1 Introduction
In the mid-nineteenth century the guild basis upon which the organization of dock work had been arranged, disappeared. This was a progressive transition that included institutional, technological, and cultural changes. In Barcelona, most of the dock workers did not understand why a part of their old comrades of the Guild of Mareantes were willing to work without respecting the applicable rules and rates. Naval authorities of the city were reluctant to accept that the laws of supply and demand were useful to regulate the price of labour. At the same time, a confluence of interests between merchants and some dock workers gave rise to the appearance of the collas, the proto-companies for the loading and unloading of cargo. It was, in short, a long and complex transition.1
The main objective of this chapter is to draw the basic lines of the transformations produced in dock labour in the port of Barcelona after the end of the guild system. The aim of this analysis is to understand better the general characteristics of the long process of development of manifestly capitalistic labour relations, and the conditions of the emergence of a new capitalistic class and of a port working class.
The background of the reorganization of loading and unloading in ports was the transition from sail to steam. In the Spanish case, the study of the transition has focused on technological, institutional, and organizational transformations and their impact in shipping, maritime trade,2 and the maritime workforce.3 However, much less attention has been paid to the transformations that occurred in loading and unloading through the industrialization process. Most of the studies about dock labour have been devoted to the casual phase.4 “Casual” refers to the daily hiring of workers, and the casual configuration has been characterised by the dominance of steamers over sailing ships, by the use of a low level of technology in loading and unloading, by the existence of high labour intensity, and low wages.5 However, the guild period and its disappearance have been less explored than the casual phase.6 The scarce research available has shown that the guild system remained the basis of the organisation of work, even after its legal disappearance. The existing literature does not allow us to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between technological changes or the modernization of port infrastructures and the disappearance of the union system. Changes related to the transition from sail to steam were determinant in the disappearance of the guild system in Marseilles and London.7 But we also have examples that show the opposite, as in Thessaloniki (where modernization did not end the guilds), or Port Said (where a guild system was established after modernization).8 Changes, at least initially, were marked by the increase of port traffic,9 by the type of the trust-based relationship existing between guilds and merchants, and by the political will of the local and state authorities.10 The advent and propagation of steam affected, above all, the business structure.11 It also affected the working conditions, with the increase in casual labour and changes in the remuneration systems.12 In terms of labour organisation, the main existing thesis is that dock workers’ associations were more successful on sailing ships than on steamships. Also, when the large steamship companies emerged, they directly assumed the loading and unloading tasks, altering the relationship established between master stevedores and dock workers.13
As in other ports, the transition from sail to steam, and its effects on the organization of dock work, was a multidimensional process in Barcelona. There was a clear institutional and legal rupture that made possible the end of the guild system and facilitated the emergence of a new entrepreneurship structure. The end of the guild system opened a period of a free labour market. With time, the influence of technological change (mainly the transition from sail to steam) and economic growth (that is, maritime traffic growth) created limitations to this free labour market. The main aspects of these changes are those that I address in this chapter, putting aside what happened with ideology and value systems. First, I present a brief description of the political and economic context, and the main transformations of the port of Barcelona throughout the period considered. Next, I analyse the end of the guild system from 1850 to 1864 and the development of capitalist relations in port loading and unloading from 1865 to 1889. Last, I consider the modernization of port infrastructure and the creation of a new system in the organization of dock work around 1890, which remained without significant changes for more than 40 years.
2 The Political and Economic Context and the Main Transformations of the Port of Barcelona
In the second half of the nineteenth century in Spain, the liberal system developed in all its fullness. However, the rule was the existence of long stages of persecution and prohibition of workers’ associations, and of freedoms in general. This situation changed only during the few years in which more democratic governments came to power. These periods of democratic changes were the so-called Progressive Biennium (1854–56), the Democratic Sexennium (1868–74), and the period that began in 1881, with the return to power of more liberal governments.14 These political parameters negatively conditioned the possibilities of worker organization. They also limited the expression of workers’ dissatisfaction.
The political conflict and civil wars were characteristic of Spain in the first half of the nineteenth century, but the death of the monarch Fernando VII in 1833 accelerated the liberalization process. Once the liberals settled into power, political instability continued between moderates, progressives, and radicals.15 In the maritime world, the Matrícula de Mar was a point of discussion between defenders of the past and the representatives of a new, liberal society. The Matrícula de Mar was an institution of the Old Regime created to provide experienced sailors to the Navy. In exchange for carrying out military service in the Navy, those who were enrolled had the exclusive privileges of fishing, seafaring, and dock work.16 Throughout the nineteenth century, when a new liberal government began, or during periods of constitutional reform, the Matrícula was suppressed, or its modification was considered. However, it remained in force until 1873, when the liberal system had already been fully consolidated.
Between 1840 and 1860 there was a strong acceleration in the industrialisation and modernisation processes in Catalonia, which led it to be considered “the factory of Spain”, with growth focused on cotton textile production.17 Barcelona would become the engine of this factory.18 Cotton and coal, which were the main inputs for industrialization, arrived through the port of Barcelona. Because of this, the evolution of the port was linked to the industrial transformation experienced in Catalonia. We can measure the importance of the port in this industrial development by considering the value of the products handled in the port related to the total Catalan GDP. This indicator shows a change from 17.2% in 1845–47 to 31.1% in 1862, coinciding with the first phase of industrialization in Catalonia.19 On the other hand, until 1870, the port experienced a deep crisis, in parallel with the Catalan industry.20 The cause of the crisis was the American Civil War and the difficulties created in the supply of cotton.
Average gross register tonnage (GRT) of ships entering the port of Barcelona, 1845–1900
Sources: Data based on Avelí Pi i Arimon, “Barcelona antigua y moderna” 1854 (1845–1849); “Estadística de vaixells entrats i sortits pel port de Barcelona entre 1846 i 1855, per nacions, nombre i tonatge”, 1860–1868, Secció de Foment: Informes, oficis, sol·licituds i comunicats sobre ports, comerç, subhastes, Junta de Comerç, Legajo CXXXIII, Box 176–2, p. 233 (hereafter JCC BC) (1850–1855); and “Almanaque Del Diario De Barcelona” (1855–1900)
Changes in port infrastructures were determined by the growth of traffic and by the evolution of the conditions in which maritime transport developed. This was due to changes in the dimensions and propulsion systems of the ships. The average tonnage of ships arriving at the port of Barcelona between 1845 and 1900 can be an approximate indicator of these changes.
The average tonnage of the ships remained constant between 1845 and 1855, but from that point onwards it experienced sustained growth. Between 1856 and 1867 the average tonnage doubled regarding the previous period. This happened again between 1868 and 1878, and again between 1879 and 1886. Growth slowed from 1887 to 1896, increasing only by 50%. From 1896 it remained stable. It is not possible to establish an exact chronology of the causes of this extraordinary transformation, but at first it was essentially due to the growth of the average dimensions of the sailing ships and later by the replacement of sail by steam.
Starting in 1851, one of the few innovations that took place in the port was the new type of inner-traffic ship, the barcaza. This innovation was linked to the increase in maritime traffic and with the growth of the average tonnage of ships. Barcazas were basically very robust harbour lighters dedicated to loading and unloading. These new lighters were usually towed by smaller rowing boats. Because of their larger size, the construction of the barcazas required much higher capital than that invested in the smaller, traditional boats.21
The number and average tonnage of these boats and barcazas increased; the source in which this information is based is the official registry of inner traffic ships. In the early years, this source shows significant underreporting, but its quality improves as the period covered by the analysis progresses. Thus, the ships owned by official organizations, such as the Junta de Obras del Puerto, or some of those owned by the Guild of Mareantes, were not initially registered. Despite these limitations, this register is the main source for understanding the registration and characteristics of these new means of production in port loading and unloading.
The annual increase in registered barcazas was not constant. As Chart 5.2 shows, there were some years or periods where the number of new registrations was negligible. A scarcity of registrations was characteristic of the period of crisis in the 1860s caused by the difficulties in the importation of cotton (as mentioned above). It is also very clear that by the end of the period, with the construction of a new port, the barcazas had lost the function they had had until then, and new registrations ceased.
New registrations of barcazas, 1850–1910
Source: “Inscripción de embarcaciones. Barcelona capital,” in Comandancia de Marina de Barcelona, Z-12, Boxes 287 and 293, Archivo Naval de Cartagena (hereafter ANC)
Official statistics tell us about the number of boats and barcazas. However, they are not distinguished by type (Table 5.1). These statistics have limitations because they were formulated with the same official registers that I mentioned above. Therefore, we have to consider them as an approximation. In any case, they show us the growth in the number of these inner traffic ships until 1888, and the increase of their average dimensions until the end of the nineteenth century.
Number of inner traffic ships in the port of Barcelona and their GRT, 1851–96
Sources: Data based on the “Estados de la gente de mar y embarcaciones en los Tercios de Levante, 1er semetre 1865 i 1er semestre 1864”, in Matrículas. Asuntos particulares, Legajo 2056; and, “Estados de buques, 1877”, in Estadísticas. Navegación y Pesca, 1876–1877, Legajo 2359, Archivo General de Marina Alvaro de Bazán (hereafter AGMAB)
The necessary infrastructure for loading and unloading was essentially made up of a fixed part (docks and piers) and a mobile part (barges and cranes). The construction of the docks and investment in port infrastructure like cranes was the responsibility of public institutions. However, the investment in cranes was very limited, especially steam cranes, which were rare and little used. As we shall see, only four steam cranes were installed by 1862, and these were the only ones that appeared until the 1880s. Finally, between 1882 and 1885 (towards the end of the period considered) some 31 hydraulic cranes were installed on the docks. By comparison, up to the end of the period studied, cranes moved by manual force and owned privately, were much more important in number and much more used.22
3 The End of the Guild System, 1850–64
From 1850 to 1864, even though the first steamers had already made their appearance, sailing ships were still dominant. The first Spanish steamers connected Barcelona with Marseilles and Valencia, mainly transporting passengers and mail.23 In 1860, only 17% of the ships arriving at the port of Barcelona were steamers. Indeed, the average tonnage of steamers was less than that of the ships, barques, and brigs that arrived in that same year.24 Coal was the main imported cargo by volume.25 Import duties were applied on the value of merchandise on foreign ships, which gave the importation of coal an advantage because it was cumbersome and of low value. Most of the coal came from English ports and was transported by English ships.26 On the other hand, the number of ships arriving at the port was very large, and most of them were dedicated to coastal shipping. In 1864, 77% of the 6402 ships that arrived at the port of Barcelona were coastal Spanish ships trading in the Mediterranean, and other minor Spanish ships of local navigation. They represented 44% of the total GRT.27
Port infrastructures underwent very few changes in this period, and technological transformations were also very limited. As Map 5.1 shows, the port almost maintained the same physical configuration it had at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was an open bay, divided into three main sections: the beach next to the city; the Riba dock; and the New Dock. In the middle of the Riba dock was the Machina, a powerful steam crane that was used to mast sail ships. Ship congestion was common.28
Port of Barcelona, 1861
Source: Plano de Barcelona y sus alrededores: a S.M. la Reyna (fragment). Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya: https://cartotecadigital.icgc.cat/digital/collection/catalunya/id/1805/rec/236 (accessed 15 March 2021)
The most valuable merchandise, and those goods that could be damaged by contact with water, were unloaded on the quay, such as cotton, rice, and other vegetables. Barrels of wine and brandy, coal, and wood arrived on the beach.29 Much of the unloading was carried out with barcazas.
As has already been established, the change in the organization of work in the port of Barcelona with the disappearance of the guild system was carried out in the absence of significant technological change and prior to the dominant influence of steam.30 As we will see, the disappearance of the guild system took place in two stages: in 1850, their economic bases were undermined; and in 1864, they were abolished.
Port loading and unloading remained organized on a guild basis until 1850. The guild system in the ports survived the restrictive regulations of 1834 that affected other productive sectors of the country, and the abolition of most guilds in 1836; these new regulations did not apply in the maritime sector. Traditionally, there were no guilds of dock workers, instead, guilds of sailors and fishermen provided dock working services.31 Until the end of the nineteenth century, dock work was not a permanent job: sailors and fishermen loaded and unloaded cargo during the periods when they were not engaged in their main occupation.
The guilds were the owners of the means of production, and they put great limitations on the use of private boats in loading and unloading; boat skippers (patronos) and seafarers were together in the guilds.32 There were social and economic differences between their members, but the work was shared out equally. Some of the guilds used a scheduled turn system or practised a random, daily assignment with the aim of levelling opportunities. The harbour guilds (sailors and fishermen) used a daily lottery system and the maritime porters used a rotational turn.33
A Royal Decree ended the guild monopoly in March 1850. Merchants were still obliged to hire members of the Matrícula, that were sailors and fishermen, but the guild lost its prerogatives in the organization of work. The monopoly in the tasks carried out on the quays had already ended before 1850, and in July 1850, another governmental order abolished the tax levied by the sea guilds. That tax was essential for the economic viability of the guilds. The unloading of coal, which had become the main commodity by volume handled in the port, stopped being carried out by matriculated dock workers between 1842 and 1870, but information about the configuration of this work force is non-existent.34
Under these new legal conditions, the merchants, who were basically large-scale importers, began to hire the same groups of workers, which brought an end to the equitable distribution of work. These same merchants promoted the creation of a new type of proto-company for loading and unloading. The men hired by these merchants organized themselves into work groups, and the same workers usually worked together under the leadership of one of them. These work gangs, called collas, would become, over time, the port loading and unloading companies.35 From 1850, the guild was in business competition with these companies, but it was an unequal competition because the guild had to maintain their own welfare system, that was still in force.
The legal reforms that led to the end of the guild monopoly were not separated from other institutional changes. In the same period, the first general laws for Spanish ports were promulgated. The Royal Decree of 17 December 1851, and the Royal Order of 30 January 1852, abolished the numerous taxes that were used throughout Spain for the construction and maintenance of ports. These were unified into only two taxes: one for anchoring and another for loading and unloading.36 The new legislation shifted the responsibility for ports from the Navy and the port captains, to the Ministerio de Fomento (Ministry of Public Works) and their engineers.37 These changes benefited the interests of merchants because they had better access, by their formal and informal connections, to the Ministerio de Fomento than to the Navy.
In April 1852, the first conflict arose because of the new organization of work. The workers of the collas worked for lower prices than those established and agreed upon by the guilds and merchants. This left the guild members practically without work, who demanded the current prices to be kept, which were not eliminated by the 1850 regulations. The captain of the port (the main local authority of the Navy) supported the guild’s claim; he promulgated an edict declaring the obligation to continue working at the price of the current rates because these had not been replaced. The merchants reacted to this and, through the civil governor, obtained the disavowal of the captain of the port.38 The Royal Decree of 26 February 1853 explicitly prohibited the Navy authorities, under any pretext, from interfering in the prices at which dock labour was contracted. The same norm recognised the merchants’ right to hire those workers they wanted if they were members of the Matrícula.39 Both the workers who remained in the guild and those who left it and joined the collas were members of the Matrícula. The obligation to hire members of the Matrícula was maintained, but hiring workers who had left the guild was cheaper; the workers of the collas were willing to work for lower rates and with a greater intensity of work.40
The new organization of work was very effective in facing the discontinuities in port traffic and for maintaining discipline. Depending on the fluctuating needs of the traffic, the collas could hire other workers on a daily basis that were not part of their core workforce, who were contracted on a regular basis. The permanent workers of the collas were paid by a sharing system, like the one that existed among fishermen; the rest of the workers were hired for a wage.
The economic situation of the Guild of Mareantes in Barcelona was precarious, however the guild continued its activities until a new battery of legal reforms led to its abolition. In June 1864, a Royal Decree liberalized loading and unloading tasks in all ports. With this measure, merchants could hire unregistered workers to work aboard ships.41 Shortly after, in July 1864, the guilds of all maritime professions were abolished in Spain.42
In Barcelona, the Guild of Mareantes transformed into a mutual aid society, named the Beneficencia Marinera Barcelonesa. This society had to maintain the welfare benefits of the members. Through legal subterfuge at an auction, this new entity maintained the property of the barcazas and other means of production owned previously by the guild.43 Later, the Beneficencia Marinera still registered some boats in its name in the official registers, the latest in the summer of 1877.44 In any case, this institution completely lost its relevance compared to the companies, and possibly only dedicated itself to hauling ship ballast.
The employment structure that emerged in 1850 changed very quickly. At the beginning, as we have noted, there were only groups of dock workers led by one of them, a first among equals. However, as early as 1855, there is information on the inflow of capital into the collas. Merchants led this new business structure: distribution of capital in some of the companies shows that these combined seafarers of the Matrícula with merchants.45 Seafarers, fishermen, and boat skippers possessed the legal recognition to work in the port, but they did not have enough capital to buy the new barcazas required for these tasks. Registered seafarers constituted the workforce of these collas and their technical direction. They also oversaw the organization of work, that is the hiring and payment of casual dock workers. On the other side, the merchants had the capital, but they did not have the legal recognition to work directly in the organization of dock work. Merchants were the main capitalist partners, and they oversaw the business aspects. The available sources tell us that in 1852 the collas were exclusively made up of registered seafarers, formerly members of the guild. By comparison, the 1862 sources distinguish between the owners and the foremen of these companies. Furthermore, only two of the foremen of 1852 were still active as such among the collas of 1862.46
Despite the liberalization of dock work measures, in practice most dock workers continued to be members of the Matrícula. The first strike in dock work in Barcelona occurred in 1855. This can be interpreted as an indicator of the emergence of new labour relations outside of the conditions of the conflict-resolving characteristics of the Old Regime. In May 1855, “those who are engaged in loading and unloading goods” went on strike to get a 20% wage increase. The local authorities intervened, ordering the owners of the goods to look for other men “giving them the wage for which they offered to do so”, thus ending the strike.47 When the guild system ended, there were still important obstacles to the establishment of a free labour market. The Matrícula was the most important of those obstacles, and when this institution disappeared the workers fought against that free labour market.
4 The Development of Capitalist Relations in Port Loading and Unloading, 1865–89
By 1870, the Catalan economy had recovered from the crisis caused by the American Civil War.48 However, this crisis and the expansion of the railroad hit coastal shipping very hard. This changed the structure of the maritime traffic at the port of Barcelona. Coastal shipping largely collapsed between 1864 and 1870, and in general, from the construction of the first railway in 1848 until at least the end of the century, there was a transfer of cargo from coastal ships to the railroads.49 Coal traffic continued leading Barcelona’s port life, and due to its volumes was the principal cargo on the ships that entered the port and for the number of unloaders employed.50
As already mentioned, the average size of the ships entering the port grew spectacularly between 1865 and 1886, going from 147 GRT per ship to 842 GRT on average.51 Neither before nor after was there a change of that magnitude; later, ships continued to increase their average dimensions, but did not do so as quickly. In 1882, the GRT of the steamers was already much higher than that of the sailing ships; this is a clear indicator of the technological transformation that was taking place with the transition from sail to steam. This transformation took place for Barcelona between 1870 and 1880.52 In 1873, only 17% of the GRT of Barcelona’s ships were steamers, but in 1883 this reached 51% and in 1893 70%.53 The transition from sail to steam in Spain took place between 1870 and 1890, with the most important transformations starting in the 1880s.54
These changes in the dimensions of the ships required the modernization of port infrastructures. After years of lethargy, the creation of the Junta de Obras del Puerto in December 1868, and the establishment of a new system of financing the construction through public debt, created the definitive impulse for a new port. The breakwaters of this new port were completed in 1874.55 In this way, the open bay that had until then been the port of Barcelona came to an end, as we can see in Map 5.2. The inner beach disappeared and loading and unloading began to be carried out in previously unknown conditions of safety and security for the vessels.
Port of Barcelona, 1874
Source: Plano anunciador de Barcelona (fragment). Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya: https://cartotecadigital.icgc.cat/digital/collection/catalunya/id/2220/rec/251 (accessed 17 Marc 2021)
Despite these infrastructural transformations, the barcaza remained one of the main means of production. Between 1865 and 1877 the number of inner traffic ships in the port doubled, and the construction of new barcazas was important between 1871 and 1877. The average tonnage of these ships also increased significantly.56 Cranes were the other important means of production during this period. What happened with the installation of cranes shows institutional indolence. As legally established, cranes, like any other loading and unloading infrastructure, must be owned by the state, however, in the port of Barcelona (as in other Spanish ports) state action was very hesitant, without a clear position in favour of direct public investment in infrastructure. In 1860, a concession was made to a French company for the installation of a steam crane.57 Shortly after this, four steam cranes were built by the state, initiating the revocation process of said concession.58 These first four state-owned cranes were oversize in relation to the needs of loading and unloading, and they were too few and were fixed on the docks. For this reason, ships could often not be moored close to them. Thus, in 1864, the installation of various manual cranes was authorized, however, it is possible that these cranes were already in operation two years earlier.59 Merchants and ship agents were the only ones authorized to install these cranes,60 and from 1864 to 1887, 26 manual cranes were installed.61 In 1879, a new project for the construction of hydraulic cranes was approved, but these were not put into operation until 1884.62
In legal and institutional terms, this was a period of great change. In 1868, the Navy lost most of its powers in the governance of ports in favour of the Ministerio de Fomento—that is, from military personnel to engineers. Later, with the Ports Act of 1880, the businessmen of the sector achieved a greater role in port management.63
The Matrícula de Mar—for which attempts for its abolition had sparked heated discussions for years—was finally abolished in March 1873 without causing any complaints or conflicts.64 A new registry of workers was instituted, the Inscripción Marítima, which replaced the Matrícula.65 However, the Inscripción did not recognize rights over port work and the provision of military service in the Navy was voluntary.66 The transformations produced in navigation with the development of steam undermined the arguments of the Navy in favour of maintaining the Matrícula.67
Regarding the business structure, the main novelty was the loss of the leading role of the merchants. In their place emerged the ship agent, a figure closely linked to the transition from sail to steam. The appearance of ship agents was due to the need to reduce the stays of steamships in ports. This task could not be carried out by the owners of the ships, who directed the operations from their headquarters, nor by the captains, who were limited in their actions to commanding the ships.68 Some of these ship agents were former sailing ship owners69 who had not managed to stay in this position, or who combined both actions, as Spanish ship owners and agents of foreign companies. This would explain why the first organization established to defend the interests of the sector, founded in 1876, was called the Asociación de Navieros y Consignatarios de Barcelona (Barcelona Shipowners and Ship Agents Association). Both figures were incorporated in the name, whose legal and practical distinction was difficult at that time. This entity was promoted and directed by the protagonists of oceanic shipping of the age of sail in Catalonia.70 Only in the transport of mineral coal—which in volume constituted approximately half of Barcelona’s port traffic during those years—did merchants maintain the power that they had had until then. This was because coal was one of the few goods that arrived in full shipments.
These changes gave rise to the appearance of three different groups in the business structure. This also implied a certain physical segregation at the port. From the construction of the new breakwaters and docks of the port, the outer dock was assigned to coal, the inner one to general merchandise, and finally there was the part of the quays and warehouses. The first of these spaces corresponded to the coal merchants, the second was under the responsibility of the ship agents, and when the general merchandise arrived at the quays it was received by the owners of said goods or by their representatives. The collas that emerged during the previous period remained and consolidated their position. Regarding the organization of work, dock workers were also divided into three main groups: those on board, those on land, and those of mineral coal. Both labour associationism and labour conflict allow us to distinguish the existence of three differentiated groups. Dock workers in these three groups generally acted independently of each other. The existence of this type of distinction was fundamental in the work of almost all ports.71
Information about the social origins of dock workers is scarce. The only available information is that referring to the members of the Inscripción Marítima: the sailors and fishermen of the city who could participate in the work on board the ships. By 1878, 84.8% of them were born in Barcelona, and this did not change much over the time. By 1890, this group was 87.6%. This situation only changed at the end of the nineteenth century: by 1902, only 62.9% were from Barcelona, but this happened in a period beyond our analysis.72
Dock workers’ action was completely controlled by the current legislation. As I have already mentioned, it was only possible during the few periods of democratic opening. The constitutional protection of the right of association and the right of assembly was established for the first time in one of these periods, known as the Democratic Sexennium (1868–74), which, in 1868, led Queen Isabel II into exile.73 This made possible, in the summer of 1870, the celebration of the First Workers’ Congress of the Spanish Region, which led to the founding of the International Workingmen’s Association in Spain. The International (1864–76) was the most important organization created until then to fight for workers’ rights, and included Marxists, anarchists, and trade unionists. In the Congress of the Spanish Region the sailors-dock workers were represented by the Sociedad Marítima Restauración, and the coal unloaders by the Sociedad de Carga y Descarga del Carbón de Piedra.74 Despite being two societies within the International, their conflicts and strikes were not raised jointly.
In July 1870, the sailor-dock workers from the port presented a proposal for new rates for their work. The workers’ society had 60 members, but at the time of the strike up to 900 workers joined.75 The link between their society and the International was an indication of modernity. Despite this, the conflict presents some characteristics of what we could call the early repertoires of contention.76 The sailors’ society was called “Restoration”, an expression of their collective wishes, an indication of their desire to return to a lost, desirable past. But even more important was the role of patronage and intermediation carried out by the local authority of the Navy. The sailors presented their claims to the Comandante de Marina, not to the employers, and requested his mediation. The workers’ representatives signed that request as “your children” and referred to the “kind and good effect” dispensed by the Commandant, and to “the benevolence of goodness that comes from his patriotic Heart”.77 The strike lasted for more than a month. It ended abruptly with the hiring of “scabs”, the intervention of 500 soldiers, and the declaration of yellow fever in the city. This epidemic reached Barcelona through the port and particularly affected the maritime neighbourhood of Barcelona, the Barceloneta.78 The authorities declared the port closed and evicted the Barceloneta. The loading and unloading tasks were moved to a distant and open beach, located on the other side of the city. These works were carried out with great difficulties and risk, with no other technical resource beyond the barcazas. It had been 20 years since the appearance of the collas, despite this the sailors still saw them as an anomaly. When the sailors were not sailing they used to look for work in the port as dock workers. There they observed “that the work falls on some former colleagues of ours, who have become friends with the owner of the ship, gaining his influence to become directors of that work. Thus, they become for us new exploiters who, in addition to the master who dominates us as much as he can, subjugate us to his will”.79 During the strike, the sailors tried to reach an agreement directly with the merchants and the captains of the ships, but they did not achieve that objective to avoid dealing with the collas. In addition to the intervention of the authorities in favour of the employers, the existence of a business structure with the collas organizing work was an effective tool to end labour disputes. The workers, after a few inactive months or working in difficult conditions, requested the reopening of the port and the return to work without conditions. As they said, they were “more willing to die of a disease than of misery”.80
When the epidemic ended, in November 1870, the coal unloaders went on a new strike. The conflict was about the manner of hiring. During the epidemic, it had been established that in the new place of unloading, work would be by contrata, with the use of barcazas. In fact, it was as if the merchants had contracted the services of a company, which allowed greater control of the work by the workers and higher remuneration. The merchants, when the port reopened, tried to return to work for wages. The strike lasted only one day and ended with a workers’ victory. Beyond the development of the conflict, what we are interested in highlighting is the chronological distance with the strike of the sailors, an example of the lack of coordination between both groups of workers.
With the First Spanish Republic, in February 1873, political instability facilitated an increase in strike conflict in ports. Towards 1873, we can speak of a conflictive cycle, in which strikes did not only arise in Barcelona, but also occurred in different towns and cities on the Mediterranean coast. The demands in this period referred, above all, to wages and the length of the working day. The dynamics of the conflicts were very similar. Strikes usually ended with the intervention of “scabs” hired by employers to break the resistance of the workers.81 In any case, there is not enough information to affirm that they were coordinated actions. Rather, they seemed to respond to local dynamics, with common evolutions everywhere.
The end of the First Republic gave way to the Monarchical Restoration of 1874 and again, for years, workers and their organizations could not express themselves freely. The right of association was loosely included in the new constitution but was de facto prohibited for workers and depended on the discretion of the authorities.82 A new liberal government in 1881 began a period of political openness, which, despite its own hesitations, allowed the activity of the labour movement. In March 1884, the Sociedad de Marineros Trabajadores of the port of Barcelona was formed. It was promoted by the society of the carters, who were trying to organize trade unions in different transport sectors throughout the city.83 At least 400 unloading sailors participated in the society. In the summer of that same year, dock workers from the different port specialties—sailors, porters, coal unloaders, carters and others—organized the Federation of Maritime and Land Transport, integrated into the Federation of Workers of the Spanish Region, the Spanish section of the International. Together, they tried to establish a closed shop. They demanded that employers only hire workers associated with their societies. As usual, employers hired “scabs” to end the strike, and the authorities also contributed to its defeat by imprisoning the leaders of these societies. On the other hand, employers tried to create joint associations, “of cats and rats, that is, of masters and workers”, with the aim of achieving control of workers.84
Despite these joint actions, the dock workers of each specialty maintained their independent societies. In 1882, the coal unloaders were integrated into the Sociedad de Carga y Descarga del Carbón de Piedra.85 This society had the same name as another which had existed in 1870, but there is no evidence of its uninterrupted existence during all those years. The sailors were in the Sociedad de Marineros de Carga y Descarga.86 The name of the society was a sign that work as a dock worker was still an alternative or complementary activity for sailors when they were not sailing. The quay workers had founded the Sociedad de Faquines del Comercio in 1874, but its legalization was not permitted until October 1887, under the name of the Montepío de Faquines del Comercio.87
During the 1880s, the new political openness allowed the surfacing of a great associative vitality in the sector, with workers associated with mutual aid entities. The sailors were in the Sociedad Marinera de Beneficencia in 1881, the Centro de Socorros del Muelle in 1884, and the Centro de Trabajadores del Muelle in 1886. The quay workers were in the already cited Montepío de Faquines del Comercio, and the coal unloaders were in the Hermandad de Trabajadores de Carga y Descarga de Carbón de Piedra en este puerto, in 1889.88 They were also organised in entities dedicated to workers’ leisure: in September 1883, the Centro General de Carboneros and, in January 1885, the Marineros Trabajadores del Puerto de Barcelona and the Unión Benéfica de Trabajadores del Muelle y Almacenes de Barcelona y sus contornos.89 We know little more of most of these mutual aid and leisure societies beyond their existence, but it is clear that dock workers maintained the separation between coal unloaders, sailors-dock workers, and quay workers.
5 The Modernization of Port Infrastructure and the Creation of a New System in the Organization of Dock Work around 1890
In the last third of the nineteenth century, the evolution of the national and international economy generated processes of concentration in different Spanish ports, including Barcelona.90 The hegemony of steam, already indisputable by that time, led to the transformation of the port system. The commercial activity of beach ports, so characteristic of the Spanish Levant Coast in previous years, disappeared. At the end of the nineteenth century the economic importance of the port reached its zenith. By 1890, the maritime trade of Barcelona was almost equivalent to 50% of the GDP of Catalonia.91 Once again, the growth of coal traffic showed the limitations of the port, which was again in need of expansion.92 In Barcelona, the traffic of certain merchandise, such as wood, that was sufficiently abundant and regular, allowed the appearance of new figures among employers and dock workers dedicated to these goods.
The barcazas lost their importance due to the construction of new infrastructure in the port. Most of the existing barcazas were dedicated to unloading coal, which was handled in the dock closest to the mouth of the port. Due to the existing undertow, coal ships could not be docked, which is why the unloading of coal with barcazas was maintained. Some of the barges that had previously been dedicated to general loading and unloading were bought by the companies of the coal merchants or were sold and moved to other ports.93
The state definitively assumed control of the port infrastructures. In March 1890, the process of the expropriation of manual cranes, existing from the 1860s and owned by private individuals, was completed. The Junta de obras del puerto expropriated these cranes because of the infractions carried out by their owners. The owners had exploited the cranes commercially, as a business, when it was established that they had to give them free to the rest of the ship agents and merchants if they were not using them. In spite of what had been established, “in the greatest number of cases, the licensees are not the true owners of the cranes, but rather the foremen of the crews [collas] of porters that they use in their operations; even though this, as everyone knows, is not easy to prove; without this, which nobody ignores, is easy to prove”; they not only dedicated the cranes exclusively to the service of the licensees, “but of all their customers, thus making the purpose of the most essential condition of the concession illusory, since the monopoly of the docks is coming to fruition”.94 Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, between 1882 and 1885, the Junta de Obras del Puerto installed and put into operation a new system of hydraulic cranes. In 1888, there were 31 hydraulic cranes in the port.95
The new conflict cycle of 1890 shows the existence of significant changes in the organization of work. The port strikes began on the first May Day celebrated in Spain. On 1 May 1890, a strike was declared on loading and unloading operations, with the city of Barcelona paralyzed by the demands of the workers. In Barcelona, the influence of anarchism led to the extension of the general strike for more days than originally planned.96
The strike also extended several days in the ports of Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Valencia, Bilbao, and Cádiz. The foremen and the workers of the collas wanted to return to work. To avoid coercion, they requested help from the military authority, who sent troops to the port. Finally, on 6 May, through an agreement between the dock workers and their employers, the port returned to normality. In Barcelona, the situation became complicated again in July of that same year. On 29 July 1890, the workers who were hired by the collas called a new strike. The organization of work by the collas, which until now had served to keep the workers under control, began to fail. The reaction of the employers was the constitution of Montepío de San Pedro Pescador in August 1890. In this body, foremen and dock workers had to be integrated. Under the outward appearance of a mutual aid society, a system of labour regulation was hiding. The articles of association set out the conditions under which the dock work had to be carried out; the foremen promised not to hire anyone who was not member of the Montepío.97 This was, in fact, the closed shop that sailors had been demanding since at least the 1880s. In contrast, there were various rules to maintain control over workers. Thus, anyone who “directly forms a conflict that could remotely harm” the Montepío could be expelled from the entity, which meant firing him from dock work. And there was no possibility of “any appeal” over these dismissals.98
Most of the sailors were integrated into the Montepío, but at the same time they did not stop raising their demands. This is demonstrated by these workers’ request for the establishment of a hiring turn, and the strike that resulted in October 1890.99 The foremen did not accept the shift proposed by the Sociedad de Marineros de Carga y Descarga, and they refused to integrate associated workers into the collas. In the Montepío statutes, the free election of workers by the foremen among the members of the association continued in force. The creation of a mixed society to dilute social conflict was not successful in 1884, but it was achieved in 1890. Thus, for decades, the Montepío de San Pedro Pescador, led by the foremen of the collas, retained control over the dock workers.100
Employers also created this type of mixed society in other ports during those years. As in Barcelona, these initiatives arose after the realization of major strikes in the ports; they were also a strategy to control that workforce. This occurred in Santander in 1894,101 in Bilbao in 1900,102 and somewhat later in Valencia.103
In Barcelona, the system was applied to general unloading workers, in coal, and also in quay work. Coal merchants established the Montepío de Santa Eulalia in 1891. This was created after a strike in May of that year by the 500 workers of the Hermandad de Carga y Descarga del Carbón de Piedra. The main difference with the Montepío de San Pedro was that, in this case, exclusivity was not mandatory, but merely a preference in hiring. After ten years, coal unloaders achieved the dissolution of the mutual aid society of the employers and the recognition of the workers union.104 The quay workers, as we have already mentioned, had been in the Montepío de Faquines del Comercio since 1887. This mutual aid society changed its name in 1902 and was renamed the Mutua de Faquines del Comercio de Barcelona, from then on acting as a union.105
6 Conclusions
The disappearance of the guild system and the consequent reorganization of work happened without the presence of significant technological transformations; it was not a consequence of the transition from sail to steam. However, immediately after the guild’s demise, the effects of this transition began to show. The requirements of the steamers led to the appearance of new protagonists, remodelling the business structure. Merchants lost the prominence they had had up to then and a new figure appeared, that of ship agent. Only in coal, which arrived at the port in whole shipments, did the merchants of this commodity maintain their importance. Merchants had promoted the collas, the forerunners of loading and unloading companies. But these collas adapted perfectly to the changes in the business structure, and acquired greater importance and prominence.
The action of the workers was conditioned by the existence of legislation at the service of their employers, and by the existing organisation of work. Occasionally, various initiatives for union work in common arose, but, in general, the workers acted separately, based on the three major existing port specialties. Despite these limitations, the workers managed to modify the organisation of work that emerged at the end of the guild system. After a few years of a free labour market, the employers accepted some limitations, such as the establishment, in practice, of a closed shop.
At first, steamers were not yet dominant, but as their influence grew it was necessary to recognize limitations in access to dock work. A free labour market, which merchants had long pursued, could be useful for the loading and unloading of sailing ships, which did not need to be unloaded quickly. However, when steamers dominated, it was necessary to introduce a certain order in hiring. It was necessary to ensure a sufficiently docile workforce who were experts in their tasks.
This new order in hiring was done through the constitution of mutual aid societies. These societies were managed by employers and the foremen of the collas, representing the interests of ship agents, but almost all dock workers in each specialty participated. It was in the category of general cargo where this system was implemented most successfully. However, recognition of some limitations to the free labour market was common. There was no return to a monopoly situation like the one that existed during the guild system configuration. Serious conflicts often arose over how these limitations should be established. Occasionally, “scabs” were used to end strikes. However, the free labour market, as had been established in the 1860s with the end of the guild system, disappeared forever.
Jordi Ibarz, “Fin del sistema gremial, liberalismo y desarrollo de unas relaciones de trabajo capitalistas en el puerto de Barcelona, 1834–1873”, Ayer, no. 120 (2020): 143–69; Jordi Ibarz and Brendan J. von Briesen, “From corporations to companies: the development of capitalism in maritime cargo handling in the port of Barcelona (c.1760–1873),” International Labor and Working-Class History, (2022): 1–25.
Jesús María Valdaliso Gago, “La transición de la vela al vapor en la flota mercante española: cambio técnico y estrategia empresarial,” Revista de Historia Económica, no. 10 (1992): 63–98.
Enric García Domingo, El mundo del trabajo en la marina mercante española (1834–1914) (Barcelona: Edicions Universitat Barcelona, 2017).
Lex Heerma van Voss and Marcel van der Linden, “Dockers’ configurations,” in Dock Workers: International Explorations in Comparative Labour History, 1790–1970, eds. Sam Davies et al., vol. 2 (Aldershot: Ashgate Pub Limited, 2000), 762–80.
Heerma van Voss and van der Linden, “Dockers’ configurations,” 779.
Brendan J. von Briesen, “ ‘The guild […] manufactures nothing, nor produces any artifact’: Barcelona’s seven maritime cargo handling guilds, c.1760–1840,” International Review of Social History, no. 65.3 (December 2020): 405, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859020000012.
William H. Sewell, Jr., “Uneven development, the autonomy of politics, and the dockworkers of nineteenth-century Marseilles,” The American Historical Review, no. 93.3 (June 1988): 604–37.
Shai Srougo, “Professional characteristics of the Jewish guild in the Muslim world: Thessaloniki dockers at the end of the Ottoman era,” Mediterranean Historical Review, no. 26.2 (December 2011): 115–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535654.2011.630780; John Chalcraft, “The coal heavers of Port Sa’id: state-making and worker protest, 1869–1914,” International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 60 (2001): 110.
Roy Mankelow, “The port of London, 1790–1970,” in Dock Workers: International Explorations in Comparative Labour History, 1790–1970, eds. Sam Davies et al., vol. 1 (Surrey: Ashgate Pub Limited, 2000), 365–385; Robert Lee, “From guild membership to casualisation: dockworkers in Bremen, c.1860–1939,” in Dock Workers: International Explorations in Comparative Labour History, 1790–1970, eds. Sam Davies et al., vol. 1 (Surrey: Ashgate Pub Limited, 2000), 342–359.
Ibarz and Briesen, “From corporations to companies”.
Mankelow, “The port of London, 1790–1970,” 371.
Ibid., 370.
John Lovell, “Sail, steam and emergent dockers’ unionism in Britain, 1850–1914,” International Review of Social History, no. 32.3 (December 1987): 230–49, https://doi.org/10.1017/S002085900000849X.
Pamela Beth Radcliff, Modern Spain: 1808 to the Present (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2017).
Josep Fontana, Història de Catalunya, vol. 5: La fi de l’Antic Règim i la industrialització (1787–1868), eds. Pierre Vilar and Josep Termes (Barcelona: Edicions 62, 2003).
García Domingo, El mundo del trabajo en la marina mercante española (1834–1914), 33–62.
Jordi Maluquer de Motes and Jaume Torras i Elias, Història econòmica de la Catalunya contemporània. s. XIX. La formació d’una societat industrial, ed. Jordi Nadal, vol. 1 (Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana, 1988), 125–37.
Jordi Maluquer de Motes, “Activitats econòmiques,” in Història de Barcelona, vol. 6: La ciutat industrial (1833–1897), ed. Jaume Sobrequés i Callicó (Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana, Ajuntament de Barcelona, 1995), 189.
Albert Carreras and César Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” in Economía e historia del puerto de Barcelona: tres estudios, eds. Joan Clavera and Port Autònom de Barcelona (Barcelona: Madrid: Port Autònom de Barcelona; Civitas, 1992), 85. This work is the best existing one on the subject, but it does not present a complete series but rather data from specific periods specific cuts, therefore it is only useful in establishing an approximate chronology of the transformations of port traffic.
Ibid., 97.
Ibarz, “Fin del sistema gremial, liberalismo y desarrollo de unas relaciones de trabajo capitalistas en el puerto de Barcelona, 1834–1873,” 122.
Javier Aznar Colet, Estudio sobre las antiguas grúas de mano del puerto de Barcelona (Barcelona: Centre de Documentació Marítima, 2015).
Carreras and Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” 93.
Laureà Carbonell Relat, “El transport marítim a través del moviment del port de Barcelona en l’any 1860 i els capitans que hi participaren,” La Roca de Xeix, no. 11–12–13 (September 1996): 14.
Carreras and Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” 90.
Carbonell Relat, “El transport marítim a través del moviment del port de Barcelona en l’any 1860 i els capitans que hi participaren,” 26–27.
A183 Comissió de Governació Exp A-3977 “Sobre els vaixells que entren en el port,” Arxiu Històric de la Ciutat de Barcelona (hereafter AHCB).
Emerencià Roig, La Marina catalana del vuitcents (Barcelona: Barcino, 1929), 87–90.
“Registro de los Derechos de Carga y Descarga de enero de 1852,” Drets de Carrega, Descàrrega i Navegació, (1852), Box 198, Archivo Histórico de la Diputación de Barcelona (hereafter AHDB). “Italia, queja al Capitán del Puerto sobre descarga de piperia et alter en la playa, 1866,” Capitanía del Puerto de Barcelona, legajo 5639-7, AGMAB.
Ibarz and Briesen, “From corporations to companies”.
Brendan J. von Briesen, “Service-Sector Guilds and the Challenge of Liberalization: the Organization of Maritime-Cargo Handling in Barcelona, c.1760–1840” (PhD diss., University of Barcelona, 2017).
Francesc de P. Colldeforns Lladó, Historial de los Gremios de Mar de Barcelona, 1750–1865 (Barcelona: Gráficas Marina, 1951).
Briesen, “ ‘The guild […] manufactures nothing, nor produces any artifact’ ”.
In the Arancel of 1841, there is a fare for the unloading of “coal whatever the kind”, but it does not appear in the agreements of 1870: Legajo CXXXIV, JCC BC.
“Queja de los matriculados sobre la actuación del Capitán del Puerto,” 1862, Capitanía del Puerto de Barcelona, legajo 5639-6, AGMAB.
La Época, 25 December 1851 (newspaper).
Joan Alemany, El Port de Barcelona (Barcelona: Lunwerg : Port de Barcelona, 1998), 115–18.
Ibarz, “Fin del sistema gremial, liberalismo y desarrollo de unas relaciones de trabajo capitalistas en el puerto de Barcelona, 1834–1873,” 161.
“Impreso de la Junta de Comercio de Cartagena dirigido a la Reina,” 1862, 1860–68, Section: Foment: informes, oficis, sol·licituds i comunicats sobre ports, comerç, subhastes, Legajo CXXXIII, box 176–2, 199–200, JCC BC.
Ibarz, “Fin del sistema gremial, liberalismo y desarrollo de unas relaciones de trabajo capitalistas en el puerto de Barcelona, 1834–1873,” 160–63.
Gaceta de Madrid, June 16, 1864, 1.
Gaceta de Madrid, July 13, 1864, 1.
Colldeforns Lladó, Historial de los Gremios de Mar de Barcelona, 1750–1865, 255–69.
Lista 4, Vol. 12, Reg. 1616 ans 1617. ANC.
José Torrents i Julia, “[no title],” 29 September 1859, Manual de Escrituras 1280/26; Ignació Gallisá y Reynés, “[no title],” 16 November 1869, Manual de Escrituras, 1374/6; Magín Soler Gelada, “[no title],” 9 May 1860, Manual de Escrituras 1287/36, fol. 24. Archiu Històrics de Protocols de Barcelona (hereafter AHPB).
Ibarz and Briesen, “From corporations to companies”.
Diario de Barcelona, May 24, 1855.
Mauricio Garran, Noticia sobre el puerto: discurso leído en el Ateneo Barcelonés en la noche del 14 de marzo de 1877 (Barcelona: Imprenta de Salvador Manero, 1877), 37: http://archive.org/details/bibliotecammb2003 (accessed 15 March 2021).
Pere Pascual i Domènech, “Ferrocarrils i circulació mercantil a Catalunya durant la segona meitat del segle XIX,” Recerques: història, economia, cultura, no. 21 (1988): 130.
Carreras and Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” 111.
See Chart 5.1.
Carreras and Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” 121.
Data based on Lista oficial de buques de guerra y mercantes de la Marina española (Madrid: Deposito Hidrográfico, 1871), data processed by Brendan von Briesen.
Valdaliso Gago, “La transición de la vela al vapor en la flota mercante española,” 66.
Maria Elena Ruiz Romero de la Cruz, Historia de la Navegación Comercial Española. Trafico de los puertos de Titularidad Estatal desde la antigüedad a la conclusión del siglo XX (Madrid: Ente Público Puertos del Estado, 2004), 959: https://riuma.uma.es/xmlui/handle/10630/13615 (accessed 19 March 2021).
See Table 5.1.
Manuel Maria Pecero, “[no title],” Manual de Escrituras 1371/1, fol. 225, AHPB.
Ángel Camón, “Cuatro grúas de carga y descarga de géneros,” 1863, box 1929, Arxiu de la Junta d’Obres del Port. Museu Marítim de Barcelona (hereafter JOP MMB); and Alemany, El Port de Barcelona (Barcelona, 1998), 158.
“Maldant y Barthe solicitan continúe establecida en el puerto de Barcelona la cábria de su propiedad para la carga y descarga,” 1865–69, Section: Capitanía del Puerto de Barcelona, 5639–7, AGMAB; and, “Cabrias, gruas, machinas, pescantes. Generalidad,” 1865–82, folder 1, Grúas, YM V n, Section: Puertos. Navegación y Pesca Marítima. ANC.
“Reglamento de policía del Puerto,” 1869, Section: Capitanía del Puerto de Barcelona, 5639–7, AGMAB.
“Expediente relativo al proyecto de establecimiento de las grues de mano por cuenta de la junta,” 1887, Caja 1012, H-1781 nº3, JOP MMB.
“Obras, máquinas, aparatos y medios necesarios para el buen uso de los muelles de la Muralla, de Atarazanas y de Barcelona,” 1879, Caja 1939. JOP MMB.
Daniel Castillo Hidalgo and Jesús María Valdaliso Gago, “Puertos y regiones marítimas en España en perspectiva histórica: movimiento comercial y transformaciones económicas (c. 1880–2009),” in Los puertos mediterráneos: contactos, multiculturalidad e intercambios: estrategias socioeconómicas, políticas y ecológicas: PHICARIA: IV Encuentros Internacionales del Mediterráneo, ed. José María López Ballesta (Murcia: Concejalía de Cultura, 2016), 57–75: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5374278.
Jordi Ibarz Gelabert and Juanjo Romero Marín, “L’abolició de la Matrícula de Mar i les tasques de càrrega i descàrrega al port de Barcelona, 1868–1874,” Barcelona quaderns d’història, no. 15 (2009): 255–70.
Enric García Domingo, “ ‘La hermana mayor’: las difíciles relaciones entre la marina mercante española y la Armada (1802–1932),” Hispania, no. 77.255 (2017): 229.
Agustín Vigier de Torres and Guillermo Pérez-Olivares Fuentes, Compendio de derecho y legislación marítima (Madrid: Varicop, 1958), 120.
García Domingo, El mundo del trabajo en la marina mercante española (1834–1914), 56.
Vigier de Torres and Pérez-Olivares Fuentes, Compendio de derecho y legislación marítima, 44.
Carbonell Relat, “El transport marítim a través del moviment del port de Barcelona en l’any 1860 i els capitans que hi participaren,” 46.
Martín Rodrigo y Alharilla, La Marina mercante de vapor en Barcelona (1834–1914) (Estudis 24) (Barcelona: Museu Marítim de Barcelona, 2017), 119.
Lovell, “Sail, steam and emergent dockers’ unionism in Britain, 1850–1914,” 235.
Data based on the “Relación de Inscritos Marítimos de la Provincia Naval de Barcelona,” Boletin Oficial de la Provincia de Barcelona, January 16, 1879, October 30, 1890, October 23, 1902.
José Daniel Pelayo Pelayo Olmedo, “El derecho de asociación en la historia constitucional española, con particular referencia a las leyes de 1887 y 1964,” Historia constitucional, no. 8 (2007): 96–97.
La Federación, June 21, 1870.
La Federación, July 10, 1870.
Charles Tilly, Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834 (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1995), 61–62.
Legajo CXXXIV-2, pp. 370–372, JCC BC.
See Chapter 7 of Eduard Page Campos in the present volume.
Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores. I Congreso Obrero de la Región Española, Fundación Anselmo Lorenzo, 34.
La Federación, October 23, 1870.
La Federación, May 17, 1873, October 25, 1873.
Pelayo Olmedo, “El derecho de asociación en la historia constitucional española, con particular referencia a las leyes de 1887 y 1964,” 101–102.
La Tramuntana, March 7, 1884, 3.
La Tramuntana, August 22, 1884, August 29, 1884.
El Diluvio, July 3, 1882; Crónica de Cataluña, July 13, 1882; El Diluvio, August 14, 1884.
El Diluvio, October 20, 1890.
Reglamento para el régimen de la Sociedad de Faquines del Comercio de Barcelona, Barcelona, 1924. Libro de registro de Montepios, nº MN 79. Archivo Histórico del Gobierno Civil de Barcelona (hereafter AHGCB).
Libro de registro de Montepíos, nº MA 157, MA 496, MA 699 y MN 384; and Libro de Registro de Asociaciones nº 780, AHGCB.
Libro de Registro de Asociaciones, nº 386; Libro de Registro de Asociaciones, nº 522, AHGCB; El Diluvio, July 6, 1886; and Libro de Registro de Asociaciones, nº 526, AHGCB.
Castillo Hidalgo and Valdaliso Gago, “Puertos y regiones marítimas en España en perspectiva histórica,” 62.
Carreras and Yáñez, “El puerto en la era industrial: una síntesis histórica,” 104–105.
Carreras and Yáñez, 90.
Lista 4, Vol. 12, Reg. 1809 and 1816, ANC, transferred to Valencia in 1897; or Lista 4, Vol. 12, Reg. 1848, 1849 and 1850, ANC, transferred to Palamós in 1905.
“Expediente relativo al proyecto de establecimiento de las grúas de mano por cuenta de la junta”, Caja 1012. H-1781 nº3. Año 1887. JOP MMB.
Esteve Amengual, El Puerto de Barcelona en 1888. Opúsculo (Barcelona: Suc. de N. Ramírez, 1888), 6: http://archive.org/details/bibliotecammb970 (accessed 20 April 2021).
Joaquim Ferrer, El Primer «1er. de maig» a Catalunya (Barcelona: Nova Terra, 1975), 85–121.
Artículo 6, disposición 3a, Reglamento del Montepío de San Pedro Pescador de 1894.
Artículo Adicional, Reglamento del Montepío de San Pedro Pescador de 1894.
Diario Mercantil, October 12, 1890.
Jordi Ibarz, “El montepío de San Pedro Pescador y las sociedades de socorros mutuos de los estibadores de Barcelona, 1890–1939,” in Solidaridad desde abajo. Trabajadores y socorros mutuos en la España contemporánea, ed. Santiago Castillo (Madrid: UGT, 1994), 107–24.
José Ortega Valcárcel, Gentes de mar en Cantabria (Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, 1996), 263.
El Cantábrico, May 17, 1900.
Ramiro Reig, Obrers i ciutadans: blasquisme i moviment obrer: València, 1898–1906 (Politècnica 6) (València: Institució Alfons el Magnànim, 1982), 190.
Jordi Ibarz Gelabert, “Sociedades y montepíos: asociacionismo laboral de los cargadores y descargadores del puerto de Barcelona, 1884–1931,” Sociología del trabajo, no. 18 (1993): 134.
Libro de Registro de Asociaciones, no. 3063, AHGCB.