^{page 358 note 1} See Hobsbawm, E., “National Unions on the Waterside”, in Labouring Men (London, 1964), pp. 204–30Google Scholar, and Clegg, H. A., A. Fox and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions since 1889, I: 1889–1910 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 55–96.Google Scholar For Liverpool see R. Bean, “Aspects of New Unionism in Liverpool, 1889–91”, in: Hikins, H. R., Building the Union: Studies in the Growth of the Workers' Movement, Merseyside (Liverpool, 1973), pp. 99–118.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 2} There is the eulogistic, official history of the Federation, Powell, L. H., The Shipping Federation (London, 1950)Google Scholar, and Saville, J., “Trade Unions and Free Labour: The Background to the Taff Vale Decision”, in: Essays in Labour History, Ed. by Briggs, A. and Saville, J. (London, 1960), pp. 317–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which deals with the defeat of the dock workers and seamen of Hull at the hands of the Shipping Federation.

^{page 358 note 3} Speech of a Liverpool shipowner quoted in Liverpool Courier, 6 November 1913.

^{page 359 note 1} Report of the Liverpool Steamship Owner's Association, 1880.

^{page 359 note 2} Hunt, F. F., “The Owners”, in: The Shipping World, Ed. by Todd, J. A. (London, 1934), p. 169.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 3} Fayle, C. E., The War and the Shipping Industry (London, 1927), p. 395.Google Scholar However, the Liverpool Association had refused to join the original Board set up during the war.

^{page 360 note 1} F. F. Hunt, loc. cit., p. 167.

^{page 360 note 2} Powell, L. H., A Hundred Years On: History of the Liverpool Steam Ship Owners' Association, 1858–1958 (Liverpool, 1958), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 3} Ibid., p. 16.

^{page 360 note 4} Freight rates and passenger earnings are influenced by quite different forces. See Dyos, H. J. and Aldcroft, D. H., British Transport (1971), p. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 5} Freight rates of coasting shipping were especially influenced by the rates of road competitors and the railways, which ran at artificially restricted rates.

^{page 360 note 6} F. F. Hunt, loc. cit., p. 168.

^{page 361 note 1} Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, Minute Book, Vol. I, p. 565.Google Scholar

^{page 361 note 2} Taplin, E. L., Liverpool Dockers and Seamen 1870–1890 (Hull, 1974).Google Scholar The wage cuts were restored the following year.

^{page 361 note 3} Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, Minute Book, 17 March 1890.

^{page 361 note 4} Journal of Commerce, 31 July 1890.

^{page 361 note 5} Ibid., 11 January and 22 August 1890. Shipowners tended to act as “the pliant instruments of each other's destruction”. London was said to be similar to Liverpool in this respect, and both were contrasted unfavourably with the North East Coast Association of Shipowners, which did not lack “exuberant vitality”.

^{page 362 note 1} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 23 01 1889Google Scholar, and Chairman's Letter Book, 12 June 1889.

^{page 362 note 2} Liverpool Courier, 5 June 1889 and 4 December 1890. According to J. H. Wilson, the union's president, the shipowners were “whining like curs at the union tyranny”.

^{page 362 note 3} Ibid., 21 June 1889.

^{page 362 note 4} Journal of Commerce, 7 March 1890.

^{page 362 note 5} Liverpool Daily Post, 14 March 1890.

^{page 362 note 6} See Bean, R., “The Liverpool Dock Strike of 1890”, in: International Review of Social History, XVIII (1973), pp. 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 362 note 7} Journal of Commerce, 27 March 1890.

^{page 363 note 1} Brown, E. H. Phelps, The Growth of British Industrial Relations (London, 1959), p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} H. J. Dyos and D. H. Aldcroft, op. cit., p. 270.

^{page 363 note 3} Ibid., p. 260.

^{page 363 note 4} Sturmey, S. G., British Shipping and World Competition (London, 1962), p. 237.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 5} Zimmerman, E. W., Ocean Shipping (London, 1924), p. 497.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 6} S. G. Sturmey, op. cit., p. 88. On liners depreciation was the most important single item of cost.

^{page 363 note 7} Journal of Commerce, 9 June 1896.

^{page 364 note 1} Ibid., 7 March 1890.

^{page 364 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 364 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 11 February 1890.

^{page 364 note 4} Journal of Commerce, 1 March 1890.

^{page 364 note 5} At a cost of £32,000. Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. II [C. 6795] (1892), Associations of Employers, “Answers to the Schedules of Questions”.

^{page 364 note 6} Cunard Papers, Chairman's Letter Book, 7 03 1890.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 7} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. I [C. 6708] (1892), q. 9669.

^{page 365 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 18 March 1890.

^{page 365 note 2} Journal of Commerce, 28 March 1890.

^{page 365 note 3} Liverpool Daily Post, 18 March 1890.

^{page 365 note 4} Cunard Papers, Chairman's Letter Book, 7 March 1890. When the magistrates voted to bring in the military during the strike the troops were victualled by Cunard, the cost of £456 being later reimbursed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Minutes of Executive Committee, 18 February 1891.

^{page 365 note 5} Liverpool Courier, 2 April 1890. The requirement not to wear the button became less rigorously enforced in the subsequent months.

^{page 366 note 1} Journal of Commerce, 29 October 1890.

^{page 366 note 2} Liverpool Courier, 20 March 1891.

^{page 366 note 3} Ibid., 24 March 1892.

^{page 366 note 4} Ibid., 23 January 1891.

^{page 366 note 5} Liverpool Courier, 9 March 1891.

^{page 366 note 6} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. I, q. 9753.

^{page 367 note 1} Journal of Commerce, 13 and 30 January 1889. Wage cost was a more important part of total costs for tramps than for liners.

^{page 367 note 2} For these wage comparisons see Liverpool Mercury, 11 March 1890. The enhanced rates in Liverpool probably owed something to the greater degree of work specialisation, skills and speeds required as a result of the early predominance of steamships, passenger interests and export work. With regard to contract work the rules of the National Union of Dock Labourers in Liverpool stipulated that “no member […] will be allowed to take Second Lump or Sub-Contract, nor work for any man so employed”. National Union of Dock Labourers, Toxteth Branch, No. 5, Working Rules (n.d.), British Library of Political and Economic Science, Webb Trade Union Collection, Section C, Vol. 46.

^{page 368 note 1} ELA, Minute Book, No. 1Google Scholar, (revised) “Terms of Agreement made between the Employers' Labour Association and The Shipping Federation Ltd.”, 15 May 1896. By 1925 the ELA contribution was £1,862, which the Federation felt to be inadequate. The ELA's position was that its members also belonged to the new Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool and if Federation calls on them were increased they would then withdraw fron the ELA and adhere to the one larger organisation. ELA, Minutes, 30 June 1925.

^{page 368 note 2} Royal Commission on Labour, Group B, Vol. I, q. 11528, and Vol. II, Associations of Employers, “Answers to the Schedules of Questions”.

^{page 368 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 368 note 4} ELA, Minutes, 11 August 1896.

^{page 368 note 5} Ibid., 9 December 1898.

^{page 369 note 1} Ibid., 31 March 1909. These firms were mainly medium sized and between them represented about one million tons of shipping.

^{page 369 note 2} Ibid., 2 February 1915.

^{page 369 note 3} Ibid., 24 January 1900. This railway company owned the Garston dock at the South End and was noted for its opposition to trades unionism on principle. See E. H. Phelps Brown, op. cit., p. 168.

^{page 369 note 4} ELA, Minutes, 4 and 18 September 1896.

^{page 369 note 5} Liverpool Weekly Post, 23 October 1890.

^{page 370 note 1} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 5 September 1894. The first secretary had resigned on appointment as Montreal agent to the Hamburg-American company and was succeeded by the Association's labour master (outside executive officer), who embezzled the money.

^{page 370 note 2} Liverpool Weekly Post, 14 February 1891.

^{page 370 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 10 and 13 February 1891.

^{page 370 note 4} Liverpool City Council, Full Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Subject of the Unemployed in the City of Liverpool, 1894, Evidence, q. 123, and Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 19 February 1890. Cunard was also the only line in New York which had an independent gang of non-unionists. The reaction of its New York agents to a threatened dock strike was to increase the number of permanent men on monthly wages so far as possible, consistent with economy. Ibid., 3 February 1897.

^{page 371 note 1} Liverpool Courier, 1 April and 5 November 1890. These practices were fiercely opposed by the union and were largely discontinued.

^{page 371 note 2} See evidence of Cunard and Inman and International in the above Full Report, pp. 12, 15.

^{page 371 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 5 November 1890.

^{page 371 note 4} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 18 09 1889.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 5} Journal of Commerce, 20 April 1891. In the hazardous conditions of waterfront employment such benefits would not lightly be discarded.

^{page 371 note 6} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 24 04 1895.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} Journal of Commerce, 11 July 1911.

^{page 372 note 2} See Abstract of Evidence, taken before a special committee of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board in reference to the Dock Accommodation of the Port, 1872, pp. 8, 50Google Scholar, and Porcupine, 25 August 1877.

^{page 372 note 3} Liverpool Courier, 13 July 1905.

^{page 373 note 1} Journal of Commerce, 20 October 1893.

^{page 373 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 373 note 3} A long, but unsuccessful, strike by the rank-and-file over the foremen question took place at T. and J. Harrisons, the largest employer of dock labour at the South End, who responded by importing ELA strikebreakers. It was led by James Larkin, one of the company's foremen who was later to become a militant union organiser in Ireland. See Liverpool Courier, July-August 1905.

^{page 373 note 4} National Union of Dock Labourers, Port Working Rules, Liverpool Branches, 1903Google Scholar, Webb Trade Union Collection, ibid.

^{page 373 note 5} Compare Barnes, C., The Longshoremen (New York, 1915), p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 1} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 30 06 1910.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} Shipping Federation (Mersey District), Minutes, 28 August 1919.

^{page 374 note 3} ELA, Minutes, 29 May and 10 July 1903. Elder Dempster, Pacific Steam Navigation (up to 1905) and the Booth and Holt lines were leading non-ELA companies which used the South docks.

^{page 374 note 4} H. J. Dyos and D. H. Aldcroft, op. cit., p. 268.

^{page 374 note 5} Journal of Commerce, 28 June 1911.

^{page 375 note 1} Ibid., 30 June 1911.

^{page 375 note 2} Ibid., 12 July 1911.

^{page 375 note 3} S. G. Sturmey, op. cit., p. 33.

^{page 376 note 1} Of the continental lines in the Pool Norddeutscher Lloyd, Hamburg-America, Holland-America and Red Star, with a claim of 62% of the total traffic in the pooling agreement actually carried 13,844 fewer passengers than their quota allowed. There was a similar shortfall by the American and Anchor Lines whereas, of the Liverpool companies, Cunard carried 4,123, White Star 3,119, Dominion 7,949 and the Allan Line 488 passengers more than their respective shares of the total traffic. Journal of Commerce, 15 August 1911. Freight rates also yielded “handsome returns” on capital invested at this time. Ibid., 1 Januarv 1912.

^{page 376 note 2} Cunard Papers, Chairman's Letter Book, 1 04 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 3} Chairman's Speech to Cunard Board, quoted in Journal of Commerce, 7 04 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 4} Liverpool Shipowners' Association, Annual Report 1910.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 5} Alfred A. Booth was the nephew of Charles Booth, the social reformer, and had been a Cambridge Wrangler. He entered the family shipping firm as a director and then came onto the Cunard Board in 1901, being elected chairman in 1909 at the age of thirty seven. The labour policy of the Booth Line was to seek loyalty and efficiency from their men in return for good wages and permanency of employment. See “Booth Men and Labour Relations”, in John, A. H., A Liverpool Merchant House (London, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} Cunard Papers, Minutes of Executive Committee, 20 07 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} Ibid., Booth files, “Agreement as to Terms and Conditions of Dock Labour in the Port of Liverpool”, August 1911 (the “White Book”).

^{page 377 note 3} Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury, 22 August 1911.

^{page 377 note 4} Journal of Commerce, 5 July 1911.

^{page 378 note 1} Ibid., 12 June 1912.

^{page 378 note 2} “Agreement between the Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool and the National Union of Dock Labourers and Riverside Workers”, 19 February 1915.

^{page 378 note 3} Journal of Commerce, 15 May 1912.

^{page 378 note 4} Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury, 15, 18 August 1911.

^{page 378 note 5} Journal of Commerce, 16 July 1912.

^{page 378 note 6} Watney, C. and Little, J. A., Industrial Warfare (London, 1912), p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 7} Cunard Papers, Chairman's Letter Book, 14 07 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 1} Ibid., 19 July 1911.

^{page 379 note 2} For details see Williams, R., The First Year's Working of the Liverpool Docks Scheme (Liverpool, 1914).Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 3} Journal of Commerce, 13 July 1912.

^{page 379 note 4} Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Minutes of a General Meeting, 12 03 and 12 02 1915.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 5} Journal of Commerce, 17 July 1912.

^{page 379 note 6} Cunard Papers, Booth Files, letter from J. Sexton, 28 08 1911.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 7} Journal of Commerce, 17 and 18 July 1912.

^{page 380 note 1} Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Commitee Minutes, 10 1913 – 01 1914.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 2} Ibid., 10 November 1914.

^{page 380 note 3} Ibid., 23 December 1913.

^{page 380 note 4} Ibid., 1 February 1916.

^{page 380 note 5} Ibid., 10 November 1914.

^{page 381 note 1} The Liverpool Association felt that the minority of liner members in the Shipping Federation did not fully appreciate what had been undertaken on their behalf. In fact, the Mersey District of the Shipping Federation was totally opposed to the arrangements, maintaining that “to agree to act with the union would be to give away the fundamental basis of the existence of the Federation”, Shipping Federation (Mersey District), Minutes, 22 10 1917.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 2} Employers' Association of the Port of Liverpool, Committee Minutes, 12 09 1917.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 3} Ibid., 20 December 1918.

^{page 381 note 4} Journal of Commerce, 23 May 1901.

^{page 382 note 1} E. Hobsbawm, loc. cit., p. 213.

^{page 382 note 2} E. H. Phelps Brown, op. cit., p. 300.

^{page 382 note 3} Journal of Commerce, 18 July and 20 September 1911.