The Minton Tile Companies
Minton & Co. c.1828 - 1868
commercial production from circa 1835.
Tile making was managed by partner Michael
Daintry Hollins from 1840 when the brand name,
Minton, Hollins, & Co. was adopted. Michael
Hollins is recorded as working in the factory
from 1838. [5]
From 1840 [2] Minton & Co. on
tiles was a trading name of Minton, Hollins
& Co. used for the London House (showroom
and offices). Minton, Hollins & Co., and
Minton & Co. brands were used on tiles
contemporaneously, catalogues, letterheads and
advertising all show both Minton & Co.
alongside Minton, Hollins & Co. throughout
the nineteenth century and at least as late as
1912. Floor and enamelled majolica wall tiles
post 1868 may bear the legend Minton & Co.
or Minton, Hollins & Co., groups of tiles
from installations marked with both Minton &
Co. and Minton, Hollins & Co. are quite
common.
Wall tiles, printed, painted, lead glazed
majolica etc., bear Minton, Hollins & Co. at
least from the 1850s, the address 'Patent Tile
Works' was used from c.1869. Use of the Minton
& Co. brand on tiles appears to phase out
from the late 1850s presumably simply as new
equipment was purchased with Minton, Hollins
& Co. brand name and equipment with Minton
& Co. moulds wore out.
Michael Hollins became a partner in Minton
& Co. in 1840 and Colin Campbell in 1849,
whilst Hollins managed the tile business
Campbell worked in the china business under
Herbert Minton and had little to do with the
tile business. Upon the death of Herbert Minton
in 1858 Michael Hollins became the senior
partner and Colin Campbell the junior partner,
Arnoux managed the china business under Hollins
whilst Campbell was responsible for marketing.
When the partnership was dissolved in 1868 the
company split in to Minton, Hollins & Co.
the tile company and the remaining china and
pottery company which apparently continued
trading as Minton & Co. until 1873 when it
became known as Mintons.
Campbell started making tiles at the China
Works against the spirit of his agreement with
Hollins and sold them under the name Minton
& Co. which Hollins had been using since
1840. Hollins sued, the court found in favour of
Hollins in respect of the name, that Minton,
Hollins, & Co. and Minton & Co. both had
the right to use the name Minton & Co. for
their speciality products, i.e. tiles in the
case of Minton, Hollins & Co., and china and
pottery in the case of Minton & Co., (later
simply 'Mintons' and then Mintons Limited).
Campbell was specifically prohibited from using
the words Minton and Tiles in conjunction.
For all intents and purposes Minton & Co.
on tiles means Minton, Hollins & Co. the
exceptions being limited to the relatively few
tiles produced before 1840 and a few made by
Campbell prior to the court judgement. Mintons
China Works as it is widely known (actually
Mintons or Mintons Limited) is not Minton &
Co. on tiles, although this connection is
commonly made not least in the literature
(mostly written by pottery people) and by
museums it is wrong.
|
Minton, Hollins & Co. 1840 - 1968
(1840 - 1868 as a division of Minton & Co.)
bought by Johnsons in 1968 who still use the
name. The most famed and prolific manufacturer
for most of the Victorian era its tiles were
used in The Palace of Westminster (i.e. The
Houses of Parliament), US Capitol, Victoria
& Albert Museum and many other prestigious
buildings.
|
Mintons 1873 - c.1883, Mintons Limited
c.1883 - 1918 (these dates for tiles, china and
pottery for longer) this is the china behemoth
substantively owned by Campbell until his death
in 1885. Apparently used the branding Mintons
China Works on tiles however Mintons is the
branding, 'China Works' is the address just as
'Patent Tile Works' is the address for Minton,
Hollins, & Co.. [6]
|
Robert Minton Taylor 1869 - 1874.
Temporarily traded as R. Minton Taylor until
prohibited by the court in 1871. Associated with
Campbell to form Minton Brick & Tile Co.
another name prohibited by the court.
|
Minton's Art Pottery Studio, Kensington
Gore 1871 - 1875, owned by Campbell,
produced good and indifferent art pottery and
hand decorated tiles. It was losing money and
when destroyed by fire in 1875 was not rebuilt.
Studio products manufacturing was relocated to
the China Works site in Stoke upon Trent.
|
Minton Brick & Tile Co. 1874 -
1875 temporarily used by an association of
Robert Minton Taylor and Colin Minton Campbell
(both nephews of Herbert Minton) before its use
was quashed by the court,. Renamed Campbell
Brick & Tile Co.
|
Campbell Brick & Tile Co. 1875 -
1963, part owned by Campbell, initially managed
by Robert Minton Taylor [4]. 'Brick
&' was soon dropped and the company became
The Campbell Tile Co. Campbell made some of the
technically more difficult tiles for Mintons
Ltd., most if not all brown/buff clay Mintons'
tiles appear to be by Campbell and ordinary
Mintons patterns are occasionally found on
Campbell's blanks.
A common Cambell's grip pattern that was
frequently used for Mintons tiles is often
attributed to Mintons, see middle grid style
verso in Blanchett which is likely either mid
left or top right of tiles shown on page 385. It
is quite clear that many are indeed by Cambell
and not Mintons as the pattern number, often
written on Campbell's in glaze verso, does not
fit in to Mintons number series.
|
Herbert Minton began experimenting making encaustic
tiles in 1828 in addition to the established Mintons
pottery and china business, early results were most
unpredictable 100 satisfactory tiles from a kiln load of
700 was considered a success. Work continued refining the
processes and in 1835 the company was confident enough to
produce their first catalogue of 62 designs. In 1836 they
tendered for the supply of tiles for special schemes and
full scale production began around 1842.
In 1840 Herbert Minton took his nephew Michael Daintry
Hollins into partnership [2][7], and the
company was split in to two divisions, Hollins became
manager of the tile business but also was influential in
the china and pottery business indeed Herbert Minton
credited Hollins with the invention of Parian
[5]. The partnership was not formalised as Minton
& Hollins until 1841 as the dissolution of the
preceding partnership with John Boyle (Minton &
Boyle) was protracted, Boyle believed the tile business
inappropriate for the partnership and no doubt sought a
settlement taking in to account the losses of the tile
business which he had vehemently disapproved of.
Another nephew Colin Minton Campbell became partner in
the company in 1849, after spending a few years around
the works it was clear, in the words of the Rhead
brothers [8], that "he was not a potter", Herbert
Minton regretted that Campbell was unable to lead the
business as he would wish and in 1848 acquired the
services of Leon Arnoux who soon became manager of the
china and pottery business. Campbell was a self-publicist
obsessed with being famous and his birthright to the
Minton fortune, he was elected as a Member of Parliament
at the second attempt and also became Mayor of Stoke on
Trent. Campbell's attributes served the company quite
well for a while, his flair for publicity raised the
profile of Minton's products, he was a consummate
salesman and convinced many to buy the company's
overpriced and outdated wares. However there was no
equally great salesman to replace him and upon his death
the company lacking modern, affordable goods lost money
for seven years until finally going in to liquidation in
1892. A new company also called Mintons Ltd. was formed a
few weeks later and carried on the business,
The tile business, and especially the wall tile
business, was barely in existence before Hollins joined
so it was mostly his creation, Jewitt reports it made a
loss until 1844. The tile business traded as both Minton
& Co. and Minton, Hollins & Co. and the china
business as Minton & Co., the almost exclusive use of
Minton, Hollins & Co. for wall tiles surely indicates
Hollins influence in that regard. When Herbert Minton
died in 1858 Hollins and Campbell remained partners and
continued in their roles as did Arnoux, another nephew of
Herbert Minton Robert Minton Taylor became a partner with
Hollins in the tile business in 1863. The record shows
that Hollins was the senior partner despite Campbell
having a much greater equity share in the business, being
inconsistent with Campbell's nature it may well have been
enforced by a contract designed by Herbert Minton who was
well acquainted with the attributes of his nephews.
The company split in 1868 Hollins taking the lesser
value tile business and Campbell retaining the much
larger and well established china and pottery business.
Campbell however still had some tile making equipment at
the china works site and continued to use it and the
Minton & Co. name for wall tiles (he didn't make
floor tiles), he clearly had the right to use Minton
& Co. for pottery and china as his was a continuance
of the previous business but not for tiles. Campbell also
used many of the same patterns on tiles as Hollins the
result being that there were two companies producing
tiles with the same patterns and same brand name Minton
& Co. which of course caused confusion in the
marketplace. Hollins maintained that under the terms of
the agreement all of the tile business was his including
the equipment at the china works and that Campbell could
not use Minton & Co. on tiles. It is widely reported
in the literature that the split was acrimonious, I am
not convinced that that was the case for it seems likely,
the interval being ten years and that Hollins was the
senior partner, that the split was preordained. The
acrimony would no doubt have arisen when Campbell started
making tiles against the spirit of the agreement with
Hollins, and certainly when Campbell fulfilled orders for
tiles intended for Minton, Hollins & Co. but
addressed to Minton & Co..
The dispute reached the courts who found in favour of
Hollins, the tile making equipment remaining in
Campbell's factory was determined to belong to Hollins
who was also awarded the exclusive right to use the name
Minton & Co. on tiles. Campbell however wanted to
keep on making tiles and reached a settlement with
Hollins for the tile making plant at the china works
reputedly in the sum of £30,000 (in excess of ten
million pounds in today's money) which Hollins used to
build a new factory and propel his company to being the
world's largest tile maker. It would appear that Campbell
and Taylor both paternal nephews of Herbert Minton
conspired against Hollins a maternal nephew however
Herbert Minton was the last Minton to own and run the
company.
Robert Minton Taylor left Minton, Hollins & Co.
with the Hollins/Campbell split and in the following year
started trading as R Minton Taylor making floor tiles and
later some wall tiles. The court found that this name was
also confusing implying that it was Minton in partnership
with Taylor and ordered that company use the full name
Robert Minton Taylor & Co. to identify its wares and
in advertising. Public announcements in respect of the
separation of the businesses show that Taylor was a
partner with Hollins and Campbell in the tile business
but not a partner in the china business (which had two
partners Hollins and Campbell).
Campbell owned Mintons Ltd. continued making tiles
with Mintons brand and the full address China Works,
Stoke Upon Trent, Campbell joined with Robert Minton
Taylor in 1874 in the form of a buyout or partnership and
the company was renamed Minton Brick and Tile Co. It
appears that the merger was at least in part an effort by
Campbell to find a loophole in the court judgment
prohibiting him from using the name Minton & Co. on
tiles. The use of such name by Campbell was clearly
against the spirit of the judgment and again the dispute
reached court, Hollins again won and the company had to
change its name. It was renamed Campbell Brick and Tile
Co. 'brick and' shortly being dropped apparently
reinforcing the influence that Campbell had in the
setting up of R. Minton Taylor & Co. The judge
specifically admonished Campbell for actions leading to
effectively a retrial of the same issue as in 1868 and
Campbell was thenceforth prohibited from using the words
Minton and Tile in any company name or on the same line
in advertising.
Campbell was a great salesman and wielded the
considerable Minton influence aggressively, no doubt he
expected to prevail in court despite the weakness of his
case. So persuasive a speaker was he, or should we say so
great a salesman was he, that he was elected as Member of
Parliament for North Staffordshire. He entered parliament
on 31st January 1874 leaving on 24 March 1880, he was
also Mayor of Stoke from 1880 to 1883, Maybe his time in
parliament spurred on his animosity to former partner
Hollins being surrounded by Hollins' tiles which were
used in the construction of the Palace of
Westminster.
Mintons Kensington Art Pottery Studio may also have in
some part been another attempt to get around the naming
rights issue, owned by Campbell however they used some
blank tiles from Minton Taylor. It certainly appears that
there was an arrangement between Taylor and Campbell
prior to the dissolution of the Hollins/Campbell
partnership, Hollins must have been especially aggrieved
that Robert Minton Taylor whom he had trained in tile
making had joined forces with Campbell to compete against
him. The studio's wares today have a great reputation but
in its day this was clearly insufficient to pay its way
otherwise it would have been rebuilt after the fire in
1875 indeed Atterbury & Batkin report that it lost
money, the fire was possibly rather convenient. Many of
the studio's wares are of poor quality and the current
reputation is to my mind exaggerated, it appears that the
best products were made in the first years whilst W S
Coleman was in charge. Julian Barnard makes this comment,
"Minton's Art Pottery Studios in Kensington Gore, London,
which opened in 1871, employed many artists (and would be
artists) to decorate their products." [3] They
did make and decorate some outstanding wares but there
are also those that have the look and feel of novices'
work.
There was actually a series of court cases mostly
concerned with the rights to use the name Minton on tiles
and stemming from the original agreement between Hollins
and Campbell, Hollins won on almost all accounts. Hollins
in the split took the smaller part of the company in
exchange for exclusive rights yet Campbell tried to deny
him the entire tile business, the court found it belonged
to Hollins as did the exclusive use of the name Minton
& Co. in relation to tiles. What drove Campbell's
enmity is unknown but it deflected both companies'
attention from running of the businesses and the
publicity that it attracted cast a shadow further afield.
Perhaps it was Campbell's own settlement with Hollins
that aggrieved him, how he came to agree to the reported
sum of £30,000 is unfathomable, surely had he kept
to the agreement, let Hollins have the equipment and
avoid paying the settlement he could have built his own
brand new state of the art tileworks with the
£30,000. Furthermore Hollins would likely have been
required to pay the costs for removal of his equipment
from the China Works site.
Currently the accepted wisdom is that Mintons Ltd.
were the greater quality company but this is predicated
primarily on the number of pictorial tile series that
they produced, the name became popular amongst collectors
and parlayed the already existing collectability of
Minton china. For the most part Hollins produced the
better quality wares and a greater variety of them,
certainly so during the lifetime of Campbell. Mintons
China Works had a marketing coup with John Moyr Smith's
designs for tiles, particularly the Shakespeare series,
which were very popular and being so numerous are well
collected yet the smaller range of series designed by
Moyr Smith for Minton Hollins are executed by them to a
far superior quality standard. Robert Minton Taylor's
tiles, the few that we see, are similar excellent quality
to Hollins'.
Quite a messy business, it seems that Campbell was
overly fixated with battling for the name and finding
loopholes in his agreement with Hollins, the £30,000
settlement seems a huge amount for some tile making plant
but perhaps it was that he bore the Minton name being
from the father's side of the family whereas Hollins was
from the mother's side. Tiles were only ever a minor part
of his Mintons business around 25% of sales some of which
were sourced from Campbell Tile Co., around 75% was
tableware. It appears that Colin Campbell had little to
do with the running of Campbell Tile Co. being mostly a
financier and marketeer, the company made both wall and
floor tiles (rather more of the latter) and was managed
by Robert Minton Taylor [4], it grew to be a
substantial company remaining independent until 1963.
[1] Atterbury and Batkin, The Dictionary of
Minton, reports Campbell formed a limited liability
company two years before his death. Atterbury and Batkin
get a lot of things mixed up, especially dates, and the
importance of Hollins is denied as usual for pottery
enthusiast to who Campbell is close to deity, so sifting
through the information therein is required and
arduous.
[2] Various sources have various dates for the
Minton partnerships most herein are from the judge's
summing up in the Hollins v. Campbell and Taylor case of
May 1875 as transcribed in part by Barnard. The court
stated 1841 for the Minton, Hollins partnership however a
tile catalogue apparently dating from the 1870s proclaims
on its cover:
Minton,
Hollins, & Co.,
Patent Tile Works,
Stoke-Upon-Trent.
Established 1840,
By the late Mr. Herbert Minton and his
Nephew, Michael D Hollins (now sole
proprietor); and they continue to manufacture
every description of Plain and Ornamental
Tiles by the most improved
processes.
Herbert Minton was in partnership with John Boyle
until 21st November 1841 [5] the parting of the
ways seemingly because of Minton's interest in tiles
which Boyle did not share. The discrepancy in the dates
may well be explained by there being a de facto separate
tile business in 1840 agreed between Minton and Hollins
which could not be made official until the partnership
between Herbert Minton and John Boyle was dissolved.
Jewitt reports Hollins joined in 1845 and gives 1845
for the separation of the tile business under the style
Minton, Hollins & Co.. This 1845 error by Jewitt is
the source of numerous more recent errors, it was picked
up by Atterbury & Batkin, Barnard, and Jones amongst
others but these three should have taken more care to get
it right. 1840 and 1848 for Hollins and Campbell,
respectively is reported by Steve Birks quoting from a
1956 book 'British Potters and Pottery Today'. The
partnership between Herbert Minton and Michael Hollins
referred to in all the literature as Minton & Hollins
c.1845 almost certainly commenced immediately following
the end of the partnership with Boyle i.e. November 1841
as the court stated. Pottery writers seem to prefer to
take other pottery writers' word than the original
sources.
[3] Victorian Ceramic Tiles by Julian Barnard
published in 1972 by Christies is a highly recommended
book. Written more in the tone of a dispassionate
auctioneer giving a straightforward assessment it tends
to avoid the sycophantic aggrandisement of established
brand names, artists and techniques that many other
publications suffer from. It is also as far as my
knowledge extends the most error free, unfortunately as
time goes by the number of errors in books about tiles
seems to be generally on the increase.
[4] Jewitt.
[5] Joan Jones, Minton The First Two Hundred
Years of Design and Production. The book is considered
the definitive work on the history of Minton's china and
pottery but contains numerous errors especially in
respect of tile making, the names of the companies and
the role of Michael Hollins.
[6] I have been unable to find a precise date
for the first registration of Mintons Limited. Joan Jones
doesn't help, on page 8 she says Mintons became a limited
company in 1892. This is clearly not the case, the tile
catalogue of 1883 says Mintons Limited as Jones herself
notes on pages 178 and 179. The tile catalogue of 1881
says simply Mintons and not Mintons Limited as in the
1883 catalogue so it is clear that Mintons Limited was
registered in the period 1881 - 1883 and Atterbury and
Batkin's date of two years before Campbell's death i.e.
1883 is apparently correct.
[7] In researching Richard Prosser, the
inventor of the dust-pressing process that revolutionised
tile making, John and Susan Darby have revealed data and
records of the Minton companies not previously reported.
See the website www.prossertheengineer.co.uk
for a thoroughly interesting and informative insight into
the trials, tribulations and triumphs of one of the many
upon whose shoulders entrepreneurs of today stand.
[8] Staffordshire Pots and Potteries by G.
Woolliscroft Rhead and Frederick Alfred Rhead.
Edited 18 November 2016