FERRYBRIDGE GLASSWORKS
SOME FACTS AND THEORIES
by TERRY SPENCER BA (Hons), Ph D.
Revised and re-written, January 1998
from the original
version of May, 1991
Dedicated to Peter Bramley (1931-1988)
"Who through our conversations renewed my dormant
interest in the subject"
INTRODUCTION
That
there was a glassworks at Ferrybridge is indisputable for it was both
documented and photographed. That it was situated on the north bank of the
River Aire
"..where
the Parish of Brotherton merges into the Parish of Ferrybridge" (1)
is
confirmed by map reference. The doubt lies not in the existence or
location of the furnace but with its origin.
The
design and location of the furnace suggest that the glassworks may have
existed on the site as early as the last quarter of the seventeenth
century for there is documentary reference to a Ferrybridge works from
that period although such evidence is both obscure and confusing and
orthodox opinion is that the glassworks were established at Ferrybridge
circa 1840.
The
purpose of this study is to ascertain the facts concerning the origin and
development of the Ferrybridge Glassworks by tracing the outline of the
historical development of the glass industry in England and its
implications for assuming the establishment of an ‘early day’ furnace
at Ferrybridge.
Consideration is given to the nature and context of the
documentary sources which appear to support such an assumption and the
study concludes with an examination of documentation from nineteenth and
twentieth century sources to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
AN EARLY DAY FURNACE?
LOCATION AND DESIGN
Photographs
reveal two cone glass furnaces at Ferrybridge of a type commonly
constructed in Britain over a period of a century and a half from the mid
point of the seventeenth century. The characteristic British design
comprised a brick-built cone, which served the dual function of glass
furnace and integral workshop. The cones were generally some 50-60 feet in
height, tapering towards the top which was open to allow an upward draught
to fan the furnace and carry off the smoke. The base of the cone was about
50 feet in diameter (2)
Throughout
the period several furnaces were built on sites within the West Riding of
Yorkshire. Cones are known to have existed at Silkstone, Bolderstone and
Haughton in the late seventeenth century and others were constructed at
Gawber (1720), Rothwell Haigh (1726), Leeds (1738), Catcliffe (1740),
Wisby Moor and Masbro (1751), York (1784) and Hunslet (1804). (3)
Cone
glass furnaces were always erected at rural locations where the arcadian
surroundings provided a plentiful supply of wood to fuel the furnace while
ensuring a degree of isolation, thus ensuring the preservation of the ‘mysteries’
which formed the basis of control of the craft and ensured the
socio-economic status of the artisan glassmakers. The latter element was
naturally of great importance to the artisan craftsmen and although
suffering gradual diminishment following the advent of the Industrial
Revolution was nevertheless an important element in the development of the
glass industry throughout the nineteenth century. Indeed, artisan control
of the craft was to prevail until the adoption of the modern automatic
machine early in the twentieth century rendered the manual production
process obsolete.
The
underlying basis of the early industrial development of glassmaking in
England had its origin in the persecution of the Huguenots in France
during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. As a result of
this persecution the glassmakers of Flanders and Lorraine sought refuge in
England.(4)
The
Protestant refugees first plied their trade in the Wealden area of
Southern England. By 1615 the prodigious use of timber for iron and glass
furnaces had caused the depletion of the surrounding woodland, endangering
national defence by denuding the shipyards of their essential natural
resource. As a result a proclamation was issued ordering the prohibition
of wood as a furnace fuel. (5) As the prohibition had only regional
application families of glassmakers migrated to the West Midlands where a
new centre of the industry was established in the Stourbridge district.
(6) From this base various glassmakers eventually commenced on a further
series of internal migrations to other regions of England.(7) Thus, by the
mid seventeenth century refugee families previously associated with
Stourbridge, such as Plimy, de Henzy (Henzall), Fenney, Tyzack and
Tottery, were active in parts of South and West Yorkshire. (8)
The
expansion of the English glass industry was paralleled by the rise of
capitalist enterprise commencing with the monopolistic control of the
trade by noblemen such as Lord Mansell and thereafter by the financial
participation of the minor nobility and gentry.(9)
Following
the French example the system applied in England from the mid seventeenth
century was for a wealthy landowner to provide a suitable location on his
estate, finance the construction of the cone furnace and outbuildings and
also the operational capital and materials used in production. Such
materials as sand and lime, together with straw and osier wands used for
packing the finished wares were often obtained from within the confines of
the estate whilst the capitalist entrepreneur also assumed responsibility
for the sale and despatch of the goods. (10) Frequently the artisan
glassmaker paid either no rent or at worst a token sum under the
conditions of a short-term agreement, usually fixed for a period of
between three and seven years duration. Thus, in terms of capital
requirement and restrictive movement such contacts imposed minimal
constraint upon the artisan whose principal contribution to the
partnership was his skill. (11) One need not look askance at the formation
of partnerships so favourable to the glassmaker for the skills he
possessed had been jealously guarded over many generations of familial
association with the craft, thus ensuring a high degree of craft
exclusivity which placed the skill of the glassmaker at a premium. (12)
The extent to which such exclusivity served to engender social status is
clearly seen by reference to earlier generations of the fraternity. In
Venice, glassmakers were ranked with all but the very highest aristocracy,
while in France they were referred to as ‘gentlehommes verriers’ and
their social standing confirmed by their right to wear swords. (13) The
emergence of the contract system allied to the rise of capitalism resulted
in some diminution of social status by the nineteenth century but was
nevertheless sufficiently favourable to ensure the respect of the English
gentry for the itinerant artisans of the pre-industrial era.(14)
In
the context of the newly sprung combination of capital and labour and its
possible application to the founding of a glassworks at Ferrybridge one
must consider the factors in relation to the location of Brotherton Marsh
end.
The
most obvious connection is the Ramsdens of nearby Byram Hall, a wealthy
family who owned land in the vicinity and further afield. (15) Quite apart
from capital, the Ramsden estate at Byram could meet all the demands of
materials and space required for the establishment of a rural glassworks.
(16) The siting of a furnace in the semi-isolation of the Marsh end and
yet adjacent to the river ensured a high degree of privacy while enabling
full utilisation of the established waterborne trade in an era when poor
conditions on overland routes (even as important as the adjacent Great
Northern Road) made the despatch of goods by road twenty times more
expensive than carriage by water.(17)
Given
the existent conditions one may reasonably envisage a situation in which a
group of artisan glassmakers, perhaps en route from the West Midlands to
the North of England, were persuaded to deviate from their proposed course
and practise their craft at Ferrybridge under the protection and patronage
of the local landowner, resulting in the establishment of the glasworks
there in the late seventeenth century.
EARLY DAY DOCUMENTATION
In
1696, John Houghton stated that there were three glasshouses in existence
in Yorkshire; "…two
near Silkstone and one near Ferrybridge." (18)
It
has become commonly accepted that the glasshouse "near
Ferrybridge" was once standing at Houghton (later Glasshoughton) and
that the reference to Ferrybridge was for ease of geographical identity,
the latter village being an important posting stage on the
London-Edinburgh route and therefore an ideal location for business
communication.(19) The prefix ‘glass’ is an undoubted indication of
the manufacture of that material at Houghton, a fact confirmed by other
documentary sources dating from the late seventeenth century.(20) The
absence of official records, business papers or even incidental references
in newspapers and correspondence concerning the Ferrybridge works has
served to reinforce the supposition that the glasshouse to which John
Houghton referred was not actually located at Ferrybridge. Nevertheless,
an element of doubt has always remained. Francis Buckley, an eminent
historian of the early glass industry, whilst acknowledging the existence
of the Glasshoughton furnace, implies that it was additional to that
situated at Ferrybridge.(21) Likewise, Hodkin, who states specifically
that a glasshouse existed at Ferrybridge in 1696, with another one at
nearby Glasshoughton.(22) The issue is further confused by Butterworth who
having traced the historical development of the Glasshoughton site,
concludes his account by ascribing facts concerning its utilisation at a
much later date which are undoubtedly applicable to the Ferrybridge
works.(23) A further area of confusion concerns the very site of the
Ferrybridge glassworks. Researchers unfamiliar with the neighbourhood have
at times referred to Brotherton Glassworks, regarding such as being
additional to those at Ferrybridge.(24)
Clearly
then, the documentary references to a glassworks at Ferrybridge in the
pre-industrial era while providing an indication of the possible existence
of an ‘early-day’ glass furnace are of a confused and inconclusive
nature. However, if the putative date of circa 1840 is accepted for the
establishment of a glassworks at Ferrybridge several questions arise. Why,
for instance, did the new works employ an outdated architectural design?
It is not without significance that by 1840 almost all the cone glass
furnaces (with the exception of Catcliffe) had long ceased production. By
that date the development of the Yorkshire coalfield, allied to
improvements in transport, had resulted in the relocation of the County’s
glass industry. The early decades of the nineteenth century had seen the
establishment of glassworks in the emergent urban areas close to the
coalfield where the development of road and rail networks was augmented by
a plentiful supply of cheap labour and growing markets based on urban
consumerism.(25) An important consequence of the industrial relocation was
a change in the architectural design of glasshouses. Furnaces in urban
locations were housed in rectangular buildings which had frequently been
constructed to serve some previous industrial purpose and had for reasons
of economic adaptability replaced the purpose-built cone furnaces.(26) The
draught for the furnaces was provided by a chimney which enabled higher
temperatures to be obtained and therefore reduced the time required to
melt the batch as well as permitting larger quantities of metal to be
prepared in the large rectangular ‘day’ tanks which had replaced the
crucible ‘pots’ associated with the older technology of the cone
furnace.(27) The economic advantage afforded by the new system is obvious
and indicates the folly of constructing cone furnaces at such a late stage
in the development of the Yorkshire glass container industry. The
introduction of the regenerative (i.e. continuously charged) tank furnaces
from the 1860’s widened the economic disparity for unlike the cone
furnaces the urban glassworks were easily adapted to the new
technology.(28) Consequently, before the middle of the nineteenth century
the cone furnace, in terms of location and general economic viabilty had
become semi-obsolete in the Yorkshire district. The fact is underlined by
reference to the number of operational glassworks in the County which rose
from seven in 1784 to eighteen by 1833, no new cone furnaces (other than
Ferrybridge) being built after the turn of the century.(29) While it is
true that the cone furnaces at Catcliffe and Ferrybridge retained their
productive function alongside the urban glassworks this was largely due to
their proximity to the coalfield and good lines of communication. (30)
However, both sites were minor centres of production by mid century and
even Hunslet, the location for the first urban glassworks and the centre
of production of flint glassware, had been replaced by Castleford as the
seat of the glass container industry well before 1850. (31) Admittedly,
cone furnaces continued to function in the North East of England district
of the trade during the first half of the nineteenth century and a second
cone furnace was constructed on the Ferrybridge site in 1873. In the case
of the former area the construction of cone furnaces was undertaken in
connection with the production of the cheaper black bottle trade which had
been largely supercharge within the Yorkshire districts by the pale metal
which was to distinguish the County trade for several decades. The
erection of the second cone at Ferrybridge was a singular exception to the
general trend, arising from the exigencies of the trade boom of the early
1870’s. As the site of the Ferrybridge works was visible from the seat
of the Ramsdens’ at Byram Hall it is possible that the decision to build
a cone furnace was taken from aesthetic considerations concerning the
nature and location of the existing site although it is equally as likely
that the construction of a cone furnace was both quicker and cheaper then
the establishment of a more modern plant. Furthermore, in an age
untroubled by considerations of visual amenity or environmental pollution
in which economic matters were generally predominant, it is unlikely that
aesthetic considerations would override the profit motive. Whatever the
case, it is clear that the adoption of the existent design was a tacit
acknowledgement of the place of the Ferrybridge works within the context
of an earlier phase of industrialisation for however well served by the
nearby waterway and road systems the Ferrybridge works were at a
disadvantage when compared to the more update and centralised factories at
Breffit, Winterbottom, Lumb and their contemporaries.
That
such a peripheral and outdated site failed to commend itself to potential
manufacturers is evident from the spasmodic phases of productivity
undertaken at the Ferrybridge works. During the period 1840-83 there were
five tenants, each of whom surrendered the leasehold, finding the site to
be economically unviable in the long term.
Consideration
of local determinants therefore suggests that the Ferrybridge Glassworks
was either a pre-industrial (i.e. earlier than the nineteenth century)
establishment or that if of later date, the design and location was based
on outdated technology and therefore represent a serious economic
miscalculation.
‘EARLY DAY GLASSHOUSE OR LATTER DAY FOLLY?
WHAT DO ADDITIONAL SOURCES SUGGEST TO BE THE CASE?
Early
maps such as those of Jeffrey (1772), Thorp (1819) and Greenwood (1834),
reveal no indication of a glass furnace at Ferrybridge. An undated map,
apparently of eighteenth century origin, belonging to the Aire &
Calder Navigation Co., entitled ‘The Brotherton Cut’, and most
probably dating from the surveys undertaken by Palmer (1736) or Smeaton
(1772) on behalf of the Company, does contain a rather vague indication of
two apparently conical objects standing on the appropriate site.(32)
However, as it is a matter of record that the second glass cone at
Ferrybridge was not built until the following century it is unlikely that
the objects depicted on the map are glass cones. Indeed, a further map
from the Navigation Company’s archives, dated 1827, while revealing
Bridge House and an adjacent rectangular building (probably outbuildings)
shows no indication of a glass cone on the site. In addition, the list of
all English glasshouses paying tax during the financial year 1832-33,
which was compiled by the Commission of Enquiry into the Glass Tax (1833),
contains no reference to the Ferrybridge works.(33) Neither is there any
reference in other Treasury Papers in the Public Records Office.
The
crucial factor in the theory of ‘aristocratic’ patronage as the basis
for the possible establishment of an ‘early day’ glasshouse at
Ferrybridge concerns the Ramsden ownership of the site. The respected
local historian, John Goodchild, has mortgage documents dated 1745,
concerning the Swan Inn (Bridge House), which he considers may well
indicate the date when the building was first erected. At the time the
site was occupied by the Askell family and owned by John Lowe of
Brotherton.(34)
The
evidence would therefore appear to invalidate the theory of a long
established glasshouse on the Ferrybridge site and suggest a nineteenth
century origin. The generally accepted date of about 1840 therefore seems
most probable and substantiates the opinion of John Goodchild that it is
unlikely that kilns were run adjacent to a busy, prosperous coaching inn,
even if downwind of it, at an earlier date.(35)
A NINETEENTH CENTURY GLASSWORKS?
The
Swan Inn stood adjacent to a plot of land 1 acre, 3 roods, 17 perches in
extent, which was allotted to the owner of the inn, John Lowe, at the time
of the inclosure of Brotherton Marsh in 1793. (36) The land contained a
dwelling house, stables and sundry outbuildings which were utilised in
conjunction with the business of the Swan as one of three large coaching
inn within the village of Ferrybridge.(37)
Following
the demise of John Lowe in 1808, the inn and the accompanying land and
property passed to his son, John Lowe Junior (38) and subsequently via his
descendants, into the hands of Samuel Thwaites (39) Then, in July 1817,
the entire holding passed into the ownership of the Ramsdens of Byram
Hall.(39)
The
heyday of the Swan Inn had commenced with the introduction of the Royal
Mail Service in 1785 but the coaching trade was already showing signs of
decline by the time of the introduction of the steam locomotive and the
first wave of railway construction in the 1830’s. By 1840 the inn had
ceased to function as the expanding rail network ensured the terminal
decline of the coaching era. It was at this period that the first glass
furnace was built on the site adjacent to the former hostelry.(41) In this
connection it is of passing interest to not the doubt expressed by a
former local historian concerning the location of the glasshouse on the
Swan site. In an interesting article touching on the origin of the works,
the late Harry Battye drew on the fact that while Bradley and Harper in
their retrospective accounts of the coaching era noted the derelict state
of the former inn by 1889, neither made any reference to the existence of
a glass furnace on the site.(42) Battye (apparently under the erroneous
impression that the glassworks were housed in the premises of the former
inn) therefore concluded that
"It
seems most unlikely that a building in rapid decay in the year 1889 could
have been converted into a works."(43)
What
were the factors which influenced the apparent establishment of the
glassworks at Ferrybridge towards the middle of the nineteenth century?
One
important factor was growth of urban consumerism which had increased the
demand for containers for a variety of foodstuffs and liquids. It is
interesting to note that arising from the response to public demand and
the ensuing business competition this engendered, manufacturers began to
give higher regard to the presentation of their wares. As a result, glass
containers were produced in a variety of shapes and colours, a fact
confirmed by the proliferation of coloured metal found by the present
writer when the Ferrybridge Glassworks site was disturbed as the result of
civil engineering in the summer of 1990. (44) It was also in response to
the desire to present consumables in a n attractive manner with the
emphasis on the wholesomeness and quantity of the wares, that the
Yorkshire glassmakers developed the pale metal which was to become the
staple of the County trade from this time.
Other
developments such as the construction of the Aire & Calder Canal
between 1820-1826 and the advent of the local railway services from the
mid 1840s’ together with the extension of the coal measures, were
influential considerations. A most important economic factor was the
repeal in 1845 of the excise duty on glassware which had constrained glass
manufacture for more than a century and a half. The removal of the
imposition prompted an increase in the number of local glassworks and in
so doing intensified the degree of business competition within the trade.
The repeal of the duty was of dubious benefit in the case of the
Ferrybridge for while it may have been a favourable influence in the
establishment of the business, its inability to compete due to
inequalities arising from the economic misjudgements in the design and
location of the works, proved to be a long-term detriment to the business.
A
further indication of the establishment of the glasshouse at Ferrybridge
around 1840, is provided by Alfred Greenwood, the long serving Central
Secretary of the Yorkshire Glass Bottle Makers’ Society. Writing in
1893, Greenwood stated that he possessed information concerning the
history of the works covering the previous half century (45) and confirmed
(via another source) the existence of the Ferrybridge works prior to
1847.(46)
More
specifically, a memorial of 28th August, 1840, reveals that the
lease of the Ferrybridge site was obtained by James Kelsall,a colourmaker
of Burslam, Staffordshire , and William Stanway, a potter of undisclosed
location within Yorkshire.(47) The deed includes the lease of all the
buildings formerly comprising the Swan Inn, together with the adjacent
parcel of land but makes no reference to the existence of a glass furnace
on the said plot. The deed of lease therefore most probably indicates the
date of transition from inn to factory site.
The
occupation of the leases', together with the Staffordshire connection,
suggests the site was also used for the manufacture of pottery, a fact
confirmed to some extent by the Census Returns of 1841 which name Henry
Kelsall, aged 17, and William Stanway, aged 21, as pottery and
glassmakers. Two other glassmakers are recorded in connection with the
Ferrybridge site at that date; William Taylor and George Jackson, both
being 20 years of age. The dual use of the site was well illustrated in
1990 when the site was disturbed, revealing numerous potsherds in addition
to a multiplicity of fragments of coloured glass.
In
1845 the site was identified as that of the Yorkshire Bottle Works, a name
which could easily embrace the manufacture of stoneware containers as well
as those of glass. By 1848, however, the site was occupied by the
Yorkshire Glass Bottle Company and is named as such on the Ordnance Survey
Map of 1852.(48)
The
proprietor of the Yorkshire Glass Bottle Co. was a Mr Thatcher who
specialised in the manufacture of common or black bottles, of which the
recent upheaval of the site produced much evidence. About 1854, Thatcher
relinquished the leasehold and moved to the northeast of England, then the
seat of the black bottle trade, where he established a glassworks at
Blaydon.(49)
Some
indication of the hours of arduous work endured by the glassmakers at this
period is obtained by reference to the retrospective remarks of Alfred
Greenwood, who, in 1847, as a boy of ten, was employed at the Hunslet
works of Roberts, Scott & Taylor. Writing in 1910, Greenwood recalled
that
"In
1847 and for some years afterwards, it required, in Yorkshire, seven days
a week to work five journeys. [i.e. to obtain the productive output of
five working days] The bottle hands commenced to make bottles at 12 o’clock
Sunday midnight, and sometimes had to leave off work at 12 o’clock
Saturday midnight before getting the Number [the number of bottles
comprising the acceptable output of a twelve hour shift] in. These were
‘glorious good old times’. Making bottles on Sunday was not then
allowed, or perhaps the bottle hands would have had to get the Number in
before leaving off at Saturday midnight."(50)
The
ironic tone of Greenwood’s remarks indicates the debasement of the
status and the social esteem enjoyed by the artisan glassmakers in the
pre-industrial age, notwithstanding the combination of the artisans to
establish a union or trade society by the late 1820s. However, artisan
power was boosted early in the following decade when as the result of the
earlier revocation of the excise duty, the introduction of pale metal
within the Yorkshire trade and a general upsurge in trade, the glass
container industry enjoyed its first major boom.
The
partial removal of the duty on glass manufacture in 1828 had produced
favourable economic conditions which had led to the establishment of the
glass container industry at Castleford about that date (and ultimately to
the founding of the Ferrybridge works) as well as the artisan trade
society. The introduction of the pale, almost translucent, green metal was
a significant factor, the origin of which is, alas, lost to history.
Nevertheless, the combination of economic boom and the increasing public
preference for pale metal containers explain both the transition of Mr.
Thatcher from tenant to factory owner and his relocation to Blaydon where
the neighbourhood was more congenial to the manufacture of black metal.
Referring
to the mid 1850s, Greenwood stated that during the period 1854-56
"…The
Yorkshire Society took the Ferrybridge works, belonging to Sir John
Ramsden, which were then standing, [unused] which had been given up by Mr.
Thatcher…."(51)
The
Glassmakers Society sought to obtain a satisfactory return by investing
its funds in such a venture in order to provide labour for its out of work
members, thereby reducing the demand for ‘Donation’ [unemployment]
benefit. With the gradual decline of favourable trading conditions due to
the onset of a cyclical depression of trade, conflict arose between the
Society and the County’s manufacturers when the wares produced at the
Ferrybridge works were sold at a price which deliberately undercut those
of other manufacturers. In an effort to force the Society into line the
manufacturers, who it should be noted, were the employers of the bulk of
the Society’s members, announced an all-round reduction of six shillings
per week in artisan wages. The measure was presented as one which was
necessary to enable the employers to compete with the market price
established by the goods produced at the Ferrybridge works but was in fact
a calculated attempt on the part of the manufacturers to provoke an
industrial dispute resulting in strike action by the artisans. The desired
action would engender financial pressure on the Society through the
necessary provision of benefit to out of work members. The stratagem
adopted by the manufacturers proved to be effective when after only eight
weeks the Society’s funds were almost exhausted and the lease on the
Ferrybridge works was surrendered.(52)
Subsequently,
a lease on the works was obtained by Greenhow & Co.. The leasehold
must have been acquired before 1859 for in that year a further strike took
place at the Ferrybridge site at which time the proprietor sought to
engage glassmakers from the northeast district of the trade to replace the
Yorkshire-based artisans. The measure caused bitterness on the part of the
Yorkshire glasshands for shortly before the time of the action the various
regional glassworkers’ unions had belonged to an Amalgamated Society
formed in an attempt to present a nationally united front to the
manufacturers. The action of the North of England artisans may have been
prompted by the awareness that Mr. Thatcher had engaged Yorkshire artisans
in the establishment of his Blaydon on Tyne works. Whatever the reason,
the Yorkshire hands felt great resentment and still expressed
recriminative opinions on the subject more than thirty years later.(53)
The
extent to which the 1860 dispute had an adverse effect upon the tenancy of
Greenhow & Co. is conjectural but by 1864 the Ferrybridge works were
again standing unused. In that year Edgar Breffit, the leading Yorkshire
manufacturer, obtained the leasehold of the Ferrybridge works in order to
operate the site as a subsidiary branch of his Castleford works.(54) The
acquisition of the Ferrybridge site arose in consequence of an upturn in
trade which engendered the expansion of the industry and marked the high
point in the prosperity of the container trade early in the following
decade. Arising from this phase of industrial expansion, Breffit persuaded
William Bagley, then Central Secretary of the Yorkshire Trade Society, to
resign his post with the Union and take up the position of manager of the
Ferrybridge works.(55)
At
the time of Bagley’s appointment the Ferrybridge works consisted of a
single reverberatory furnace containing four fire-clay pots or crucibles,
providing employment for eight chairs of bottlehands working a two-shift
system.(56) The limitations of the cone furnace may be judged by
comparison with the regenerative tank furnaces of urban works by the fact
that the former required a long, slow process of recharging the pots and
melting the batch to produce the metal between shifts, whilst the latter
allowed continuous production. Even the ‘day tanks’ which were
forerunners of the regenerative furnaces, provided a better economic
proposition than the cone furnace crucibles, for although requiring
recharging after working out [emptying] the metal, they were of greater
capacity than the pots. From this it is obvious that the economic
potential of the Ferrybridge site was limited to those periods of cyclical
boom when market demand ensured its use in a supplemental productive
capacity. The situation appertaining within the container trade from the
late 1860s was a singular example of a rising market and at some stage
early in the following decade a decision was taken to build a second
furnace on the Ferrybridge site. The new furnace consisted of a second
brick-built cone of a type which, whilst architecturally compatible with
the existing cone furnace was, like its forebear, once long superceded
within the Yorkshire region of the industry. The continued erection of
cones within the North-East region beyond the mid point of the nineteenth
century was quite commonplace, such edifices being built by small firms of
limited capital resource. The limited capital requirement, allied to speed
of construction and (perhaps) aesthetic considerations arising from the
visibility of the site from the Ramsden seat, may furnish the reasons for
the decision to build a second furnace of conical design at
Ferrybridge.(57)
The
new cone was slightly smaller than the existing one both in height and
circumference. The precise date of construction is not known but
statistical data from the Quarterly Reports of the Glass Bottle Makers
Society reveals that an additional bottle house was operational by
October, 1872.(58) It is most probable, however, that the increased
capacity indicated at that time was occasioned by the establishment of a
furnace at Knottingley where William Bagley and his associates had
commenced in business as bottle manufacturers, Bagley having resigned from
his managerial position at Ferrybridge the previous year in order to
commence as a manufacturer.(59) The Ferrybridge works are in fact recorded
in terms of their previous maximum capacity early in 1873, which appears
to support the supposition that the increase of October, 1872, was due to
the start of production at Bagley, Wild & Co.(60) It would therefore
seem that the output of the new Ferrybridge furnace is first recorded in
the Branch Returns of June, 1873, although the figures for November show
an increase of one bottle house which may be an indication that the
productive capacity of the new furnace was a staggering operation.(61) The
incorporation of data concerning the successful and gradually expanding
Knottingley glassworks within the trade returns of the Ferrybridge Branch
of which it initially formed a part for the purpose of Union
administration, makes at almost impossible to define which of the
statistics concerning productive capacity refers to Ferrybridge and which
to Knottingley and therefore obscures the date on which the second
Ferrybridge furnace became operational.
The
second great economic boom in the container trade lasted until 1875. In
1876 a downturn in trade occurred which heralded the beginning of a
prolonged period of economic depression. The decline in trade was
accompanied by a protracted, albeit somewhat restricted, industrial
dispute as some of the Yorkshire manufacturers (surruptitiously supported
by others) sought to erode the customary trade practices observed by the
artisan glassworkers which had been strengthened during the recent period
of flourishing trade, and the Union resisted the attempted assault. The
dispute, although intense in nature and carrying implications for working
practices and conditions throughout the entire County trade, was confined
for the most part to the factories at Conisbrough and Thornhill Lees
belonging to Kilner Bros. Simultaneously, the gradual nature of trade
decline was such that production continued at the Ferrybridge outpost of
Breffit & Co. for several more years. However, by the early 1880s the
effect of the recession led to the closure of the Ferrybridge works as
Breffit & Co. withdrew from the site to concentrate their production
from their Castleford plant. Again the incorporation of statistical
material concerning Knottingley glassworks within the Ferrybridge Branch
returns makes precise dating difficult but it is evident that the closure
of the Ferrybridge works occurred in December, 1883 or January, 1884.(62)
Following
the closure, the Ferrybridge works were unused until 1886, at which date
the first flint glass hands of the Castleford District of the Flint Glass
Makers Society sought to emulate the action of the Bottle Makers Society
some thirty years earlier by establishing a union based workers
co-operative. Faced with unparalleled levels of unemployment consequent
upon the trade recession, the members of the Castleford District of the
flint glass trade persuaded the Executive Committee of their trade society
to invest £500 of the Society funds to fund the establishment of the
co-operative works.(63) As a result, negotiations were undertaken with the
Steward of Sir John Ramsden for the lease of the Ferrybridge works
recently vacated by Breffit & Co.. The works were described as
consisting of two bottle houses [i.e. cone furnaces], each capable of
working eight to twelve chairs of flint hands, two pot arches [arches
adjacent to the furnace where the fire-clay crucibles were placed to dry
out and gradually harden as eventual replacement pots], packing rooms,
stables, numerous outbuildings and offices. It was also stated that a
large dwelling house together with nine cottages stood on the site.(64)
The
large dwelling house to which the report referred was in fact Bridge
House, the former inn premises. Following the closure of the inn and the
establishment of the glassworks on the site the premises had served as
residence for the works manager. William Bagley had been accommodated
there when he became the manager of the Ferrybridge Glassworks in
1869.(65) Long before the 1880s the premises had proved to be too large
for use by a single family of limited social and financial distinction and
had therefore been sub-divided to form four separate tenements.(66)
The
Flint Glassmakers Society was informed that subject to the immediate
acceptance of the leasehold terms, which stipulated the payment of £172
as annual rent, Sir John Ramsden would undertake all necessary repairs to
the glassworks at his own expense. Alternatively, the owner would deduct
the cost of the repairs from the annual rent should the Society prefer to
carry out the renovation of the property.(67)
The
Society’s Executive Committee considered that by sub-letting Bridge
House and the on-site cottages it would obtain £70 per year, thereby
reducing the cost of the annual rent of the site to £102.(68) Yet despite
the enthusiasm of the local delegates and the national leaders of the
Flint Glass Makers Society the plan to obtain the leasehold of the
Ferrybridge site did not come to fruition. The reason for the failure to
implement the plan is unstated in the annals of the Society. There is some
indication that delay on the part of the Society’s representatives,
constrained by the unwieldy, time consuming process of democratic
consultation within the administrative structure of the Society with its
myriad of geographically scattered branches, was the cause of the failure
of the negotiations for the lease of the Ferrybridge site. In this context
one must bear in mind the hostility of some branches and the doubt of
others concerning the proposed co-operative scheme. The largely Midland
based element of the Society, engaged in the production of domestic and
luxury wares, disparaged their northern brethren whom they regarded as
inferior craftsmen, being solely engaged in the simple, repetitive process
of producing small containers.(69) It is not improbable, therefore, that
the known hostility of the ‘traditionalists’ evoked delay in the
implementation of the scheme, yet despite this probability, in the absence
of any indication of a rival bidder for the Ferrybridge works, it does not
seem likely that delay occasioned the breakdown of the negotiations. On
the evidence produced by the knowledge of subsequent events it would
appear that the interest in obtaining the Ferrybridge site was abandoned
by the advent of a more appealing offer.
Following
the death of Edgar Breffit in 1882, the company over which he has so long
presided underwent considerable reorganisation, rendered more necessary by
the deepening economic gloom within the trade which was by that time
beginning to experience the additional effect of Continental competition.
In addition to the withdrawal from the Ferrybridge works the company had
also discontinued production at the Black Flagg (sic) site at Whitwood
Mere.(70) It was the availability of the latter site that diverted the
attention of the Flint Glass Makers’ Society as one more favourable for
their co-operative venture. Consequently, the Society obtained a seven
year lease on the Black Flagg works which contained provision for the
surrender of the lease after three years in the event of business
adversity.(71) The inclusion of the ‘escape’ clause may well have been
an influential factor in the Society’s preferment of the Black Flagg
works for Sir John Ramsden was by this date notoriously indifferent to the
fate of the Ferrybridge works. As a rich landowner Ramsden could afford to
be indifferent to the operation of the Ferrybridge works and may therefore
have proved to be less accommodating to the Society than the more
commercially minded owner of the Black Flagg site. Again, a more
centralised urban site may have appeared economically more advantageous
compared to the more peripheral, semi-rural location of the Ferrybridge
works. Whatever the reason, the rejection of the Ferrybridge site by the
representatives of the Flint Glass Makers’ Society marked the end of an
era in the history of the Ferrybridge Glass works.(72) The site, disused
since 1883, remained so ever thereafter, slowly falling into a state of
neglect and disrepair. Over the ensuing years the myth developed that the
reason for Ramsden’s reluctance to let-out the Ferrybridge site was the
smoke nuisance which, carried from the furnaces by the prevailing wind
towards Byram Hall, was alleged to be ruining the trees on the Byram
estate, prompting Ramsden to order the closure of the works.(73) However,
the fact that Ramsden was willing to permit negotiations at all suggests
that such considerations were of secondary importance to him and, indeed,
the operation of the Ferrybridge works at periods throughout the preceding
half century suggest that even if the possibility of any smoke nuisance
was not anticipated with the founding of the works it was nonetheless
tolerated. Likewise, although indifferent, Ramsdens' willingness to
countenance the future operation of the glassworks may be evident from the
fact that they were left pending possible further use, for almost a
further half century. A somewhat dismissive comment by Alfred Greenwood,
some years later that;
"The
works at Ferrybridge are still standing [i.e. unused] and are not likely
to be worked again. The owner can well afford to let them stand or
demolish them"
provides
ample indication of Ramsdens indifference.(74)
With
the passage of the years however, possible reuse of the Ferrybridge site
became increasingly remote. A degree of recovery from the trade depression
by the late 1880s was constrained by the increase in both domestic and
foreign competition. Furthermore, the pale metal which had previously been
the sole preserve of the Yorkshire container industry had by then been ‘usurped’
by other districts of the trade, particularly the biggest rival,
Lancashire, in an effort to ensure economic survival at the expense of the
Yorkshire area.(75) The prevailing economic conditions and the
accompanying technological development in container production meant that
by the closing decade of the nineteenth century most operational
glassworks carried spare manufacturing capacity. Not only did the ongoing
conditions prevent the absorption of surplus artisan workers but they also
restricted entreprennurial opportunities such as those which had
characterised the industry during the boom periods of the 1850s and 1870s.
In addition, the adoption of new technological production processes such
as the gas fired regenerative furnaces, annealing lehrs and crude, but
ultimately successful, bottlemaking machines, was a feature of the final
quarter of the century. A cone furnace, such as the one at Ferrybridge,
was totally unsuited to the adoption of modern apparatus compared to works
of urban design. Thus the initial disadvantage of the Ferrybridge works
was widened. The impracticality of any possible use of the Ferrybridge
works was also reinforced by the capital requirement necessary for the
modernisation of the existing plant. So huge was capital demand to enable
modernisation of even the most favourably suited of urban glassworks that
the process could only be met by corporate effort in the form of public
limited companies. The era of individual patronage and private
propriertorship had been rendered as obsolete as the design of the
Ferrybridge furnaces. Even though as recently as the mid 1880s Ramsden
could afford to invest capital in the hope of revitalising the Ferrybridge
works, such a possibility was even then imprudent and was made otiose by
subsequent developments. Additionally, factors contributing to a gradual
decline in the socio-economic status of the landed gentry from the turn of
the new century had particular significance for the Ramsdens for whom the
impending financial crisis of the aristocracy was an immediate
consideration, preventing all possibility of capital investment in the
Ferrybridge works. In consequence of such developments the Ferrybridge
Glassworks became increasingly more obsolete and ruinous. By the turn of
the twentieth century it was recorded that;
"The
ruins of the once flourishing Ferrybridge Glassworks stand. Spacious
buildings, two large cones and a beautiful house, once inhabited by the
manager, now by tenement dwellers, testify to the former prosperity of the
trade. About twenty-five years ago the works were disestablished and the
whole scene is one of incredible desolation." (76)
Despite
disuse, the works continued to feature in the quarterly trade returns of
the Glass Bottle Makers Society until the middle of 1909.(77) Indeed, it
was not until about 1903 that the Society redesignated the ‘Ferrybridge
Branch’ as ‘Knottingley Branch’.(77) About 1914, a chimney on the
site was demolished, having become unstable following years of
neglect.(78) The remaining portion of the glassworks, with the exception
of Bridge House, was demolished about 1920.(79) At the time the works were
demolished the Ramsden family were experiencing severe financial
difficulty as a result of which it became necessary to sell much of their
holdings, including the Byram Park estate.(80) Doubtless the demolition of
the glassworks was undertaken with a view to making the site more
appealing to a potential buyer whilst simultaneously raising a small
amount of capital from the sale of salvaged material. Bridge House was,
however, spared at that time due to its potential sale value as rented
accommodation. Thus, when the outlying portions of the Byram Estate were
sold in 1922, the property, identified as ‘lot 69, Bridge House,
formerly the Swan Inn’, was featured.(81) Following the sale, the
premises continued to be used as individual tenements until about 1936
when the property was demolished.
In
recent decades the construction of the M62 flyover and the installation of
a subterranean pipeline which cut directly across the glassworks site has
resulted in considerable disturbance of the land on which Bridge House and
the adjacent buildings stood. Careful scrutiny of the untouched portion of
the site, however, reveals foundation marks, constituting a vague memorial
to the almost equally vague history of the Ferrybridge Glassworks.
Terry Spencer
Credits to be included later.
|
