Profit-Sharing and Labour Relations in England in the Nineteenth Century

R. A. Church

doi:10.1017/S0020859000003989

Profit-Sharing and Labour Relations in England in the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008

R. A. Church

Article contents

Extract
References

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An examination of the history of profit-sharing and co-partnership in England in the nineteenth century serves two purposes. One is to add to the growing body of evidence which contradicts the generalization that in the third quarter of the nineteenth century trade unionists were beginning to espouse the capitalist ethic; the other aim of this paper is to draw attention to one of three innovations in the history of labour relations in this period. Of these, both arbitration and conciliation, and cooperation have received considerable attention from historians, but profit-sharing and labour co-partnership schemes, which were forcefully canvassed by such prominent contemporary figures as G. J. Holyoake, respected veteran chartist, and George Potter, the influential labour leader, have not attracted the attention they deserve. The Royal Commission on Trade Unions in 1868 was chiefly concerned with the legal status of trade unions, yet in addition to their discussion of arbitration and conciliation the commissioners took evidence on the progress and achievements of profit-sharing and co-partnership. This reflected the existence of considerable interest in this subject at that time, which in turn provides evidence of the search by contemporaries for a solution to the growing problem of conflict between capital and labour, a matter which generated an extensive literature in the 1860s. The historical failure of profit-sharing, in terms of its limited growth and its lack of success as a method of improving labour relations, even compared with the progress of arbitration and conciliation, does not excuse the historian from neglecting a subject about which a number of influential contemporaries evidently felt strongly – though as it subsequently proved with excessive optimism. This article sets out to describe briefly the origins of the profit-sharing movement of the nineteenth century, proceeds to analyse the course of development, and finally examines its significance within the context of labour relations in England in the period 1850 to 1914.

Type: Research Article
Information: International Review of Social History , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , April 1971 , pp. 2 - 16

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000003989 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1971

References

^{page 2 note 1} This hypothesis first came under attack by G. D. H. Cole, who underlined the continuity in trade union strategy and philosophy in a classic article “Some Notes on British Trade Unionism in the Third Quarter of the Nineteenth Century”, in: International Review for Social History, II, 1937.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} Report on Profit-Sharing and Labour Co-partnership in the United Kingdom, 1920 [Cd 544], p. ii.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} The following account is based on this evidence in the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, Sixth Report, 1868, qq. 12486–12770.

^{page 5 note 1} Gilman, N. P., Profit Sharing (New York, 1889), p. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 5 note 3} Ibid., p. 248. In fact according to Holyoake, G. J., “Partnerships in Industry”, in: Transactions for the Promotion of Social Science, 1865, pp. 480–487Google Scholar, Sir Frances and John Crossley, carpet weavers of Halifax were the first to convert a private firm into a public company. This was designed to encourage the 4,500 employees to invest their savings in the firm and promote share ownership among workers.

^{page 5 note 4} Briggs, Archibald, “The Whitwood Colliery”, in: Transactions of the Society for the Promotion of Social Science, 1866, p. 703.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} Gilman, p. 249.

^{page 6 note 2} Briggs, Archibald, “The Whitwood Colliery”, in: Transactions of the Social Science Association, 1866, p. 704Google Scholar; Royal Commission on Trade Unions, VI, 1868, evidence of Henry Curer Briggs, q. 12705.

^{page 6 note 3} Ibid., p. 705.

^{page 6 note 4} Royal Commission on Trade Unions, VI, 1868, evidence of Joseph Pyrah, John Pickles, John Toft, qq. 12782–12944, 12962–13080, 13082–13118; Briggs, Archibald, “The Shitwood Colliery”, in: Transactions of the Social Science Association, 1866, p. 705.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} Ibid., p. 708.

^{page 7 note 1} “The Whitwood Collieries seem to me to furnish all the requirements of a perfectly decisive experiment.”

^{page 7 note 2} Gilman, op. cit., p. 260.

^{page 8 note 1} See Briggs, “Memorandum”, the comments on it by Sedley Taylor, and the reply by Archibald Briggs in Sedley Taylor, Profit-sharing (1884).

^{page 8 note 2} Gilman, op. cit., p. 267.

^{page 8 note 3} Sedley Taylor, op. cit., p. 123.

^{page 9 note 1} Gilman, op. cit., p. 274.

^{page 9 note 2} Fay, C. R., Co-partnership in Industry (1913), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Gilman, op. cit., p. 276.

^{page 9 note 4} Gilman, op. cit., p. 291.

^{page 10 note 1} Report on Profit-Sharing and Labour Co-partnership, 1920, p. 11.

^{page 10 note 2} Ibid., pp. 48–49.

^{page 11 note 1} Ibid., p. 50.

^{page 11 note 2} Report on Profit-Sharing and Labour Co-partnership in the United Kingdom, 1912 [Cd 6496], p. 57.

^{page 11 note 3} Report on Profit-Sharing and Labour Co-partnership, 1920, p. 53.

^{page 12 note 1} Livesey, George, The Profit-sharing Scheme of the South Metropolitan Gas Company (Co-operative Conference of the Labour Association, Newcastle on Tyne, 1899), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Garland, L. V. Lester, “Labour Co-partnership”, in: Economic Review, XXII, 1912, p. 318.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} Report, 1912. See also Pease, Edward, Profit-sharing and Co-partnership: A Fraud and a Failure? [Fabian Tract No. 170] (1913), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 4} Pease, op. cit., p. 5.

^{page 12 note 5} In the labour movement George Potter and the trade unionists at Henry Briggs & Co. provide the only exceptions to our general conclusion that trade unionists were opposed to profit-sharing.

^{page 13 note 1} Report, 1920, p. 11.

^{page 13 note 2} Report, 1920, pp. 13–15

^{page 13 note 3} Report, 1912, p. 15.

^{page 14 note 1} Garland, L. V. Lester, “Labour Co-partnership”, in: Economic Review, XXII, 1912, p. 318.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Furniss, H. Sanderson, “Co-partnership and Labour Unrest”, in: Economic Review, XXIII, 1913, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 3} Furniss, H. Sanderson, “Co-partnership and Labour Unrest”, in: Economic Review, XXIII, 1913, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 4} Schloss, D. F., Methods of Industrial Remuneration (1894), pp. 190–191.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Pease, , Profit-sharing and Co-partnership, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} Report, 1920, p. 17.

^{page 15 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 15 note 4} Ibid., p. 23.

^{page 15 note 5} Ibid., p. 24.

^{page 15 note 6} Carpenter, Charles, Industrial Co-partnership (1914), p. 5.Google Scholar

Article contents

Profit-Sharing and Labour Relations in England in the Nineteenth Century

Extract

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests