Welsh Journals

Search over 450 titles and 1.2 million pages

I Interdependence never reached a level at which any of the companies in Merthyr Tydfil surrendered their independence. At the beginning of the period, up to 1810 at the latest, there was a survival of one of the interlocking partnerships of the eighteenth century about which M. W. Flinn has written.6 Since the raison d'etre of these partnerships-an attempt to overcome some of the disadvantages of geographical dispersion as a result of dependence upon charcoal fuel-had disappeared with the change in fuel used by the iron industry, the interlocking partnership between the Dowlais and Pentyrch companies was by 1810 essentially a survival, and was not of importance in the period as a whole. The proprietors of Pentyrch, the Lewis family, retained an interest in the D.I.C. until 1850, but their interest in Pentyrch had lapsed sometime before 1810. The D.I.C. did, however, consider amalgamation twice in the 1840s: in 1841 with Sirhowy and Ebbw Vale; in 1846 with Peny- darren. In 1841 it was reported that 'such enormous terms are asked' that the scheme was dropped. Possibly an amalgamation was considered because the D.I.C.'s lease was to end in 1846 and it seemed that the terms of renewal would be harsh: certainly this was the explanation of the proposed merger between the D.I.C. and Penydarren in 1846. The proposal was apparently not permissible in law and nothing came of it. The D.I.C. not only did not take part in any amalgamations, but there is no evidence of any extensive specialization by the various works in the area. The D.I.C. did obtain certain specialized products from other companies. At least from 1821, Dowlais obtained its chains from the Newbridge works of Brown, Lenox and Company; the iron to make these and other chains came from Dowlais. In fact, the Newbridge works seems to have become over-dependent on supplies of iron from Dowlais.8 There was a similar relationship with the Melingriffith works: the D.I.C. supplied bar iron to be converted into tin plate at Melingriffith. Melingriffith, like New- bridge, became over-dependent on Dowlais iron: it is impossible for us to state the inconvenience we sustain for want of the bar iron expected from you. We cannot execute a single order for want of one or other of the sizes and the consequence is our trade is at a total standstill. ) 6 M. W. Flinn, Men of Iron; the Crowleys in the Early Iron Industry (1962), pp. 6-7. 7 The proposals of 1841 and 1846 are recorded in Earl of Bessborough (ed.), Lady Charlotte Guest, extracts from her Journal, 1833-1852 (1950), pp. 124-25, 175, 178. 8 For example, Brown and Lenox to Dowlais Iron Company (D.I.C.), 30 December 1843; 1843(2), f. 21: 'We are greatly inconvenienced by the non-delivery of the iron ordered Our workmen are now completely idle in consequence.' » R. Blakemore to D.I.C., 7 April 1821; 1821(1), f. 98.