sentatives of miners and coal-owners of the English federated
area, by which about 400,000 workers would at once receive an
advance of a shilling a week in wages. This was the outcome of
discussions before a Conciliation Board, which had been in
existence for some years and was now renewed for a further
period; and this addition of about 1,000,000 a year was worth
more than all the haggling about minimum rates.
In connexion with the opening phases of the railway strike of 1911, allusion has already been made to the sporadic strikes Transport l other sections of " transport workers " earlier in Workers' the year; and the general dock strike, which began Strike,i9i2. j n L on on May 20 1912, was really the conclud- ing phase of the unrest which had been only partially quieted during the previous August. First the lightermen came out, and then a " sympathetic " strike involved all the other unions of transport workers connected with the Port of London. The nominal reason for the lightermen ceasing work was their objection to one man employed as a watchman having no " federation ticket"; he belonged to the Foremen's Society, a union not affiliated to the Transport Workers' Federation, but refused to join the Lightermen's Society, which was so affiliated, and when the lightermen demanded his dismissal, on the ground that they would work only with men who belonged to the federation, his employers naturally refused. This was, however, in reality only the culmination of a number of " grievances " put forward by the men, who complained of being victimized under the terms of the existing agreements. Unsuccessful negotiations had for some time been going on between their secretary, Mr. Gosling (himself actually a mem- ber of the Port of London Authority), and the Board of Trade, with a view to pressure being put on the employers; and the declaration of a strike on May 20 for the reason given was prompted by the hope that the hands of the Government would be forced. In taking this step the lightermen relied on their privileged position in the Port of London. Their Society held an old licence from the Watermen's Com- pany, whose functions were transferred in 1908 to the new Port of London Authority, and the law was that unlicensed men should not be employed so long as licensed men were available, so that, apart from the difficulty of obtaining sub- stitutes in an emergency, the employers, as they knew, would have to reinstate them when the strike was over. (One result of the strike was that the Port of London Authority took steps to get this law altered.)
The Federation of Transport Workers now took up the lighter- men's cause, and in doing so put forward a further grievance on behalf of the Carters' Union, by whom an agreement had been made with the Master Carters' Association when the strike of the previous August was settled. The complaint was that one firm which had joined the association had dismissed their union men, contrary to the terms accepted, and had resigned from the association when it called them to account, so that the agreement was useless. The union demanded accordingly that all employers in the Port should be obliged to belong to a masters' federation, which would have power to guarantee the carrying-out of agreements. As no concession on this point was forthcoming, notice of a general strike of all members of the Transport Workers' Federation was given.
The Government at once took action by appointing Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., to hold an inquiry on May 24. He made Attempts his report on May 28 to the effect that, while the at Settle- lightermen were wrong in supposing that the award of the previous Aug. meant that none but mem- bers of their federation should be employed, and they them- selves had broken their agreement by striking without re- course to arbitration, still there were several points on which the transport workers had legitimate grievances, owing to the employers not having carried out certain terms of their agreements also. The Government on May 29 suggested a conference between the two sides, which was, however, de- clined by the ship-owners, who insisted that the only point really at issue was the lightermen's breach of agreement in
suspending work and thus dislocating the whole business of the Port. Meanwhile a general strike of transport workers was in progress at the docks, some 80,000 men being affected, and the whole food supply of London was threatened; but the ship- owners actively engaged " free " labourers in spite of trade- union picketing and intimidation, and day by day managed more efficiently to get their ships unloaded. Public discussion, influenced by Sir Edward Clarke's report, and its criticism of both sides, centred round the apparent necessity of providing, alike for masters and men, some guarantee against breaches of agreements; and Mr. Lloyd George, who in Mr. Asquith's temporary absence in the Mediterranean dominated the Gov- ernment policy, made proposals, which he explained in the House of Commons on June 5, for a Joint Conciliation Board, combined with pecuniary guarantees on both sides. Mr. Gos- ling, on behalf of the transport workers, gave a general assent to this suggestion, but the employers and the Port of London Authority (with Lord Devonport formerly Mr. Hudson Kearley, a well-known Liberal M.P. as chairman), after care- ful consideration, rejected it on June 10. It was pointed out by them that there was no proper basis, under the conditions pre- vailing at the docks, for such a board, the trades concerned being very different and the employers (some of whom were foreign firms) themselves being competitors; the Port of London Authority moreover was a statutory body, with distinct obliga- tions and responsibilities, and could not well enter into such an arrangement, any more than a Government department could the Post Office, for instance with the men in its employ- ment. This was not a case of a strike against some individual firm which had given legitimate cause of offence, but a general strike against the whole Port, defying all agreements.
Negotiations now broke down altogether, and the leaders of the Transport Workers' Federation declared a " national " strike and tried to call out all its allied members at other ports as well as London. But though some 30,000 men responded altogether at Manchester, Southampton, Bristol, Plymouth and Swansea, this appeal for a " national " strike was a thor- ough failure; the railway unions had had enough fighting the year before and the seamen and firemen, as a body, were not prepared to come out. Scenes of violence were of daily occur- rence between unionists and free labourers at the London docks; but by June 18 it was clear that the Port of London Authority and the employers, aided by police protection (which Mr. McKenna, the Home Secretary, provided, though somewhat grudgingly), had the strikers well beaten, having obtained a sufficient supply of labour for the handling of cargo. From this point, the strike degenerated into sheer anarchism. Serious conflicts occurred, in which revolvers were used in self- defence by the free labourers, notably on July 24 and on July 31, but by degrees the strike committee realized that their efforts were in vain. They recommended a return to work on July 27, but a mass-meeting in Hyde Park next day refused to comply with this advice, and it was not till a week later that all pretence of continuing the strike was abandoned. On July 31 the lighter- men decided to give in, and the riot among the dockers that day was mainly due to their finding that their old places had been filled up and that it no longer rested with them to say whether they were wanted any more or not. On behalf of the em- ployers, however, and of Lord Devonport, a general assurance had been given that, if the strike were abandoned uncondition- ally, any outstanding grievances under the old agreements would be inquired into and reinstatement effected as soon as possible for men who had formerly been in regular employment; and, as the strike committee and the leaders could hold out no longer, further resistance came to an end.
The real object of the strike, in so far as it aimed at being a " national " one, was to compel Parliament to legislate, as it had done for the coal-miners. In this case, how- "Neutral' ever, the Labour politicians and their sympathizers Hy "la Par- were impotent. The discussions in the House of Uameat - Commons turned mainly on Unionist criticism of the Home Secretary for the apparent disinclination he showed for using
