McManus 168

William Bisset (No:12) – Married Mary Banks, older sister of Alexander M. Banks.  Ergo, brother-in-law to Alexander M. Banks (No:15)

David Mitchell (No:138) – Older brother of James Mitchell (N0:15)

Moon (No:160) – Susan Moon married James Mitchell (No:15)

Campbell (No:40) – John Miller Mitchell (son of James Mitchell) married Grace Campbell Hunter.  Her mother, Grace Hunter’s maiden name was Campbell.

Johnston (No:111) – Norman Mitchell (2nd son of James Mitchell) married Margaret Johnston, daughter of John Johnston, farmer

There are no extant legal documents relating to any stage of this partnership.

Founders:

• The business was created by Alexander Mills Banks and James Mitchell, probably in 1859^[12].
• Banks was born in 1833/4, the youngest son of George W Banks^[13], a linen manufacturer and ship owner, and his wife^[14] Susan Kinnear^[15]. We know that in 1858 he was working as a clerk^[16] to a John Fyffe, who was described as a shipbroker, ship owner^[17], and as a ship agent and chandler^[18]. In 1858 Banks was living in 42 Mid Street^[19] with his widowed mother^[20].  In 1871 they both moved to 1 Mid Street^[21]. Banks married Marjory Hume in 1872^[22] and moved to 8 Albany Terrace where he lived for the rest of his life.  He was an active member of The High Church (St David’s)^[23]. He supported the Committee for the Relief of the Unemployed, joining its Fourth Subscription List with a contribution of 42/- (nominal value at 2018 related to income £1680).  He died of pneumonia in 1885 aged 51^[24]. His obituary read “…Mr Banks was a comparatively young man, and both as a ship owner and ship broker he was well known about the harbour, and greatly respected.”^[25] He had continued to work on his own account^[26] until his death, and the records of his executory^[27] show that he left a personal estate of just over £1035 (nominal value at 2018: Relative to income – £828,000).
• Mitchell was born in Dundee in 1831, the son of David Mitchell, a shipmaster^[28], and his wife Elizabeth Miller^[29] who in 1834 lived in 15 Union Street^[30]. Young James “…was apprenticed to a shipping office in Liverpool.  In 1853 he took passage for Australia to search for gold.  En route he survived the wrecking of the Earl of Charlemont on Barmoin Head, Victoria; landing ashore with only the clothes he stood in. He worked as a stevedore and other jobs before going to the goldfields, where he had considerable success, before returning to Dundee in 1858^[31]“.  It is interesting to note that after building the house in the West Ferry, in which he was to live from 1884 until his death, he named it “Charlemont”. He lived at 29 Union Street^[32] from 1861 until 1867, when he had married Susan Moon^[33](daughter of Alexander Moon, a farmer, and his wife Mary Rae). From then, Mitchell with his wife had lived at 43 Union Street^[34] until 1874, when they moved to Hill Terrace^[35], Broughty Ferry.  In 1878 he moved to “Harecraig”^[36], West Ferry, before finally moving to “Charlemont” in 1884^[37]. He had three sons (John Miller^[38] and James was to follow him into the business, while Norman^[39] became a farmer, and three daughters (Margaret Moon, Mary, and Bertha).  They also had a daughter (Elizabeth) who had died in infancy, and a stillborn son. James died in 1911^[40], leaving a personal estate  of almost £6,578^[41] (nominal value at 2018: Relative to income – £5,262,400).  His obituary^[42] read “…one of the best-known business men of Dundee has gone. Mr Mitchell had reached the advanced age of 80 years, this giving him the distinction of being the oldest shipowner in the city. He came from seafaring stock, his father having owned and commanded one of the old Baltic schooners.  …in Australia he lived under canvas at the goldfields, where he was successful. He then returned to Dundee. One the way home he sailed by way of Cape Horn, and as he went to Australia round the Cape of Good Hope, he had thus sailed round the world. His first office was on the same site as his present premises^[43].  He …became the owner of a number of large steam vessels, and was also largely interested in the whaling industry. A number of years ago his two sons, Mr J.M. Hunter Mitchell and Mr James Mitchell, were received into partnership, and the business is now one of the most prosperous in the city. Than that of Mr Mitchell there was no figure better known on the streets of Dundee, and by all who knew him he was highly esteemed.”

Subsequent Partners

• John Miller Mitchell  was born in 1868^[44], the eldest child of James Mitchell and Susan Moon.  John worked in the business^[45] before being made a partner in 1897^[3]. In 1897 he is recorded as the owner of the Balaena^[46] (a whaler), and Secretary of the Balaena Fishing Co Ltd^[47], while his father James is listed as a director of the same company^[47]. In 1901 he married^[48] Grace Campbell Hunter, adopted daughter and only child of William Hunter^[49] and his wife Grace^[50] (m.s. Campbell). Following his marriage, John Miller Mitchell took the name Hunter into his own, becoming John M. Hunter Mitchell^[51]. He died in 1931^[52] aged 62, and the business was wound up by his younger brother James. There were no executory documents available (online).

• James Mitchell was born in 1897^[53], the last child of James Mitchell and Susan Moon. Aged only fourteen when his father died in 1911, he was eighteen when he is first mentioned as working at James Mitchell and Sons in 1915^[54]. At that time his home address was given as “Hillcrest” Newport.  His address remained the same until 1920, when it was listed as 11 Linden Avenue, Newport^[55]. He was still living at this address and active in the business when his brother died in 1931. James then wound up the business, and it ceased to trade.

Business Timeline

Banks & Mitchell was a relatively new enterprise at the time of the appeal for the Albert Institute, which probably explains the modest subscription of £5.  However, the partners had begun their business at a good time for such a venture.

It must be remembered that Dundee had grown rapidly as the Industrial Revolution developed, as witnessed by its population growth from 26,000 in 1801 to 122,000 in 1871^[56].  Factories and the jobs they had provided had encouraged the movement of labour from the rural to the urban. Dundee was admirably situated to reap the benefits from not just the mechanisation in the mills, but also its location on the eastern seaboard, which facilitated trade with Scandinavia, the Baltic, and northern Europe.  Together with its maritime tradition, that made the logistics of importing fuel and raw materials, and exporting finished goods much simpler.  It is easy therefore to see that shipping was the major support service which gave Dundee a considerable competitive advantage. Accordingly, it is understandable that by 1876 :-

“The Harbour is now admirably adapted for the reception of vessels of every class and size. Besides the tidal and ferry harbours, it consists of four wet docks extending to about 35 acres, and two dry docks, one of them now finishing being 500 feet long, and capable of receiving two vessels of the largest class at a time.  Previous to 1815, the harbour was very defective, neither affording sufficient safety nor depth of water, but its improvement was then begun, and has been proceeding ever since.  It has cost upwards of three quarters of a million pounds,”^[57] (nominal value at 2018: Relative to income – £600,000,000)

Thus it was, that investment in shipping was an acknowledged vehicle which diversified the capital of the professional and merchant classes.  All ship ownership was divided into 64 shares^[58], and these shares were the stock in trade of the shipbroker, providing to investors both income from the ship’s operation, as well as the potential of capital appreciation when demand/earnings were high and ownership share was sold on.

During the 1850s the number of vessels registered in Dundee had peaked at 342 with a total tonnage of just over 57,000 tons^[59], but, with the exception of just three vessels^[60], they were all sailing vessels. By 1861 of the 288 vessels registered, 17 were steam powered^[61], and this development continued in the 1870s, as owners sought to exploit the benefits of steam.  Larger iron hulls gave greater cargo capacity giving larger revenue potential, steam largely rendered wind direction irrelevant, coal was cheap, and crew sizes were less.  Obviously there was naturally resistance to change to the newer technology, particularly by owners who had fleets of sailing vessels, but the general movement towards steam was inexorable during the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Mitchell was a steam enthusiast, and, after Banks and he split, Mitchell set about creating a purely steam fleet portfolio^[62].

Thus it was, that in their initial years together demand for capacity was strong, which had helped them to establish the business into a profitable concern.  That said, it is clear that the chandlery part of the business was important to them when they set out.  However the only information of that part of their trade is a short mention^[63] in the local press:-

“THEFT OF POCKET KNIVES.  At the Police Court yesterday, a boy of the name John Smith, residing in the Dudhope Wynd, was charged with stealing fifteen pocket knives from the shop in Dock Street, occupied by Messrs Banks & Mitchell, ship brokers and chandlers.  He pled guilty, and was sentenced to five days imprisonment, with hard labour.”

Early cargoes were general^[64], but mostly coal to, and timber from, the Baltic.

In the early years Banks & Mitchell invested heavily in building a fleet. buying and selling at an advantage into a buoyant market.  However, by the late 1870s the market was showing early signs of over-capacity^[65], and older, smaller, sailing vessels were becoming uneconomic to operate.  This period also coincided with a general stagnation in trade, generally put down to “over competition” in Europe and India^[66].  By this time those places having begun to develop their own jute processing.

By the mid 1880s commercial activity had begun to recover, and optimism was again prevalent, and annual tonnage received at Dundee amounted to almost 160,000 tons^[67].  Yet Dundee was to again experience a cyclical downturn in 1887. Then again, by 1891 trade had again recovered and optimism was prevalent.  This continued until after a period of price stability trade again went into a decline only to recover at the end of the century.  As ever, there was no simple reason for the vagaries of trade, the period in question had also been affected by the fallout from the Crimean War^[68], the American Civil War^[69], and the First and Second Boer Wars^[70].

Throughout these periods James Mitchell & Sons bought and sold vessels advantageously, scaling their fleet to demand, but also updating its ships, so that when recovery came the firm could capitalise on its own competitive advantage.

The First World War brought many losses^[71] to James Mitchell & Sons, but they tended to be special purchases of outdated, worn-out vessels used as blockships, and government compensation was available for other losses.

Why did the partners split?

And finally, I would like to explore the puzzling reason why the original partners split up.

I have found researching Banks & Mitchell most interesting, absorbing, and challenging, -but I have been unable to find any documentary evidence as to why the original partnership was dissolved.  Given the the business was profitable and flourishing, how did the acrimonious parting of the ways happen?  The split came about just over a fortnight after the loss of the “Celerity”, -so could there be some correlation between her loss and the split ?

“Celerity” was screw driven, schooner rigged ship, traditionally clinker built on an iron frame, by William Pile & Co, -a well-known and respected ship builder in Sunderland.  With a gross tonnage of 973 tons, she was fitted with a self-condensing high and low pressure engine of 98 horsepower, and carried a crew of 21^[72].  She was the third ship that Pile’s had built for Banks & Mitchell, and was the sister ship to the “Dispatch”^[73]. Registered in Dundee, “Celerity” was commanded by William Cable^[74], and only 15 months old when she foundered in the Baltic, en route from Riga to Stettin with a cargo of rye. She had encountered a sudden storm, and was lost with all hands. Although no evidence was ever offered it was posited at the time that during the course of the storm she had collided with the “Surbiton” (another steamer bound for Stettin) which was also lost with all hands^[75].

News of her loss quickly spread as far as Philadelphia, with it being reported on 1st Jan 1874^[76] that:-

“The Celerity, of Dundee, a screw steamer, is supposed lost with all hands. She left Riga for Stettin on December 3rd, and has not been heard of since.  The voyage is usually accomplished in two or three days, and it is believed the Celerity had been caught in the gale which prevailed in the Baltic on the 4th and 5th, and had foundered.  The crew consisted of twenty-one hands, most of whom lived in Dundee, several of them being married and having large families.  Only last year the Celerity was launched.  She was worth between $20,000 and $80,000, but is fully insured. She was laden with rye.”

A relief fund was set up, and Banks & Mitchell headed the subscription list with the sum of £500, – the loss of her crew had created “…the large and lamentable catalogue of 13 widows and 40 orphans, with one very aged and dependent mother, Widow O’Brien”^[77].

During that period unfortunately such shipping losses were not uncommon, -but rarely led to the breakup of the owners !  At first, I thought that there might have been an insurance issue, -but then through my research I found the vessel and cargo had been insured for £30,000, and that the insurance company had paid out the claim^[78].  So what else could it have been ?

Further accounts from Riga indicated that Celerity had been “carefully loaded”, -that the cargo “…was properly bulkheaded, shifting boards used, and every precaution taken, as if the vessel was to perform a long instead of a two and a half days passage.”^[79]  She was a new, state of the art, ship, -so was she overloaded ?

The first mention of her loading, was one that suggested that her engine may have broken down, and that she had drifted “…and, as she would have been pretty deep loaded, her progress through the water would be very slow.”^[80]  It must be remembered that at this date there was no “Plimsoll Line”, -indicating minimum freeboard. At a public meeting called by Provost James Cox to determine how the relief fund should be administered, the Rev Dr Watson^[81] admitted :-

“…That he was ignorant of the method of lading ships, but those gentlemen present who were engaged in the trade of the town would no doubt inquire whether something could not be done to diminish the risks and dangers of seafaring men.”

At the same meeting, Thomas Couper^[82] was also reported as saying :-

“…As to the loading of ships, without reference to the present case, he had no hesitation in saying that something should be done both by the underwriters and the Government in connection with the matter.”

By that time, Samuel Plimsoll^[83] was already striving for change, but, due to pressure from shipowners, change did not take place until the Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, which brought in the compulsory minimum freeboard lines on all merchant shipping, and enforcement of it by the Board of Trade.

So had Banks and Mitchell quarrelled about encouragement to their masters to load their ships as fully as possible?  Or was it about the acceptance of an unstable and unsuitable cargo at an uncertain time of the year?  I fear we will never know.

The split when it came was not particularly friendly, with James Mitchell putting a Public Notice in the Courier on the 14th January 1874 announcing that he would “…uplift the debts due to the Firm, and discharge the debts due by it.”, together with a notice saying that he would carry on the business in his own name.  Then on the 19th January, Alexander M. Banks placed a Public Notice^[84] saying that he would be “…continuing business on his own account” at a temporary office.

There are no extant legal documents regarding the dissolution, or indeed, any articles in the press.

We know that Alexander Banks was a staunch and devout elder of his church, St David’s High Kirk. And that, long after his death, his family commemorated his life with a large stained glass window^[85]. The window portrays Job surrounded by his sons and and daughters, and around the outer margin are written the opening words of the Book of Job:-

“There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright and one that feared God.”

And we all know what a capricious God did to him! Accordingly, my reasoning of the subject and writing, leads me to believe that, at least in the eyes of his family, he was being portrayed in the mould of Job, a good and just man who had been wronged.