Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
Most histories of the nineteenth-century labour movement give some account of George Potter's conflict with the men the Webbs called the Junta; and it is generally recognised that one main bone of contention was control of the Bee-Hive newspaper. But there has been little real analysis of this quarrel, and even less of the eventual reconciliation. It is true that some of the old generalisations are no longer accepted. Nowadays, most labour historians agree that the Webbs, writing under Applegarth's influence, dismissed Potter too contemptuously. There is also some recognition of the fact that Raymond Postgate's Builders' History, although more accurate on Potter's early position in the labour movement, gives a completely false impression of his later career and the changes that took place in the Bee-Hive. But through it all, Potter has remained a rather shadowy figure, and in published works the Bee-Hive's own history has been surprisingly neglected. Even a recent work in which the author avowedly sets out to correct the record on Potter – B. C. Roberts's The Trades Union Congress, 1868–1921 – is in many ways unsatisfactory. Roberts does make an attempt to analyse the conflict, and on the whole he sums up Potter's aims and achievements more accurately than either the Webbs or Postgate did. But in trying to give Potter due credit for his part in founding the TUC, Roberts has over-estimated his contribution, and minimised his weaknesses. Above all, he has paid too little attention to the Bee-Hive itself. As a result, the consequences of the way in which the paper was founded and conducted, and the relationship between Potter's other activities and the Bee-Hive's successive changes of ownership, editorship and policy, are either disregarded or mistakenly interpreted. Potter's career in the labour movement, and the development of the Bee-Hive, were completely interwoven, and neither can be fully assessed without the other.
page 391 note 1 Much of the material in this article has been taken from my unpublished D. Phil. thesis, George Potter and the Bee-Hive Newspaper (Oxford, 1956)Google Scholar. I have described the founding of the Bee-Hive, in “The Bee-Hive Newspaper: its Origin and Early Struggles”, in: Essays in Labour History, ed. A. Briggs and J. Saville, 1960.Google Scholar
page 392 note 1 Roberts follows the Webbs in regarding Potter as the editor from the beginning, and bases several of his comments on this assumption (The Trades Union Congress, 1868–1921, 1958, pp. 20, 26 and 63Google Scholar).
page 393 note 1 Three lists of shareholders – dated 1863, 1864, and 1866 – together with the Memorandum and Articles of Association, are in the company's file (now in the Public Record Office).
page 393 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 15 April 1865.Google Scholar
page 393 note 3 LTC Minutes, 21 August 1861Google Scholar. The arrangements for financing and editing the paper are described in more detail in “The Bee-Hive Newspaper: its Origin and Early Struggles”.
page 393 note 4 LTC Minutes, 19 November 1861Google Scholar.
page 394 note 1 For an account of Troup's views, and those of other “Southerners” in the labour movement, see Harrison, Royden, “British Labour and the Confederacy”, in: International Review of Social History, Vol. II (1957), Part 1.Google Scholar
page 394 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 1 November 1862Google Scholar, 22 August and 7 November 1863, and 10 and 24 June 1865; Miner and Workman's Advocate, 15 July 1865Google Scholar; Workman's Advocate, 9 September 1865Google Scholar.
page 394 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 19 November 1864.Google Scholar
page 394 note 4 There was one sign of wavering. In February 1864, the new Directors allowed Potter to bring Troup back as a contributor, and in one article Troup again criticised the North. The result was an extended controversy with E. S. Beesly, who also prodded the Directors into a reaffirmation of the Bee-Hive's pro-Northern policy (Bee-Hive, , 20 February to 2 April 1864).Google Scholar
page 395 note 1 Allan and Coulson had held this office since the formation of their unions, in 1851 and 1860. Applegarth had become the second general secretary of the ASCJ in 1862, and Guile had been elected when the Friendly Society of Ironfounders, an old-established union, was reorganised in 1863.
page 395 note 2 History of Trade Unionism, 1920 edn., p. 239.Google Scholar
page 396 note 1 Even then, there were disagreements between them that were never made public. On a draft of the Junta's Trade Union Bill (now in the Howell Collection, Bishopsgate Institute) George Howell scribbled notes of a violent argument between Applegarth and Odger. Odger, more sensitive to the views of the smaller societies, wanted the campaign to revert to the Trades Council; but he was over-ruled by Applegarth.
page 396 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 29 October 1864.Google Scholar
page 396 note 3 The inaugural meeting was advertised and fully reported in the Bee-Hive, while the “Address and Provisional Rules” were published in pamphlet form from the Bee-Hive office.
page 397 note 1 Marx, to Engels, , 4 November 1864 (MEGA III [Correspondence Marx-Engels], Vol. III, p. 196).Google Scholar
page 397 note 2 Marx, to Engels, , 4 November 1864.Google Scholar
page 397 note 3 Marx, to Engels, , 2 December 1864 (MEGA, Vol. III, p. 210).Google Scholar
page 398 note 1 Fifth Annual Report (published by mistake as Sixth Annual Report), August 1865 (Howell Collection).
page 398 note 2 Qu. 136.
page 398 note 3 E.g., Bee-Hive, , 18 October 1862Google Scholar; 18 February 1865; 17 March 1866.
page 398 note 4 Speech to the Bradford branch of the ASCJ (Bee-Hive, , 22 July 1865)Google Scholar. Cf. Allan's evidence before the Royal Commission: “Every day of the week I hear that the interests (of employers and employed) are identical. I scarcely see how they can be while we are in a state of society which recognises the principle of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market. It is in their interest to get the labour done at as low a rate as possible and it is ours to get as high rate of wages as possible, and you can never reconcile these two things”. (Qu. 924).
page 399 note 1 ASCJ Monthly Report, May 1865Google Scholar.
page 399 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 9 March 1867.Google Scholar
page 399 note 3 ASCJ Monthly Report, May 1865Google Scholar.
page 399 note 4 Hansard, , 7 March 1864.Google Scholar
page 401 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 24 June 1865.Google Scholar
page 401 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 4 June and 19 November 1864Google Scholar, and 27 May and 3 June 1865.
page 401 note 3 See, in particular, Bee-Hive, , 31 October 1865Google Scholar and 24 June 1865; and ASCJ Monthly Report, May 1865Google Scholar.
page 401 note 4 Cremer – the first secretary to the International, and eventually Sir Randall Cremer, the “first working man knight” – had been a member of the Progressive Carpenters, and supported Potter during the nine-hours movement. By the end of 1861 he had moved over into the ASCJ.
page 401 note 5 Bee-Hive, , 2 and 9 April 1864.Google Scholar
page 401 note 6 Bee-Hive, , 5 March to 2 April 1864.Google Scholar
page 402 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 4 and 11 June 1864.Google Scholar
page 402 note 2 For the Discharge Note struggle, see Bee-Hive, , 17 December 1864Google Scholar to 18 February 1865; ASCJ Monthly Reports, January, February and May 1865Google Scholar; and LTC Minutes, 17 January and 21 February 1865Google Scholar.
page 402 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 14 January 1865.Google Scholar
page 403 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 27 May 1865.Google Scholar
page 404 note 1 Hartwell asserted that this letter was never sent to the Bee-Hive; but the committee that investigated Odger's charges held that it should have been reprinted from the Times, since Troup “made it the subject of an elaborate reply” in the Bee-Hive's next issue (Bee-Hive, , 24 June 1865).Google Scholar
page 406 note 1 For the whole episode, see Bee-Hive, , 4 February to 29 April 1865Google Scholar; Miner and Workman's Advocate, 25 March to 29 April 1865Google Scholar; LTC Minutes, and 1865 Annual ReportGoogle Scholar; ASCJ Monthly Reports, April and May 1865Google Scholar; and LTC pamphlet, Mr. Potter and the London Trades Council (Howell Collection).
page 407 note 1 Founded as the Trade Union Political Union in November 1862, mainly through the efforts of Odger and Applegarth, and with strong support from Hartwell in the Bee-Hive. It was Hartwell's work for the Garibaldi demonstration that brought him the secretaryship of the Association when it was reorganised in 1864.
page 407 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 25 February and 15 and 22 April 1865Google Scholar; 15 September and 3 and 10 November 1866; and 8 December 1866 to 19 January 1867.
page 407 note 3 Howell thought Coulson was “coarse and vulgar”; Coulson regarded Howell as “a snob”. They were both right.
page 407 note 4 Dunning's position was somewhat peculiar. He was never regarded as a militant, and his writings have often been quoted to show the development of the new approach to industrial relations, even before the Junta appeared on the scene. But Dunning was “the father of London trade unionism”; and he obviously resented the attempts of these newer men to extend their control over the policies of other unions.
page 408 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 10 June 1865Google Scholar. The North Staffordshire men had broken away from the National Association, and with other groups from South Staffordshire they had started a separate union, the Associated Ironworkers of Great Britain.
page 409 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 24 June 1865.Google Scholar
page 409 note 2 Marx, to Engels, , 9 May 1865Google Scholar; Engels, to Marx, , 12 May 1865 (MEGA, Vol. III, pp. 268, 270).Google Scholar
page 409 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 27 May 1865Google Scholar. The Stationers' Hall register (now in the Public Record Office) shows the Bee-Hive as first registered on 16 September 1861, with George Potter named as “proprietor of the copyright”; and re-registered on 31 May 1865, in accordance with the shareholders' resolution.
page 410 note 1 The Builders' History, 1923, p. 217Google Scholar. Roberts states, in a remarkably misleading footnote, that “Potter was completely cleared of the six charges of fraud and misappropriation of money, and more or less vindicated on the charges involving the editorial policy of the Bee-Hive” (The Trades Union Congress, 1868–1921, p. 26).Google Scholar
page 412 note 1 The complete report, which included Odger's statement, was published in the Bee-Hive of 24 June 1865, together with lengthy comments by Hartwell. The report also appeared in the Miner and Workman's Advocate on the same day.
page 412 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 29 July 1865.Google Scholar
page 412 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 19 and 26 August 1865.Google Scholar
page 412 note 4 For Beesly's relations with working-class organisations and newspapers, see: Harrison, Royden, “Professor Beesly and the Working-class Movement”, in: Essays in Labour History, ed. A. Briggs and J. SavilleGoogle Scholar. See also: Harrison, Royden, “E. S. Beesly and Karl Marx”, in: International Review of Social History, Vol. IV (1959), Parts 1 and 2.Google Scholar
page 413 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 30 September 1865.Google Scholar
page 414 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 7 October 1865.Google Scholar
page 415 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 9 December 1865.Google Scholar
page 415 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 17 March 1866.Google Scholar
page 416 note 1 Potter and Hartwell remained members of the League's Executive Council until the elections of October 1866, but few of the other members could be ranked among their supporters.
page 416 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 2 June 1866.Google Scholar
page 417 note 1 E.g., “I am against amalgamation except for trade purposes; otherwise these are made subservient to benefits.” (From a speech to the Friends of Freedom Carpenters, reported in the Bee-Hive, of 14 December 1867.)Google Scholar
page 417 note 2 The change of name marked a shift of emphasis in policy. A group of middle-class Reformers, headed by Thomas Hughes, had taken out shares in the Industrial Newspaper Co. Their money was urgently needed; but their influence had the effect of toning down the paper's political comment – much to Marx's annoyance, as he showed in his correspondence.
page 417 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 31 March 1866.Google Scholar
page 418 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 21 July to 11 August 1866.Google Scholar
page 418 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 13 and 20 October and 24 November 1866Google Scholar; LTC Minutes.
page 419 note 1 Minutes of the Executive Council of the Reform League, 15, 18, 24 and 31 August 1866 (Howell Collection)Google Scholar; Bee-Hive, , 18 August to 8 September 1866.Google Scholar
page 420 note 1 Commonwealth, 24 November 1866Google Scholar; Howell, George to Macintyre, J., 5 December 1866Google Scholar (Reform League Letter Book); Minutes of the Executive Council of the Reform League, 5 December 1866 (Howell Collection)Google Scholar.
page 420 note 2 Times, 4 December 1866Google Scholar.
page 420 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 26 May 1866.Google Scholar
page 420 note 4 Bee-Hive, , 8 December 1866.Google Scholar
page 421 note 1 No shares were ever taken by the ASE, the ASCJ, or the Ironfounders; but the Operative Bricklayers had taken 40 in May 1862. The most important of the other shareholding unions was the Operative Stonemasons' Society (100 shares in March 1864). 29 out of the 82 were either local carpenters' societies or lodges of the GUC.
page 421 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 9 February 1867.Google Scholar
page 422 note 1 There has often been confusion about the responsibility for the two demonstrations. For instance, S. Maccoby, following a misleading account in Irving's Annals of Our Time, credits both demonstrations to the Reform League, and so misses the point of the LWMA's initiative and its effect on the League (English Radicalism, 1853–1886, 1938, pp. 92–94).Google Scholar
page 422 note 2 LTC Minutes, 19 December 1866Google Scholar.
page 423 note 1 The first meeting was held on 28 January. On 1 March the secretary of the Vellum Binders' Society accepted an invitation to become a permanent member (Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades, in the Webb Collection, British Library of Political and Economic Science).
page 423 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 9 February 1867.Google Scholar
page 423 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 9 March 1867.Google Scholar
page 423 note 4 Bee-Hive, , 2 and 9 March 1867.Google Scholar
page 423 note 5 Copies of this report are in the Howell Collection and the Burns Collection (TUC Library).
page 424 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 9 March 1867Google Scholar; Morning Advertiser, 9 March 1867Google Scholar; Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades (Webb Collection).
page 424 note 2 Hartwell had followed the normal practice, and left the London Society of Compositors on being promoted foreman-printer. But he claimed that he had always remained on good terms with the Society, and had never “taken on” a non-Society man.
page 424 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 16 March 1867.Google Scholar
page 425 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 29 June and 6 July 1867.Google Scholar
page 425 note 2 A copy of this report – apparently the only one that has survived – is in the Burns Collection.
page 426 note 1 Mr. Applegarth's Evidence Before the Royal Commission, published by the ASCJ, ran to 75 closely-printed pages.
page 426 note 2 Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades (Webb Collection).
page 426 note 3 Bee-Hive, , 23 November 1867Google Scholar. Whether Macdonald would have agreed with this decision is not clear, since he was in the United States at the time.
page 426 note 4 Bee-Hive, , 6 June 1868Google Scholar; Musson, A. E., The Congress of 1868, 1955, pp. 36–37Google Scholar. Potter was present as a delegate from the LWMA – combining this function with that of “special reporter” for the Bee-Hive – but there is no evidence that he spoke on Kane's motion.
page 427 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 25 May 1867.Google Scholar
page 428 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 6 April 1867Google Scholar; Commonwealth, 6 April 1867Google Scholar.
page 429 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 18 May and 1 June 1867.Google Scholar
page 429 note 2 Bee-Hive, , 25 May 1867.Google Scholar
page 430 note 1 Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli, 1929 edn., Vol. II, p. 274.Google Scholar
page 430 note 2 Times, 30 May 1867Google Scholar.
page 430 note 3 This was the highest recorded figure for LWMA membership (Bee-Hive, , 9 March 1867Google Scholar; Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, Qu. 307).
page 430 note 4 Bee-Hive, , 14 and 21 April 1866Google Scholar, and 12 October 1867.
page 431 note 1 British Working Class Politics, 1832–1914, 1941, p. 43.Google Scholar
page 432 note 1 Bee-Hive, , 21 December 1867.Google Scholar
page 432 note 2 At the same time, office accommodation was provided at 10 Bolt Court, Fleet Street – a building which belonged to Pratt, and the one in which his own offices were situated. For details of Pratt's loan, see Bee-Hive, , 10 June 1865Google Scholar; Miner and Workman's Advocate, 15 July 1865Google Scholar; and Workman's Advocate, 9 September 1865Google Scholar.
You have
Access
