To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

N. Hingley & Sons Ltd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

N. Hingley & Sons Ltd was a firm that originated in the Black Country region of England. It was founded by Noah Hingley (1796–1877) who started making chain near the village of Cradley. The firm moved to Netherton around 1852, where large scale chain and anchor manufacturing works were set up on the Dudley No.2 canal. One of the most famous products of the firm was the anchor of the RMS Titanic which on completion in 1911 was drawn through the streets of Netherton on a wagon drawn by 20 shire horses.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    4 717
  • TEDxGoodenoughCollege - Lettie Ransley - Copyright in the Digital Age

Transcription

300 years ago a piece of legislation revolutionized the lives of writers. It transformed them from penniless hacks to professional men. It transported them from Grub Street to, well, relatively Easy Street. Its name was the Statute of Anne. And it gave shape to the concept that we today understand as copyright. And this is defined as the legal right to control the production and selling of a book, play, film, photograph or piece of music. The act was subtitled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning" And if we put this together with our definition of copyright, we essentially end up with two things. We end up with a motive and a mechanism. The motive of Anne was to enable authors to profit from their work, and, by enabling them to do so, to encourage them to make more. And the mechanism that was put in place to facilitate this was putting control over the copying of their work back into their hands. Up to this point it had been exploited by manipulative publishers. And for several hundred years this system worked pretty well. Anne ushered in a great age of writers, among them Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and, of course, Doctor Johnson, who famously remarked, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Yes, okay, some work was still copied without the authors' consent, maybe in lawless, backward places like America. But, by and large, enough was produced legitimately to enable writers for the first time to make a living from their intellectual property. And soon enough even women were doing it. This is Jane Austen looking very determined. But then along came the Internet and, what up to this point had been quite a small problem, became a much, much bigger one. Why was this the case? Because essentially copying lies at the heart of what the Internet is and what it does. You could say that it's defined by its ability to be all things, to all men, at all times. Suddenly copying things had become much, much easier. And the idea of trying to stop people copying started to look less effective. And it didn't seem so crazy to start asking questions like: Does copyright have a place in a digital world? And in trying to answer this question, the dominant rhetoric so far has been about this word: Control. If we go back to this mechanism–motive idea, we focus so far very much on mechanism. The big questions that we've asked so far are how do we stop people copying rather than what are we doing it for. And this has been the case in legislation as well. Here in the UK, the Digital Economy Act 2010, passed last year, but now under judicial review, interestingly enough, was very much predicated on this idea of trying to control copying, that it could and should be limited. But what if this is the wrong question, what if we're taking the wrong approach on this? Is there another way of addressing this question? And this is where we're at now. If we think about the Internet, we can see it as a giant conversation and, as such, an environment almost ideally suited to enabling authors to do what they do best, to communicate. As one of the most successful writers living today, this is Paulo Coelho, said, "An author wants his work to be read, he wants to be part of the conversation, and ideally he wants everyone to be talking about him." And the Internet gives writers an almost unparalleled opportunity to engage not just with their readers and potential consumers, but also with each other, to participate in creative exchange across borders, across disciplines, through a host of different channels. And this is the thin end of the wedge. So far so good, you would think, but, there's always a “but”, the quid pro quo for this increased connectivity is a decrease in the amount of control we have over how information and, crucially, content is disseminated and spread. And for content producers, for whom this is their living, this is a pretty scary prospect, especially if you rely on this equation: Cost = Value And the assumption that arises from this is that if you allow content to be free, it becomes valueless. But if we look at the evidence for this, it suggests that the picture is much more complicated than this simple equation initially implies. If we take some examples, the author Neil Gaiman recently made his work available for free online through his website, and a month later his sales had increased 300%, particularly actually in countries where piracy was most prevalent. This is a classic example of disintermediation, this idea of cutting out the middleman and going straight to the core. And if we take this idea a little further, it's something that you would assume would have a negative effect on traditional channels, you know, the old structures, publishers, who always used to manage this gap between creator and consumer. But, in the same week that a 26 year old became a millionaire self-publishing through Kindle, two large traditional publishers published end-of-year results which showed significant profits. If we look at the world of print journalism, just as “The New York Times” announced plans to go behind a paywall, “The Huffington Post”, an online, open-access site, free content, was sold to AOL for $315M. So what conclusions can we draw from what are apparently conflicting examples? Well, perhaps, that the biggest challenge, that the digital revolution offers is to the way we frame the debate altogether. That in a digital world, there doesn't need to be just one success story, there can be many. The crucial word here is "and" rather than "or". And if we use the analogy of a forest, the big hitters, the superstars and the bestsellers are still very much there, but there's a lot more rustling around in the undergrowth than there used to be. And these new business models which are doing the rustling can survive with far fewer resources than the taller trees can. So you end up with this scenario where there's a sort of much more grassroots action going on. And so it seems from this that we can start to question this rather negative rhetoric of control that's been dominating talk about this area so far, and reach for a more inclusive rhetoric of capability and capacity. If we go back to the Statute of Anne, where we started and think about this dyad of mechanism and motive. The motive is very clearly still there. We still want to recognize and reward our creators for their content, but the original mechanism that was put in place to give effect to that motive is now just one part of a much bigger picture. Copyright is only part of the answer, today. And what this huge expansion in the market has really brought about is enabling us to move away from this idea of a Holy Grail of content distribution and towards a model where there are multiple business models making money from content. Yes, from straight forward sale, but also from a whole host of other sources, from subscription services, from added value, advertising is obviously a big one, events, apps, merchandise. What seems pretty clear at the moment is that all content producers are likely to see diversification in the way that they monetize their content. And the business models which deliver that content will diversify too. The ways that they will change, coming back to our theme, they're likely to be smaller, more agile, more specialized. If I steal Jeff Jarvis's advice, "Do what you do best and link to the rest" As these traditional boundaries between creators and consumers, distributors and producers break down, we're likely to see that they'll be more hybrid, more collaborative, bringing together professionals and amateurs, individuals and communities. And we're seeing this already, in the music industry, but also other industries, we're getting platforms popping up all over the place, working on a perks for pledges basis. So you pledge however much money you want to give in return for a perk of your choice, whether that's a free copy of a book or concert tickets. So, if we come back to Anne, which is where we started, and is framing this whole debate, that 300-year-old motive, the desire to recognize and reward creative output, is still alive and thriving, but the mechanism is changing hugely. Faster than we can really keep track of. But amid all this change, there are some constants that we can keep hold of. Things which retain their value, which can't be copied, and which are likely to continue to define the way we consume content in the future. I've identified some of these. The first one is premium. In an environment where everything is essentially a copy, and those copies are increasingly free, we will pay more for premium copies, for the special editions, the rare, the original. Personalization. Faced with almost bewildering, often bewildering, array of content, the services which cater for our particular needs, our specific interests, will become even more valuable than ever. Patronage. This is coming back to this perks for a pledge idea. Now you don't have to be a wealthy philanthropist to buy into an idea, you can do it to the tune of a book or a record. Proximity. We always want to get closer to our favourite artists or our favourite writers. Hopefully, not too close! Priority. We'll want their latest book, their latest record first. Peace of mind. Knowing that the content that we do have is safe, is reliable, bug free. Omnipresence. Having it everywhere we want, however we want it, whenever we want it. And crucially, last but not least, the company of our peers. We'll want to be part of communities, of like-minded individuals, whose opinions we value, whose ideas we admire. And that, of course, is why we're all here tonight, it's what TED's about, it's what tonight's about. Thanks very much. (Applause)

History

Hall's patent anchor: Hingley's became sole manufacturers of these anchors in 1891

Noah Hingley started making cable chain for ships at Cradley in the Black Country in 1820[1] after receiving an order from a Liverpool shipowner.[2] He formed the company N. Hingley & Sons in 1838.[3] Anchor production commenced in 1848.

In 1850 it was stated that "Messrs. Noah Hingley & Sons are extensively engaged in the manufacturing of anchors, anvils, and chain and chain cables" at Cradley.[4] Around 1852 the firm acquired an additional site near the village of Netherton where a large scale chain and anchor works was created on the banks of the Dudley No. 2 canal.[5]

The firm subsequently acquired coal mines such as at Old Hill, Dudley Wood and Coombs Hill[6] and blast furnaces including: the Netherton Ironworks, The Harts Hill Iron Works and the Old Hill Furnaces.[3]

In 1856, the company supplied towing chain for use by boats on the Seine.[7] Subsequently, the firm supplied 20 miles of towing chain for use on the Neckar.

In 1857, it was reported that the firm had completed an "immense cable" for the steam ship Adriatic. The chain cable was of length 40 yards and each link weighed 50 lb.[8] The firm was stated to have been in the process of making a chain cable for the SS Great Eastern, with even more substantial links.[8]

In 1860, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers reported on a visit to Birmingham and the Black Country, where, at the Round Oak Ironworks, they examined examples of iron bar of up to 3+12 inches in diameter which had been bent into knots whilst cold using "one of the most powerful hydraulic engines in the kingdom, belonging to Messrs. Noah Hingley and Sons at Cradley".[9]

In 1863, the firm had 4 blast furnaces in the Dudley District.[10]

After Noah Hingley's death, the firm was run by his son Benjamin Hingley (1830-1905) before passing to Benjamin's nephew George Benjamin Hingley (1850-1918).[11]

The writer William Curzon gave a detailed description of the company's works in the early 1880s.[7] He stated that the company had the facilities to produce over 36,000 tons of pig iron per year as well as 60,000 tons of finished bar iron and 10,000 tons of anchors and chain per annum.

The firm was reported as employing around 3,000 people in 1885.[2]

In 1890, the family firm N. Hingley and Sons became incorporated, becoming a limited company trading as N. Hingley and Sons Limited.[3] Shares were allocated to family members, with the bulk (1300 shares) being held by the founder's son Benjamin Hingley, and the two grandsons George Benjamin Hingley (600 shares) and Henry Montagu Hingley (400 shares).[12]

The firm entered into an agreement in 1891 to become the sole manufacturer of the Hall's patent anchor.[3] Later versions of this anchor were supplied to the great ocean liners and battleships of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

In 1906, the company made anchors and chain for the ocean liners Lusitania and Mauretania.[13]

At the end of 1907, the firm took the first step towards loosening family ownership when George Frederick Simms (who owned the chainmaker George Hartshorn & Co was brought into the business. In the following month Cyril Edward Lloyd entered the firm as a director.[12]

In August 1910, N. Hingley & Sons completed an anchor for the White Star liner, Olympic.[14] It was claimed that the anchor was the biggest ever produced, weighing 15 tons 5+14 cwt, with length 19 ft and width 10 ft.

In 1911, the company manufactured the anchors and chain for the ocean liner RMS Titanic. The largest of the anchors weighed 15.5 tons and on completion was drawn through the streets of Netherton on a wagon drawn by 20 shire horses.[15] The chain and fittings for the anchors weighed around 100 tons.[16]

In 1918, control of the firm moved away from the Hingley family, when Cyril Lloyd became chairman of the board.[17] Lloyd served as chairman until 1958.[18]

In 1919 Percy Jump, an engineer from Sheffield joined the staff. By 1926 he was effectively works manager at the Netherton site.[18] Percy Jump was responsible for introducing precision forging into Hingley's which became very important for the firm after 1945.[18]

In September 1959, at the 69th annual general meeting of N. Hingley & Sons Ltd, it was stated that the parent company comprised 29 active subsidiaries, with manufacturing activities including: chain and anchor making; forging steels and other materials such as titanium; steel re-rolling; iron and steel founding; drop stamping; structural engineering; and the manufacture of pressure vessels.[19]

On 31 December 1960, Cyril Lloyd stepped down from the Board of the company after 53 years of service.[20]

The company was bought out by F. H. Lloyd & Co. in 1966.

In 1967, it was stated that N. Hingley & Sons (Netherton) Ltd was making components for the Bristol Siddeley Olympus 593 engine, which was intended to power the supersonic passenger aircraft, Concorde.[21]

The Netherton works continued in production for around 20 more years. However, after a number of company reorganisations, take overs and sell-offs, the Netherton part of the business, then called Wright Hingley, finally closed in 1986 and was demolished three years later. The site was then redeveloped as an industrial estate called the Washington Centre.[18]

See also

References

  1. ^ "N. Hingley and Sons". www.gracesguide.co.uk. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  2. ^ a b Trail, Thomas (1885). Chain Cables and Chains. London: Crosby Lockwood and Co. pp. 49–50.
  3. ^ a b c d Mallin, K (1998). Noah Hingley. published privately. ISBN 0-9510420-3-3.
  4. ^ Post Office Directory of Birmingham, Staffordshire & Worcestershire. W. Kelly & Co. 1850. p. 431. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  5. ^ Melville & Co.'s Directory of Dudley. Worcester: Melville & Co. 1852. p. 21.
  6. ^ Belford, Paul (2004). "Extra Special Best Best: Black Country iron puddling and wrought iron manufacture in the nineteenth century". Historical Metallurgy. 38 (1): 47–59.
  7. ^ a b Curzon, William (1883). The Manufacturing Industries of Worcestershire. Birmingham. pp. 50–54.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. ^ a b "Immense Cable". Elgin Courant, and Morayshire Advertiser. 13 February 1857. p. 5. Retrieved 5 October 2018 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  9. ^ "THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, AND THE IRON AND COAL TRADES". Worcestershire Chronicle. 15 August 1860. p. 2. Retrieved 5 October 2018 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  10. ^ Henry Curwen Salmon, ed. (February 1863). "Mining, Quarrying and Metallurgical Review: Midland Counties". The Mining and Smelting Magazine. 3: 112.
  11. ^ "N. Hingley & Sons Ltd, Washington Street, Netherton". blackcountryhistory.org. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  12. ^ a b Mallin, K (1998). "5". Noah Hingley. published privately. p. 7. ISBN 0-9510420-3-3.
  13. ^ "Shipbuilding and Engineering". Lloyd's List. 19 April 1906. p. 14. Retrieved 22 May 2019 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  14. ^ "Messrs. N. Hingley and Sons". County Express. 27 August 1910. p. 5 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  15. ^ "Photographs from the past". Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  16. ^ "World's Largest Anchor". Birmingham Mail. 1 May 1911. p. 3. Retrieved 22 May 2019 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  17. ^ "Cyril Edward Lloyd". www.gracesguide.co.uk. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
  18. ^ a b c d Mallin, K (1999). Noah Hingley 2 Manufacturer of Ships' Anchors and Cables and Forgemaster in the period 1919-1960; and thereafter. published privately.
  19. ^ "N. Hingley & Sons, Limited". Birmingham Daily Post. 22 September 1959. p. 31. Retrieved 5 October 2018 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  20. ^ "CYRIL EDWARD LLOYD". Birmingham Daily Post. 2 January 1961. p. 21. Retrieved 2 October 2018 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
  21. ^ "N. HINGLEY & SONS (NETHERTON) LTD". Birmingham Daily Post. 30 October 1967. p. 11. Retrieved 22 May 2019 – via The British Newspaper Archive.
This page was last edited on 17 October 2023, at 02:03
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.