Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:51:56.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peers, Patronage, and the Industrial Revolution, 1760-18001

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Michael W. McCahill
Michael W. McCahill*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Boston Harbor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

… My Thoughts always return to the Necessity of exercising Politicks in cultivating & protecting & extending our Manufactures as the principal Source for improving our Lands, multiplying our People & increasing & establishing our Commerce & Naval Force.

Samuel Garbett to the Marquess of Lansdowne, 2 October 1786.

Students of the industrial revolution now generally admit what seemed obvious to Samuel Garbett, the Birmingham manufacturer and lobbyist, two hundred years ago; namely, that the state was an important participant in the early phases of the industrial revolution. Many scholars still emphasize the restraint of English government — a restraint which gave relatively free play to natural economic forces and to individual genius, a restraint which also aggravated the social repercussions of so momentous a transformation. But they recognize that entrepreneurs could obtain legal sanction for enclosures, canals, and a myriad of other “improvements' easily and at moderate cost by means of a private act of parliament, and they debate whether existing patent law stimulated invention by providing adequate rewards for the inventor or aimed primarily at discouraging stultifying monopoly. Because the processes of growth in the last decades of the century were so fundamental and pervasive, fiscal, commercial, colonial, and foreign policies were bound to have an impact on the embryonic industrial economy. Whether government by its various acts encouraged or impeded growth is open to debate at a number of levels. There can be no doubt, however, that politicians endeavored, if sometimes slowly and haphazardly, to adapt policy and law to changing conditions and that their decisions did affect the tempo and quality of growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , Fall 1976 , pp. 84 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

I wish to thank Professor Eric Robinson for reading and criticizing an earlier draft of this article, Mr. Arthur Westwood for allowing me to consult the Boulton Papers at the Birmingham Assay Office, and Earl Spencer for permission to quote from the Spencer Papers at Althorp.

References

2. Flinn, M. W., Origins of the Industrial Revolution (London, 1966), p. 93Google Scholar; Mathias, P., The First Industrial Nation: An Economic History of Britain, 1700-1914 (New York, 1969), pp. 32-33, 43Google Scholar; Perkin, H., The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London, 1969), pp. 63–67Google Scholar; Rostow, W. W., Politics and the Stages of Growth (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 83–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Ibid., p. 84; Mathias, The First Industrial Nation, p. 35. Professors Holt and Turner not only exaggerate the state's importance but misapprehend the nature of private bill procedure in claiming that parliamentary approval of such acts constituted a decisive and conscious act of resource allocation on the government's part. Holt, R. T. and Turner, J. E., The Political Basis of Economic Development (Princeton, 1966), pp. 250-53, 283, 310Google Scholar. For a discussion of private bill procedure and the expense involved in securing such acts, see Lambert, Sheila, Bills and Acts: Legislative Procedure in Eighteenth Century England (Cambridge, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Mathias, , The First Industrial Nation, p. 37Google Scholar; Rostow, , Politics and Growth, p. 84Google Scholar; Bowden, Witt, Industrial Society towards the End of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1965), pp. 24–51Google Scholar; Flinn, , Origins of the Industrial Revolution, pp. 70–71Google Scholar; Robinson, Eric, “James Watt and the Law of Patents,” Technology and Culture, XIII (1972), 115–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Mathias, , The First Industrial Nation, pp. 34–48Google Scholar and The Brewing Industry in England, 1700-1830 (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 214-18, 330–38Google Scholar; Flinn, , Origins of the Industrial Revolution, pp. 48-49, 60, 91–93Google Scholar; Ashton, T. S., The Industrial Revolution, 1760-1830 (New York, 1964), pp. 8-9, 98–107Google Scholar; Deane, Phyllis, The First Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 1969), Ch. 13Google Scholar.

6. Mathias, , The Brewing Industry, pp. 330–38Google Scholar.

7. Bowden, , Industrial Society, pp. 162–64Google Scholar; SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754-90 (London, 1964), I, 138Google Scholar; Chapman, S. D., “The Peels in The Early English Cotton Industry,” Business History, XI (1969), 77Google Scholar.

8. For a discussion of Boulton's lobbying skills, see Robinson, Eric, “Matthew Boulton and the Art of Parliamentary Lobbying,” Historical Journal, n.s. VII (1964), 209-–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Norris, J. M., “Samuel Garbett and the Early Development of Industrial Lobbying in Great Britain,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, X (1958), 450–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For discussions of trade organizations, see Ashton, T. S., Iron and Steel in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1954), pp. 162–85Google Scholar; Heaton, H., The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford, 1920), pp. 325-27, 418–37Google Scholar; Bowden, , Industrial Society, pp. 165–69Google Scholar.

10. Spring, D., “The English Landed Estate in the Age of Coal and Iron,” Journal of Economic History, XI, (1951), 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For some recent discussion of the relation between M.P.'s and commercial or manufacturing centers, see Jackson, G., Hull in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Economic and Social History (London, 1972), pp. 253, 257–58Google Scholar; Wilson, R. G., Gentlemen Merchants: The Merchant Community in Leeds, 1700-1830 (Manchester, 1971), pp. 166–67Google Scholar.

11. Deane, , The First Industrial Revolution, pp. 129–30Google Scholar.

12. For a general discussion of the aristocracy's mining ventures, see Ward, J. T., “Landowners and Mining” in Land and Industry: The Landed Estate and the Industrial Revolution, eds. Ward, J. T. and Wilson, R. G. (New York, 1971), pp. 63–116Google Scholar. For a detailed study of one noble estate, see Raybould, T. J., The Emergence of the Black Country; A Study of the Dudley Estate (Newton Abbott, 1973)Google Scholar.

13. Richard Reynolds, manager of the iron works at Coalbrookdale, said of the third Duke of Bridgewater's canals and coal works that “they are really amazing, and greater I believe than were ever before attempted, much less achieved by an individual and a subject.” Rathbone, Hannah (ed.), Letters of Richard Reynolds with a Memoir of His Life (London, 1852), pp. 93–94Google Scholar.

14. Ashton, T. S. and Sykes, J., The Coal Industry of the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1967), p. 4Google Scholar; Ashton, , Iron and Steel, p. 40Google Scholar; Richards, E., “The Industrial Face of a Great Estate: Trentham and Lilleshall, 1780-1860,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XXVII (1974), 429Google Scholar; Smout, T. C., “Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth, 1650-1850,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, XI (1964), 251Google Scholar; Thompson, F. M. L., English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1963), pp. 264–66Google Scholar.

15. Hopkinson, G. G., “Road Development in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire, 1700-1850,” Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological Society, X, part 1 (1971), 25–29Google Scholar. J. R. Ward analyses the extent of landowners' investment in canals in The Finance of Canal Building in Eighteenth Century England (Oxford, 1974), pp. 73-74, 76, 157Google Scholar.

16. Hopkinson, , “Road Development,” Hunter Archaeological Society, X, part 1, 23–24Google Scholar; Tomlinson, V. I., “The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Navigation and Railway Company, 1790-1845,” Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, LXXV–VI (1965–1966), 257Google Scholar; Hopkinson, , “The Development of Inland Navigation in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire, 1697-1850,” Hunter Archaeological Society, VII, part 5 (1956), 246Google Scholar.

17. Hadfield, Charles, Canals of the East Midlands (Newton Abbot, 1966), p. 80Google Scholar; Victoria County History, Leicestershire, III, pp. 94–96Google Scholar. See also Broadbridge, S. R., The Birmingham Canal Navigations: I, 1768-1846 (Newton Abbot, 1974), pp. 25–26Google Scholar; Sheffield Public Library, Fitzwilliam to T. Beaumont, 18 Mar. 1793, Wentworth Woodhouse MSS, F68 (d)/18.

18. Meteyard, Eliza, The Life of Josiah Wedgwood (London, 1865), I, 412–13Google Scholar. At a meeting on 30 Dec. 1765, Gower declared that he looked upon the proposed navigation,

As of the utmost consequence to the manufacturers of that and adjacent counties, and to the kingdom in general; that ever since he had heard of the scheme, it had been his determination to support it with all his interest, both provincial and political; for he was satisfied that the landed and trading interest were so far from being incompatible, that they were the mutual support of each other.

Phillips, John, A General History of Inland Navigation, Foreign and Domestic (London, 1795), p. 156Google Scholar.

19. Hadfield, Charles, Canals of the West Midlands (Newton Abbot, 1966), p. 77Google Scholar; Northamptonshire Record Office, Lord Fitzwilliam to his wife [1793], Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 45; Wiltshire Record Office, Moira to Ailesbury, 30 Mar. 1794, Ailesbury Papers; Hadfield, Canals of the East Midlands, p. 165.

20. Wiltshire Record Office, J. Ward to Ailesbury, 29 Dec. 1793, 3, 5 Feb., 12 Mar. 1794, Ailesbury Papers.

21. Ibid., Ward to Ailesbury, 5 Jan., 3, 9 Feb., 18 Mar. 1794, Ailesbury Papers. The practice of sending out cards was a common one. See, for example, PRO, Marlborough et al., to Pitt, 29 Dec. 1792, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/156, f. 37.

22. Wiltshire Record Office, J. Ward to Ailesbury, 30 Mar., 1, 4, 7, 13, 16, 22, 26 Apr. 1794, Ailesbury Papers.

23. Redington, J. (ed.), Calendar of Home Office Papers, I (1760-65), (London, 1878), 414, 571, 605–6Google Scholar; Redington, J., Calendar of Home Office Papers, II (1766-69), (London, 1879), 141–42Google Scholar.

24. Campbell, R., Carron Company (Edinburgh, 1961), pp. 148–51Google Scholar; PRO, Garbett to Pitt, 27 Sept. 1786, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/138, fols. 63-64. Dunmore, who leased his collieries to the Carron Company, induced George III to order a trial of the company's guns at Woolwich in 1779. In the wake of these trials came government contracts which established the company on a firm financial basis. Campbell, , Carron Company, pp. 66, 93, 142Google Scholar.

25. Redington, , Calendar of Home Office Papers, I, 637–38Google Scholar; Ibid., II, 27, 88, 141-42.

26. Norris, , “Garbett and Industrial Lobbying,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, X, 453Google Scholar.

27. Rathbone, , Reynolds Letters, pp. 279–82Google Scholar; Stockdale, , Parliamentary Debates, II, 212, 255 (30 June, 2 July 1784)Google Scholar.

28. Ashton and Sykes, The Coal Industry, p. 1. For examples of the coal proprietors' opposition to the tax, see Parliamentary History, XXIV, 1034 (7 July 1784)Google Scholar; Stockdale, , Parliamentary Debates, II, 212, 245-255, 397 (30 June, 2, 7 July 1784)Google Scholar.

29. PRO, Falmouth to Pitt, 13 Mar. 1789, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/13-4, f. 44; Harris, J. R., The Copper King: A Biography of Thomas Williams of Llanidan (Toronto, 1964), pp. 119, 127–30Google Scholar; PRO, “Resolutions of a Special Committee … of the Lieutenancy and Magistracy of the County of Cornwall,” 21 July 1799, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/314, fols. 57-58.

30. Harris, , The Copper King, pp. 36–37Google Scholar; PRO, De Dunstanville to Lord ?, 25 May 1798, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/131, f. 117.

31. Guttridge, G. H., The Early Career of Lord Rockingham, 1730-65 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, 1952), pp. 11, 16Google Scholar. Langford, P., The First Rockingham Administration, 1765-1766 (Oxford, 1973), p. 112Google Scholar; Collyer, C., “The Rockinghams and Yorkshire Politics, 1742-61,” The Publications of the Thoresby Society, XII, Part 4 (1953), 368Google Scholar.

32. Hoffman, R. J. S., The Marquis: A Study of Lord Rockingham, 1730-1782 (New York, 1973), p. 12Google Scholar.

33. Sheffield Public Library, R. Parker to Fitzwilliam, 4 June 1785, Wentworth Woodhouse MSS, F65/26; Parliamentary History, XXV, 869–73 (18 July 1785)Google Scholar.

34. Reid, T. Wemyss, The Life, Letters and Friendships of Richard Monckton Milnes, first Lord Houghton (New York, 1891), I, 3, 5Google Scholar.

35. For more detailed discussion of the controversy surounding the proposals to permit the export of wool, see Mann, J. de L., The Cloth Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 268–70Google Scholar; Ramage, J. H., “The English Woollen Industry and Parliament, 1750-1830: A Study in Economic Attitudes and Political Pressure,” (Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, 1970), pp. 229–62Google Scholar; Bischoff, James, A Comprehensive History of the Woollen and Worsted Manufacturers (London, 1842), I, 208-14, 241–44Google Scholar.

36. Northamptonshire Record Office, Milnes to Fitzwilliam, [1786], [Aug., 1786], 9 Nov. 1786, 10 Jan. 1787, Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 38; Ibid., Fitzwilliam to Portland, [undated], Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 38; Ibid., Portland to Fitzwilliam, 3 Feb. 1787, Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 38; Ibid., Milnes to Fitzwilliam, 20 Mar. 1788, Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 39; Times, June 12 1788; Sheffield Public Library, Milnes to Fitzwilliam, 29 Apr. 1791, Wentworth Woodhouse MSS, F65 (e)/70.

37. Wilson, R. G., Gentlemen Merchants, pp. 169–71Google Scholar; Smith, E. A., “The Yorkshire Elections of 1806 and 1807; A Study in Electoral Management,” Northern History, II (1967), 62–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Roberts, R. A. (ed.), Calendar of Home Office Papers, III (1770-72) (London, 1888), 425Google Scholar; Roberts, R. A. (ed.), Calendar of Home Office Papers, IV (1771-75) (London, 1889), 21–22Google Scholar; Bladen, V. W., “The Association of Manufacturers of Earthenware (1784-86),” Economic History, I (1928), 357Google Scholar.

39. Granville, Earl Gower (1721-1803), cr. Marquess of Stafford, 1786; Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire, 1755-1800; Lord President of the Council, 1767-79, 1783-84; Lord Privy Seal, 1784-94. Namier, and Brooke, , History of Parliament, I, 374Google Scholar. According to one of his biographers, Wedgwood rode constantly to Trentham to visit his lordship. Meteyard, , Life of Wedgwood, II, 177Google Scholar.

40. Finer, A. and Savage, G. (eds.), The Selected Letters of Josiah Wedgwood (New York, 1965), pp. 55-56, 177-80, 199Google Scholar; Bladen, , “Manufacturers of Earthenware,” Economic History, I, 357–58Google Scholar. Rockingham's opposition to Chamberlain's bill probably arose from the fact that a small pottery, predecessor of the celebrated Rockingham works, had exploited the fine clays on his Swinton estate since 1745. Hughes, B.. and Hughes, T., English Porcelain and Bone China, 1745-1850 (New York, 1968), pp. 233–34Google Scholar.

41. Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Wedgwood to Boulton, 31 May 1785, Boulton Papers; LadyFarrer, (ed.), Correspondence of Josiah Wedgwood: 1781-1794 (London, 1906), pp. 32–34Google Scholar; Bishop of Bath, and Wells, (ed.), The Journal and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland (London, 1861), I, 133–36Google Scholar.

42. Bladen, , “Manufacturers of Earthenware,” Economic History, I, 356–67Google Scholar; McKendrick, N., “Josiah Wedgwood: An Eighteenth-Century Entrepreneur in Salesmanship and Marketing Techniques,” Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XII (1960), 431Google Scholar.

43. William, second Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801), First Lord of Trade, 1765-66 and 1772-75; Secretary of State for Colonies, 1772-75; Lord Privy Seal, 1775-82; Lord Steward of the Household, 1783.

44. Public Characters (1798–1799), p. 222Google Scholar; H.M.C., Dartmouth MSS, III, 189–90Google Scholar; Westwood, Arthur, The Assay Office at Birmingham, Part I: Its Foundation (Birmingham, 1936), p. 25Google Scholar.

45. Langford, , The Rockingham Administration, pp. 123–24Google Scholar; H.M.C., Dart-mouth MSS, II, 32, 46–47Google Scholar; Broadbridge, S., “Monopoly and Public Utility: The Birmingham Canals, 1767-72,” Transport History, V (1973), 235Google Scholar; Westwood, , The Assay Office, p. 11Google Scholar.

46. Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Boulton to Dartmouth, 26 June 1773 (copy), 21 Feb. 1775, Boulton Papers; Ibid., Dartmouth to Boulton, 3 Jan. 1777, Boulton Papers.

47. Birmingham Reference Library, Boulton to Dartmouth [1779], BoultonWatt Papers; Ibid., Dartmouth to Boulton, 6 Apr. 1779, Boulton-Watt Papers.

48. Robinson, Eric, “Boulton and Parliamentary Lobbying,” Historical Journal, n.s. VII, 209–30Google Scholar.

49. Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Galton to Boulton, 13 June 1806, Boulton Papers; Ibid., Notebook, 1806, fol. 14, Boulton Papers; Ibid., N. Edwards to Boulton, 12 Mar., 12 July, 19 Nov. 1800, 1, 13 June 1801, Boulton Papers.

50. Dickinson, H. W., Matthew Boulton (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 64–65Google Scholar; Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Boulton to Richmond, 4 Dec. 1772, Boulton Papers.

51. Westwood, The Assay Office, passim; Robinson, , “Boulton and Parliamentary Lobbying,” Historical Journal, n.s. VII, 217–20Google Scholar; Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Notebook 10, fols. 7-8, Boulton Papers.

52. Birmingham Reference Library, Garbett to Lansdowne, 2 Oct. 1784, Garbett-Lansdowne Correspondence, I, fols. 64-65; Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Garbett to Boulton, 19 July 1784, Boulton Papers; Hamilton, H., The English Brass and Copper Industries to 1800 (London, 1926), pp. 224–25Google Scholar.

53. Birmingham Reference Library, Garbett to Lansdowne, 9, 13 Feb. 1785, Garbett-Lansdowne Correspondence, I, fols. 131-32, 134-36; Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Garbett to Boulton, 8 June 1785, Boulton Papers; Parliamentary History, XXV, 835 (8 July 1785)Google Scholar.

54. Robinson, E. and McKie, D. (eds.), Partners in Science; Letters of James Watt and Joseph Black (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 99Google Scholar; Clow, A.. and Clow, N., The Chemical Revolution (London, 1952), pp. 96–97Google Scholar.

55. PRO, Delaval to Pitt, 23 Feb. 1794, Pitt Papers, PRO 30/8/129, f. 85.

56. Scots Magazine, XLVI (1784), 551–52Google Scholar; Ibid., XLVII (1785), 203-4, 516-17; Ibid., XLVIII (1786), 47, 95, 357-58; Ibid., L (1788), 72-73, 251; Stockdale, , Parliamentary Debates, III, 246–50, (18 Feb. 1785)Google Scholar.

57. Mathias, , The Brewing Industry, p. 337Google Scholar; Northumberland County Record Office, Northern Brewers to Delaval [no date], Delaval [Waterford] MSS, 2/DE 49/1.

58. Mingay, G. E., English Landed Society in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1963), pp. 163–88Google Scholar.

59. Habakkuk, H. J., “Economic Functions of Landowners in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, VI (1953), 99Google Scholar.

60. Mingay, , English Landed Society, 189–201Google Scholar; Perkin, , The Origins of Modern English Society, pp. 74–78Google Scholar; Spring, D., “English Landowners and Nineteenth-Century Industrialism” in Land and Industry, pp. 16–62Google Scholar.

61. Dodd, A. H., The Industrial Revolution in North Wales (Cardiff, 1971), p. 109Google Scholar; Richards, E., “Structural Change in a Regional Economy; Sutherland and the Industrial Revolution, 1780-1830,” Econ. Hist. Rev., XXVI (1973), 63–76Google Scholar; Smout, , “Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth,” Scottish Journal, XI, 229–30Google Scholar; Hughes, E., North Country Life: Cumberland and Westmorland, 1700-1830 (London, 1965)Google Scholar, passim.

62. Landes, D., The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 68–70Google Scholar; Perkin, , Origins of Modern English Society, pp. 63–67Google Scholar; Wilson, , Gentlemen Merchants, pp. 232–33Google Scholar; “Introduction”, Land and Industry, p. 13.

63. Earl Spencer, for example, told his mother that a meeting of the committee of the Grand Junction Canal had enabled him to,

become acquainted with an entire new set of People whose conversation is very entertaining & instructive in its way, but who are very much like a sort of amphibious Animal, as they are never easy without they can be dabbling in some Water Work or other, and are into the Bargain some of the greatest Jobbers in the Kingdom.

Althorp, Spencer to Dowager Countess Spencer, 6 June 1793, Spencer Papers, Box 12.

64. We know of at least sixty peers who maintained contacts with various industrial communities during these years. However, since this figure more accurately reflects the sources we consulted than contemporary realities, it is not a very reliable indicator of the incidence of this type of patronage within the group.

65. Even his rivals acknowledged that the twelfth Earl of Derby's criticisms of the Irish propositions in 1785 were impressive and forceful (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, III, 229–30Google Scholar). Yet, while he took part in local canal ventures and had his own cotton enterprises, he did not on any other occasion distinguish himself as the advocate of local economic interests.

66. For examples of their lordships' obstruction of canal legislation, see Addison, W., Audley End (London, 1953), pp. 141–43Google Scholar; Harris, J. R., “Early Liverpool Canal Controversies”, in Liverpool and Merseyside, ed., Harris, J. R. (London, 1969), p. 91Google Scholar; Jackman, W. T., The Development of Transportation in Modern Britain (London, 1962), p. 403Google Scholar; Malet, , The Canal Duke, pp. 92–93Google Scholar.

67. Birmingham Reference Library, Garbett to Lansdowne, 28 Aug. 1784, Garbett-Lansdowne Correspondence, I, fols. 54-55.

68. In 1775, for example, Boulton was largely responsible for raising a petition from Birmingham in support of the American War. He did so at least partly at the instigation of his friend and patron, Lord Dartmouth. Assay Office Library, Birmingham, Dartmouth to Boulton, 19 Jan. 1775, Boulton Papers.

69. The Duke of Portland told Earl Fitzwilliam that if the latter was not in a position to provide direct answers to the applications of the various interests of Yorkshire, representatives of those interests would not look upon the Earl as a powerful figure. In consequence Fitzwilliam would lose much of his authority within the county, an authority which Portland felt it was essential to preserve in the mid-1790s. Sheffield Public Library, Portland to Fitzwilliam, 19 June 1794, Wentworth Woodhouse MSS, F31 (b)/19.

70. The third Earl of Hardwicke, for example, carried the Eau Brink Drainage Bill over the opposition of many of his tenants and political supporters. BM, C. Yorke to Hardwicke, 23 Nov. 1795, Hardwicke Papers, Add. MS 35,392, fols. 255-56. His success was the result of compromise and skillful advocacy. BM, W. Creasy to Hardwicke, 4 Nov. 1792, Hardwicke Papers, Add. MS 25,685, fols. 311-12; Ibid., Hardwicke to Sir Martin Holker, 2 Dec. 1794, Hardwicke Papers, Add. MS 35,686, fols. 113-14.

71. At the general election of 1790 Fitzwilliam was able to return Lord Burford as a member for Hull in part because of his alliance with the proprietors of the local dock. In 1787 the Earl had helped to defeat a bill which would have had the town take over that facility, and during the 1790s he joined with the proprietors in opposing the extension of the dock. Northamptonshire Record Office, W. Hammond to Fitzwilliam, 5 May 1787, Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 34; ibid., Burford to Fitzwilliam, 12 Feb. 1794, Ibid., Box 46; ibid., H. Ethrington to Burford, 15 Sept. 1794, Ibid., Box 46; Jackson, Hull, pp. 250-58. Those who wished to extend the dock facilities received support from the fifth Duke of Leeds who even carried the case to Pitt. BM, Leeds to Pitt, 23 May 1795 (copy), Egerton MSS, Eg. 3506, f. 46; Northamptonshire Record Office, Leeds to Fitz-william, 14 Feb. 1794, Fitzwilliam Papers, Box 46.

72. Bowden argued that governments were biased against new industries, at least before 1785 (Bowden, , Industrial Society, pp. 141–93Google Scholar). Dr. Schofield simply assumed that parliament was indifferent to or suspicious of manufacturers' claims (Schofield, R. E., The Lunar Society of Birmingham (Oxford, 1963), p. 9Google Scholar).

73. Ehrman, J., The British Government and Commercial Negotiations with Europe (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 183–84Google Scholar.