The Liverpool Dock Strike of 1890

R. Bean

doi:10.1017/S0020859000004181

The Liverpool Dock Strike of 1890

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008

R. Bean

Article contents

Extract
References

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The strike of stevedores and dock labourers in the Port of London in 1889 has come to symbolise that ferment and upsurge of labour activity, in favour of combined action, which found expression in the “new unionism”. Indeed the great spread of union organisation in the London area at this period has usually been regarded as the main phase of new unionism. It is true that labour historians have long been aware that widespread agitation and union recruitment were also afoot among both provincial dockers and other groups who had been either unorganised, or whose previous attempts at unionism had proved sporadic and abortive. The Liverpool dockers, in particular, became engaged in 1890 in a protracted struggle involving almost as great a number of strikers as on the London docks in the previous year. This Liverpool strike had all the makings of a “labour war”, and it resulted in a profound impact upon industrial relations on the Mersey waterfront. However, the events and consequences of this dispute together with the activities of the National Union of Dock Labourers which organised it have so far received less detailed attention than either the dock strike in the metropolis or the London dockers union.

Type: Research Article
Information: International Review of Social History , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , April 1973 , pp. 51 - 68

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000004181 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1973

References

^{page 51 note 1} Pelling, Henry, A History of British Trade Unions (1963), p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} See Clegg, H. A., Fox, Alan and Thompson, A. F., A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889, Vol. I: 1889–1910 (1964), pp. 56–66.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} Report on the Strikes and Lockouts of 1889 [Cd 6176 and 6476] (1890–91).

^{page 51 note 4} Liverpool Citizen, 12 March 1890.

^{page 51 note 5} For London see Smith, H. Llewellyn and Nash, Vaughan, The Story of the Dockers Strike (1890)Google Scholar; Lovell, J., Stevedores and Dockers (1969)Google Scholar; and Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. I [Cd 6708] (1892).

^{page 52 note 1} Dunlop, J. T., Industrial Relations Systems (1958), p. 380.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 2} Quoted in Mountfield, S., Western Gateway: A History of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (1965), p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 3} Ibid., p. 34.

^{page 52 note 4} Liverpool Weekly Mercury, 12 February 1876.

^{page 53 note 1} See Abstract of Evidence, taken before a special committee of the MDHB in reference to Dock Accommodation of the Port 1872, p. 50.

^{page 53 note 2} Stevedores proper, however, were an exclusive majority, who received high pay, at the rate of 7/– for day work and 12/– for night work in 1890, for their responsible duty of correctly stowing the cargo. See Rath, E. F. bone, An Enquiry into the Conditions of Dock Labour at the Liverpool Docks (1904).Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 3} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. II [Cd 6795] (1892), q. 13579.

^{page 53 note 4} E. F. Rathbone, op. cit., p. 9.

^{page 54 note 1} Ibid., p. 8.

^{page 54 note 2} Liverpool Mercury, 20 June 1872.

^{page 54 note 3} Liverpool Review, 5 April 1890. For comparative rates of pay in various ports see Liverpool Mercury, 11 March 1890.

^{page 54 note 4} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. II, q. 13577.

^{page 54 note 5} Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Subject of the Unemployed in the City of Liverpool, 1894, p. 84.

^{page 54 note 6} Daily Courier, 3 March 1890.

^{page 54 note 7} MDHB, Statistics Showing Number and Tonnage of Vessels Which Paid Port Rates.

^{page 55 note 1} Liverpool Daily Post, 25 March 1890.

^{page 55 note 2} Report of the Commission of Inquiry, op. cit., p. 101.

^{page 55 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 14 March 1890.

^{page 55 note 4} Hyde, F. E., Liverpool and the Mersey: An Economic History of a Port 1700–1970 (1971), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 5} Hyde, F. E., Blue Funnel: A History of Alfred Holt and Company of Liverpool (1956), p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 6} Hyde, F. E., Liverpool and the Mersey, p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 7} Liverpool Courier, 20 January 1890.

^{page 55 note 8} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. II, q. 13579, and Halfpenny Weekly, 14 December 1889. The arrangement was that dockers were paid overtime only if they worked for a full extra hour.

^{page 55 note 9} See Report of the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings, Vol. I [Cd 4668] (1909), p. 12.

^{page 56 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 4 September 1889.

^{page 56 note 2} Ibid., 8 November 1870.

^{page 56 note 3} Ibid., 15 June 1872.

^{page 56 note 4} Liverpool Review, 8 February 1879.

^{page 56 note 5} Liverpool Mercury, 18 October 1872.

^{page 56 note 6} See Flanders, Allan, Management and Unions (1970), p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} Liverpool Daily Post, 29 August 1890. The employers had attempted to break it up many times and until 1890 Cunard kept a body of scab labourers who were capable of doing the work of coaling their vessels.

^{page 57 note 2} E. F. Rathbone, op. cit., p. 12. In 1890 it had about one thousand members.

^{page 57 note 3} Liverpool Weekly Courier, 12 March 1887.

^{page 57 note 4} As suggested by J. Lovell, op. cit., p. 85.

^{page 57 note 5} This disadvantage was offset to some extent by greater regularity of employment.

^{page 57 note 6} Liverpool Daily Post, 26 July 1888.

^{page 58 note 1} Ibid., 1 June 1889. Nevertheless the Birkenhead branch of the union soon established a fund to provide for accidents and sickness with weekly contributions of 2d – over and above the “labour”, or strike fund, to which dues of 3d a week were paid.

^{page 58 note 2} Birkenhead News, 1 February 1890.

^{page 58 note 3} Halfpenny Weekly, 22 February 1890.

^{page 58 note 4} Liverpool Weekly Courier, 15 February 1890.

^{page 58 note 5} For details of the conflict between the Knights and Dock Labourers union see Bean, R., “A note on the Knights of Labour in Liverpool, 1889–90”, in: Labor History, XIII (1972).Google Scholar Also, the NUDL attempted to take over the membership of the Clarence Dock Club but its efforts were resisted. Liverpool Daily, April 1890.

^{page 59 note 1} Liverpool Weekly Post, 25 January 1890.

^{page 59 note 2} Liverpool Courier, 8 February 1890.

^{page 59 note 3} Ibid., 4 September 1889. Piecework had been the wage payment system for bushelling corn.

^{page 59 note 4} Liverpool Daily Post, 26 July 1888. The first strike in Liverpool against the elevator took place at this time.

^{page 59 note 5} J. Lovell, op. cit., p. 52.

^{page 60 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 3 March 1890.

^{page 60 note 2} Liverpool Echo, 1 March 1890.

^{page 60 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 3 March 1890.

^{page 60 note 4} Liverpool Echo, 27 January 1890.

^{page 60 note 5} J. Lovell, op. cit., p. 79.

^{page 61 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 3 March 1890. There had been no mention of preference of employment for unionists in the rules announced in January.

^{page 61 note 2} Liverpool Echo, 8 March 1890.

^{page 61 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 11 March 1890.

^{page 61 note 4} Liverpool Daily Post, 3 March 1890. There was said to be at this time “a great decrease in the number of men formerly to be found at the docks in search of work”.

^{page 61 note 5} Liverpool Daily Post, 5 March 1890. He was to claim later that the manifesto was the work of T. Kierman, a former secretary of the Bootle branch of the union.

^{page 62 note 1} Liverpool Echo, 5 March 1890.

^{page 62 note 2} Liverpool Mercury, 7 March 1890.

^{page 62 note 3} Ibid., 11 March 1890.

^{page 62 note 4} A temporary local employers association had been formed in 1889 during a seamen's strike.

^{page 62 note 5} Liverpool Weekly Courier, 15 February 1890. The ELA members employed three-fifths of seamen and dock labourers in the port.

^{page 62 note 6} Liverpool Weekly Courier, 5 March 1890.

^{page 63 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 18 March 1890.

^{page 63 note 2} Report of the Commission of Inquiry, op. cit., q. 364.

^{page 63 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 14 March 1890. This was probably because of strong representation on the ELA of steamship employers at the north docks.

^{page 63 note 4} See Gouldner, A. W., Wildcat Strike (1954), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 5} Liverpool Mercury, 11 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 19 December 1890. The badges cost £4 per 1,000.

^{page 64 note 2} Ibid., 12 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 3} Liverpool Mercury, 24 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 4} Liverpool Daily Post, 7 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 5} Minutes of the Liverpool Steamship Owners Association, 11 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 6} Liverpool Courier, 12 March 1890.

^{page 64 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 64 ote 8} Ibid., 5 February 1890.

^{page 65 note 1} Ibid., 14 March 1890. Four days later magistrates voted to bring troops to the city.

^{page 65 note 2} Liverpool Citizen, 19 March 1890.

^{page 65 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 7 March 1890.

^{page 65 note 4} Minutes of the Liverpool Steamship Owners Association, 11 March 1890.

^{page 65 note 5} Liverpool Mercury, 21 March 1890.

^{page 65 note 6} Liverpool Review, 29 March 1890.

^{page 65 note 7} Liverpool Courier, 15 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 1} Ibid., 18 March 1890. Mass meetings were held daily in order to provide information, ascertain opinion and encourage solidarity.

^{page 66 note 2} Liverpool Mercury, 15 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 3} Liverpool Daily Post, 21 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 4} Liverpool Courier, 29 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 5} This was confirmed by Tom Mann who addressed a number of strike meetings in Liverpool. Liverpool Daily Post, 28 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 6} Liverpool Courier, 24 March 1890.

^{page 66 note 7} The union saw this as an obvious limitation on its own attempts at job control and later prohibited members accepting employment at weekly wages. Liverpool Courier, 5 November 1890.

^{page 67 note 1} Ibid., 7 April 1890.

^{page 68 note 1} For example by pursuing a policy of “ca'canny”, whereby dockers determined the pace at which work would proceed.

Article contents

The Liverpool Dock Strike of 1890

Extract

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests