" 50

Wedgwood the potter had formulated a plan in 1784 which contemplated concerted action by the various local organizations for the purpose of preventing the emigration of workmen, and when the Irish Resolutions came before parliament, his idea of a general union became more definite. He wrote to Matthew Boulton in February of 1785, saying that it was his intention to recommend the formation of "a Committee of Delegates from all the manufacturing places in England and Scotland to meet and sit in London” while the Irish Resolutions were pending, and he hoped that such a step would result in a permanent association. He even had his designer, John Flaxman, make drawings for “the manufacturers' arms.

The interest of the Birmingham group in the question of concerted action found expression in 1783 when the Commercial Committee was organized. Representatives of the Committee were "expressly enjoined ... to correspond with any commercial committees that are or may be established in any other commercial cities or towns, and particularly to seek the cooperation of the industrial centers in the Black Country, on which Birmingham depended for coal and iron. When Manchester sounded the alarm against excises, the Committee, through its sub-committee on correspondence, sent circular letters to other manufacturing centers “to invite them to withstand what they conceived to be a fixed plan to introduce the excise laws by degrees into all private houses.” 51

Glasgow manufacturers, in September, 1784, voted to enter into correspondence with other industrial centers, and “to join the powerful opposition" of Lancashire. The manufacturers of the Manchester region were indeed

60

Corresp. of Wedgwood, 15, 16; Meteyard, Life of Wedgwood, II, 485, 495, 539.

"Langford, Century of Birmingham Life, I, 316, 320-322; Parl. Hist., XXV, 365.

61

the heart and center of the movement for general union as well as for opposition to the excise laws. This was later recognized by the Birmingham chamber, which called upon its members to emulate the citizens of Manchester in their liberal support of the General Chamber. The Committee of Trade had carried on correspondence with other industrial centers as early as 1782, and its activity in that connection was described as "a great advantage" to the city. After the cotton manufacturers met with rebuffs at the hands of the ministry in connection with the excise laws, the question of securing the support of other manufacturers became all-important, and they resolved on March 3, 1785, that "it is highly necessary to correspond with every manufacturing body in this kingdom.” 52

Results were soon apparent. It was reported in London on March 12 that "manufacturers are assembling" from various parts of the kingdom. A meeting had already been held in London on March 7; and the cotton manufacturers, having the advantage of a committee of delegates already in touch with the situation, secured action at this meeting which at the outset connected the Irish policy with the question of excise and committed the manufacturers to a joint consideration of the two questions. A committee was appointed, with Josiah Wedgwood as chairman, but the cotton men predominated. This committee met on March 12 and called a general meeting for March 14. At this general meeting, the idea of a union merely temporary to deal with the existing political situation was abandoned, and decision was made to form a permanent national organization, to be called the General Chamber of Manufacturers of Great Britain. It was resolved unanimously that the

62

Manchester Mercury, Sept. 21, Oct. 12, 1784, Mch. 8, 1785; Gazetteer, Mch. 9, 1785; Langford, Century of Birmingham Life, I, 328, 329; Owen MSS., LXXX, 3, 4.

association "do not cease with the present business," and to that end steps were taken to perfect the organization. The plan adopted was presented by a Manchester manufacturer. The Chamber was to consist of manufacturers only, a sharp distinction being made between manufacturers and merchants. It was expected that the members would normally be members also of local chambers. A permanent secretary was appointed; a standing committee was chosen; offices were engaged at 38 Fenchurch Street; and financial support was arranged by membership fees and by subscriptions. Plans were made for special activities during sessions of parliament, but the central office was to maintain constantly a clearing house of information and legal advice. Briefly, the Chamber was a forerunner of modern associations of manufacturers, identical in spirit, and not dissimilar in form.53

The nation-wide activities of the Chamber in opposition to the Irish Resolutions and the excise laws produced a flood of more than sixty petitions, deluging the House of Commons,-petitions representing in most cases local groups of manufacturers, and containing such similarities as to prove their common inspiration. They usually denounced both the Resolutions and excises. The government first yielded on the question of taxes by repealing the more obnoxious features of the cotton tax of 1784. But it was now too late for the government to break up the united opposition of the manufacturers. The cotton men, having had the support of the General Chamber against the excise law, stood by it in its continued war on the Irish Resolutions. Pitt again yielded, introducing the Resolutions in a new form, including several changes demanded by the manufacturers. Immediately thereafter the General Chamber held a full meeting and resolved to notify its constitutents and to ask them to petition parliament for further delay. Then followed a second deluge of petitions conforming closely to the recommendations of the General Chamber. Although Pitt secured the adoption of the revised Resolutions, the revision itself was a virtual defeat at home, and the cause of the not unexpected rejection of the entire plan in Ireland. Thus ended in defeat, at the hands of the organized manufacturers, a policy which had engaged the utmost power of the government, and which had been regarded by Pitt as vital to his own position and to the empire.54

After this twofold triumph of union, the General Chamber of Manufacturers was held in high esteem by local groups of manufacturers. Membership and subscriptions increased rapidly. Enthusiastic meetings of the local organizations were held, particularly at Manchester and Birmingham and in Staffordshire, at which funds were voted and support was pledged. The Chamber itself was active in the establishment of new local groups as branches of the central body. Its activities included a study of excise laws with the purpose of securing further modifications and preventing extensions; the furnishing of aid to manufacturers in guarding their improvements and inventions against exportation and against foreign spies; the enforcement of the laws prohibiting the emigration of workmen; the dissemination of pertinent information; the granting of legal advice wherever needed; and the study of British and foreign tariffs in the hope of securing reciprocal trading relations.55

6. The General Chamber of Manufacturers and the

French Commercial Treaty (1786)

It was in connection with the last-named subjectthe reciprocal readjustment of tariffs—that the General Chamber came once more into significant contact with public policy. The occasion was furnished by the revision of commercial relations with France called for by the Treaty of Versailles (1783). According to this treaty, a new commercial agreement was to be concluded not later than January 1, 1786. The English government under Pitt was not eager to take up the task of carrying out the agreement. This was due, however, not so much to lack of interest as to the unsettled condition of English politics. The insecurity of the young minister's power, the violent tactics of the opposition, and especially the economic disruption of the empire involved in the separation of America and the legislative independence of Ireland—these circumstances combined to force the government to focus its attention on problems more vital to its own existence. As a result, the English were forced to ask for an extension of time beyond the first of January, 1786. To this the French reluctantly consented, for the French government desired immediate action. The leading English manufacturers represented in the General Chamber were also eager for treaty arrangements to be made, for their productive powers were increasing so rapidly as to demand an expansion of mar

Manchester Mercury, May 24, June 28, Aug. 23, Nov. 22, 29, Dec. 13, 27, 1785, Jan. 3, 1786; Langford, Century of Birmingham Life, I, 327-329; Corresp. of Wedgwood, 17-19, 37-40.