THE SALT MARKET
Although no purpose would be served by dealing in detail with other of
the many schemes that have been elaborated in the past three hundred
years for the improvement of brine salt manufacture, the complete
list of patents that have been taken out for the purpose constitutes
a record of almost unrelieved failure which would occupy many pages.
It has always been obvious to every intelligent investigator outside
the little circle of salt proprietors, that the open-pan process
was a survival of the dark ages, but the principle governing the
precipitation of salt from brine is so simple that the equal difficulty
presented itself to the practical salt-men, of either effecting further
simplification or of securing further economies by the elaboration
of the process. Individuals in every generation recognized that the
methods of mediaevalism cried aloud for revision, but the salt trade
resolutely and consistently set their faces, and their hands, against
every suggested innovation. The salt-men were the avowed enemies of
Thomas Lowndes, they drove Chrysel back to Saxony, they loaded Furnival
with misfortune and landed him in gaol. In 1890, an official of the
Salt Union reflected with grim complaisance that, although no trade had
had more patents applied to it than the salt trade, no trade could show
so large a percentage of failures in the matter of reformed methods,
and since all the companies that had brought forward new plants and
processes in competition with the Salt Union had come short of success,
he piously concluded that the system which had survived the trial of
generations must be the fittest.
The opposition of the salt trade to the introduction of new methods of
manufacture is explained by the fact that the profits accruing from
the old, clumsy, crude, and wasteful process were so large that the
proprietors could see no possible reason for welcoming innovations.
Moreover, the manufacture under established conditions was in the
hands of a comparatively small number of makers, who could not adopt
new measures without letting in more men, and the long tenure of
their monopoly made the salt-men intolerant of a competitive system.
Opposition was so abominable to them that, while they would combine as
one man to keep out the daring intruder, or to crush such an one if he
succeeded in getting in, they were not at all averse from employing
similar tactics for the purpose of exterminating one another. Although
it had cost them over a quarter of a million sterling to dispose of
William Furnival, the game of price-cutting was not discontinued after
1833. In order to safeguard themselves against the periodical falls in
prices, which, if persisted in, would mean wholesale ruin, all sorts of
associations, syndicates, trusts, committees, and pools were formed for
the regulation of stocks and prices, but each successive combination
was successively abandoned, and was followed by another period of
bitter jealousy and trading loss. Between 1846 and 1880, the trade was
being continually reorganized for offensive and defensive commercial
purposes, but, in 1881, it was admitted that, in spite of all attempts
to encourage a better feeling among the leading manufacturers, “the
spirit of envy, hate, malice, and all uncharitableness, which has
so long been the bane of the salt trade, has again become rampant,”
with the result that the price of common salt--4s., less the brokers’
discount of 5 per cent.--was the lowest that it had touched since the
American Civil War. Two years later it was declared that the trade,
instead of being ruled by common sense and business experience, was
being ruined by personal animosities and trade jealousies.
The files of the _Northwich Guardian_ at this period chronicle the
development of a state of affairs which must be almost without parallel
in any other trade. During 1883 the violent competition continued,
resulting in heavy loss, the closing of many works, and a large
increase in bankruptcies. In 1884, the _Guardian_ declared that “the
battle is fast becoming a war of giants.... Capital is showing itself,
almost everywhere, a remorseless Juggernaut, crushing thousands of
victims beneath its ponderous wheels.” In that year a proposal to form
the trade into one huge company was frustrated by the bitterness of
internal jealousies. Further attempts to bring all the salt proprietors
into a combination for mutual protection and profit were made and
abandoned from the same cause. “It is easy to make laws and regulations
and to carry them out successfully when men are governed by the
ordinary laws of business and common sense,” commented the _Guardian_
in 1886, “but when sentiment or passion is allowed to interfere, it is
impossible either to make sensible laws or carry them out successfully
when made.”
In March, 1888, we read that “the great struggle for mastery still goes
on”; in April, “the process of exhaustion is not yet complete,” and the
deplorable state of the salt trade was attributed to “a few men who
seem to have made more money than they know what to do with, and are
spending it in seeing what amount of injury they can do to each other,
and as a necessary consequence to numbers of others who are innocent
of offence.” In May, a correspondent of the same journal deplored the
material damage the trade was suffering through the perversity and
selfishness of the salt proprietors, and he came to the conclusion that
their object was “not really to do business but to kill one another
out.” “Is there more morality,” he asked, “in the man of means starving
out the man without means by selling, below cost of make, than there
would be in stopping him on the highway and picking his pocket?... When
the intention in the two cases is the same--the plunder or ruin of the
opponent--how can the morality differ? It does seem a most grievous
thing that when the greater number in the trade are anxious to do
business at a profit to themselves ... they should be prevented because
a few--a very few--should think only of themselves, and care nothing
for the sufferings of others, and carry on the fight to the bitter end,
causing enormous suffering and distress....” “We can see very clearly,”
he concluded, “that if something is not done shortly to bring about a
better state of affairs, some defensive action must be taken by those
firms outside the present strife which will result in no good to the
parties now responsible for the mischief.”
The “defensive action” referred to was already being formulated,
and in October, 1888, was issued the prospectus of the Salt Union
Limited, which was formed with a capital of £4,000,000 for the purpose
of consolidating the undertakings of the Salt Proprietors in the
United Kingdom, “with a view to ending reckless competition which
injuriously affects the salt industry without conferring any adequate
advantage on the public.” By virtue of the sixty-four agreements,
covering the purchase of properties involving the inclusive payment
of £3,704,519, the Union became the greatest salt proprietors in the
world, and the success of the flotation was described as “almost
unprecedented.” Apparently the only two newspapers that had the least
dubiety concerning the success of the venture were _The Times_ and the
_Northwich Guardian_. _The Times_, while recognizing that the primary
object of the movement, viz., that of “curtailing supply and creating
an artificial scarcity”--would be gained if an effective monopoly could
be secured, pointed out that: “The Syndicate has not acquired the
control of all the mines or works at which salt is produced, and unless
they do this they will not have an absolute monopoly.” The _Guardian_
admitted that with careful management the company would prosper, but,
speaking from its intimate knowledge of the spirit which animated
the salt-trade, it cautiously predicted that the first few months’
operations would show whether the enterprise could go on successfully.
“The scheme is a gigantic one, and may prove either a great blessing or
a great curse, according to the principles on which it is conducted.
Let us hope that a spirit of justice and fairness towards shareholders,
servants, and the public at large will make the scheme a blessing.”
The warning voiced by _The Times_ with regard to the Salt Union’s
inefficient monopoly was justified almost immediately by the issue of
prospectuses of rival salt schemes, and although opposition of this
kind was treated by the Union with affected contempt, and the public
was assured that the insignificant salt lands secured by rash outsiders
were “such as to break the hearts of all investors who might visit
them,” the fact remained, as was noted in November, 1889, that “the
most remarkable thing in connection with salt has been the continuous
fall in the price of Salt Union shares.” The principle on which the
valuation of the Union’s acquisitions was made did not transpire,
but _The Times_ understood that “the selling price has been quite
satisfactory to the vendors,” and the Chairman of the Union, in 1896,
was feign to confess that “never were covenants so ingeniously framed
as to cause lawsuits.” It is not overstating the case to say that the
terms upon which the Salt Union purchased their properties provides
one of the most amazing instances of reckless optimism in the history
of comparatively modern finance, and the subsequent administration of
the Company’s affairs was as unfortunate as the preliminary settlements
had been disastrous. In one law case with a vendor from whom they
had purchased for £600,000 a property which their own representative
valued at £400,000, they had to pay a further £60,000, and they
settled another action by selling for £125,000 a tract of land which
they had originally acquired for £372,000. In 1895, they increased
their capital to £4,200,000 by issue of further debentures to the
amount of £200,000; and, in 1901, the capitalization of the Union was
reduced to £2,600,000. Up to 1913, they had paid away £117,451 for
directors’ fees, travelling expenses, etc., £99,236 for preliminary
and Parliamentary expenses, law charges, etc., and £723,985 for
administration charges, and from 1896 to 1914 they had only paid (in
1907) one dividend of ½ per cent. on the ordinary shares.
INDEX
Agricola (Georgius) on salt-making, 15, 18, 56
America, salt-making in, 127–135
--, vacuum system in, 135
Brine, battle of the, 121
--, composition of, 7
--, economy in production of, by Furnival, 78
--, evaporation of, 3
--, Dr. Jackson on the process, 56–60
--, old reservoirs of, 104
--, output at Northwich, 53
--, treatment of, in early days, 40
Brine-making, methods of Dr. Jackson, Rastel, Lowndes, Brownrigg,
Chrysel, Furnival, Holland, 56–73
Brine-tapping, improved process described, 106, 107
Camden’s _Britannia_, derivation of suffix “wich,” 32
--, supply and treatment of brine described, 40, 42
_Chambers’s Journal_, a subsidence described, 113, 114
Cheshire, the “wiches” of, 32, 34
--, extent of deposits in, 83–96
Chrysel, persecution of, 71
Domesday Book, references to salt works in Cheshire, rules governing
the trade, 34–37
Droitwich, salt-making there, A.D. 816, 33
Furnival, Wm., introduces steam heat, 76
--, economy in production by; alarm of salt proprietors, 78
--, persecution of, a victim to Cheshire salt proprietors, 76–82
--, his patents, 77;
--, his end, 82
Hodgkinson (Jas.), his system, 76, 138–141
Holland (Philemon), 32
Holland (Sir Thos.), his eulogy of the Hodgkinson process, 141
Jackson, (Dr. W.), 56
Johnson (Geo.), account of treatment of brine by, 42, 43
King’s Vale Royal, particulars relating to Cheshire salt districts,
43, 44
Lakes, or “Flashes,” 103, 104, 112, 113
Lowndes (Thos.), improved method of brine-making by, 62, 65
--, persecution of, 71
Marbury, discovery of salt at, in 1670, 97
Marbury Pipe, 54, 122, 123
Martindale (Adam), Communication to Royal Soc., 97
Mendeléeff, on crystallization, 5
Middlewich owners and number of salt-houses at, 51
--, output at, 54
Nantwich owners and number of salt-houses at; decline of industry at,
51, 53
Nevada, rock-salt at, 3
New York, salt-springs in; methods employed there, 127
Northwich, Adelaide Marston mine, 98
--, earliest manufacture in England, 32
--, output of brine at, 53
--, the “Walling Booke” of, 48
Ormerod, on the origin of the salt field of Cheshire, 84, 85
Rainfalls, cycles of, affecting salt deposits, 91
Rastel (Dr. Thos.), method of evaporation of brine at Droitwich, 60–62
Rock-salt, purest in Hungary, 1;
rarely found pure, _ib._
Rock-salt Mining--a dead industry; method of working, 101–103
Royal Society, _Phil. Trans._, 56, 60
Rumania, deposits in, 20, 26
--, estimated reserves and annual output, 28
Salt, Adelaide Marston mine, 98
--, ancient orders concerning, 44–48
--, beginnings of the industry, 8, 9, 10
--, chemistry and properties of, 1
--, Chinese methods of making, 11
--, colour of, 2
--, convict labour, 20
--, crystals in, 4
--, decline of industry at Nantwich, 52, 53
--, depth and thickness of deposit at Northwich, 90
--, discovery of, at Marbury in 1670, 97
--, Domesday Book--reference to salt in A.D. 1084, 33
--, earliest manufacture in England, 32
--, effect upon sea-water, 2
--, experiments for removal of impurities in, 30, 31
--, formation and extent of Cheshire deposits, 83–96
--, importation of, 38
--, Italian method of making, 12
--, Japanese methods of making, 12
--, lectures on, by Ward (Thos.), 126
--, Mendeléeff on, 6
--, method of working top and bottom beds, 100
--, name first given, 1
--, Portuguese and Spanish method of making, 14
--, preservative property of, 6, 9
--, Rastel’s account of clarifying, 61, 62
--, solubility of, 2
--, symbol of sanctity, 9
--, theories respecting deposits, 85–90
--, Prof. Thompson’s calculations, 92–96
--, value in agriculture, 6
Salt-beds, area of Cheshire, 92
“Salt-licks,” 8
Salt-makers, conservatism of, 18
Salt-making, methods of, 125–129
--, methods employed in America, 127, 135
--, processes of, 127
--, vacuum system, 135, _et seqq._
Salt-Market, the, 142–147
--, mines, collapse of, various dates, 103, 107, 108
Salt-pans, recovery of old, 39
Salt-trade, competition in, 144, 145
Salt Union, 54
-- --, alleged rights of, 123, 124
-- --, “Battle of the Brine,” 121
-- --, brine carrying by, 122, 123
-- --, large capital of, 145
-- --, newspaper comments, 146–147
-- --, opposition to new processes by, 142
-- --, Wharton Works, 79–81
Subsidences, 97–123
--, causes of, 108–112
--, described 113
--, damage to property, 115, 116
--, Compensation Bill, 120, 121
--, legal aspects of, 117–121
--, resentment of townspeople, 117
--, pumpers responsible for, 117
Thompson (Prof. Jas.), his calculations, 92–96
“Wallers,” derivation of name, 40
“Walling Booke of Northwich” (Harleian MS. in British Museum
containing earliest list of “wich-houses” and their owners),
48, 50, 51
Ward (Thos.), lecturer on salt, 126
“Wich,” derivation of the name, 33
Wieliezka rock-salt at, 1
--, works at, 20–26
Winsford, output at, 53, 55
THE END
_Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., Bath, England_
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.
Archaic spellings were retained.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation
marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left
unbalanced.
Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs
and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support
hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to
the corresponding illustrations.
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.