George Potter, the Junta, and the Bee-Hive

Stephen Coltham

doi:10.1017/S0020859000002716

George Potter, the Junta, and the Bee-Hive

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008

Stephen Coltham

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.

One of the best-known incidents in the history of the Bee-Hive is the reorganisation of 1870, which enabled the Junta to put in their own nominee as editor. What has received far less attention is the way in which the process began in 1868. The first intimation of this to the Bee-Hive's readers was the report of the half-yearly shareholders' meeting held on 29 May. After Potter had again stressed the effects of “the great depression in all trades”, Troup, on behalf of the Directors, “laid a plan before the meeting, by which he thought that the paper could be more advantageously carried on in the interests of the shareholders”. No details of this plan are given in the report; but from the ensuing discussion it is clear that it involved far-reaching changes, since Connolly, Whetstone, and others objected that “any alteration in the constitution of the paper” required the sanction of a specially-convened meeting. Having secured this respite, the shareholders then adopted a resolution, moved by Hartwell, which was obviously intended to provide an alternative solution to their problems – that arrangements should immediately be made for canvassing societies and holding district meetings to advocate the taking up of shares. But this was really a forlorn hope. At the special meeting, on 17 June, the discussion mainly centred round a proposal from the floor that a small committee should be elected to protect the shareholders' interests in the “impending negotiations”. Eventually this was withdrawn, and the Directors were empowered to make “such alterations in the management and arrangements of the paper as would probably effect the object they all desired – increased circulation and influence, and the payment of a dividend on the shares”.

Type: Research Article
Information: International Review of Social History , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , April 1965 , pp. 23 - 65

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000002716 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1965

References

^{page 23 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 6 June 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 20 June 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} These Eighty Years, 1893, Vol. II, p. 383.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 13 March 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 31 October 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} Broadhurst, Henry, the stonemason, joined the Association in March 1867Google Scholar, and became a committee member in the following month; but he had only recently come to London, and had not as yet become prominent in trade union affairs.

^{page 26 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 11 April 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 3} Howell, George to Auberon Herbert, 31 July 1869 (George Howell's Letter Book, in the Howell Collection).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 4} Bee-Hive, , 21 August 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 5} Bee-Hive, , 4 September 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 6} Bee-Hive, , 9 July 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 30 November and 7 December 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 17 October 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 3} The whole affair of the “special fund” has been described in detail by Royden Harrison, in his “The British Working Class and the General Election of 1868”, in: International Review of Social History, Vol. V (1960), Part 3, and Vol. VI (1961), Part I.

^{page 28 note 1} Potter had not so far given the impression of being a man whose public life was very much influenced by his religious views. But in 1867 he had aroused some comment by attending a meeting of trade unionists called by Morley to consider “The Working Classes and Religious Institutions” (Commonwealth, 6 and 27 April 1867).

^{page 28 note 2} A copy of this leaflet eventually came into the possession of John Burns, who kept it inside one of his duplicate volumes of the Bee-Hive. It is now in the Burns Collection.

^{page 28 note 3} Lymington and Isle of Wight Chronicle, 23 October to 13 November 1868.

^{page 29 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 24 October 1868Google Scholar. Potter distributed 250 copies of this issue to the working-class electors at Lymington (Lymington and Isle of Wight Chronicle, 30 October 1868).Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} Sentinel, Staffordshire, 17 October 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 12 December 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} Standard, 17 December 1868.

^{page 30 note 2} See Bee-Hive, , 27 February and 19 June 1869Google Scholar, and 6 November 1875.

^{page 31 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 30 January 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 13 March 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 3} Cole, G. D. H., History of Socialist Thought, Vol. II (1954), p. 381.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} Harrison, Royden, “The Land and Labour League”, in: Bulletin of the International Institute of Social History, Vol. VIII (1953), No. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 5} Reynolds's Newspaper, 17 October 1869; National Reformer, 24 October 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades, 5 and 12 April 1869 (Webb Collection).

^{page 32 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 17 and 24 April 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 1 May 1869Google Scholar. In July Hughes and Mundella agreed to withdraw the Bill on the understanding that the government would at once introduce a measure granting temporary protection to trade union funds, and that this would be followed by a full-scale Trade Union Bill in the near future.

^{page 32 note 4} Bee-Hive, , 6 February 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Marx, to Engels, 29 July 1869Google Scholar; Engels, to Marx, 30 July 1869 (MEGA, Vol. IV, pp. 214–215).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} In the declaration denouncing the Bee-Hive, which appears in Marx's own handwriting in the General Council Minutes of 17 May 1870, one paragraph originally referred to the suppression of “such resolutions as might displease its proprietors”. Marx crossed out “proprietors” and substituted the word “patrons”. (I am indebted to Dr. Royden Harrison for this information.)

^{page 33 note 3} This is accepted by Dona Torr in an editorial note on the Bee-Hive in the translated selection from the Marx-Engels, correspondence – “In 1869 it was bought by Samuel Morley” (Marx-Engels Correspondence, 2nd edition, 1943, p. 168).Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 4} The Reform League had been dissolved in March. George Howell left a detailed account of the developments of the next few months in his Ms. Notes and Memoranda as to the History of this League (the L.R.L.) (Howell Collection).

^{page 34 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 21 August 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 2} Howell, George to Potter, George, 3 September 1869Google Scholar; Howell, George's Diary, 28 and 31 December 1869 (Howell Collection).Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 3} Solly devotes nearly four pages of his autobiography (These Eighty Years, Vol. II, pp. 383–386) to an account of his connection with the Bee-Hive.

^{page 35 note 1} These meetings were announced in the Bee-Hive, but no report was published.

^{page 35 note 2} Potter, George to Henry Solly, II December 1869Google Scholar (Solly Collection, British Library of Political and Economic Science).

^{page 36 note 1} The company was eventually dissolved by notice in the London Gazette of 7 March 1882, “under Cl. 7 (4) of the Companies Act of 1880” – which gave the Registrar power to announce the dissolution of companies which had ceased to send in returns.

^{page 36 note 2} In the file of the Trades Newspaper Co., Ltd.

^{page 36 note 3} Potter now devoted some of his time to writing articles for the Contemporary Review, three appearing in June, August and November 1870, and one in the following February. Although they dealt with trade union and industrial problems, these articles contained scarcely a word to which the Junta could have had any objection.

^{page 37 note 1} A characteristic comment, made at a time when wage claims by the cotton operatives were being rejected, was: “Masters as well as men should honourably and earnestly apply their minds and hearts to the discovery of some method and some terms on which they may dwell together amicably, work together harmoniously, and share with one another on a just and equitable footing” (Bee-Hive, , 21 May 1870).Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 11 December 1869.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 1} E.g., Solly's comments on the “bad taste” of Odger's references to the Liberals during his Southwark election campaign (Bee-Hive, , 5 March 1870.)Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} See, e.g., a letter from F. J. Burgess (one of the original seven Directors) in the Bee-Hive, of 13 August 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} The list of middle-class supporters (regularly published by Solly) had grown by the autumn of 1870 to sixty-seven well-known names, just over half of them Liberal M.P.'s

^{page 38 note 4} Marx, to Engels, , 5 April 1869 (MEGA, Vol. IV, p. 177).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} General Council Minutes, 26 April and 17 May 1870Google Scholar; Marx, to Engels, , 28 April 1870 (MEGA, Vol. IV, p. 312).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 1 and 8 October 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 19 and 26 November 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} Morley, Samuel to Solly, Henry, 17 October and 7 December 1870Google Scholar, and 3 January 1871 (Solly Collection).

^{page 41 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 1 July 1871.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 2} Roberts, states that “Potter's editorial ability seemed to have considerably deteriorated”.Google Scholar But this view is based on the mistaken belief that Potter himself was editor, and Hartwell only “his assistant”, during the mid-1860's (The Trades Union Congress, 1868–1921, p. 63).Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 15 April 1871.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} E.g., “It has one honourable feature among others; it admits the point-blankest answers even to its own editorial utterances” (Punch, , 16 December 1871).Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Our New Masters, 1873; chapter on “The Press and the People”.

^{page 43 note 2} He was elected an honorary member by the Grays Inn Road branch in June 1868 (Bee-Hive, , 20 June 1868).Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 1 July 1871.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 4} The Builders' History, p. 289Google Scholar. Postgate is equally wrong in his comments on the general tone of the Bee-Hive during this period.

^{page 44 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 13 August 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 9 July 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 22 October 1870.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades (Webb Collection).

^{page 45 note 1} The Congress was fully reported in the next two issues of the Bee-Hive –IIn and 18 March 1871.

^{page 46 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 22 July 1871.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 28 October to 25 November 1871Google Scholar; Times, 30 October 1871.

^{page 46 note 3} For the ensuing conflict in the ASCJ see: The Builders' History, pp. 290–292Google Scholar; and Higenbottam, S., Our Society's History, 1939, pp. 91–103.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 13 and 20 January 1872Google Scholar; Nottingham Daily Guardian, 13 January 1872Google Scholar; Nottingham Daily Express, 15 January 1872Google Scholar; Minutes of 1872 Congress (Howell Collection).

^{page 48 note 2} Harrison also named Allan, who obviously had misgivings; but Howell persuaded Allan that he must stand by the Committee, even though he had played very little part in the proceedings, and had not been fully aware of what was taking place (Parliamentary Committee Minutes (Howell Collection), 6 June 1872).

^{page 48 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 31 May to 28 June 1872.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 18 January 1873.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} Meeting under the chairmanship of Odger, they passed a unanimous resolution condemning the action of the Committee (LTC Minutes, 25 June 1872).Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} LTC Minutes, 20 December 1872.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 4} LTC Minutes (Delegate Meeting), 22 September 1875Google Scholar. The motion was defeated after being “strongly opposed” by Odger.

^{page 50 note 1} Bee-Hive, , 26 July 1873.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Macdonald, who rashly accepted a seat on the Commission before there had been time for consultation, was forced to resign from the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Committee.

^{page 50 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 21 March to 4 April 1874.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} When London support showed signs of slackening, it was Potter who organised the great Exeter Hall meeting which gave a new impetus to the movement. Samuel Morley took the chair. (Bee-Hive, , 14 December 1872).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} Industrial Review, 23 June 1877.

^{page 51 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 1, 22 and 29 March 1873.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 7 December 1872, and 31 January 1874.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 1} In September 1873, Potter published the first twelve as Volume I of the Bee-Hive Portrait Gallery. This was followed by a second volume in November 1874. Priced at 1/-each, these volumes were still selling well some three years later.

^{page 52 note 2} Bee-Hive, , 24 January 1874, and 30 January 1875.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 1} In the Howell Collection.

^{page 53 note 2} For reports of the bankruptcy proceedings, see: Reynolds's Newspaper, 25 and 30 March 1879Google Scholar; Times, 29 March 1879; Peterborough Advertiser, 29 March 1879; and Spalding Free Press, 1 and 8 April 1879.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 1} A copy of the 1888 Annual Report is in the Howell Collection.

^{page 54 note 2} Labour Elector, 19 October 1889.

^{page 54 note 3} Burrows, Herbert, in the Radical, 26 November 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 4} Applegarth's typescript is in the Howell Collection.

^{page 54 note 5} The Webbs' Ms. “Notes on Trade Union Leaders” (Webb Collection).

^{page 55 note 1} Report of LTC Delegate Meeting, 6 April 1865 (LTC pamphlet, Mr. Potter and the London Trades Council, in the Howell Collection).

^{page 57 note 1} Interview with a correspondent of the New York World, quoted in the Eastern Post, 28 October 1871.

^{page 58 note 1} The Builders' History, pp. 195–196.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} He was amazed by the anger of some of the old Chartists when he invited Lord Robert Montagu – a fanatical opponent of any extension of the franchise – to address one of his meetings (Reynolds's Newspaper, 8 July to 5 August 1860; Morning Star, 2, 12 and 16 July 1860).

^{page 58 note 3} Marx, to Engels, , 9 May 1865 (MEGA, Vol. III, p. 268)Google Scholar; Mundella, A. J. to Leader, Robert, 18 October 1871Google Scholar (quoted by Armytage, W. H. G. in his Mundella, A. J., 1951, P. 99).Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Howell, George to Potter, George, 28 October 1871Google Scholar (George Howell's Letter Book).

^{page 61 note 1} Both of these had the advantage of being primarily local papers, the Sentinel published in a large city, the Examiner serving the needs of an isolated population with a highly developed sense of community. Reynolds's was not strictly comparable, since it was never under the control of working men.

^{page 64 note 1} History of Trade Unionism, 1920 edn., p. 298n.Google Scholar

Article contents

George Potter, the Junta, and the Bee-Hive

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