“A great fire which threatens to envelop the whole metropolis:” Ben Tillett and the London Dock Strike of 1889 (By David McCulloch)

The London Dock Strike of 1889 marked a turning point in British working class history. Many historians of trade unionism regard this strike as the first successful large-scale industrial action in the UK. Considerable international solidarity and a certain amount of public sympathy enabled the striking East Enders to be the first mass unionised protest to win nearly all their demands. The leadership of Benjamin (Ben) Tillett, Secretary of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ Union, has often been seen by past historians as the prime reason for its success. However, more recent research has suggested that although Tillett’s contribution was significant, other factors were equally important in the success of the strike.

We see in our own day many workers going on strike because the cost of living crisis has again made daily subsistence precarious. Although striking has become widely recognised as a legitimate act of protest against grievances at work in a democratic society, it should never be a right that is taken for granted. It was early successful strikes like the London Dock Strike which made the recognition of these rights possible.

Ben Tillett’s Early Life

Tillett was born in Bristol on 11 September 1860. He started work in a brickyard at eight years of age and worked as a circus acrobat for two years. Aged 12, he served for six months on a fishing boat, was apprenticed to a bootmaker, and then joined the Royal Navy. He was invalided out of active service in the early 1880s and made several voyages in merchant ships. Tillett finally settled in London and took up work as a docker.

The dangerous nature of port work, combined with low pay, poor working conditions and widespread social deprivation meant that the workforce in the Port of London was in great need for unionised protection. However, irregular work patterns imposed by employers prevented much organisation among the dock worker. Tillett recognised an opportunity to propagate his belief in collective action and formed the Tea Operatives and General Labourers’ Union in 1887. By 1889 this union had developed into the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers’ Union and the membership was increasing rapidly.

Background to the 1889 Strike

The work of dockers in the port of London was highly unpredictable and unreliable. Until the late 19th century, much of the trade of the port of London was seasonal e.g. sugar from the West Indies, timber from Scandinavia and Canada, and tea and spices from the Far East. It was difficult to predict when ships would arrive, since bad weather could delay a fleet. The number of ships arriving during a period of four successive weeks in 1861 at the West India Dock was 42, 131, 209 and 85. There was very little mechanisation - the loading and discharging of ships was highly labour-intensive.

Twice a day in most London docks there was a 'call-on' when labourers were hired for three to four hours at a time. Only the lucky few would be selected, the rest would be sent home without payment. Tillett described the process in detail: “We are driven into a shed, iron-barred from end to end, outside of which a foreman or contractor walks up and down with the air of a dealer in a cattle-market, picking and choosing from a crowd of men, who, in their eagerness to obtain employment, trample each other underfoot, and like beasts, fight for the chances of a day's work.”

The Beginnings of the Strike

The dock strike began in August 1889 over a dispute about 'plus' money during the unloading of the “Lady Armstrong” in the West India Docks. 'Plus' money was a bonus paid to dockers for unloading quickly. The East and West India Dock Companies had cut their 'plus' rates to attract ships into their own docks rather than others. A trade depression and an oversupply of dock space and warehousing led to fierce competition between rival employers. The cut in take-home pay and the injustice of the “call-on” process were the two main triggers of the strike.

Workers in the West India Dock struck on 14 August and, encouraged and organised by Tillett, immediately started persuading other dockers to join them. The Dockers' Union had no funds and needed help to support the strikers and their families. Support came from the Amalgamated Stevedores Union, whose similar work nevertheless carried higher status in the port and was essential to the running of the docks. The Stevedores issued a manifesto, entitled “To the Trade Unionists and People of London”. This called on other workers to support the dockers: “Friends and Fellow Workmen. The dock labourers are on strike and asking for an increase in wages ... 6d per hour daytime and 8d per hour overtime. The work is of the most precarious nature, three hours being the average amount per day.  We have determined to support their movement by every lawful means in our power. We now appeal to members of all trade unions for joint action with us, and especially those whose work is in connection with shipping - engineers and fitters, boiler makers, ships' carpenters, etc. and also the coal heavers, ballast men and lightermen. We also appeal to the public at large for contributions and support on behalf of the dock labourers.”

Other workers followed the lead of the stevedores, including the seamen, firemen, lightermen, watermen, ropemakers, fish porters and car-men. The port of London was paralyzed within days. It was estimated that by 27 August 130,000 men were on strike. The Evening News and Post commented on 26 August: “Dockers, lightermen, bargemen, cement workers, car-men, ironworkers and even factory girls are coming out. If it goes on a few days longer, all London will be on holiday. The great machine by which five millions of people are fed and clothed will come to a dead stop, and what is to be the end of it all? The proverbial small spark has kindled a great fire which threatens to envelop the whole metropolis.”

The Organisation of the Strike

The dockers formed a strike committee to decide the strikers’ aims, which included Tillett and leaders of other organisations. The main demand was 'the dockers' tanner' - a wage of 6d an hour (instead of their previous 5d an hour) and an overtime rate of 8d per hour. The contract and 'plus' systems were to be abolished and 'call-ons' to be reduced to two a day. The dockers also demanded that they be taken on for at least four hours at a time, and that their union be recognized throughout the port.

The Strike Committee organised mass meetings and established pickets outside the dock gates. The pickets tried to persuade people still at work and 'blacklegs' to stop working. Almost inevitably, there were accusations of dockers intimidating those who stayed at work.  One observer wrote to The Times on 24 August to complain: “During this week I have witnessed the most open intimidation practised by the men on strike - howling crowds stopping business and threatening vengeance on all who did not comply with their demands... those who dare to work are being brutally maltreated and threatened with worse if they dare attempt to defy the strikers' wishes… What are the authorities for if not to protect peaceable citizens in earning an honest living? (Signed) A LOVER OF FREEDOM” 

Despite these accusations only two men, Richard Groves and Alfred Kreamer, were arrested and charged with assault and intimidation. The strike was essentially peaceful and it was largely recognised at the time that the strikers showed remarkable self-restraint.

Rent Strikes in the East End

Landlords who tried to collect their rents faced resistance. A white banner was hung at the junction of Hungerford Street and Commercial Road, which said “As we are on strike landlords need not call.” Another at the junction of Star Street and Commercial Road read:

“Our husbands are on strike; for the wives it is not honey,
And we all think it is right not to pay the landlord's money,
Everyone is on strike, so landlords do not be offended;
The rent that's due we'll pay you when the strike is ended.”

At first, food was freely distributed to dockers and their families. Soon, one shilling food vouchers which were accepted by local tradesmen were issued instead. However, despite nationwide appeals for help, not enough money was coming in to meet the needs of the increasing numbers on strike. As the strike progressed into its second and third weeks, there was great hardship in East London. By the end of August, many dockers and their families were starving.

The Crisis of the Dock Strike

The employers were now confident that they would be able to force the men back to work: They explained their position to the press: “The cost of granting the men’s demands would be at least £100,000 and that would mean we should have to raise our rates. We cannot afford a wage increase, for it would either destroy our dividend to the shareholders or drive shipping from the port. When the pinch comes, as come it must, the hopes of the strikers will receive a severe shock and I shall be surprised if they have any backbone left.” (Mr Holland, Chairman of the Dock Directors, interview on 16 August 1889) The employers were facing a crisis as the port was at a standstill and the dock companies were losing money. Despite this, they believed that giving into the dockers' demands would set a dangerous precedent.

The crisis of the strike was reached at the beginning of September. H. H. Champion, the Strike Committee's press officer recalled: “Things looked very black indeed – for though the collections in workshops and on the streets, and contributions from the general public had reached a considerable sum, they were totally inadequate to provide even a shilling a day for a tenth of the families who were without means of subsistence.”

Unexpected Support

From the beginning of September, however, money poured in from Australia. The first instalment of £150 was sent by the Brisbane Wharf Labourers' Union. The press reported: “Meetings where resolutions of sympathy with the strikers are passed are being held nightly throughout Victoria, and a similar movement is afoot in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart… Large and important meetings are being held where resolutions were adopted expressing sympathy with the London dock workers, and promising support to obtain their demands. It was announced that over £500 had been collected from all classes, including Cabinet Ministers, and nearly all the members of the Queensland Parliament.” (The Pall Mall Gazette, 5 September 1889)

In all, over £30,000 was raised by the Australian dockers and their allies for strikers and their families in London. The money meant the end of fears about starvation. The dockers could now contemplate a longer strike and the leaders knew they could concentrate on the picket lines. The dockers scented victory.

The End of the Strike

On 5 September, the Lord Mayor of London formed the Mansion House Committee. Its aim was to bring the two sides together to end the strike. Tillett and John Burns represented the dockers at the negotiations. An influential member of the committee was Cardinal John Henry Manning (1808-1892), Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He had shown that his sympathies were with the dockers, many of whom were Catholics. Within a week, the Mansion House Committee persuaded the employers to concede practically all of the dockers' demands. After five weeks, the strike was over, and it was agreed that the men would go back to work on 16 September. 

After the successful strike, the dockers formed a new General Labourers' Union. Tillett was elected General Secretary and Tom Mann became the union's first President. In London alone, nearly 20,000 men joined this new union. Workers throughout the country, particularly the unskilled, gained a new confidence from the London Dock Strike to organise themselves and carry out collective action. From 750,000 in 1888, trade union membership grew to 1.5 million by 1892 and to over 2 million by 1899.

John Burns, another union official, later explained the importance of the strike: “Labour of the humbler kind has shown its capacity to organise itself. The labourer has learned that combination (joining a union) can lead him to anything. They have tasted success as the immediate fruit of unionisation, and they know that the harvest they have just reaped is not the last they can receive. They have learned that they can conquer the world of capital whose generals have been their most ruthless oppressors.”

Tillett’s Later Contribution to Trade Unionism

After the success of the 1889 strike, Tillett became nationally known as a leader of the "new unionism" that focused on organizing unskilled workers. He continued as General Secretary of the Dockers’ Union until the First World War, and was instrumental with Havelock Wilson of the Seaman’s Union in forming the National Transport Workers’ Federation in 1910. As the most well-known leader of the new union, he played a prominent role in the nationally organised dock strikes of 1911 and 1912. 

Tillett's National Transport Union was the largest of the unions which came together in 1922 to form the Transport and General Workers’ Union. However, it was Tillett's deputy, Ernest Bevin, who took the major role in bringing about the amalgamation. Bevin became the General Secretary of the new union, but Tillett held the post of International and Political Secretary until 1931, and retained his seat on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress until 1932.

Tillett’s Political Views 

Tillett was an early member of the Fabian Society in the 1890s and a founding member of the Independent Labour Party in 1893. Tillett launched his political career as an alderman on London County Council from 1892, and was elected as a Labour MP for Salford North from 1917 to 1924, and again from 1929 to 1931. He often held maverick views within the Labour Party and had little time for some aspects of the Labour movement, claiming in 1918 that “if the Labour Party could select a King, he would be a feminist, a Temperance crank, a Nonconformist charlatan...an anti-sport, anti-jollity advocate, a teetotaller, as well as a general wet blanket.”

Tillett also conflicted with the pacifist wing of the Labour party through his outspoken pro-war stance during the First World War. Tillett defended his pro-war convictions in a pamphlet published in 1917, "Who was Responsible for the war and Why?" in which he declared "Despite our former pacifist attitude, the forces of Labour in England have supported the government throughout the war. We realised that this is a fight for world freedom against a carefully engineered plan to establish a world autocracy".

In contrast to his support for friendly relations between English and Irish Catholic dockworkers in the East End of London, Tillett was strongly opposed to Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Tillett associated Jewish migrants with creating undesirable working conditions and poor housing: "the influx of continental pauperism aggravates and multiplies the number of ills which press so heavily on us...foreigners come to London in large numbers and herd together in habitations unfit for beasts". He appeared to forget that these had been the common conditions for English agricultural workers and Irish immigrants who had come to London earlier in the 19th century. He also appears to have associated the arrival of Jewish migrant workers in London with the supposed influence of Jewish capitalists on national governments. This led him to adopt unacceptable antisemitic views.

Tillett died on 27 January 1943, aged 82. Although his contribution to the growth of the UK Labour movement through the success of the Dock Strike of 1889, his later union leadership and his work as an MP between the World Wars cannot be denied, his later pro-war stance and antisemitism have made him a controversial figure on the left of British politics.

This blog is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. It was made by New Unity and David McCulloch. Find out more: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.