William Hudson

China manufacturer at the Alma Works (c.1889-1892) and then at the Sutherland Pottery (c.1892-1941), Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, England.

Note: Not to be confused with the unrelated company William Hudson & Son at the Gladstone Pottery, Stafford Street, Longton.

William Hudson had previously been in partnership with Joseph Henry Middleton at the Bagnall Street Works and then the Alma Works in the pottery town of Longton.
The partnership with Middleton ended in 1889 - William Hudson continued at the Alma Works. J H Middleton moved to the Delphine Pottery.
Around 1892 William Hudson moved to the Sutherland Pottery.
The August 1911 Pottery Gazette noted "There was a serious outbreak of fire early on the morning of Friday, July 14, at the manufactory of Mr. W. Hudson, Normacot-rd., Longton. The fire originated in the biscuit warehouse, which was packed with ware, a biscuit oven having only just been drawn. The fire brigade were successful in confining the flames to the premises originally involved. The loss, which was considerable, is covered by insurance."
At some point [before 1912] William Hudson took ownership of the business of J. H. Middleton.
At some point [before 1912] control of the business passed to Hudson's son-in-law George Edwin Barlow and (his brother? Thomas George Barlow). British Pottery Manufacturers 1900-2010, Michael Perry.
In 1941 the business of J H Middleton & Co (owned by the Barlow and Chapman families) was moved to the Sutherland Works of William Hudson under the wartime Concentration Scheme, and the principals combined the two businesses with the name Hudson and Middleton Ltd. British Pottery Manufacturers 1900-2010, Michael Perry.

Record of a strike at the factories of J H Middleton and W Hudson

Labour disputes of one kind or another have been unpleasantly frequent at Longton this year, but the most to be regretted was reserved for the last month. This refers to the dispute at the factories of J. H. Middleton & Co., Bagnall-street, and Mr. W. Hudson, Normacot-road, for the strike was certainly unjustifiable and unnecessary. It served no useful purpose whatever ; in fact, nobody gained a single point by it. On the other hand, it did a great deal of actual harm, and it certainly jeopardised the chances of an amicable settlement between the Masters’ Association and the Operatives’ Union on the question of prices. The amicable feeling between the two bodies was inevitably strained by the strike, but, fortunately, with the settlement of the dispute that was smoothed over.

The actual strike came about in this way. On a particular pay-day the turners at the factory, which is known as Middleton & Co., but which is now owned by Mr. W. Hudson, announced that they had not received sufficient money. The manager demanded explanations, and the men informed him that the Manufacturers Association and the Operatives’ Union had agreed upon a price for turners, and the revised scale had already come into force. Mr. Hudson is not a member of the Manufacturers’ Association, and beyond a bare announcement in a newspaper knew nothing of the settlement. Neither the Manufacturers’ Association nor the Operatives’ Union had sent him a copy of the terms of the settlement. However, he was prepared to consider the matter, and an appointment was made for Mr. Sam Clowes, the men's organiser, to meet Mr. G. E. Barlow, one of the principals of the firm. An interview duly took place, and this, by the way, was the only interview, the only conference, the only attempt at a settlement before the men came out on strike.

According to Mr. Barlow - and his account has never been contradicted - Mr. Clowes stated his demands, and Mr. Barlow at once agreed to them all. Mr. Clowes went off very well satisfied until he saw the turners, who promptly pointed out that they wore already getting more than the price agreed upon for Irish. Back went Mr. Clowes to Mr. Barlow, and the latter at once agreed that no prices should be reduced. The firm were willing to pay the Association prices, and in the cases where they were already paying in excess of those prices they would continue to do so. After that Mr. Clowes asked for another increase on the Irish and Mr. Barlow refused. Mr. Clowes went away, and without any more ado notices were sent in, and in due time the men and women came out on strike. As a matter of fact, the question of prices paid to the turners at the Normacot-road works had never been discussed, but that is a union point.

At any rate, the whole of the operatives at both factories ceased work, and posted pickets at the gates. The firm calmly set to work to overhaul all the machinery, to carry out repairs, and so on. For a week the factories remained idle. The men held meetings, at which speeches more vigorous than discreet were made, and the firm stuck to the position which they had taken up from the first.

At the end of a week another conference was arranged between Mr. Barlow, and Mr. Clowes and Mr. Lovatt of the Operatives’ Union. A settlement was speedily arrived at, and Mr. Clowes and Mr. Lovatt signed a statement of the terms, which included a clause to the effect that the terms were identical with those which the firm were agreed to accept in the first place. It does seem a very great pity that the misunderstanding— for misunderstanding of some kind there must have been— was not cleared away without all the unnecessary trouble and friction of a strike.

Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review 1st January 1912