Primary research by Grahame Hood. Sources: The Times, Bristol Times, Kentish Mercury, South London Press.
Around 26th January 1865, George England's workforce went on strike. The Times of 30th January gave an account of the strike and the reasons it had been called:
“STRIKE OF ENGINEERS: On Saturday between 200 and 300 engineers employed at Mr George England's Hatcham Ironworks, New-cross, Deptford were out on strike, not for any increase in pay, but in consequence of what are considered very stringent rules regulating the working of the establishment. Prior to the strike taking place, meetings of the men were held, at which a deputation consisting of seven of their number was appointed to wait upon Mr England, with a request that the rule which makes a workman able to be discharged for losing one hour and a half's time should be altered to the losing of a day's time, without giving a reasonable excuse, and if so discharged, to receive the full amount of wages due; secondly, that the week's work being ended at half past four o'clock on Saturdays, payment of wages should commence at that time, and not half an hour later; thirdly that instead of losing the hour and a half's pay for being absent from work any half hour during the week, it will be altered to losing four hours in the first five days of the week, or any time before breakfast on Saturday; and fourthly, being now greatly inconvenienced by only having half an hour for dinner, to work in accordance with the original rule of the establishment, from 6am to 6pm the first five days of the week, and from 6am until half past twelve on Saturdays. The deputation having had an interview with Mr England and the alterations named above not acceded to, the men have taken their discharge.”
The Times, 30th January 1865.
On 1st February, an account appeared in the Bristol Times, evidently based on George England's own account of events:
“There is an extensive establishment in the metropolis known as Hatcham Iron Works, conducted by Messrs England. They have a large number of men in their employ, and a code of rules has been in existence for 25 years for the regulation of the establishment. Some of the men have taken umbrage at these rules, and a demand was submitted to the firm by a deputation of seven persons. A member of the firm kindly received the deputation, and pointed out to them that the rules had been in force for the past 25 years, but to avoid the appearance of any desire to act arbitrarily, the firm were willing to allow a committee of workmen to consider the case of any man who felt the rules pressed unduly on him, the decision of the committee to be binding upon both parties. The deputation expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which they had been met, and Mr England invited them to take a glass of sherry, which they did. The deputation returned to the workmen, stated the result of their mission and mentioned the manner in which they had been treated. They were met with such a howl of disapprobation, accused of selling themselves for a glass of sherry, and the meeting broke up in disorder.”
Bristol Times, 1st February 1865.
The Kentish Mercury of 4th February carried a prolonged account, including a letter from one of the seven deputation members, John Bawden:
“As soon as we entered his office we were informed that we had all made ourselves liable to three months imprisonment for heading a lot of blackguards. After standing for two hours and a half in his presence, he positively refused to comply with the minor portions of our grievance.”
Kentish Mercury, 4th February 1865.
By 12th February, the battle lines had hardened. A general meeting of approximately 250 striking men was held at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Old Kent Road. The secretary reported that of nearly 300 men who had struck, 100 had already obtained employment elsewhere. Not one had returned to England's employ. England had been to the North of England to recruit replacement workers and had returned unsuccessful.
England began to modify his position. On 11th February he withdrew his old rules and posted a notice:
“The whole of the objectionable rules are withdrawn. Every one employed on these works is expected to conduct himself respectably, if he wishes to continue in the employment. G. England.”
The gates were opened on the morning of 13th February. Around 200 men presented themselves, but were refused admittance. England wished to bar those he considered to have taken an active part in the strike. The men resolved that no one would return to work until the gates were opened unreservedly to all willing to work.
On the evening of 15th February, a further meeting was held at the Crown and Anchor. The deputation reported that England's demeanour had been most angry and excited: he shook his stick at one member of the deputation and ordered him to leave the premises.
Finally, after five weeks, George England had to back down. The South London Press of 4th March reported:
“Last night a numerously attended meeting of the workmen recently employed by Mr G. England, proprietor of the Hatcham Iron Works, and who have been on strike for 5 weeks against certain objectionable rules enforced by that gentleman, was held at the Crown and Anchor tavern, New Cross road. Mr Bowden, the secretary, reported that Mr England having consented to receive as a deputation Mr Allen, the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and Mr Allen of the Boiler Makers Society of the district, an interview had taken place on that day, when a long discussion occurred between the deputation and Mr England, who acceded to certain conditions for modifying the regulations.”
South London Press, 4th March 1865.
The strike was reported over on 11th March. England had been forced to give his workers the same conditions as were offered to workers at John Penn and Sons and those working for Rennie on railway construction. He had not only lost face, but in six weeks he had reportedly lost half his workforce to other employers, decimating the skilled base he had built up over many years.
The South Eastern Railway order
Of the 20 locomotives England had under construction for the South Eastern Railway, only four were anywhere near completion when the strike ended. The SER commissioned a report on the state of the works, which still survives as RAIL 635/296:
“The Workshops of Messrs England and Co. are sufficiently large and their arrangement is such that eight engines and tenders might be in progress of erection at one time. There is accommodation for the required number of fitters and workers for this purpose, i.e. fifty to sixty. The number of Engines in course of erection is four; two of which have not had any work done to them for six months. Of the other two, one is approaching completion and will probably be completed about the middle, and the other by the end of June. The number of workers employed and present is about sixty; there are sometimes more and sometimes less, and the men employed in most cases stay but a short time and either leave or are summarily discharged, the reason assigned being usually incompetency. The consequence of this course is a continual influx of men to whom the work is not familiar and little progress is thereby made.”
Report on Engines building for the South Eastern Railway Co. at the works of Messrs G. England and Co., RAIL 635/296.
The SER used this report to back out of the full order and accept only four locomotives (Nos. 215 to 218). These were 2-4-0 locomotives with two 16 by 24 inch cylinders and 6 foot driving wheels. Of the remaining ten, two were sold to the Somerset and Dorset Railway and eight were eventually sold to the Belgian West Flanders Railway, possibly not until as late as 1868. (Some sources say two were sold to a railway in Italy, with only six going to Belgium.)
The strike also cost England his capable manager Cleminson, who left due to serious illness. Cleminson went on to become a locomotive inspector by the 1871 census and subsequently Locomotive Superintendent of the Iquique and Moria Railway.
Later assessment
A.R. Bennet, writing in 1907, offered a retrospective view:
“Owing to a strike at the works, which disorganised matters for many weeks, delivery could not be effected in the time agreed upon. This was a heavy blow for the firm, and one from which they never really recovered. The locomotive industry in London laboured under sufficient disadvantage without having a trouble of this nature to contend against.”
A.R. Bennet, writing in 1907. Note: Grahame Hood observes that the facts in this account are not entirely accurate and reflect the author's own attitudes to trade unions.