While A ustralian m anufacturing was constrained by several situations which did not affect M orris & Co., problems in common were considerable. Major
considerations for both were the sophistication and value of m achinery in Britain, suspect trading ethics and m iddlemen in the marketplace, the weighing of profit m argins against production of quality, and the quest for the best means of introducing m anufactures to the public. In coming to grips w ith these m atters M orris often set standards which other m anufacturers were not able or did not wish to follow. M orris & Co. was able to access the services of other m anufacturers using the m ost advanced m achinery and employing large trained workforces. The
company insisted on the integrity of n atu ral dyes over cheaper chemical dyes but was also in a better position than A ustralians to acquire these products. The predom inance in A ustralia of imported items and components often m eant that A ustralians were unable to set the requisite profit m argins for survival realised by B ritish firms.
Colonial authorities w ere not entirely unm indful of the dominance of imported m anufactures into A ustralia and the need to redress such an imbalance by
exam ining the local situation. F irst to seriously undertake such an investigation was th e New South Wales Government which established in 1862 a Select
Committee on the State of M anufactures and Agriculture in the Colony, evidence
being taken from 7 October to 2 December.65 This inquiry was clearly prompted by concern about an alarming increase in youth vagrancy as local manufacturing not only stagnated but also in some areas decreased.66 There is no indication at this date that aesthetics were a particular consideration or indeed that imports provided a less than desirable quality to Australian lifestyles. Rather the Select Committee addressed the social dilemma of gauging hope for the future employment of “the rising generation”.67 Questions were put to some ten local manufacturers engaged in the woollen, leather and furniture industries. In respect of woven materials it was admitted that the finer cloths were not made in the Colony and James Byrnes of Parramatta stated that cloths that were made locally cost twenty-five per cent more to manufacture than comparable imports. When pressed for exact figures Byrnes agreed that goods worth £100 to manufacture locally would cost only £82 10s to import inclusive of all charges.68 It was suggested to Sydney woollen manufacturer Malcolm MTntyre Campbell that requisite machinery might be imported but he claimed the freight alone would be more than the worth of the machinery.69 Much of the workforce that came to Australia did so for better pay conditions as
employees, not to set up as employers, thus investment in capital goods was limited. The price of local products was inflated by wages and costs of imported raw
materials such as dyes and fuels, all of which could be up to three times greater in Australia than Britain.70 Weavers in Scotland and England were paid 3d-5d per yard
65Fully recorded in Legislative Assembly Votes & Proceedings, Vol.5 (1862).
66Ibid., p.1043.
67Ibid., pp.1056, 1069.
68Ibid„ p.1049. 69Ibid., p.1056.
7<lBoth these instances indicate how different the Australian situation was to that in America. Higher wages were essential to encouraging skilled labour to Australia while America’s
for clotfti produced compared to 10d-15d per yard earned by weavers in Australia.71 To produce a full range of woven fabrics locally would have required a massive
initial capital outlay which was never likely to appeal to overseas investors in the light of a domestic market based on a relatively small population.72 Linda Parry has observed that by the 1870s when Morris seriously contemplated designing for woven textiles there was in Britain a “vast field of available manufacturers... for silk, wool, cotton, ;and gauze weaving”73 and even though a comparatively humble firm Morris & Co. contracted to at least six of those manufacturers.74 All of Morris & Co.’s contractors “used the most technologically advanced power-driven jacquard looms in their factories”. The only reason Morris did not follow suit when he set up his Merton Abbey Works in 1881 was that he did not have “enough capital” to do so.75 Thus for the same reason - shortage of capital - Morris & Co. and the Australian textile industry were not able to effectively utilise modern technology. It is fallacious to suggest that Morris was different to other textile manufacturers and shunned machinery available in his day because of a romantic attachment to handicraft.76
independent status ensured that that country sought out and successfully utilised its own raw materials with little recourse to imports.
71 Legislative Assembly Votes & Proceedings, Vol.5 (1862), pp. 1058, 1059.
720ffsettnng capital expenditure in Australia by exporting was not an option competitive with profits obtainable from already established British sources.
73Linda Parry, William Morris Textiles, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1983, p.58. 74Ibid., pp.58-60.
75Ibid.,p 60.
76See E.P. Thompson, William Morris: Romantic to Revolutionary, Merlin Press, London, 1977, pp.649-654.William Peterson has suggested that Morris “dramatically” rejected new technolo gy at the Kelmscott Press yet his further observation of Morris favouring a
nineteenth century iron hand press over a fifteenth century based wooden model (William S. Peterson_ The Kelmscott Press: A History o f William Morris 's Typographical Adventure, University of California Press, 1991, pp. 10-11) highlights the care with which Morris considered all possible effects to the quality of products he manufactured.
In his evidence before the 1862 Select Committee James Byrnes suggested that fabrics that were woven locally were in fact of better quality than imports
manufactured by the same means, such as tweed. However Byrnes contended that buyers could be duped by retailers who both pushed the poorer quality article at the lower price and also, where it was obvious a customer was not aware of the
difference, presented the cheaper import under the guise of being the more
expensive local product.77 In so stating, Byrnes was inferring that there was indeed an interest in local products but the higher profit margins on imported goods influenced salesmanship. Boot and shoe maker John Fletcher believed local manufactures would be preferred if they could be bought “at a reasonable price”.78 Dubious behaviour was not exclusive to Australian traders. In attempting to trace a particular cloth for Andreas Scheu in 1883, Morris suggested it might be found in “some Scotch warehouse” because “such goods have become strange to England; we are got too clever by half to give people the real article when shoddy will do as well”.79 At the same time Morris also discussed with Scheu the weaving of blankets and in so doing hinted at the plus and minus sides of Australian wool production. Morris advised Scheu that “it is common to make the warps of cotton, and even to mix cotton with Australian wool for the weft” then added that “the best blankets made at Witney ... have good worsted warps and their weft is all of pure English wool, which is firmer, though not so soft as the Australian”.80 Obviously Australian
^Legislative Assembly Votes & Proceedings, Vol.5 (1862), p.1050. 78Ibid, p. 1081.
79Kelvin (Ed), op.cit., Vol.II, 1987, pp.225-226. 80Ibid., pp.226-227.
wool lent itself to special uses which could well have detracted from its con sideration for local processing. The softness of merino wool limited its
application to fabrics which would not be subject to the wear and tear, for example, of upholstery or work clothing. Despite Morris’s assertion, however, Australian blankets are still known for their long lasting properties as well as their comfort.
Essential to both the aesthetics and commercial aspects of fabric production was the art of dyeing. When questioned by the 1862 Select Committee on the matter of dyes James Byrnes stated that local dyes were better lasting than imports and that the only defect in colonial manufactured goods was really “want of finish”.81 He claimed that English dyes were bright at first but soon “fly” when exposed to the heat of the Colony.82 Yet the Volunteer Artillery had wanted to acquire uniforms of blue colonial cloth and had abandoned the intention because of the dye being so bad..83 Campbell when asked if there were difficulties in setting colour answered negatively - “if you choose to go to the expense it is quite an easy matter” he asserted.84
The subject of dye properties was one which troubled the fabric industry in Australia and Britain at the same time. Morris’s insistence on the integrity of colour was a trait which strongly differentiated Morris & Co. products from those of competitors.85 This became paramount with the company’s woven and printed 81 Legislative Assembly Votes & Proceedings, Vol.5 (1862), p. 1051.
82lbid., p. 1052. 83Ibid., p.1051. 84Ibid., p.1058.
85Kelvin (Ed), op .cit, V o ll, 1984, pp. 263, 267-268, 272, 308, 334-335, 548-549; Vol.II, 1987, pp.22-23. See also Virginia Davis, ‘William Morris and Indigo Discharge Printing’, in
textiles because of the perceived garishness and fleeting nature of chemical dyes in comimon use in Britain.86 Morris believed the “art of dyeing” to be the very
foundiation of the “ornamental character of textile fabrics”.87 He grouped the invention of chemical dyes with such other “preposterous follies” as “monster canncon” and berated modern science to invent instead “machines for performing such 'labour as is revolting and destructive of self-respect to the men who now have to do it by hand”.88 Here was another instance of Morris encouraging technology, but cltearly with the proviso that social responsibility must be taken into account.
Clnemical dyes had gained acceptance commercially because of their cheapness to pro)duce, obtainability in large quantities and quick-drying properties which suitecd mechanical production techniques. W.C. Eldridge who ran an aniline dye workss in Sydney claimed in 1870 that every “passion and affection of the mind has
The Jcournal o f the William Morris Society, Vol.XI, No.3, Autumn 1995, pp.8-18; and
Howaird Batho, 'William Morris and Dyeing’, in Journal o f the Society o f Dyers and
Colourrists, no.l 12, December 1996, pp.342-346.
86See Simon Garfield, Mauve, Faber and Faber, London, 2001, pp. 102-104. Aniline dyes gainedl commercial recognition only after the accidental discovery of mauve by chemistry studemt William Perkin in 1856. Their rapid development and acceptance was obvious at their slhowings at London’s International Exhibition of 1862. At this event August Hofmann declared that England “may ere long send her coal-derived blues to indigo-growing India, her tar-disttilled crimson to cochineal-producing Mexico, and her fossil substitutes for quercitron and saifflower to China and Japan” (quoted in Ibid., p.77). French historian Hippolyte Taine found the exhibits and visitors at the 1862 Exhibition to be “gaudy and unrefined” (Ibid., pp.77-78). Raphael Meldola, chairman of the 1906 jubilee celebrations for the discovery of mauve;, remembered that “even, in my younger days, the term aniline dye was a term of reproacch. A coal-tar dye was looked upon as gaudy, fugitive, and having every objectionable quality/” (Ibid., p. 132).
87Morrris, Architecture, Industry & Wealth, op.cit., p.157. 88Ibid.„ p.101.
its appropriate TINT, and COLOURING” and that he was both conversant with and prepared to produce for his “generous patrons” and the colonies at large:
every colour and every shade, or tint, they may desire in silk or wool, as pure and as perfectly BEAUTIFUL as the GAY COLOURED RADIANCE which FLUSHES BRIGHT O’ER ALL CREATION; thus enabling them, in the expression of colour, to “Wear a Virtue,” and appropriately “Dress a Passion. ”89
With h is advertising Eldridge sought to bedazzle. He played on the emotions and fashion-consciousness of his clients in order to sell his wares. He did not disclose difficulties which could beset aniline dyes regarding permanency and thus
perpetuated the acceptance of strong changes of colour from original presentations. Such a n education meant that purchasers lacked an ability to discern colour
subtlety.
In Australia natural dyes were based solely on plant material and before the 1862 Select Committee Enoch William Rudder from northern NSW claimed that they were all permanent. For his actual preparations Rudder asserted that costs of
9,9The Australian Town and Country Journal, Vol.I, No.5, 5 February 1870, p. 1. In 1906
Raphael Meldola applauded the ultimate public acceptance of aniline dyes because without them “ what a miserable colourless world this would be” (Quoted in Garfield, op.cit., p. 132). The greater colour range which aniline dyes could satisfy has been clearly suggested by Simon Garfield: “...the supply of plant dyes was often limited to specific regions and
hampered by a nation’s attempts to monopolise production. ...trends in colour were fashioned less by taste than by the vagaries of war and efficiencies of foreign ports. It stood to reason that a colour you could make on demand in a laboratory ... would surely be worth an awful lot of money” (Ibid, pp.42-43). It is interesting that Eldridge only mentions the colouring of silk and wool in his advertisement, omitting cotton. Certainly for William Perkin the fixing of mauve on cotton was for some time a real problem (see Ibid., p.52).
production were half those for English products yet Malcolm Campbell suggested that because of commercial timber harvesting expenses the natural dyes became more expensive than importing chemical dye materials from England.90 The overriding factor for both local and overseas commercial dye production was the saving of costs, not quality, and thus the chemical aniline dyes ruled. The situation was not one which was acceptable to Morris. In discriminating between natural and chemical dyes he wrote circumspectly of the former:
As to the artistic value of these dye-stuffs,... I must tell you that they all make in their simplest forms beautiful colours; they need no muddling into artistic usefulness, when you need your colours bright (as I hope you usually do), and they can be modified and toned without dirtying, as the foul blotches of the capitalist dyer cannot be. Like all dyes, they are not eternal; the sun in lighting them and beautifying them consumes them; yet gradually, and for the most part kindly ... These colours in fading still remain beautiful, and never, even after long wear, pass into nothingness, through that stage of livid ugliness which distinguishes the commercial dyes as nuisances, even more than their short and by no means merry life. 91
Morris did not find it necessary to torture his colours into satisfying the human vagrancies of fashion. Natural dyes provided for him perceptible innate beauty together with predictable quality control.
^Legislative Assembly Votes & Proceedings, Vol.5 (1862), pp. 1075, 1058. Q1Poulson (Ed), op.cit., pp.71-72.
Morris began experimenting with traditional natural dyes in 1872, however initially work space restricted him to producing only some of the silks and wools used in the firm ’s embroideries. He was particularly troubled by repercussions on the company’s reputation caused by defects in commercial dyeing. In June 1876 he reported “bad accounts” concerning the fading of silk curtains handled by the firm and imported from two different French centres.92 In order to dye yarns in
commercially viable quantities for carpets and woven fabrics and to control his own textile printing Morris sought the aid of Thomas Wardle’s dyeing and printing works in Leek, Staffordshire. Morris first visited the works in 1875 to set on course his required methods and expectations and thereafter stringently examined and tested every sample subsequently forwarded by Wardle, reporting in detail on each.93 This procedure was time-consuming and required a keen perception of the finest colour variations, both of which would have been luxuries in the general competitive dye industry. Because of such attention to detail Morris was able to ensure the quality of Morris & Co.’s products manufactured by other commercial concerns. From April 1876 he supplied ready-dyed the wools used by the
Heckmondwike Manufacturing Co. for Morris & Co. Kidderminster carpets and the silk and cotton yarns used by Nicholsons and McCreas to produce Morris & Co. woven fabrics. Wardle took over the production of block-printed chintzes. Morris’s example however could not be supported by businesses which looked primarily to profit-taking.94___________________________________ _____________________ 92Kelvin (Ed), op.cit., V o ll, 1984, p.308.
93Ibid., pp.259-397. See also Ray Watkinson, ‘Living Dyeing: Morris, Merton and the W ardles’, in The Journal o f the William Morris Society, Vol.XII, No.3, Autumn 1997, pp.20-25.
94When The Home reported in the 1920s on the Australian bush dyes o f Eady Hart o f Ballarat which “resemble more the flowers in a garden than the crude commercial shades known in
Throughout Morris’s dyeing experiments he was aware of the commercial
advantages and liabilities of his undertaking. He haggled with Wardle but accepted the latter’s offers over dyeing costs in order to sell at a profit “of some kind” and not “prohibit from our customers”.95 He begged Wardle to consider reducing his prices “considerably” otherwise sales would “likely ... be very limited” and cited Wardle’s prices as more than double Clarkson’s who originally printed for the company.96 At the 1862 NSW Select Committee Malcolm Campbell had also rightly recognised that it was an expensive affair to produce quality dyes which were not fleeting. Yet it was not Wardle’s costs but inadequate workmanship which ultimately drove Morris to seek premises which would allow him to control totally all the company’s dyeing requirements.
I am sorry to say that the last goods African marigold & red marigold sent are worse instead of better: they are in fact quite unsaleable; I should consider myself disgraced by offering them for sale: I laboured hard on making good designs for these and on getting the colour good: they are now so printed & coloured that they are no better than caricatures of my careful work. 97
There is no doubt from the evidence of James Byrnes and Malcolm Campbell before the 1862 NSW Select Committee that manufacturers in the local textile indust ry had faith in the quality of their base products. They were perhaps
m odem days” ( The H ome, Vol.7, No. 1, January 1926, p.4), it was obvious that the pursuit o f natural dyeing techniques had become the prerogative o f amateurs and that chemical dyes strongly ruled in the business world.
95Kelvin (Ed), o p .cit, V o ll, 1984, p.273. 96Ibid., p.275.
97Ibid., Vol.II, 1987, p.10.
thwarted, like Morris, in their abilities to promote items by inadequate
workmanship in secondary phases such as dyeing and product finish. In Australia,