Industrial Clusters and Regional Business Networks in England, 1750-1970 by John F Wilson Andrew Popp

Author:John F Wilson, Andrew Popp [John F Wilson, Andrew Popp]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781351927796
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2017-07-05T00:00:00+00:00

Shareholders in Sheffield: Geographical distribution and occupational analysis

The local nature of share subscriptions in manufacturing firms converting to limited liability has already been emphasised. In the case of the companies promoted by Allott, Wing and Chadwick, this can be clarified through the analysis of the addresses of shareholders as detailed in the share returns to the Registrar. The majority of capital invested in the companies of Wing and Allott originated from Yorkshire, 89 per cent and 84 per cent respectively, and over 50 per cent from Sheffield itself. These men were financial agents, originally based in Sheffield, and capital from their local sphere of influence dominated the companies with which they were involved. However, as mentioned previously, the 1879 White’s Sheffield District Trade Directory shows that both Wing and Allott were by then members of financial practices which had London offices. The predominance of Yorkshire subscriptions could have been due to the promotions taking place before Wing and Allott opened offices in London, or, rather, have been due to their stronger connections in the Sheffield region.

In contrast, the geographical origins of the funds invested in Chadwick’s four companies are predominantly Lancashire and London. Chadwick had both Manchester and London offices and the results reflect the difference compared with Wing’s and Allott’s companies; 29 per cent of the capital invested in Chadwick’s firms originated from Yorkshire, whereas a higher amount of capital (33 per cent) came from Lancashire. Much of this finance came from Manchester (26 per cent). In contrast, only five per cent of the capital subscribed to Wing’s companies was from Lancashire and one per cent with respect to Allott’s companies. In addition, a substantial amount of capital in Chadwick’s companies came from London (21 per cent), as opposed to only one per cent for Wing’s firms and seven per cent for Allott’s. Before the late 1870s, the London connections of Chadwick, therefore, appear to have been far more highly developed than those of the locally-based Sheffield promoters. Chadwick’s influence was therefore far more national than either Allott or Wing.

Were shareholders predominantly those involved in local industrial concerns, as identified in the work of Jefferys? In order to answer this question, Table 7.4 shows the occupational origins of shareholders in the companies promoted by Allott, Wing and Chadwick. The majority of shareholders gave their occupation as ‘manufacturing’. This is not surprising, given the nature of the companies being considered. The other dominant groups of investors consist of those from commerce, the professions and those with independent means. After manufacturing, ‘commerce’ constituted the most important occupational group for those investing both in Chadwick’s and Wing’s industrial concerns, 25 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. More important for the companies promoted by Allott were investors from the ‘Professions’, which provided 18 per cent of the capital invested, as opposed to 12 per cent of capital from those in commerce. Investors from the professions were less important to Chadwick’s companies (nine per cent). Men and women of independent means were an

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.