secretary be instructed to inform the deputation appointed by the tenants. [It's noticeable that as the CHSC gets more experience the complexity of tenancy agreements increases. As most of these adjustments were overseen by George Proctor I think we can assume that the same problems were being addressed in other companies he was associated with.]
November 23rd 1904. The secretary said that he had communicated with tenants re the new tenancy agreements and they had agreed to the following clauses:
1.Rent 41/- per loom per annum. Sliding scale of 6d for 5d for coal.
2.Sliding scale for rates.
3.Rent to be paid on the first day of the month after it has accrued.
4.No allowance for holidays
But they objected to “no allowance to be made for breakdown”, “allowance of coal saved in case of strike, bad trade or lockout” and “termination of notice on 39th June or 31st December in any year by six months notice” and they requested that we should give them 55F minimum temperature in sheds. Res. That allowance be made as hitherto for breakdowns, strikes etc. That notices be as before and that the temperature requested be inserted in the agreements. [After a struggle we have another significant adjustment in the tenancy agreements which reflects the uneasy industrial situation at the time. The directors were continually negotiating the fine line between maximising profit and ensuring that they had full sheds. Remember that the new mills in Barlick are coming on line at this time. 1903 Moss Shed 2,000 looms. 1905 Bankfield number 1 shed, 1,800 looms.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Bodger
Senior Member
Posts: 1285
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:30
Location: Ireland

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Bodger »

Re Newton and gears, see last letter in this forum regarding different materials and uses

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/an ... th-339385/
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

Bodge, everything Joe says in that post is right, he knows his gears..... Favourite woods were Hornbeam, Yew and some hard fruit woods like apple.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

July 3rd 1907. The manufacturers of Barnoldswick having decided to run short time for about two weeks the tenants of the company applied for some remission of rent for the time they are stopped. Res. That as the stoppage was due to bad trade the tenants be allowed rent at the rate of 10/- per loom per year and that this allowance should not include the stoppage for the holidays. [The allowance would be pro rata to the hours stopped. One of the peculiarities of the cotton industry was the cyclical nature of the trade and it seems that there has been a downturn so from the manufacturers point of view it makes sense to stop weaving and allow stocks of cloth to be sold. Failure to do this could be dangerous, the major bankruptcy of Bradley Brothers at Bankfield in the early 1930s with almost 1,000 looms was generally attributed to weaving for stock during bad trading conditions. Evidence in the LTP.]
June 5th 1912. The secretary gave particulars of the extra cost of coal during the coal strike from which it appeared that the additional charge to the tenants would be about 3/9 to 4/- per loom at Calf Hall and 2/8½d per loom at Viaduct Shed. [Viaduct Shed was at Colne, cheaper coal.]
July 18th 1912. The secretary read a letter dated July 10th which has been sent to all tenants of the company asking for a full return of all export taping and the prompt payment of rent accounts, intimating that the interest would be charged at 5% until payment. Also a request for payment for the extra cost of coal during the strike. [Export taping was running sets for other tenants. Remember that rent on the tapes was based on the number of looms a manufacturer was running. If they didn't report the extra warps, they were getting them free but using CHSC resources. The manufacturers were obviously charging the other firms for the service.]
A letter was read from all the tenants of the company complaining at what they consider to be the exorbitant charge for coal during the strike, viz. 3/8½ per loom and stating that two other room and power companies had charged only 6d for every advance of 5d in the price of coal and that they wished to be placed on the same footing. Res. That the secretary be empowered to deal with the matter and to demand payment of the whole of the charges. [I thought this clause was already in the tenancy agreements?]
January 8th 1913. The accounts for the half year revealed a very large increase in the price of coal and after some discussion it was resolved that the secretary be requested to draft a scheme for increasing the rent payable by tenants for room and power based on an increase in the price per loom and price for tapes. To be submitted to the directors immediately after the shareholders' meeting. [These were turbulent times in the coal industry and the directors had seen a rise in price from about 10/- a ton to close to 15/-.]
January 23rd 1913. The additional cost of turning [Running the engine.] and the reduced profits for the half year were discussed. Res. That the rents as from August 1st 1913 be at the rate of 47/- per loom and £120 per annum for a tape with any additions or reductions that occur between now and that date on a sliding scale of 6d per loom for each 5d per ton and £3 per tape rise or fall of 5d in the price of coal. That the letter prepared by the secretary be sent to each of the tenants by tonight's post asking them to agree to these terms before January 28th. That in the event of any tenant not agreeing to the proposed terms they be sent notice of termination of tenancy under the common seal of the company. [This will be six months notice to quit the premises, the situation is serious, George is not messing about!]
February 5th 1913. The replies of the tenants to the secretary's letter of January 23rd intimating the increase of rent from August 1st were read. The tenor of which was that they were willing to pay the same rents as other tenants in the town, 46/8 per loom and £95 for a tape machine. After careful consideration it was resolved that the proposed rents be adhered to in every particular and the secretary be instructed to reply in the terms of the letter submitted to the meeting. [We have seen that the directors were quite prepared to agree to reasonable reductions to ensure full sheds but in this case they have made a decision that they can go no further. Not a lot of point having a full shed that couldn't make at least a small profit.]
February 26th 1913. The secretary read letters of acceptance of the increased terms from Edmondson and Co and Anthony Carr. It was decided that the question of terminating the tenancies be left over until the end of March. [There is no further mention of this matter so we have to assume that the rest of the tenants acquiesced to the new terms.]
October 14th 1914. That the allowance to tenants be at the rate of 4d per loom per week and £1 per week for tapes when the engine is stopped and 2d per loom per week when the whole of a tenant's looms are stopped but the engine is running. [We get a glimpse here of what was to become a major problem, allowances for tenants in times of bad trade. The fixed costs of the company carry on regardless of whether the engine is running or not. The only real saving to the company is if the engine is stopped completely and therefore the heat losses associated with it and the boiler throughout the mill. This is why a lone tenant stopping only gets half allowance. One of the consequences of this was pressure on the tenants to act as a body and all stop at the same time.]
March 24th 1915 . The secretary reported the bank balance to be £622-11-2 in credit and reported a list of rents owing by the tenants and stated that the present rents at Barnoldswick were 49 shillings and two fifths of a penny per loom per annum and £130-10-0 for a tape machine serving 400 looms, both based on Altham coal at 15/7 per ton.
December 23rd 1915. The question of the rents charged by the company was discussed. It was reported that other Room and Power companies in the town were charging from 1/3 to 3/- per loom more than CHSC based on the price of coal delivered at the mill. The matter was allowed to stand in abeyance. [A surprising decision but of course these are worrying times because of the Great War. It may be that the matter uppermost in the director's minds was retaining tenants to keep the mills as full as possible.]
October 25th 1916. The secretary reported that the cost of boating Altham Coal had risen by 3/- per boat [A boatload is about 46 tons so this is a price rise of just under a penny per ton.] and that the rent to the tenants would be raised by one penny per loom per annum.
January 19th 1918. The question of increasing the rents payable by the tenants in consequence of the heavy increase in the cost of providing Room and Power was adjourned until the next meeting. The present rent was 58 shillings and 11 and four fifths pence per loom per annum and tapes £188 for 400 looms.
January 31st 1918 . That the rents of the company from February 1st 1918 be 63/- per loom per annum and £200 for a tape serving 400 looms based on the cost of Altham nuts and Sharlston nuts delivered in the boiler houses at the respective mills as on December 31st last with a sliding scale of 6d per loom per annum and £3-5-0 per tape per annum for each rise or fall of 5d (or part thereof) in the price of coal as delivered to the boiler house and a sliding scale for rates based on the present rates. No allowance to made for breakdowns of less than eight hours. Tape overtime to be 2/6 per hour. The extra cost of coal or the saving effected by the use of coal other than the present source of supply to be paid by or allowed to the tenants. [This is a significant alteration to previous contracts, in other words the rent rise is triggered as soon as coal price moves upwards, not a full 5d move as previously. On the face of it this is fair because it applies to reductions as well but the underlying trend is upwards so this favours CHSC. Note also that this could mean a rent rise for one mill while others remained the same. What is obvious but never spelled out in the minutes is that the administration of the invoices to tenants was done by Proctor and Proctor in Burnley. Changes like this complicate the process and we would do well to bear this in mind.]
June 19th 1918 . Mr Wood reported the result of his interview with the Cotton Control Board which was fixed for Friday morning last to the effect that he placed before Sir Herbert Dixon full details of the proposed rent increase which was only ½d per loom per week and that a letter had been received from the Control Board informing the company that they were quite justified in making the increases proposed. [Useful ammunition in any dealings with the tenants.]
Res. That the draft letter to the tenants as follows be sent:
“I beg to hand you herewith accounts for rent owing by you from February 1st last on the terms proposed in our letter of February 6th 1918. I shall be glad if you will let me have your remittance of the amount by return of post in which event the sum of £---- being at the rate of 2/6 per loom may be deducted leaving the net amount £----. In the event of you not remitting the amount by June 25th it will be presumed that you do not accept the terms and that the notice to terminate your tenancy which has been accepted on your behalf by Mr S Pickles as representative of the tenants will continue to run. I am to inform you that in this event the full rent on the new basis will be payable with interest thereon at 6% and without the allowance of 2/6 per loom (which was withdrawn by our letter of April 25th) before the renewal of your tenancy will be considered. I trust you will see your way to accept our terms and to remit your cheque before the date mentioned. The question of allowance for stoppages owing to the reduction of working hours to 40 hours per week from June 15th will be considered after September 30th when the savings effected have been ascertained”. This letter to be sent to each tenant together with their account. [The 40 hours must be a temporary local agreement, perhaps connected to the bad trade due to cotton shortage. Bear in mind that raw cotton (cellulose) was used extensively to make nitro-cellulose explosives.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

January 22nd 1919. That the tenants be allowed for stoppages during the half year ending December 31st 1918 at the rate of 5/- per loom per annum making the total allowances for the half year 7/6 per loom and that no further allowance be made from the rent accounts. [A high figure and indicative of the difficult trading conditions despite the post-war restocking boom.]
December 24th 1919. That the circular letter submitted to the tenants fixing the rent at 104/- per loom per annum and £350 for tape machines from January 1st 1920 be approved.
January 19th 1921. That the charge made to tenants for the five months ending November 30th for the extra cost of coal at the rate of 8/6 per loom be allowed to them. This was made notwithstanding the fact that the cost of coal during the period was more than the basis price. The allowance being made in recognition of the large number of looms standing because of bad trade. [In July 1920 the cotton trade cracked and never recovered, my sources for this are the Craven Bank papers at Liverpool, the monthly commercial reports and the evidence in the local managers reports which are quite specific. CHSC couldn't know the long term implications of this but they recognised that they had to allow for hard times to encourage and retain tenants. By mid 1921 coal was in short supply due to stoppages at the pits and the price rose to over 42/- per ton.]
Teddy Wood appointed as secretary June 28th 1922. July 12th 1922. It was reported to the meeting that Mr George Proctor, secretary to the company for the last 30 years died on July 6th 1922. July 20th 1922. Full obituary for George Proctor. Reported as “carried unanimously, all standing”.
September 13th 1922. Further discussion took place as to the basis of rents. The usual custom of reducing the rents by 6d for each 5d alteration in coal price has been continued as in times past but Mr Banks reported that some of the other Room and Power companies in the town were only allowing 5d for 5d alteration in coal price and making no reduction for tape rent. The feeling of the meeting appeared to be that it is advisable to reduce the rents as quickly as possible owing to the bad state of trade and to consider additional charges or reductions for saving in coal or increased cost of coal at the end of each month as has been the custom since 1920 when rents were increased 21/- per loom. [I'm slightly confused by this minute. I think what they are saying is that before making any changes they need to consider the matter further bearing in mind that any increase during the present state of trade may not be productive. It could well be that they knew how close to the wind many of the tenants were sailing.]
The secretary reported that rents owing were £6,652. [A high figure and I insert it to reinforce the above.]
October 10th 1923. The question of allowances to tenants for looms stopped due to bad trade was further considered. Res. That an allowance be made of 6d per loom per week for all looms stopped in excess of 5% of the looms upon which rent is paid from July 1st to December 31st 1923 it being understood that this allowance should be in lieu of allowances for reduction in wages and saving in coal due to looms stopped during the bad trade and especially in consideration of the present bad trade. The question of further allowances after January 1st 1924 to be considered later. [Notice the mention of wages. This must refer to the wages saved by the CHSC if a mill was closed completely. There must be a clause to this effect in the agreements.]
November 28th 1923. Mr Wood reported that Room and Power companies in Burnley, Nelson, Colne, Earby and Kelbrook [For whom he was almost certainly acting.] had agreed, in consequence of the state of trade, to allow 13/- per loom per annum and £70 per tape per annum for the half year ending June 30th 1924. Res. That we make an allowance to tenants of 10/- per loom per annum and £50 per tape per annum from the rent from February 1st 1924 to June 30th 1924 owing to the rents at Calf Hall [CHSC? I think that 'Calf Hall' is sometimes used as a shorthand reference to the company.] being lower than other mills in Barlick and the other districts. The rebate being deducted from the rent when paid.
March 24th 1926 . [Remember that this was the time of the General Strike.] It was reported that there was a lock-out in the town which commenced on March 15th 1926 and that it had not been settled but it was hoped a settlement would be arrived at on Saturday. [Unfortunately not. The manufacturers were desperate to find ways of reducing costs and the wages paid to the operatives was the easiest target. Fining workers for bad work etc had long been a bone of contention between the unions and the manufacturers so when the number and severity of fines was increased tensions rose. Another route to increasing margins was use of lower grades of yarn which reduced costs but also increased the fines as weaving was more difficult. The workers at Edmondson's Fernbank Shed walked out claiming compensation for 'bad stuff'. Nobody would give way so the manufacturer's association locked the whole town out and this lasted for three weeks.] Res. That the tenants be allowed the cost of coal which is rather more than the savings effected owing to the stoppage and that the amount be at the rate of 7d per loom or 30/4 per loom per annum.
April 22nd 1926 . Mr Wood reported that the Committee of Inspection of W F Suthers and Sons Ltd (In liquidation) had decided to dispose of the plant by public auction as no reasonable offer had been received. [A bad time to sell!] The amount distrained by CHSC for rent arrears was £1,000-9-1 and the February and March accounts amounted to £302-11-2. The number of looms owned by Suthers was 376 38” and 40” reed space. The feeling of the meeting was that the looms should not be allowed to leave the premises as the very bad state of trade and the excessive cost of new plant would make it difficult to obtain a new tenant with sufficient capital to re-instate the machinery in the premises should the looms and preparation machinery be taken out. Res. That we offer the Committee £3 per loom and make an allowance from the February and March rents of one half which would be equal to the purchase price of the plant. [Smart thinking. The Committee would be running the business as liquidators. There are other costs involved as well such as loom shifting and spacing and commissioning of new looms. By taking this course the CHSC have a weaving unit ready to be stepped into at a very low capital threshold.]
June 16th 1926. Mr Bilborough attended and placed before them an offer he had received by phone of Sicilian [Silesian actually!] large round coal over 2” at 42/6 per ton at Hull, railway carriage 10/5 per ton and wagon charges 1/6 per ton. [54/5 per ton!]
August 18th 1926 . That the tenants be informed that the directors are prepared, as from July 1st, to bear a proportion of the extra cost of dear coal which is about 1/- per loom per week and are prepared to charge only 6d per loom as from that date although the stock of coal was finished on June 11th. That the usual charges and allowances for stoppages be made to the end of June. That should the tenants agree to stop at any of the mills and the engine is entirely stopped, an allowance of 7d per loom per week be made for a full week's stoppage. These terms are based on the present price of coal. If the price of coal varies the directors reserve the right to vary the charge.
October 13th 1926. The question of the tenant's application discussed at the last meeting came up for further discussion. Res. That a letter drafted by the secretary be approved, adopted and a copy affixed in the minute book. Res. That no allowances be made to tenants who had given notice to quit tenancies. Aldersley's, S Pickles and Sons Ltd and T Nutter Ltd.
[Copy of the letter referred to:] From Edward Wood, Secretary, Proctor and Proctor, Chartered Accountants, 3 Grimshaw Street Burnley (and at Mansfield Chambers, 17 St Anne's Square, Manchester.) Partners Edward Wood FCA and William Taylor ACA. October 15th 1926.
Dear Sirs,
CALF HALL SHED COMPANY LIMITED.
My directors have carefully considered your application of September 14th and the arguments in support which were fairly stated by your representatives Messrs Holden and Pickles at the conference on September 29th.
They request me to say that they have a great deal of sympathy for the tenants who find themselves so seriously affected by the present deplorable state of trade. They are in a position to understand your difficulties because they are seriously affected by it themselves. They have, at the moment, no income from 1475 loom spaces and this loss of income seriously affects their own position. In addition to this, the company has voluntarily accepted the greater share of the burden of the cost of dear coal since the Coal Strike began in May last by charging the tenants a nominal amount of 6d per week only. Up to the present moment this cost is about £1,250 more than has been charged to the tenants.
Further, the rents charged by this company have been several shillings per loom per annum and tape rents many pounds per annum lower than mills in Burnley, Nelson, Earby or Barnoldswick during several years and more substantial allowances have been made than by other companies in the town.
However, in view of the present state of trade and the fair way in which your case was presented, the directors feel that they cannot refuse your request entirely, and although they cannot see their way to vary any of the conditions of your tenancy, which are common to all Room and Power tenancies in the district, they are prepared to make a further concession, solely on account of bad trade, from October 1st 1926 to March 31st 1927 of a discount from the rent accrued in these months at the rate of 10% which may be deducted at the time of the payment of each of the above-named months rent providing all rents owing as per account rendered be paid before the end of November next [1926] and that each of the six months rent be paid before the end of the month following that in which it was accrued.
They sincerely hope that these concessions, which, under the circumstances, are made at great sacrifice, will enable you to tide over the present difficulties of the trade. Yours truly, Edward Wood, Secretary.
Notice the phrase 'which are common to all Room and Power tenancies in the district' in the letter. This supports my contention that the principles of the management, if not the actual prices, can be transferred to the Room and Power sector in North East Lancashire as a whole.
October 26th 1927. The secretary reported on his meeting with tenants and their application for an increased allowance from rents in reply to our suggestion of October 12th. Res. That the allowance be increased from 5% to 7½% from October 1st until March 31st 1928 with the usual proviso and that the following letter read to the meeting be approved:
“A full report of our interview was was submitted to my directors on Wednesday last and I am instructed to say that in view of the continued state of bad trade they will increase the allowance from each monthly rent account from 5% to 7½% from October 1st 1927 until March 31st 1928 and that each month's rent be paid within 14 days. The directors are making this reduction at great sacrifice and they cannot, in the interests of the shareholders, consider any variation from this, their final offer. In addition to the above I am pleased to be able to inform you that the directors have been successful in getting a reduction in the price of coal delivered in the boiler house from November 1st of 1/8 per ton which means a reduction in rent of 2/- per loom per annum and £13 per tape per annum. The combined reductions will thus be equivalent to about 7/7 per loom per annum from October 1st and 10/3 per loom from November 1st.” [Difficult times and I can't help but notice the conciliatory tone compared with the CHSC attitudes in the early days when weaving was a licence to print money.]
September 19th 1928. The secretary reported that a letter in the following terms had been sent to the tenants and that one or two had expressed themselves grateful for the increased allowance.
“I am instructed by my directors to inform you that the allowance of 10% now made in consideration of payment within 14 days will cease on September 31st. All rent paid at that date and within 14 days will of course be subject to this allowance. In view of the present state of trade they have decided to allow a deduction of 12½% (about 12/8 per loom) from monthly accounts submitted from September 1st provided each month's rent be paid on or before the 14th day of the succeeding month. The allowance to be discontinued as and from the date of receipt of notice from any tenant deciding to quit his tenancy.” [Not much point paying a reduction designed to retain tenants to any firm handing their notice in. Bear in mind that the great expansion of mill building has resulted in there being almost 25,000 loom-spaces in Barlick and Salterforth.]
November 4th 1929. A letter was read from S Pickles and Sons, the Craven Manufacturing Co and the Butts Manufacturing Co giving six months notice to terminate the tenancy in view of the possible trouble anticipated with the operatives re the 5% deducted from wages for Local Disadvantage. The operatives having given notice to the manufacturers to have this reinstated. [The manufacturers were trying every route to lowering production costs and this imposition was one of them. This was one of the consequences of the findings of the Arbitration Court in Manchester chaired by Justice Rigby-Swift in August 1929. It led to a strike ballot on November 11th in favour of a strike but in view of the low turn-out and the number of spoiled voting papers the larger action was dropped. More important is that the manufacturers were experimenting with eight slowed-down looms per weaver in an effort to reduce costs. This was the start of the More Looms system and disputes. We shall hear much more of these during 1932.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

A letter was read from the Barnoldswick Manufacturers Association asking a representative to attend their meeting on Wednesday morning at 10:30am. The secretary reported the various conversations he had had with members of the Manufacturer's Association re the application of the weavers union for payment of the standard prices (on Blackburn List) paid by other districts. Res. That in the event of a strike, for three weeks after the commencement of the strike to allow full rent for all looms stopped as a result of the strike for such time as they may be stopped during this period. For the following three weeks to allow a reduction in rent of 1/- (one shilling) per loom per week for all looms stopped as a result of the strike. In the weeks following and until the termination of the strike, the total saving of coal effected in consequence of the strike which will be as follows: In sheds where the engine may be stopped at the rate of 6d per loom per week (or 26/- per loom per annum) and in mills where the engine may not be stopped, at the rate of 4d per loom per week (or 17/4 per loom per annum.) [Note that the reduction in allowance is more generous than the 50% deducted previously in these circumstances. CHSC has been forced into another concession by the worsening trading conditions.]
January 15th 1930. The secretary reported he had received an application for space for 400 looms and also for renting a similar number of 40” looms. He had offered to rent the space and looms for the first twelve months at 50/- per loom and £100 for the tape, per annum, and the second 12 months at 70/- per loom and £200 for the tape. Res. That he be allowed to vary the terms at his discretion to secure occupancy of the space. [We shall see much more individual negotiation and variation of terms to attract tenants. Times have changed.]
April 30th 1930. A letter was read from Slater Brothers giving notice to terminate their tenancy on September 30th. The secretary reported that the present rents were: Loom rent 84/11 and three fifths of a penny, less 12½%, 74/4 and one tenth of a penny. Tapes £238-15-11 less same allowance, £208-8-6 and that in his opinion the notices from most of the tenants had been given with a view to forcing a reduction in the rent and the basis price. He reported that the rents in Nelson had been reduced to about 66/6 per loom and £210 for tapes. Res. That on May 1st the rents of the premises be on a new basis as follows: Loom rent, 70/-, if paid within one month less 5%, 66/6. Tapes £210, if paid within one month £199-10-0. Based on the present rates and price of coal. But that this be not allowed to any tenant who does not withdraw notice to leave the premises.
Remember that two things have happened since 1900. First, the profits made by the manufacturers in the shed companies were high enough for them to achieve higher loom numbers by building their own mills. Barlick and Salterforth now have 14 mills and about 25,000 looms, one of the highest concentrations per head of population ever seen in the North West industry. Second, just as this resource matured in 1914 the Great War cracked the trade and apart from a brief re-stocking boom which fizzled out in July 1920, the industry went into terminal decline. By 1930 loom numbers were falling and the tenants saw themselves as having the upper hand. Edward Wood was right, this was pressure for reductions and in order to keep tenants and survive the CHSC has to steer a very precise course between acceding to reasonable requests and trading at a loss.
May 21st 1930. The secretary reported that S Pickles and Sons, Craven Manufacturing and Butts Manufacturing had intimated that they were not prepared to continue after the notice expires on the terms proposed. Messrs Holden had also interviewed him with a view to obtaining allowances for looms stopped. They had at present only 50 looms running out of 416. [A good indicator of the severity of the depression.] Res. After considerable discussion that the tenants be allowed, as from May 1st 1930, 6d per week (26/- per loom per annum) for all looms stopped. These to be counted every Monday morning, certified by the manager and countersigned by the engine man at each mill'. On the same date: That a contract be entered into with P Bilborough for the continuation of supply of coal for one year from July 1st 1930. Acton Hall washed nuts 21/- per ton. Bentley washed doubles 22/-. Both delivered at Barnoldswick station. [The coal price has fallen due to general lack of demand, the collapse of coal exports due to the artificially high exchange rate and the success of the mine owners in forcing wage reductions.]
April 15th 1931. The secretary reported that he had received notices from B&EM Holden and the Monkswell Manufacturing Co to terminate their tenancies on September 30th 1931 and that he had also had interviews with J Windle and Sons Ltd and M Horsfield and Sons regarding their request for rents to be based only on looms running. After considerable discussion it was unanimously resolved that the tenants be informed that the company agree to the tenancies being varied as follows: Rent to be on the basis of the actual numbers of looms running; the tenancies to be terminable at three months' notice from any Quarter Day; all looms stopped to be paid for at the rate of 2/6 per loom per annum to cover rates etc. These terms to be applicable only if notice is withdrawn, where it has been given, full rent to be charged until the end of the tenancy in such cases.
The principle that the CHSC was operating on was that there was an economic level below which rents could not fall. Remember the importance of maintaining a full shed to spread the fixed costs. In effect they are telling the tenants that if they know of a better deal, they should go for it. I have little doubt that Proctor and Proctor knew exactly what was available and at what cost. Add to this the expense and disruption to tenants of relocating and you have the elements of the equation that guided the board.
April 12th 1933. [Though never directly referred to in the minutes, Butts Mill closed in April 1933 never to run again.] The secretary reported that he had arranged provisionally for J Widdup and Sons Ltd to take a tenancy of the space at Wellhouse Mill lately occupied by Richardson Ltd at a rent of 68/5 per loom to include the tape, this rate being the basis rent of 70/- per loom and £210 per tape for 400 looms both less 5% for cash and less a further 10% allowance in lieu of an allowance for stopped looms. To sell them 256 looms at £2 per loom to include tape and other plant. Three months grace to be allowed and the next twelve months at half rent. Res. That the secretary's actions be confirmed. [In the circumstances this is a good deal but it demonstrates how the balance of power has moved from the CHSC to a manufacturer with a full order book.]
June 20th 1934. The secretary reported that a Self-Help company started by Messrs Jonas Smith, Whitworth, Lister, Ormerod and Aspden had applied for space at Wellhouse Mill and they had been offered space on the following terms: Half rents to be paid for six months as warps are put in the looms. No rent to be charged for the use of the company's looms for six months, afterwards the rent to be 3d per loom per week. ['Self Help' is a cooperative weaving shed managed by the weavers. Self help sheds were already operating in Victoria Mill Earby and Sough Bridge Mill. This innovation never took off in Barlick but in Earby and the other NE Lancashire textile towns it became quite common. It was a brave initiative and a sound principle, it failed in the long run only because the trade was so bad that the difficulties were insurmountable.]
July 18th 1934. The secretary reported that on Saturday July 14th he had met Christopher and Sidney Brooks and that they had agreed to a tenancy of approximately 830 looms at Calf Hall Shed for a term of four years from October 1st 1934. Rent to be payable on the total loom-space occupied and to be at the rate of 68/5 per loom to include the tapes. (This rate being the basis rent of 70/- per loom and £210 per tape for 400 looms both less 5% for each and less a further 10% in lieu of looms stopped.) Three months grace to be allowed and a further twelve months at half rent. The CHSC to remove looms and plant, to move drums as required and to exchange loom pulleys if necessary. [This last clause interests me, quite a concession. This refers to fitting the looms with larger pulleys to reduce their speed for the More Looms system, usually seen as the responsibility of the tenant. It's also worth noting that the Brooks Brothers were also major shareholders in Westfield Shed, one of the new builds. The fact that they were prepared to take on a further 830 looms on a fixed term of four years demonstrates that by 1935 there was a rising demand for cloth and it may be that they are competitive because they have gone over completely to the More Looms System whereby one weaver ran double the number of looms albeit at a slower speed that they are more competitive. Under the old four loom per weaver regime the speed was between 220 and 240 picks per minute, under More Looms it was reduced to 180.]
February 20th 1935. The secretary read correspondence and reported on his interview with Widdup and Sons whose tenancy terminates on February 28th. (Pencilled note: '? March 31st') Res. That the secretary make the best terms he can with them offering 70/- per loom per annum less 5% with tape £210 for 400 looms less 5% to pay on looms running only with a minimum of half rent.
January 20th 1938. Mr Wood reported that WE&D Nutter, the new tenants at Wellhouse Mill, will commence paying rent on February 1st 1938 and that the terms of tenancy agreed on behalf of CHSC by him in accordance with the August 18th 1937 minutes were as follows: The tenancy is for 870 looms to be charged as 900 looms of 40” reed-space and the rent is 68/5 per loom of 40” reed-space (including tapes) based on the cost of coal and rates as at July 6th 1934 with the usual sliding scale for increases or decreases after that date. Three months grace was granted and rent to commence on February 1st 1938. One half week's rent to be allowed for holidays each year. The tenancy to be for three years commencing on September 1st 1937and after that period be subject to six months notice. It was agreed that WE&D Nutter be allowed to use 234 looms owned by CHSC at the same rent as the 870 looms, a total of 1104 looms charged on 1134 with a minimum rent to be charged on 900 looms. [This is a big tenancy for three years and this no doubt explains the major concession of including the tape cost in the loom rent.]
May 19th 1938. A report was given of negotiations with Mr Ellison re the tenancy of a portion of Wellhouse Mill previously occupied by Hulme and Co. Res. That the secretary be authorised to negotiate with him on the following basis:
1.Rent to be the usual CHSC terms as paid by Hulme and Co.
2.Tenancy to commence June 15th 1938.
3.A minimum rent to payable on 24 looms.
4.3d per loom per week to be charged for use of the looms to commence after the first six months of the tenancy.
5.During the first three months of the tenancy rent to be paid on the looms as they are gaited up.
Res. That Mr Ellison should have an option to purchase at the end of six months:
36 x 40” cross rod looms with dobbies at £7-10-0 per loom. (without dobbies £7.)
12 x 45” Cooper's plain with fast reed at £7-10-0 each.
12 X 40” circular box looms at £10 each.
[The looms are CHSC property having been the subject of distraint on a manufacturer who failed owing rent. The terms for starting are generous and the fact that looms were rented for pence per week lowered the threshold of entry and made it more likely the manufacturer could succeed and therefore pay rent.]

[In September 1939 WW2 started......]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

December 21st 1939. That in common with other Room and Power companies a letter should be sent to the tenants stating that in view of the greatly increased costs it had been decided to increase the rent charges by 10% from January 1st 1940. Rent to be charged on the full number of looms with an allowance of 6d per loom per annum [per week surely?] for stopped looms. [See the loom census in the appendices for an indication of how loom numbers had fallen to 13,359 by 1941 from the peak of almost 25,000 in 1920. Almost a 50% contraction.]
December 17th 1942. A letter was read which had been sent out by the Nelson and District Manufacturer's Association to their members dated December 8th 1942 stating that the figure for rent of closed mills had been agreed at 45/6 per loom per annum based on 40” reed-space. Particulars were given of the amounts paid by the various tenants at Wellhouse Mill to date.
December 12th 1946. It was reported that on November 6th 1946 a meeting had taken place held by persons connected with cotton weaving mills let on the Room and Power system and that it had been agreed that rents should be increased from January 1st 1947 as follows: Loom rent to be £6-17-4 per loom per annum based on the present cost of coal and rates with the usual sliding scale for increase or decrease in these costs. Rent should be charged on the full loom-space occupied on the basis of 40 square feet representing the space to required for one 40” reed-space loom. Allowance for space not used to be made at the rate of 9d per week per loom, such allowance to be made on the difference between the 40” reed-space of looms running and the total looms on which rent is charged. Tape rent to be £572-19-0 per annum. It was agreed that this basis be adopted in line with other companies. [This informal association was a counterbalance to the manufacturer's associations and was evidently successful.]
May 20th 1948. It was reported that a meeting of Room and Power owners in the district from Burnley to Barnoldswick had been held at which it was decided to form a Room and Power Owners Association and that at this meeting it was decided that owing to the increase in costs generally, the basic rate should be increased from £6-17-4 to £7 per loom per annum and that there should be no allowances for stopped looms, both alterations to come in from July 1st 1948. Res. That CHSC should join the association and that the amended terms be adopted. [From this point onwards the decisions of the RPA are used to validate rises in rents. Late in the day but a useful tool.]
February 15th 1951. A report was given re the proposed increase in rents of £2 per loom per annum and £163-14-0 per tape to take effect from March 1st 1951. It was agreed that this be approved and that the rents be increased accordingly.
July 10th 1952. It was reported that discussions had been taking place between the R&P Owners association Committee and the Tenant's committee and that it was probable that the allowance of 9d per loom per week where a tenant was completely stopped would be extended to cases where they have more than 10% of looms stopped for more than a full week and that the allowance for tape stoppages would be increased from half to three quarters rent. The extension of the allowances for stopped looms would apply from July 1st 1952 to September 30th 1952 when the matter would be reviewed.

I think I have pressed my case far enough. There is of course much more in the minutes if you care to go back to the original and do your own research, however, the above extracts give a good picture of how tenancy agreements and rents evolved until the end of mainstream weaving in Barlick. Once the CHSC had surmounted the early difficulties they paid a regular dividend rising from 4% in 1894 to 10% in 1906, from then until 1922 they paid 10% with an exceptional 25% bonus on capital in 1911. 1923 to 1927 they averaged over 15%, 1928/29 10% and then the dividend falls off the cliff, averaging under 2% until 1937. The miracle was 1923/27 and bearing in mind how badly the trade was doing at the time, it's no wonder that the tenants thought there was some slack in the accounts that they could exploit in lower rents. It says much for the business acumen of the board that they resisted the pressure. The Craven Herald published a report on half year mill dividends on 18th July 1930. 'Fernbank and Crow Nest 2½%. Calf Hall 1¼%.
At the beginning of the Second World War, the weaving trade was a pale shadow of what had gone before and as far as CHSC was concerned the war was to stop weaving for the duration. However, this didn't mean the end of their activities, paradoxically the actions of Herr Hitler were to breathe fresh life into the company. We need another chapter heading.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

In September 1939 the unthinkable happened, despite the 'War to End Wars' we found ourselves opposing Germany and her territorial ambitions again. There is nothing in the minutes to suggest that the board had any inkling of what was to happen to their operations, nothing was certain. They carried on using the same model until in 1941 the Cotton Control Board stepped in and introduced the Concentration Scheme whereby looms allowed to be run were designated registered or licensed looms. None of CHSC's tenants were allocated looms under this scheme and all weaving in the company's two remaining sheds Calf Hall and Wellhouse stopped. In order to understand what followed and the business model the board adopted we have to step back in time.
CHSC minutes for September 18th 1935. 'A letter was read from Barnoldswick Urban District Council asking for particulars of premises for sale and the price in connection with an enquiry for Aircraft Constructional Work. Res. That the letter lie on the table'. [This is very significant. The German threat had been realised and in 1934 the government called for the design of a new fighter and engine. By 1935 Rolls Royce were well forward with the design of the Merlin engine and were agitating with other aircraft manufacturers for what was called the 'Shadow Scheme'; new factories for aircraft production, financed by central government and preferably beyond the range of enemy bombers to accommodate the new capacity that would be needed. Surveys of available space started far earlier than anyone realised. Barnoldswick was to be very important! See the History of Rolls Royce, Vol. I, pp. 192-198 for the details.]
On September 12th 1940, an advertisement appeared in the Manchester Guardian: 'Manufactories, works etc wanted. Factory premises wanted, ground floor, about 300,000 square feet in North Lancashire. Information to A B Smith care of the County Hotel, Lancaster.' This was the Ministry of Aircraft Production looking for shadow factories for the Rover Company of Coventry who had been given the task of cooperating with a man called Whittle and developing his new gas turbines. The MAP found Bankfield Shed, requisitioned it on September 25th and it became 'Number 6 Shadow Factory'. Later the Rover Company took Calf Hall and Butts Mill. In Earby they took Grove Mill and Sough Bridge and in Clitheroe, Waterloo Mill. Eventually Wellhouse was taken over as well by the government for storage of essential supplies as varied as naval stores, newsprint and even tobacco in bond. Rover also requisitioned the country club at Bracewell Hall near Barnoldswick for the company offices. In 1942 Rolls Royce were to take over Bankfield and the jet engine. [See 'Vikings at Waterloo' by David S Brown and the official history of Rolls Royce for more details.] Incidentally the work of upgrading the mills was given to local contractors. Briggs and Duxbury did well out of this work. We shall see that this was to be a lifeline for the CHSC but in 1939 none of this was clear.
From the end of 1941 the manufacturers forced to stop weaving had a decision to make, did they abandon their tenancies and scrap looms or did they carry on paying rent to store their plant until weaving commenced again. Some tenants at Wellhouse took the latter course but others whose space was completely requisitioned by the MAP had a different problem, did they scrap the looms or find space to store them. Contemporary evidence is that many took the latter course and paradoxically this resulted in a demand for space to store looms stacked two high. Even in sheds that carried on weaving, any spare space was soon filled with stored looms. [See the licensed loom document in the appendices for the scale of the cuts.]
This is where the CHSC experience of the war years diverges from the generality of the industry in the neighbouring towns. They become landlords to the new industries and after the war it was only at Wellhouse that they reverted to room and power for weaving. We shall take the evidence of the minutes and learn what we can of this new role which involved an entirely new business model and how the company coped with the change. The story becomes complicated so it would probably be best to look at events mill by mill. Let's start with Butts.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

Butts Mill ceased weaving in 1933 and lay empty. The company had a liability on their hands. What was to be done with it? This was before the possibility of requisitioning by the MAP had arisen.
March 21st 1934. An application from Lomas and Barrett regarding the tenancy of the warehouse extension at Butts Mill was considered. Res. That they be informed that CHSC were prepared to accept a rent of £65 per annum, the landlords paying the rates (providing de-rating was obtainable) the tenants to brick up the opening between the warehouse and the main body of the mill. It was stated that no power would be required.
April 18th 1934. Reported that a letter had been received from Lomas and Barrett re the proposal for a tenancy of the warehouse extension at Butts Mill saying that their client did not regard the premises as being very suitable and that the matter was being dropped for the time being.
August 22nd 1934. Mr Wood reported that in view of the bad condition of the economiser at Calf Hall Shed and the filling up of the shed by the removal of R Brooks from Westfield it was advisable that the new economisers at Butts Mill be moved to CH. Res. That this be done. [This is significant. It shows that CHSC had bitten the bullet and recognised that Butts Mill would never run again as a steam-powered weaving shed. They also moved a modern high pressure boiler from Butts to Calf Hall where the engine was struggling with the increased load.]
November 21st 1934. A verbal application from Messrs Briggs and Duxbury [A new partnership destined to become the biggest building contractors in Barlick.] to rent the new warehouse at Butts Mill was considered. They offered to pay £50 for the first year and £55 for the second if the business proposed by them proved successful. Rates and insurance to be paid by CHSC, Briggs and Duxbury to wall up both openings into the shed. The tenancy to commence on January 1st 1935 and to be subject to three month's notice from any quarter end whilst the rent shall be payable quarterly. Res. That the tenancy be approved providing the premises come under the de-rating provisions.
January 16th 1935. The secretary reported he had been in touch with Dobson's Dairies of Lloyd Road, Levenshulme, Manchester re the possibility of renting part of Butts Mill. Res. That the matter be left in the secretary's hands with the suggestion that a rent of £150 per annum be asked, the tenant to pay the rates. [This never came to anything. Dobsons took New Coates Mill and were there until the early 1960s when they were taken over by Express Dairies and much reorganisation of milk distribution took place and the Coates dairy was closed. By a nice coincidence they were delivering milk to 38 Norris Avenue in Stockport at the time, the house where I was born in 1939.]
December 23rd 1936. Reported that Briggs and Duxbury had purchased a building of their own and that therefore the additional tenancy at Butts discussed at the last meeting would not take place. They had also given notice to leave the space in Butts they already occupy on March 31st next. [They bought the Model Lodging house in Butts built as accommodation for weavers who lived outside the town. It became redundant after the fall in loom numbers during the depression and B&D still operate from there in 2011.]
April 21st 1937. Mr Banks reported that part of Butts Mill previously occupied by Briggs and Duxbury whose tenancy ended on March 31st 1937 had been let to Mr Fred Procter, furniture dealer of Walmsgate, from April 1st 1937 at a rent of £50 for the first year and £55 per annum from then onwards; CHSC to pay rates. [Procter's eventually bought the old Baptist Chapel in Walmsgate and were in business there for many years.]
June 16th 1937. It was reported that a portion of Butts Mill had been let to Mrs Whipp for the purpose of a furniture and second-hand store at 17/- per week, rates to be paid by CHSC. The tenancy be subject to three months notice dating from July 3rd and to be paid quarterly.
August 18th 1937. Mr Banks reported that he had agreed to let space previously occupied by Aldersley's (Butts) to Robert Tomlinson (pencil note 'Bevo' Ltd) for making ice cream at a rent of £40 per annum, CHSC to pay rates, tenancy to be subject to six month's notice but such notice not the expire during the period March 1st to September 20th in any year. The tenancy to commence from September 1st 1937. [I suspect that this was to protect Bevo from being given notice during the ice cream season.]
November 17th 1937. Discussion took place on an enquiry from R S Windle, Mr Jackson and Mr McVie re the purchase of Butts Mill. Res. That it be put on offer at £8,000. [This initiative never went any further. Interesting to compare this price with the asset value of Butts Mill on the June 30th 1930 balance sheet, £27,586. Even allowing for the accountant's predilection for enhanced asset values this is a major reduction and illustrates how pessimistic the board were about future prospects.]
February 17th 1938. Reported that an enquiry re space had been received from Mr Aldersley and also that he had enquired for terms for storage of 87 looms at Butts Mill. Res. That he be allowed to store the looms for 15/- per week together with rates if these be charged.
May 19th 1938. A letter was read from Messrs Bevo Ltd re part of their tenancy at Butts Mill in which they suggested that the tenancy should be taken over by Mr Lister, Electrical Engineer of Barlick. Res. That they (Bevo) be informed that the directors have no objection to them sub-letting the ground floor warehouse to Mr Lister. [Interesting that the directors saw it as easier to allow Bevo to sub-let. I think this is the first time they allowed this.]
October 20th 1938. Mr Banks reported that the tenancy of part of Butts Mill occupied by Bevo Ltd would cease on December 31st 1938 and that he had arranged from January 1st 1939 for the bottom room to be let to Mr A Lister, electrician, Albert Road Barnoldswick on a quarterly rent at 10/- per week.
May 18th 1939. First mention of Victor Hedges acting as secretary. Teddy Wood became chairman.
December 21st 1939. Correspondence from Norman Barrett [Son of Proctor Barrett and acting as an architect, surveyor and land agent.] was read in which he enquired on behalf of a client for terms for leasing part of Butts Mill. Res. That the secretary inform him that the company would probably be prepared to negotiate on the following lines:
1.The lease to be for 10 years.
2.The tenant to put the premises in habitable order, provide lavatories etc, all repairs and alterations to be subject to the landlord's approval.
3.The tenants to maintain the premises, provide their own power and heating and pay rates and all other outgoings except Landlord's Property Tax and insurance.
4.The rent for the weaving shed to be as follows: 1st year nil. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th years £200 per annum. Next five years £300 per annum. If the third storey warehouse (Aldersley's) was included the rent to be increased by £125 per annum for each of the ten years. [Note that this is a repairing lease. It isn't clear at this point from the minutes but in the list of registered looms there is an entry for H Ellison Ltd, 50 looms in 1940, 88 in 1941 and 99 in 1947, this is a firm owned by Aldersley and it seems they were in Butts with electrically driven looms. Not strictly room and power but significant that this was a lease and a completely different basis compared to how the old tenancy agreements were managed. I have to add that this is my best guess as Worrall's directory for 1941 reports H Ellison as being in Wellhouse with 240 looms. The directory would be compiled before the impact of loom registration became clear and the entries for 1941 are certainly defective.]
February 15th 1940. Correspondence with Thomas Rumney and Co, solicitors of Manchester, on behalf of their client Messrs Hendley and Co of Manchester [This evidently refers to Norman Barrett's enquiry.] was read and approved subject to the terms being altered by CHSC not agreeing to insure any of the property but this charge to be paid by the tenant. The terms of the tenancy to be for ten years terminable at the end of five years, at seven years and renewable afterwards by negotiation any sub-letting to be with the consent of CHSC but not to be reasonably withheld. The rent to be £200 per annum and the tenants be allowed to make a road out over our land between Butts Mill and Calf Hall Road, CHSC to fence the land off and the tenancy to commence on March 1st 1940.
March 28th 1940. Reported that a lease of part of Butts Mill to Hendley and Co Ltd had been prepared in accordance with the agreement reported at the last meeting.
February 20th 1941. Reported that the Kelbrook Mill Company were in need of storage room for shafting and it was resolved that accommodation be offered to them at Butts Mill at 10/- per week. [They were in Sough Bridge Mill which had been requisitioned for the Rover Company and were evidently taking an optimistic view of re-installing the shafting after the war. This never happened, they moved to Brook Shed in Earby in 1941. In 1945 Sough Bridge Mill was taken over by Bristol Tractors, a subsidiary of Jowett Motors of Bradford and ceased to be a weaving shed.]
May 15th 1941. Mr Banks reported that he had provisionally agreed with Nutter Brothers a rent of £150 per annum for the storage of looms etc at Butts Mill the term to commence from May 1st 1941 rates to be charged to CHSC but refunded by Nutter Brothers. Res. That this action be confirmed. [Nutter Brothers had swapped their looms in the new shed at Bancroft for James Nutter and Sons' looms in Bankfield. It looks as though these had been in storage at Bankfield but with the takeover by the MAP they had to find a new home for them.]
July 17th 1941. A letter from the District Valuer dated July 14th 1941 suggesting that the tenancy of the ground and first floor of the office at Butts Mill should be combined and that a payment of 6/- be made. The Air Raid Authorities to pay rates and water charges and bear the cost of external repairs and main structural repairs and other expenses to maintain the property in a state to command rent. Res. That the terms be agreed. [This was the ARP using the offices at Butts for their Barlick HQ during the war.]
September 19th 1941. Mr Banks reported the letting of three rooms at Butts Mill to BUDC electricity department at £100 per annum, tenants to pay rates. Commences on September 1st 1941. Res. That the letting be approved.
January 15th 1942. The meeting was informed that MAP had requisitioned the three large weaving sheds on the ground floor at Butts Mill together with the boiler house, coal store etc. The plans showed an entrance in Butts. The requisition was dated January 12th 1942 and described as; 'All those premises known as Butts Mill, Barnoldswick, shewn for the purposes of identification coloured pink and brown and edged with red on the attached plan'. The areas of the three sheds being:
1.Shed 20,011 square feet
2.Shed 18,260 ditto
3.Shed 17,521 ditto
Total 55,792 square feet.
[This space was used throughout the war, mainly by Rover Company for reconditioning aero engines but there is also evidence of a bonded warehouse for tobacco there after Liverpool was blitzed in 1940/41. Ellison and Co were in the separate Monkroyd Shed at the back of Butts with their own entrance onto Calf Hall Road and were not affected by the requisitioning for the Rover Co.]
February 19th 1942. Consideration was given to tenders for shafting and gearing at Butts Mill which has to be removed under direction from the requisitioning authority. Res. That the highest tender of £427-10-0 from James Dixon of Burnley be accepted. They to bear the cost of dismantling and removal. Plus 64 economiser pipes at £1 per pipe. [The first thing that had to be done was to modernise the sheds. Removing the shafting was part of this process and happened at all the mills taken over by the MAP.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

June 18th 1942. It was reported that Mr Wood and Mr Banks had met the District Valuer at Bradford re compensation for Butts Mill. A claim had been made for £1000 per annum but only £1 had been offered. It was pointed out to the DV that £150 was at present being received for only a small part of the premises and eventually a provisional suggestion of £200 was made by the DV who stated he would consider the matter further and make a written offer. [This matter dragged on for a long time, CHSC refused the offer. See below for the denouement.]
July 16th 1942. Correspondence with the National Fire Service was read in which permission was asked to close the clow at Butts Mill to create a static water supply. It was decided that the matter should remain in abeyance for the time being because of the danger of flooding and the inability of the NFS to undertake the responsibility for any damage arising therefrom and in view of static water being provided by the Rover Co Ltd. [Static water supplies for use during fire-fighting were very important because during bombing there was a possibility of mains supplies to conventional fire hydrants being disrupted. Where there was no natural resource, prefabricated steel tanks were erected at strategic points and they made wonderful boating ponds for the lads! Their position was marked with a large yellow painted sign 'EWS'. (Emergency Water Supply.)]
It was reported that a Draft Lease had been received from BUDC re the lease of a portion of Butts Mill now occupied by the Electricity Department and that negotiations were proceeding re a further small space temporarily occupied by them. It was reported that Mr Aldersley had enquired about the tenancy of the space over that occupied by Mr Lister, caravan maker, at Butts Mill but that eventually he had found that he did not require it. Since then government officials had seen Mr Banks and told him that it was intended to store Nutter Brother's looms in the space at Butts Mill and that Mr Battye the district valuer would deal with the question of rent. [Moving them out of the weaving sheds?] Mr Banks reported that the Craven Cellar [Butts] had been let to Mr Procter, furniture dealer at £17-10-0 per annum payable quarterly and to commence on September 30th and also that additional space had been let to Mrs Whipp at £1 per week, the rent to commence January 1st 1943, both cases being subject to certain alterations by CHSC.
September 17th 1942. It was reported that the Rover Company were carrying out certain alterations to Butts Mill in the portion requisitioned by them. Mr Jacques presented the board with a very complete plan with elevations, areas and tenancies for which the members expressed their thanks.
October 21st 1943. That Messrs Aspden and Johnson be instructed to revalue Butts Mill for insurance purposes and that when this had been completed, failing agreement with Mr Battye the District Valuer as to rent, his approval should be obtained for the appointment of Mr George Singleton of Blackburn as an independent valuer to advise as to the rent to be paid for the requisitioned part of Butts Mill. [See the LTP transcripts 78/SA/1 to 18 for interviews with George Forrester Singleton who founded the firm of G F Singleton and Sons, one of the most respected firms of Industrial Estate Agents and Valuers in the NE Lancashire. The firm is still in business in Blackburn in 2011.] As the unoccupied part of Butts Mill was deteriorating due to general dilapidation, broken windows etc it was resolved that Mr Jacques should obtain estimates for the work to be done and apply for the necessary Building Licence. [A licence for materials had to be obtained from the Board of Trade.]
November 18th 1943. Reported that Messrs Aspden and Johnson had made a valuation of Butts Mill for insurance purposes which totalled £56,190 of which approximately £22,905 was in respect of the part occupied by Rover Co Ltd. Bank account in credit £3654-8-6. Rents owing £237-7-2. [Note first the disparity between this valuation and the propsed sale price above and that every cloud has a silver lining. Stopping the engines has removed the biggest expense, coal for power, and the requisitioned premises are producing a regular income at very little expense to CHSC as they are on repairing leases. Consider this as well, the requisitioned premises have been totally upgraded with level concrete floors, full electrical installations and are being given regular maintenance. Things could be worse! Note also that this was true of all the mills taken over as shadow factories, we shall see later that this was to be a key factor in the transition from a war economy to peacetime conditions in the area.]
November 16th 1944. Reported that an interview had taken place with Mr Battye the District Valuer re the compensation payable by the Air Ministry for the portion of Butts Mill requisitioned by them. After protracted negotiations he had increased his figure from £200 to £300 per annum. [Victor Hedges the secretary from Proctor and Proctor is earning his corn! This valuation was back-dated to the original takeover in 1942.]
As the war neared its close many firms were looking at the possibility of moving to better premises. Plans were being laid for the post-war economy.
March 15th 1945. Mr Hedges reported on his visit to Pancreol Ltd at Settle stating that the premises at present occupied by the company were not in very good condition. In the interview he had mentioned Butts Mill but they seemed more interested in Calf Hall Shed stating that a two storeyed building was essential. Mr Hedges had pointed out that this could be arranged for at Butts Mill. In reply to a question about the approximate rent for Calf Hall Shed he had explained the difficulties in coming to any decision on the matter at the present time but he had mentioned a very rough estimate of £2,000. At the end of the interview it was left that Pancreol Ltd would apply for permission to inspect both Calf Hall Shed and Butts Mill. [Pancreol Ltd were associated with Hodgsons Ltd Tanners of Beverly in East Yorkshire. I wonder whether anyone looked at the conditions imposed in the original conveyance of 1888 which prohibited 'noisome use'. Anything connected with the tanning industry could come under this heading.]
June 21st 1945. A letter was read from the West Riding County Council giving notice to vacate the premises at Butts Mill occupied as an Air Raid Warden's Post as of September 29th 1945 and asking if the CHSC would agree to possession being given up on July 20th and offering £10 in lieu of making good the premises. Res. That these proposals be agreed to and Mr Banks make arrangements for the premises to be decorated and the furniture cleared.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

We'll leave Butts at this point and look at Calf Hall Shed which was a relatively simple case, the tenants were moved to Wellhouse and the whole mill was requisitioned for the use of the Rover Company for the duration of the war.
September 30th 1940. The secretary reported that the Ministry of Aircraft Production had, on behalf of a Coventry firm (Rover Cars), requisitioned Bankfield Shed (3000 looms) for aircraft production and require a further 1200/1600 loom shed. They have been unable to secure this and as we were not in a position to provide it at Wellhouse the tenants at Calf Hall Shed had been approached with a view to removing to the space available in Wellhouse Mill. The secretary read a report on the position which had been submitted to the MAP setting out the probable cost of removal, allowance to tenants for removal and all incidental expenses relative thereto. The letter also suggested a rent for Calf Hall of 3/6 per square yard comprising the warehouse and shed space. £250 per annum for the use of the boilers and supervision of the heating should they require it, the tenants to pay all rates and fire insurance.
December 19th 1940. That Proctor and Proctor, 3 Grimshaw Street Burnley be appointed to conduct the necessary negotiations with the MAP for compensation for the requisitioning of Calf Hall Shed and the consequential removal of tenants etc as from the date of requisition, October 5th 1940. It was reported that the engine at Calf Hall Shed had been stopped on December 18th 1940 and that the Rover Co had asked that the lineshafting be removed. Res. That a price should be obtained for the line shafting as it stood. [Once again the board has to accept the fact that the mill would never run again. Unlike Butts, the engine remained in place until after the war when it was scrapped.]
June 19th 1941. It was reported that the MAP would agree to CHSC continuing the insurance of Calf Hall Shed and would refund the premiums payable (at 2/6 %) providing CHSC would waive any claim against the Air Ministry for damage covered by the policy. Mr Wood reported on negotiations with Mr Horan, the Lands Officer of the Air Ministry as to compensation for Calf Hall Shed and Mr Horan had stated he would recommend a payment of £2,000 per annum. Negotiations as regards the cost of removal etc were still proceeding. Res. That Mr Wood's actions be approved and that he be authorised to obtain the best figure possible.
August 7th 1941. Reported that £600 had been received on account from MAP for the requisition of Calf Hall Shed.
September 19th 1941. Mr Wood reported on a meeting with Mr Entwistle and Mr Dean representing the Air Ministry re the requisitioning of Calf Hall Shed. He stated that the original figure of £2,000 quoted by Mr Horan had been withdrawn and the highest figure they would agree to is £1,500 per annum. Res. That the offer be accepted but considerable disappointment was expressed. Mr Wood said that compensation for removal expenses etc were still proceeding.
December 18th 1941. Mr Wood stated that he had put in a claim for loss on shafting at Calf Hall Shed amounting to £3,320-16-0 less £396-4-2 realised [sale of shafting] making a total of £2,924-11-10. He had given an undertaking that if this amount was received, no claim would be made for reinstatement of the shafting. Res. That this be approved.
April 15th 1942. It was reported that the Inland Revenue had increased the Schedule 'A' valuation of Calf Hall Shed to £2,500 following an increase in the rating assessment but that they had eventually agreed to reduce it to £1500 being the compensation rent receivable from the government. [The basis of Schedule 'A' tax was the notional rental value of the premises.]
December 21st 1944. Reported that two directors of Hurst and Thackway Ltd had visited Calf Hall Shed to consider a possible leasing of the shed after the war. Following this a letter had been received from them asking if an approximate figure for rental could be stated. Res. That a reply be sent pointing out that in view of the many questions which would arise on the termination of the government's requisition it was impossible to fix a definite rental. It was further resolved that for their guidance they should be told that the government paid a compensation rent of £1,500 per annum and were responsible for rates, heating, power, insurance and all outgoings, CHSC being liable for Schedule 'A' Tax only.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
User avatar
Stanley
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 89914
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 12:01
Location: Barnoldswick. Nearer to Heaven than Gloria.

Re: STEAM ENGINES AND WATERWHEELS

Post by Stanley »

We'll leave Calf Hall being looked at by a firm wanting modern premises after the war. Let's have a look at Wellhouse now. The first thing to recognise is that Henry Brown Sons and Pickles are still in the Mechanic's Shop at Wellhouse and are busy on war work. They take over the old laundry which has been empty for five years after Barrett's Steam Laundry built their own premises on Gisburn Street. Brown and Pickles remained tenants of the CHSC right through the war, in fact they had the premises until 1982 as tenants of Silentnight who bought the mill in 1978.
September 30th 1940. The secretary reported that the Ministry of Aircraft Production had, on behalf of a Coventry firm (Rover Cars) requisitioned Bankfield Shed (3000 looms) for aircraft production and require a further 1200/1600 loom shed. They have been unable to secure this and as we were not in a position to provide it at Wellhouse the tenants at Calf Hall Shed had been approached with a view to removing to the space available in Wellhouse Mill. [This is a repeat but a reminder that in order to free Calf Hall Shed for Rover the government agree to pay the removal costs of the CH tenants to Wellhouse Mill.]
Nov 21st 1940. Mr Wood and Mr Banks reported on the negotiations relating to the alterations at Wellhouse Mill for the removal of the tenants from Calf Hall Shed to WH to make room for the Rover Co Ltd and the steps taken were approved.
June 19th 1941. That the letting of the part of Wellhouse Mill previously occupied by Messrs Ellison (approximately 900 square yards) to the Manchester Guardian and Evening News Ltd for the storage of newsprint at an annual rent of £200 per annum together with an annual payment of £39 to cover fire watching be approved. The tenancy to commence July 1st 1941. [It was normal practice during the war to have fire watchers on duty in case of direct hits by incendiary bombs, a small bomb designed specifically to set fires and not explode. This Ellison is the firm mentioned previously as having 240 looms at Wellhouse. The wording suggests they have moved and in 1951 they are noted in the Manchester Royal Exchange year book as being in Fernbank Mill with 200 looms. In the same year Edward Aldersley is in Monkroyd Shed at Butts with 386 looms. Worrall for 1957 reports Ellison's still in Fernbank and Edward Aldersley in Monkroyd at Butts with 386 looms. Once again I apologise for lack of clarity, see June 19th 1958 for at least one certainty about Edward Aldersley at Monkroyd Shed.]
We have to try now to make sense of what was happening to the weaving tenants in Wellhouse Mill. I have a suspicion that the reason this is so unclear from the minutes is that the CHSC board didn't understand what was going on either! Not surprising really, everything was moving at breakneck speed. What is certain is that following Wilfred Nutter's decision to keep Bancroft Shed open during the war by running his registered looms there, all weaving at Wellhouse was stopped by the Cotton Control Board, some tenants deciding to stay there paying a reduced rent to store their plant. The government requisitioned space at WH, not from CHSC, but from the tenants who were in possession and made arrangements for loom storage with them. I think this was a bit of a surprise for the board and they had to start negotiating with the tenants as to who should get the rent and what level it should be set at. At the same time CHSC were responsible for other areas of the mill like Brown and Pickles' tenancy. It gets complicated, the Admiralty requisition space as well, soldier on!
On June 19th 1941 it was reported that WD&E Nutter had submitted a scheme under the concentration of the cotton industry to the Controller under which a portion of Wellhouse Mill occupied by them would be vacated and their Bancroft Shed would be run. The Cotton Controller had said that in this case Wellhouse Mill would have to be closed unless WE&D Nutter could be persuaded to carry on at Wellhouse and Bancroft Shed be closed. Mr Wood said he had seen Mr Wilfred Nutter who would consider the position and that he had already seen other tenants at WH who were arranging to see Mr Nutter. [A no-brainer for Wilfred Nutter who controlled this firm, James Nutter and Sons and Nutter Brothers and I suspect everyone knew it. He was a smart cookie and given the choice of carrying on with registered looms in his own premises at Bancroft and staying as a tenant at Wellhouse his decision was a foregone conclusion. James Nutter and Sons wove on at Bancroft through the war and was the last steam-driven shed in Barlick when it closed in December 1978. I was the engineer who stopped it. Recognise also that this was bad news for the Calf Hall tenants who had been moved to Wellhouse, I think it would be a bit of a shock for them because they thought they were safe.]
September 19th 1941. It was reported that the following tenants at Wellhouse Mill had received notice of requisition for space for storage. Horsfield (Bankfield) Ltd. WE&D Nutter Ltd and Ellerbank Manufacturing Co Ltd, that their looms were being moved by direction of the Ministry into space occupied by other tenants although no notice of any kind had been received by CHSC. [I like the last part of that sentence, I think the directors were slightly disconcerted to see the disposition of space in one of their mills being decided by the MAP and the tenants. Complete loss of control.]
November 20th 1941. It was reported that £3,137-9-3 of the claim re the removal of tenants to Wellhouse Mill had been recommended for payment; that £1,018-12-2 had been disallowed and that £2,363-8-9 had been referred for further consideration.
December 18th 1941. It was reported that it was understood that the Government Storage Department had agreed with the tenants concerned at Wellhouse Mill to pay for storage space taken: Ellerbank, £115 per annum. WD&E Nutter, £406. Horsfield (Bankfield) Ltd £106. Total of £627 per annum being at the rate of 2/- per square yard, the government to pay rates, repairs etc. [In effect, a repairing lease.]
May 21st 1942. It was reported that a Payable Order for £2461-13-1 had been received from MAP which together with £1000 received previously on account made a total of £3461-13-1 in settlement of our claim under Section 2(1) (D) of the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939. [I assume that this is the removal expenses from CH to WH.]
Rents. A copy of a letter sent out by the Manufacturer's Association of Burnley and Nelson was read in which a recommendation was made re the rent of stopped mills and stating that the sub-committee appointed by them to deal with the matter had unanimously recommended firms (members) to pay 50% of the loom rent (not tape rent) based on the total number of looms formerly in their occupation on the understanding that at a later date the amount paid will be adjusted up or down according to a final recommendation. Res. That in view of the letter the manufacturing tenants at Wellhouse Mill be asked to pay a provisional rent equivalent to half the rent on the total number of looms previously occupied by them. [This is dead money as all looms are stopped. It has always surprised me that the manufacturers paid it. I suspect those that did were optimists looking forward to the return of the good old days after the war and this was regarded as rent for plant storage.]
August 6th 1942. Mr Wood reported that J Widdup and Sons Ltd had paid £250 on account for storage of looms at Wellhouse Mill.
November 19th 1942. An offer from one of the tenants of the portion of Wellhouse Mill recently requisitioned to pay over the amount receivable by him from the Cotton Board for maintenance of plant together with the cash received in respect of premises requisitioned from him by the government was reported. Res. That negotiations on these lines should be continued. [The board are groping their way towards a model for dealing with the new situation.]
December 17th 1942. A letter was read which had been sent out by the Nelson and District Manufacturer's Association to their members dated December 8th 1942 stating that the figure for rent of closed mills had been agreed at 45/6 per loom per annum based on 40” reed-space. Particulars were given of the amounts paid by the various tenants at Wellhouse Mill to date. [We don't know enough details about this matter. I suspect that the per annum loom rent for a loom was being used as a basis for quantifying a reduced storage charge. In the case of tenants whose space had been requisitioned I think that they were simply paying anything received from the government direct to the CHSC and this was accepted as the figure for storage.]
January 21st 1943. A letter from the Manchester Guardian was read intimating that in consequence of the change in position as regards the supply of paper they will not require the premises at Wellhouse Mill. The secretary had replied that we would communicate with the Ministry and offer the premises to them and would write to them later. The secretary reported that he had been in communication with the Mersey Tobacco Bond Ltd offering these premises to them and that they were looking into the matter. [Later developments show that newsprint was still stored as it is mentioned at the end of the war. Despite this the Mersey Tobacco Bond moved in and presumably paid rent direct to the CHSC. The Nigerian Tobacco Bond took space in Butts. It should be borne in mind that during the war the government took control of virtually all manufacturing and the supply network. As part of this they ensured that 'buffer stocks' of essential materials were maintained in safe locations. For many years after the war there were 'buffer depots' scattered all over the country, usually in rural locations, where stocks of essentials were maintained and rotated to maintain quality. By the end of 1995 all had been closed.]
May 20th 1943. The secretary reported that the account for heating Wellhouse Mill amounting to £313-13-0 had been passed for payment. [The engine is stopped but the premises still require heat. It becomes obvious later that the engineer, Tom Marshall, has been kept on as an employee of the Mersey Tobacco Bond and is running one of the three Lancashire boilers for heating the mill. I suspect he's keeping an eye on the engine as well ready for the restart after the war. This payment will be for essential boiler maintenance, still the responsibility of the CHSC as they would be the insurers.]
January 20th 1944. Mr Wood reported that owing to the increase in costs various Room and Power companies in the district were arranging for an increase of 10%. As the CHSC mills had been requisitioned, no looms were running so this matter did not directly affect the company's tenants except for the increased costs of the power plant (boilers and engine) at Wellhouse Mill when running re-commenced. Res. That the matter be left over for further consideration. [CHSC are looking forward to the time when weaving can re-commence at Wellhouse Mill after the war. There was an air of optimism growing in 1944. Remember that 'D' Day was to be on June 6th 1944 when the liberation of Europe started.]
September 21st 1944. Reported that Mr Moore of the Admiralty had seen Mr Banks re their use of unrequisitioned land belonging to CHSC lying between Wellhouse Mill and the old foundry belonging to Messrs Brown and a plan was submitted of the land proposed to be requisitioned. [A pencil note dated October 19th suggests a rent of £10. The Admiralty have taken over what used to be Henry Brown and Sons' foundry which I think still belonged to the Marsden Building Society after the foreclosure in 1929. The Admiralty have used CHSC land to make a road to it. This building is now occupied by Gissing and Lonsdale.]
August 23rd 1945. In view of the termination of the war the Manchester Guardian and Evening News Ltd had decided to give notice of their tenancy at Wellhouse Mill on December 31st 1945. [They must have decided to stay after all.]
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Post Reply

Return to “Local History Topics”