^{page 375 note 2} 1887–1894: National Amalgamated Sailors' and Firemen's Union.

1894–1926: National Sailors' and Firemen's Union.

1926 onwards: National Union of Seamen.

^{page 375 note 3} Cooks' and Stewards' Union (properly: National Union of Ships' Stewards, Cooks, Butchers and Bakers): 1909–1921, hostile to the Sailors' and Firemen's Union only from mid–1921.

British Seafarers' Union: 1911–1921, a breakaway from the Sailors' and Firemen's Union. Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union: 1922 1927, the product of the merger of the Cooks' and Stewards' Union and the British Seafarers' Union.

Seamen's section of the T.G.W.U.: 1928–1929.

^{page 376 note 1} See Royal Commission on Labour, Fifth and Final Report, Part. II. Secretary's report […] and Summaries of Evidence (1894), p. 173Google Scholar; and , S. and Webb, B.: History of Trade Unionism (Longmans, 1920), pp. 405–6.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 2} Membership on which the union affiliated to the T.U.C.

^{page 376 note 3} Throughout this paper the term “closed shop” is used to denote the one-union shop, under which membership of a single specified union is a condition of employment.

^{page 377 note 1} Employment, that is to say, on Federation ships. In 1891 ships in membership amounted to seven million tons, or some seven-eighths of total U.K. tonnage.

^{page 377 note 2} From 1892 to 1906 the Federation operated a Benefit Fund, and the parchment ticket also gave membership of that.

^{page 377 note 3} This paragraph and the preceding one are based primarily on Royal Commission of Labour: op. cit., pp. 172–5. A slightly different version is given in the official history of the Federation: Powell, L. H., The Shipping Federation. A History of the First Sixty Years 1890–1950 (Shipping Federation, 1950), pp. 2–7.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 4} A depot ship was used as late as 1925.

^{page 378 note 1} As Wilson admitted in his autobiography (p. 236), he “had almost a mania for law” the shipowners were only too willing to make the most of this expensive taste. (The first volume of his autobiography came out in 1925: Joseph Havelock Wilson, My Stormy Voyage through Life, Co-operative Printing Society. The second volume never appeared, though it was written; according to Mr. Borlase, the manuscript was taken to America by V. Brodzky of the “Herald”, and has vanished.)

^{page 378 note 2} A rare admission of such support was given by Cuthbert Laws, Manager of the Shipping Federation, in February 1892: see Royal Commission of Labour, Minutes of Evidence, vol. II (1892), p. 263.Google Scholar Much of the evidence to the Commission on this matter was conflicting, but see Saville, J., Trade Unions and Free Labour, in: Briggs, A. and Saville, , eds.: Essays in Labour History (Macmillan, 1960), p. 335.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 3} One example is the National Union of Dock Labourers; see Sexton, James, Sir James Sexton, Agitator (Faber, 1936), pp. 113–5.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 4} On the general problem of “under-socialisation” among seamen, see Strauss, Robert, Medical Care for Seamen (Yale U.P., 1950), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 5} All branch officials must, in a seamen's union, be full-time.

^{page 379 note 1} Three of the most notable were his oratorical power; his resourcefulness in industrial warfare; and, in some matters, his farsightedness.

^{page 379 note 2} Membership as affiliated to the T.U.C.

^{page 379 note 3} Though the seamen's union is an extreme example, the problem of overcentralisation and resultant dissatisfaction is of course a general one; see for example Lerner, Shirley W., Breakaway Unions and the Small Trade Union (Allen and Unwin, 1961), esp. pp. 188–91.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 1} They are still in force at the time of writing.

^{page 380 note 2} I.T.F., Proceedings of the VI. International Convention […] 1908. Report of the Central Council for 1906, 1907, 1908 (Jochade, Hamburg, 1909), pp. 9 and 131–2.

^{page 380 note 3} See Powell, , op. cit., pp. 109–111.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 4} Report of the Central Council to the I.T.F. Congress of 1913 (Jochade, Berlin, 1913), pp. 42–5Google Scholar; Times, 06 14 and 15, 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 1} See Times, 06 10, 1911.Google Scholar The N.T.W.F. withheld its support until the strike had been going on for a fortnight, and even then issued only a threat of action. It did not actually join in until a few days later again, though locally thousands of members of affiliated unions had already come out. In the case of the seamen the 1911 strike was a national strike called by the union headquarters; with other sections of transport workers it was originally a case of independent local action, with the strike spreading form port to port “like a bush fire” as the Times put it (July 11). But though the N.T.W.F. was slow in joining in, the fact of its existence and propaganda previously done on its behalf did much to create the solidarity which played so large a part in determining the outcome of the strike.

^{page 381 note 2} Williams', Robert report in I.T.F., Reports of the Organisations (Jochade, Berlin, 1913), p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 3} Father Hopkins' report in the same, p. 22, quoting Journal of Commerce, 05 11 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 4} Quoted in Labour Research Department, Shipping. Studies in Labour and Capital No. VI (Labour Publishing Co., 1923), p. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 5} With him in this were the Belgian and Dutch unions, and at home the Cooks' and Stewards' Union, then only two years old and still small and weak.

^{page 382 note 1} Times, 06 29, 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 2} Ministry of Labour Gazette, 07 1925, p. 231.Google Scholar (The figure of 120,000 does not include the railway strike which, though it began before the other wave had finished, was a separate affair.)

^{page 382 note 3} Powell's history of the Federation lays great stress (op. cit., p. 22) on “the entire helplessness of the authorities”, and states: “Although the Federation was in a position to obtain the services of large bodies of men to replace strikers, the necessary protection for them could not be obtained.” The availability of these “large bodies of men”, for which Powell's evidence appears to be Federation statements made during the strike, may be doubted.

^{page 383 note 1} The North of England Steamship Owners' Association covered an area less wide than its name implies; the Liverpool owners, for instance, had their own association.

^{page 384 note 1} Times of 07 22, 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 2} Powell, , op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 3} Ibid., loc. cit.

^{page 384 note 4} Ibid., loc. cit.

^{page 384 note 5} Ibid., p. 24.

^{page 385 note 1} See for example Martin Eden, Saviours of the Empire: Wilson, J. Havelock, C.B.E., and “Captain” Tupper (Reformers' Bookstall, Glasgow, ?1918), p. 5Google Scholar; Times of 09 27, 1916, p. 5Google Scholar; Sir Walter Runciman's foreword to Wilson, op. cit.

^{page 385 note 2} Times of 05 24 and 31, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 3} Times of 05 31–06 3, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 4} Times of 06 11, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 5} Times of 06 1 and 13, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 6} Though the order to return to work was given by the strike committee on July 27.

^{page 385 note 7} In 1911 Wilson had secured for his union the services of several colourful characters, among them “Captain” Edward Tupper, “V.C.”, and Father Charles Hopkins, O.S.P. Father Hopkins – cathedral organist in Rangoon, chaplain there and in Arakan and Calcutta, founder and Superior-General of the Anglican Order of St. Paul – helped organise the seamen's strike of 1911, and became a trustee of the union and a member of its executive council.

^{page 386 note 1} Times of 07 29, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 2} Mann, Tom: Tom Mann's Memoirs (Labour Publishing Co., 1923), p. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 3} Times of 07 29, 1912.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 4} Many misleading statements are made in this connection. The last official strike which the N.S.F.U./N.U.S. called nationally was 1911; the last it called anywhere, apart from holdups of odd ships, was 1912. But other unions have called official strikes of seagoing personnel – navigating officers, engineers, radio operators, cooks and stewards, seamen and firemen – and the last of these was not till 1929. There have been important unofficial strikes since then too, notably in 1933, 1955 and 1960.

^{page 386 note 5} Hopkins, Charles P., “National Service” of British Seamen, 1914–1919 (Routledge, 1920), p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 6} Hopkins, (op. cit., p. 5)Google Scholar, writing after the war, recollected only two, but there were others also; see N.S.F.U., Official Wages and Overtime Lists. Agreements (06 1913).Google Scholar That such machinery existed, in fact as well as on paper, is confirmed by Mr. Borlase, the historian of the union.

^{page 387 note 1} Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} How far it really was necessary is arguable. See on the one hand Hopkins, , op. cit., pp. 21–22Google Scholar, and on the other Ernest Fayle, C., The War and the Shipping Industry (O.U.P., 1927), pp. 97–8 and 260–1.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 3} Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 4} Ibid., p. 18, and Tupper, Edward, Seamen's Torch. The Life Story of Captain Edward Tupper (Hutchinson, 1938), pp. 111–4.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 5} In 1903, for example, he was busy organising opposition to the Labour Representation Committee throughout the North-East (Bealey, F. and Pelling, H., Labour and Politics, 1900–1906, Macmillan, 1958, p. 152).Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 1} Havelock Wilson was irreconcilably opposed to the whole campaign for an early peace, and used his hold over the seamen to prevent Labour Party delegates from leaving the country. See Hopkins, , op. cit., pp. 36–7 and 141–4Google Scholar, and Tupper, , op. cit., pp. 187–91.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 2} Fayle, , op. cit., pp. 265–6.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 3} Ibid., pp. 261–2.

^{page 389 note 1} Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 46Google Scholar, and Fayle, , op. cit., p. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} See Fayle, , op. cit., chapter 13.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 1} The radio operators were not represented on the National Maritime Board until 1941.

^{page 390 note 2} The constitution is given in full in Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 155–8; the revised constitution of 1919 on pp. 87–92.

^{page 390 note 3} No one from outside the industry, that is. The Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, which had remained aloof from the first Board, joined in the new one, which came officially into existence on January 1, 1920. The composition remained practically as before, with the Sailors' and Firemen's Union (and a small Hull union, a satellite which the Sailors' and Firemen's Union was soon to absorb) representing ratings in the deck and engine-room departments, and the Cooks' and Stewards' Union those of the catering department. The navigating and engineer officers continued to be represented by their own unions, the only difference being that one representing masters now joined the Board. (The radio officers' union did not join the Board till 1941.)

^{page 391 note 1} See SirChiozza, Leo Money's evidence to the Dock Labour Inquiry (Court of Inquiry concerning Transport Workers. Wages and Conditions of Dock Labour vol. 1: Report and Evidence, 1920, Cmd. 936), p. 171Google Scholar; SirRaeburn, W. in Hansard vol. 164, p. 380 (05 15, 1923Google Scholar); and Seaman of 11 13, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} Merchant seamen are classified as belonging to three “departments”: deck, engineroom, and catering, the latter including ancillary staff such as cabin stewards.

^{page 391 note 3} Cotter, speaking at the 1921 meeting of the N.T.W.F., quoted Wilson as having told him: “I spent £3,000 in trying to organise them but I could not do it.” (Report, p. 133).

^{page 392 note 1} Marine Caterer of 09 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 2} See p. 379.

^{page 392 note 3} Times of 10 7 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 4} Shinwell, Emanuel: Conflict without Malice (Odhams, 1955), pp. 48 and 52Google Scholar; Times of 08 21, 1912Google Scholar; Seaman of 10 9, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 5} British Seafarers' Union had been the name of the Southampton group, that in Glasgow being called the Scottish Sailors' and Firemen's Union.

^{page 393 note 1} This despite the B.S.U.'s strong desire to take part and the sympathy with which the Board's first chairman regarded that desire. (Sir Leo Money's evidence to the Dock Labour Inquiry, loc. cit.)

^{page 394 note 1} Fayle, , op. cit., p. 390.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} They had asked for a £4 10s. cut in the monthly pay of sailors, firemen, and officers, and a £5 10s. cut in that of cooks and stewards. In percentage terms that meant very different things for different sections, but for an A.B., for example, it was a cut of over 30 per cent.

^{page 394 note 3} We must distinguish between the outcome of the negotiations (which, though hard on the seaman, represented probably the best that could be got) and Wilson's cavalier treatment both of the other unions involved and of his own rank-and-file. On the resultant dissension within the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, see below, p. 407.

^{page 394 note 4} On Wilson's position during this period see Seaman of 04 13, 1923Google Scholar, and United Operative Plumbers and Domestic Engineers Association, Quarterly Report no. 204 (10 1925), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 5} The other was the Association of Coastwise Masters, Mates, and Engineers, which four years later was absorbed into the T.G.W.U.

^{page 394 note 6} “Practically 100 per cent of the class of employee concerned” (Times of 05 7, 1921)Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 7} Labour Gazette, 07 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 8} By the early summer, when the strike took place, a third of insured seamen were registered as unemployed: in May 31.7, in June 32.6 per cent (Labour Gazette).

^{page 395 note 1} Times of 05 13 and 16, 1921Google Scholar; Russell, Ben H. in British Shipping, 11 1959.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} Caterer, Marine, 09 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 3} Tupper, , op. cit., pp. 259–60.Google Scholar In Glasgow, by contrast, the B.S.U. brought some seamen and firemen out in support of the strikers (Times, 05 14 and 21, 1921).Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 4} The flavour of the twenties, as far as trade unionism in shipping is concerned, is well conveyed by the epithets used, of which “Have-a-lot Wilson” was one of the more inspired. The Seaman referred to those who led the opposition to Wilson and his union, variously, as “job-seekers”, “adventurers and gasbags”, “rats”, “Reds”, “a crowd of unwashed aliens”, “vultures”, “loafers”, and “parasites”. Emanuel Shinwell, being from the formation of the Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union (see below) its National Organiser, was a key figure in that opposition, and a pet aversion; the Seaman descended to the vilest anti-semitism in the effort to discredit him. (See Seaman of 08–12 1925.)Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 5} See for example Seaman of 06 15, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 6} He later denied responsibility for it. It would not be out of character if he were the author; by the same token one cannot rule out the possibility that Wilson or one of his colleagues “arranged for” the circular.

^{page 395 note 7} [Liverpool] Journal of Commerce, 12 2, 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 8} Times of 05 21, 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} The N.T.W.F., linked with the striking miners through the Triple Alliance, had resolved to boycott the moving of coal stocks and the importing of coal. The Antwerp dockers responded by a general withdrawal of labour in support of the British miners; but the Sailors' and Firemen's Union under Havelock Wilson made a special effort to see that the flow of coal from Belgium continued unimpeded - its members not only shipped coal from Antwerp, they also loaded it. As a result the N.T.W.F. annual conference, meeting in June, instructed the N.T.W.F. executive to hold an investigation into the conduct of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union with regard to Federation policy and instructions. But the union sent in its resignation instead.

^{page 396 note 2} The initiative seems to have been taken by the N.T.W.F. See Report of N.T.W.F. annual meeting, 1922, pp. 21–22 and 63.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} The National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers.

^{page 396 note 4} Report of 1921 N.T.W.F. meeting, p. 126.Google Scholar See also Seaman of 05 18, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 5} Their differences were not confined to N.T.W.F. affairs, but went deeper. Bob Williams was a leftwinger. A conscientious objector during the war, he had campaigned for an early peace; he had welcomed the Bolshevik revolution, visited Russia, received the Soviet Military Medal from Trotsky; until his expulsion in April 1921 he was for a time a member of the Communist party. Havelock Wilson by contrast had been, for nigh on thirty years, an unswerving Liberal of the Lib-Lab variety; he was a biting critic of socialism, with a long record of opposition to the Labour Party, let alone the Communists, whom he abhorred. During the war he had stumped the country making jingoistic speeches; his services to recruiting had been such (together with his services to national savings) as to win him the C.B.E. He had used his position as President of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union to prevent several labour leaders (Macdonald, Jowett, Henderson, Huysmans) from leaving the country on wartime missions of which he disapproved, and through the agency of his right-hand man “Captain” Tupper regularly dispatched seamen to break up meetings of pacifists.

^{page 397 note 1} Marine Worker, 04 1922.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 2} See Daily Herald, 10 19, 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 3} Seaman, 06 15, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 4} Daily Herald, 10 27, 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 5} Southern Daily Echo (Southampton), 11 18, 1921Google Scholar; Seaman, 11 25, 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 6} Firstly the tone and phraseology of the editorial appeal for solidarity in the union journal, the Marine Caterer, of August 1921. Secondly the fact that the membership on which the A.M.W.U. affiliated to the T.U.C, in 1922 was no greater than that on which the Cooks' and Stewards' Union alone affiliated in 1921. Thirdly, the membership figures given by the Times on May 7, 1921, and by Ben Mollan in court on June 1, 1926 (Times, 06 2, 1926)Google Scholar; these suggest a decline of 10,000, or one third, from May 1921 to the end of the year.

^{page 398 note 1} Speaking at the 1945 meeting of the National Union of Seamen (that was the name taken by the Sailors' and Firemen's Union in 1926), the Assistant General Secretary (Catering) said: “[…] prior to this [1942] the organisation of the Liner Catering personnel had never really been seriously tackled by us. Thousands of men had been outside of the movement since 1921 […]”. [Report, p. 45.] The same process as in 1921 – a special conference to launch a recruiting campaign in the liner catering department, and then extravagant claims on the response it was achieving – was tried again in 1925 (Seaman, 08 28 and 09 25, 1925)Google Scholar, but once again the result was disappointing.

^{page 398 note 2} See the judgment of Mr. Justice Sargant in the case of Reynolds v. The Shipping Federation, Wilson, and Clark (High Court, Chancery Division, 07 25, 1923).Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} More precisely the reintroduction of a wartime measure (Seaman of 04 1, 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 399 note 2} Sometimes, of course, in a period of such high employment, a seaman had been out of work for several weeks or months, and was hard put to it to bring his union payments up to date. In principle latitude was given in such cases, but in practice not frequently enough to prevent there being many instances of real hardship. (See for example Gazette, Bristol, 08 19, 1922Google Scholar; Western Mail, 09 2, 1922Google Scholar; Mall, Pall, 02 15, 1923Google Scholar; Hansard, vol. 164, p. 387 (05 15, 1923)Google Scholar; Marine Worker, 10 1925.)Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} P.C.5. J. Havelock Wilson's attempt to enslave the British Seamen Exposed. Verbatim Report of an Extraordinary Meeting held at the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, Head Office, 04 23rd, 1922 (A.M.W.U., 1922).Google Scholar In Shinwell, cuttings book, p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 399 note 5} Report of 1922 meeting, p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} The writer of the “Man at the Wheel” column reported in the Seaman of 11 27, 1925Google Scholar: “I find every time I go to the Humber ports quite a large number of Liverpool men shipping, and some of them have never had P.C.5 before. […] I have often heard them say they wished it was in full swing on the Merseyside.”

^{page 400 note 2} Bull, John of 08 5, 1922Google Scholar reported: “If one gets into conversation with a seaman – sailor, fireman, cook or steward – it is about three to one that he will say something disparaging about the officials of his Union. Should he belong to the Sailors' and Firemen's Union his grievance is generally that the chief concern of the officials is to see that he doesn't get a ship until he has paid up his dues. If he is a member of the Marine Workers' Union he will complain that the officials are not able to do anything for him, except at Southampton and Liverpool, and that membership absolutely bars him from getting a ship at most ports.”

^{page 400 note 3} Times, 04 7 and 9, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 4} Times, 04 26, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 1} Shinwell, , op. cit., p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} The Seaman of 11 27, 1925Google Scholar put it thus: “As a final solution the N.S. & F.U. offered to compensate the non-seamen officials to the extent of £3,000, if they would clear out and leave the seafaring men to settle their own affairs. […] There was one thing they would not have, and that was shoremen, especially Tailors, Watchmakers, and ex-Postmen, managing seamen's affairs.” Thus the official journal of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union. It is true that none of the three had ever been a seafarer, but that had not prevented Wilson from giving them responsible posts in his union back in 1910–12 – Shinwell had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Glasgow branch, Thomas Lewis Secretary of the Southampton branch, and James McKinlay head of the union's insurance department; but they had all left Wilson's union. As for not having shoremen managing seamen's affairs, since 1911 the most influential people in the Sailors' and Firemen's Union had been, apart from Wilson himself, Father Hopkins, an Anglican clergyman, and “Captain” Tupper, a bankrupt company promoter turned private detective. (Father Hopkins died in 1922, but Tupper was active for many years more, and in 1925 ran the union when Wilson visited North America.)

^{page 401 note 3} On these negotiations see Reports of Trade Union Congress, 1924, pp. 173–4, and 1925, pp. 219–21.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 4} Report of A.M.W.U. annual meeting, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} See for example Syren and Shipping, 08 15, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 2} See below, p. 407, note 4.

^{page 402 note 3} Times, 08 27 and 28, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 4} See above, p. 398, note 1.

^{page 402 note 5} Seaman, 09 25, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 6} Labour Gazette, 11 1925, p. 398.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 7} Minority Movement was the name, from 1923, of the British section of the Red International of Labour Unions; this British section was “not an organisation of unions but only of revolutionary minorities of unions”, though that policy was later modified. (See Pelling, H., The British Communist Party. A Historical Profile, (Black, 1958), pp. 24–7, 56, 70–1.)Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 8} Times, 08 31 and 09 1, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 1} See particularly the International Seafarer (an M.M. journal) of August-September 1925, which says of the A.M.W.U.: “[…] they entered primarily to poach members from the N.S.F.U. – a tactic the Central Strike Committee disagreed with.”

^{page 403 note 2} Tupper, , op. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 3} Ibid., p. 276.

^{page 403 note 4} Marine Worker, 10 1925, p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 5} Powell, , op. cit., p. 33.Google Scholar In Federation terminology the “District” covers a sizeable area: in 1925 there were 21 in Great Britain, such as Southampton, Mersey, and Thames.

^{page 403 note 6} In South Africa, with its negligible maritime population, the companies contemplated importing lascars from India to break the strike, but public opinion, both English and Afrikaner, was so incensed at the idea that it had to be abandoned. Nor did the South African Government help the shipowners: it detained numbers of strikers as “prohibited immigrants”, placing them in tolerably comfortable camps, the shipowners being liable for the cost of their keep. In Australia the strike enjoyed the support of influential trade unions, and became confused with domestic labour issues; the federal Government did what it could to smash the strike, but the mass recruitment of strikebreakers was out of the question.

^{page 404 note 1} The Government had been suffering from left-wing labour agitation for some time, and was anxious to put a stop to it; it had recently secured the passage of legislation to make deportation a possible counter-measure, and now sought to use this new power to deport certain Australian seamen's union leaders who were held to be responsible for the current trouble. The opposition was considerable, but the Government went to the country on this issue – and returned to power with an increased majority. Proceedings were instituted against the labour leaders in question, and the strike collapsed.

^{page 404 note 2} This is necessarily a rough estimate, based on the Ministry of Labour figure of strikers in Britain (5,000 – Labour Gazette, 11 1925, p. 398)Google Scholar and reports in the Times relating to the strike at South African, Australian and New Zealand ports.

^{page 404 note 3} Though the A.M.W.U. branch in Glasgow did claim an increase in membership “by leaps and bounds” in the months following the strike; “The men have at last awakened to the fact that there is something in being members of a clean, fighting Union.”(Marine Worker, 01 1926.)Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 4} Powell, , op. cit., p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} One significant innovation in the system was made: it was agreed to engage only men who signed a pledge that they would abide by the wages and conditions agreed by the Maritime Board (ibid., p. 34).

^{page 405 note 2} Havelock Wilson refused to call a strike until he had taken a ballot of members in U.K. ports, as required by the union constitution. (The same rule, which applied to any general – i.e. other than local – strike of seamen, had enabled him to refuse to join in the national sympathy strike in 1912; see above, p. 385.) On May 5, the day the strike call from the General Council went out, the ballot was already in progress, but had not yet been completed. Its result (which was against striking) was announced the same day that the General Strike was called off.

^{page 405 note 3} Powell, , op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 4} Ibid., p. 35.

^{page 405 note 5} Formerly an official in Cotter's Cooks' and Stewards' Union.

^{page 405 note 6} One branch secretary said that he had personally filled up 200 ballot papers.

^{page 406 note 1} Times, 06 2, 1926.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} British Seafarer, 06 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 2} There was a rise in 1924, but this was nullified by the cut the following year. Significantly, while the rise came into effect in two stages, months apart, so as to oblige the owners, the cut was implemented at one go.

^{page 407 note 3} International Seafarer, 08–09 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 4} See Times of 08 2, 11, 18, and 09 24, 1927.Google Scholar The Catering Department Organiser was none other than Joe Cotter.

^{page 407 note 5} I.T.F. Report on Activities […] for the Years 1924 and 1925 (Amsterdam, 1926), p. 11Google Scholar, and Report and Accounts for the Years 1926 and 1927 (Amsterdam, 1928), p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 6} See above, p. 396. When the N.T.W.F. was reconstituted in 1924 Wilson's union rejoined; but the union formed the greater part of the membership of this new N.T.W.F., which was a body of no importance.

^{page 407 note 7} See Reports of Labour Party Conferences of 1922 (pp. 177–8, 180–1) and 1923 (pp. 85, 181–2).Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 1} Times, 04 11, 1929Google Scholar; Report of Labour Party Conference, 1927, p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} Times, 10 7, 1926.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 3} Times, 10 14, 1926.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 4} Times, 10 1, 1926.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 5} The loan of N.U.S. (National Union of Seamen) officials and N.U.S.cars, and the issuing of the breakaway union's journal from the N.U.S. offices; and at least the promise of a loan of £10,000 of N.U.S. money. (See Knowles, K.G.J.C., Strikes, Blackwell, 1952, p. 85.)Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 6} T.U.C.: Report of 1928 Congress, pp. 101–3, 304–5.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 7} See for example International Seafarer, 08 – 09 1925.Google Scholar In point of fact, ever since the formation of the National Transport Workers' Federation in 1910, it had always been hoped that the big all-embracing transport workers' union which would one day be formed would include the seamen. But Wilson had other ideas, and in any case was out of the N.T.W.F. by the time the T.G.W.U. was actually brought into being. After he had withdrawn his Sailors' and Firemen's Union from the N.T.W.F. in the summer of 1921, the N.T.W.F. leaders hoped that the new amalgamation – the A.M.W.U., as it became – would one day join forces with the T.G.W.U.

^{page 409 note 1} T.G.W.U., Seventh Annual Report, 31st 12, 1928 (1929), p. 8Google Scholar; see also Seafarers' Record, 11 21, 1928.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 2} Seafarers' Record, 03 9, 1929.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 3} Bullock, Alan, Life and Times of Ernest Bevin, vol. 1 (Heinemann, 1960), p. 412.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 4} Times, 07 2–8 and 31, 1929Google Scholar; Seaman, 08 12, 1929.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} In 1919–20 Wilson's union campaigned vigoursly for the inclusion of seamen in the provisions' of the Eight Hours Bill. But in the years that followed union policy on hours underwent a radical change. In 1926 Wilson boasted at having lengthened the seaman's working week by fourteen hours, in order to help meet foreign competition (Times, 10 1, 1926).Google Scholar And in 1928, as Bevin discovered (see above, p. 408), Wilson pledged that the union would vote against the eight-hour day at the International Labour Conference.

^{page 411 note 2} Few enjoyed a reasonably full year's work. One estimate in the mid-twenties put the average term of employment for seamen in this country at seven months in the year (Marine Worker, 10 1925).Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 3} That the Communists capitalised on discontent in the industry is beyond dispute; but they did not originate it.

^{page 412 note 1} To such good effect indeed that Bevin became a formidable ally in the fight for improved safety, working conditions, and wages. (See Bullock, , op. cit., pp. 554 and 576–9.)Google Scholar