2 4 expected; and so rather than run the risk of further financial troubles it found an easy way out by leasing the mines of Cornwall, Devon and Cardigan to Smith, the lessee of the northern mines. This plan meant that the Company would receive a definite rent of £300 per annum, while all the risk of the enterprise would be thrown on the lessee and his partners.1 By 1583 operations were in full swing, but the difficulty of keeping the mines free from water was a very serious handicap. Nevertheless the partners were hopeful; and works for smelting the new-found ores were erected at Neath in South Wales, and two years later Ulrick Frosse, who had been brought from Keswick to be manager, declared that they were able to smelt 24 hundredweights of ore per day in one furnace. But very soon the problem of obtaining sufficient working capital became acute, and several years later the ore at one mine was seized, presumably in settlement of a debt, and the workmen were discharged. There is no doubt that Smith lost heavily in this Cornish venture, and so in 1594 he had his Cornish rights transferred to another group of partners. But matters did not improve; and in the following year the lessees petitioned Cecil, who, as we have seen, was prominently connected with the Mines Royal, to postpone the payment of their rent, for they had spent "not so little as £2,000 in charges of these mineral affairs, and not as yet made any profit by the same."7 Several years later the partners were still unable to pay their rent. The mining operations probably came to an end about 1599, and no attempt was made to restart the mines for the next thirty years. 5 6 During the early part of his lease of the northern mines Smith appears to have made some profit, but by 1597 affairs were at a low ebb, and the rent was unpaid. Marcus Steinberg, Richard Ledes, and Emmanuel Höchstetter were in 1 Ibid., ii, p. 395. S.P.D., Eliz., clxiv, 4; Calendar, 1581-1590, p. 134. Ibid., clxxi, 4; clxxii, 16, clxxix, 11, clxxx, 5; Calendar, 1581-1590, pp. 179, 189, 245, 250. Ibid., clxxxiii, 55; clxxxiv, 32; clxxxviii, 7; Calendar, 1581-1590, pp. 279, 286, 318. Ibid., cxcix, 5; Calendar, 1581-1590, p. 392. Hist. MSS. Com. Salisbury MSS., Pt. v, pp. 14–15. Ibid., Pt. v, pp. 199, 206. 1 charge, and the Company decided to hold them liable for Smith's rent. In reply these three men complained that smelting operations had been held up on account of the scarcity of peat, due to wet weather. They pointed out that operations could not be carried on because of the lack of working capital, which they estimated should not be less than £2,020; and they strongly resented any imputation of fraudulent dealings. The condition of affairs, however, did not improve, and a special meeting of the "directors "2 of the Company was called in July, 1600, to discuss " some course for upholding the works at Keswycke." It was then decided to continue operations, and powers were given to spend more money. But this does not seem to have effected much improvement; for, not long after this, the Company leased the works to the sons of Höchstetter, who carried them on until the Civil War. In those thirty-six years, during which the Company had worked the mines, after paying £4,500 in royalty to the Queen, there was a net loss of £9,606. The revenue and expenditure were as follows :- 4 3 ... 9,606 "Leaving a balance representing losses of subsidiary undertakings and debts " So ends in some disillusionment, yet not without some successful accomplishments the first chapter in the history of the modern copper-mining industry in England. IV We must now turn back and follow the fortunes of the Mineral and Battery Works from the year of its incorpora1S.P.D., Eliz., cclxiv, 30; Calendar, 1595–1597, p. 461. “As the works are now very low, four directors or principal officers will serve until the works increase" (Scott, op. cit., ii, p. 399 n.; S.P.D., Eliz., cclxiv, 30 (1); Calendar, 1595-1597, p. 462). * Hist. MSS. Com., Salisbury MSS., Pt. x, p. 217. 4 Scott, "Joint Stock Companies," ii, p. 400. tion. This Company, too, had to meet many difficulties during those early years of pioneer work. The cost of setting up works and machinery, the prospecting for ores, and the bringing of foreign workmen to England created a huge burden, while an immediate return on the outlay could not be expected. Still it was in a more fortunate position than the Mines Royal, for although the manufacture of iron wire involved the introduction of a new process, there was much less risk attached to it than to mining. An extensive market for wire already existed; for many card makers and other wire workers were busy throughout the country, especially in London and the Bristol area. The mining of calamine and the making of brass certainly proved very speculative, but, as we shall see, the iron works at Tintern gave a great fillip to the Company. The less speculative nature of this concern is perhaps reflected in the smaller amount of capital which it required. In the first twenty-one years a total stock of £6,666 18s. 8d. had been raised, and since there were thirty-six shares the sum called up per share would therefore be £185.1 In the case of their iron and wire works at Tintern fortune seems to have favoured the undertakers, but failure and disappointment are writ large over their efforts to establish the manufacture of brass. The actual making of brass requires a very great degree of skill; copper and calamine have to be mixed in certain proportions, which vary according to the quality of the raw materials, and much skill is required in giving the mixture the proper degree of heat. The foreign workmen, who were brought to this country, were not accustomed to the copper and calamine of England, and the difficulties inseparable from the process were therefore increased. It will be shown below 2 that even as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century complaints were made that the quality of English brass was much inferior to that of foreign production. It had been the intention of Humfrey to establish brass works in Wales, but this plan seems to have met with little success. Calamine had been discovered in Somerset in June, 1566, and the foreign workmen declared that it was 3 1 Ibid., ii, p. 417. * Vide infra, pp. 113, 114. • Vide supra, p. 15. as good as any they had ever seen.1 A few months later 4 It may appear strange that the undertakers failed in what was perhaps the most important part of their business. According to one account, they never got beyond the experimental stage, even although foreign workmen were employed; and, with the failure of this attempt to carry on the manufacture of brass, the calamine, which had been brought from the Mendips, was left lying at the Abbey for many years, until ultimately it was used to repair a dam. 6 The pioneers themselves declared that brass had been successfully produced, but, since the iron and wire works were more profitable, they decided to 1 This was contradicted at a later date (Lansd. MS. 81 (1)). 3 'S.P.D., Eliz., xl, 63; Calendar, 1547-1580, p. 278. • Vide supra, p. 16. 'S.P.D., Eliz., xlvii, 10, 11; Calendar, 1547-1580, p. 311. 'Lansd. MS. 24 (45). The reply of John Brode to the Answer of Sir Richard Martyn to Brode's Petition, Lansd. MS. 81 (1). D 1575 concentrate their attention on this branch of the business, 1 2 There is probably a grain of truth in both statements. The Tintern works were, indeed, very lucrative; but at the same time it is not easy to understand why the brass manufacture was neglected, since Humfrey, on more than one occasion, declared that it would be so much more profitable than the iron wire works. Pioneers do not like to admit failure. In any case, it was decided in 1582 to give others the opportunity of succeeding where the Company had failed and so a lease was made, not of the works (for they were presumably still incomplete), but of the privilege, to Alderman Martyn, Andrew Palmer, Humfrey Mirkott, A and John Brode, at an annual rent of £50 for fourteen years. These men made a solemn agreement that each would work for the benefit of the partnership. Brode had most knowledge of the making of brass, while the others were prepared to provide the bulk of the capital. He was accordingly appointed manager, and was to receive a salary of £50 per annum.3 The partners quickly set to work and established a factory at Isleworth in Middlesex; but, despite the oath of fidelity which they had taken, peace did not reign within the partnership. On the one hand, Brode maintained that he did not get the assistance promised him, and that, therefore, during the fourteen years of the lease he himself had to spend £3,500 in setting up works and in bringing foreign workmen to England. Still as a result of his efforts he claimed that "with study and labour" he had brought the work to "perfection" and had firmly established the art of brass making. On the other hand, his partners1 declared that they had been deceived. Brode apparently had been experimenting in the making of brass for many years previously, but not having sufficient capital to take the lease and erect works he had gone to Martyn, and convinced him that here there was a profitable field for the investment of his capital-one which would give him a 1 The Answer of Sir Richard Martyn to John Brode's Petition, Lansd. MS. 81 (1). John Brode's petition to the Council concerning his brass works at Isleworth, Lansd. MS. 81 (1). The Answer of Sir Richard Martyn, etc., Lansd. MS. 81 (1). |