Abstract
From their creation in the mid-nineteenth century in Britain railway excursions provided working people with the means to expand their horizons and create new opportunities for identity- and money-making. This article explores the role of the social entrepreneur and their affect on social mobility. It also re-evaluates working-class leisure in the south of England and challenges the notion that the working-classes were not proactive in establishing their own unique commercial leisure cultures. Using a case study of two dockyard excursion enterprises, which were operated as sideline ventures by skilled artisans of the Royal Dockyard in Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK, the article will demonstrate how local working-class access to travel and cultural experiences were broadened and transformed through their initiatives and analyse the role and influence of these men on their co-workers and in wider society.
Introduction
Sociologist John Urry has identified the process of mobility as a way to understand human agency, in particular that the concept could be used as a methodology to examine peoples’ understanding of the world, how we make connections through space, and examine themes such as notions of class, ethnicity, gender, and nationhood. 1 This approach has provided new perspectives on previously overlooked people and groups, and attributed them with an agency and power which had hitherto been explored. 2 For transport historians, the adoption of the “mobility turn” in the late 1990s allowed acts of physical movement to become aligned with understandings of symbolic cultural meaning, such as status and power. 3
This article will apply the concept of mobility to the practice of “leisure” in order to examine the subjective and constitutive process of excursion travel and thus highlight ways in which historians of transport can inform wider studies of social, leisure, and labour history. In Portsmouth, on England's south coast, dockyard railway excursions developed as an enterprise created by members of the town's royal dockyard workforce. From its beginnings of a one-off day trip in 1883 grew a local rail excursion tradition. By the turn of twentieth century the excursions were a well-established element of the local leisure calendar offering half-day and day trips to lengthier holidays away. Through an examination of the activities of the Portsmouth Dockyard Excursion Committee (DEC), and its early rival Mr Madge's “Dockyard Employés” excursions, this article will highlight the power and agency of the working-class urban male in the creation of popular leisure opportunities and demonstrate the power and limitations of “mobility” in its theoretical and practical sense.
Transport, working-class leisure and the royal dockyard worker
From its inception in the 1840s railway excursion travel expanded the horizons of working people by collapsing travelling time and connecting people with new places and experiences. 4 Douglas A. Reid has noted the importance of the transformation of the railways into a vehicle for the democratisation of travel and leisure, especially for industrial workers whose “stake in the ‘social system’” had until then been “grounded”. 5 More recently Susan Major's investigation of this “exploding mobility” has demonstrated how working-class rail excursions “generated a distinctive kind of mobile crowd phenomenon.” 6 She highlighted the role of “social entrepreneurs” such as voluntary societies, church groups and excursion agents in developing new modes of leisure travel. 7 Although successful excursion agents, such as businessman Henry Marcus of Liverpool, facilitated working-class mobilities and their exposure to cultural and leisure experiences, Major conceded that due to a lack of archival evidence it was difficult to assess the extent to which they operated to affect social change. 8 In the case of Portsmouth's dockyard excursions, the existence of the business archive of the Dockyard Excursion Committee (DEC) and access to digitised local newspapers online can shed new light on the role of railway excursion agents. The archives can also highlight another type of working-class social entrepreneur – the penny capitalist dockyard artisan. 9 Rather than businessmen who found a niche in the consumer market, the organisers of the dockyard excursions were workers who saw opportunities, created their own venture, and advocated for leisure and excursion provisions for their co-workers and townspeople in a region which had not witnessed the boom in tourism and holidaymaking that had been enjoyed by the masses in the north and midlands of England. Moreover, by recognising grassroots social entrepreneurship which emanated from within work-based cultures, in turn we can begin to identify workers as agents rather than consumers of leisure and tourism.
Recent studies on working-class tourism and holidaymaking have characterised the process as both active and collective, enabled by working-class organisations and a desire by the public to develop independent leisure patterns. Importantly, Susan Barton's point that the examination of working-class leisure must be set in context by clearly relating the quest for free time as an element of labour history in industrial society is a key consideration in this analysis. 10 Through situating working-class excursion travel within a wider context of labour history and highlighting the nexuses where transport and mobility became tools of empowerment for working people we can plot the agency and obstacles through which society was enacted. Current scholarship also lends increased credence to the strong and overlapping links that work and leisure had with identity making. 11 It must be recognised that the gendered status of the dockyardmen was an important component to their public personae and afforded them a prominent place in the new civic ideal which sought to accommodate the newly enfranchised working male. 12 However, working-class leisure patterns and social entrepreneurship in the south coast region have been underexplored and the workforce characterised as unorganised and comparatively non-agitational. John Walton has argued that the erosion of preindustrial holiday practices such as fairs and wakes in the south and west of England lowered workers’ expectations for time off, leading to a “lack of a common focus for absenteeism”. 13 Indeed, Barton has contended it was only the British Government's adoption of the August Bank Holiday in 1871 that enabled southern workers a common focus for extending their leave to enjoy collective holidaymaking practices. 14 As a result, the assumption has been that workers in the south were not as active in their pursuit of leisure freedoms.
Certainly there were other factors, such as the lack of a robust railway infrastructure, that also offer an insight into why workers in places such as Portsmouth were comparatively behind in developing coherent mass excursion programmes. The town's rail links were established decades after many northern hubs. 15 The town station opened in 1847, but there was no direct line to London until 1859. 16 Portsmouth Harbour Station, the line that serviced the dockyard, opened in 1876 with the suburban stations of Fratton and East Southsea following in 1885. 17 The English royal dockyard towns of Portsmouth and Plymouth both fostered working-class excursion enterprises, and evidence of excursions for Plymouth employees date further back to 1880. 18 However, the success of Portsmouth's venture far outstripped that of their West Country rivals in frequency and scope. 19 Portsmouth's excursions attracted huge numbers of dockyard workers and their “friends” and were widely reported and advertised in the local press, exhibiting the position of the dockyard's skilled artisans in Portsmouth society. This legitimisation, coupled with the status of the royal dockyard worker as a government employee who undertook work important to the defence of the realm, provided these dockyard excursion agents with a powerful platform upon which to advocate their leisure and business interests and act as social entrepreneurs. As an excursion crowd, dockyardmen were able to flex their cultural capital as affluent, cultured citizens who were capable of adventure and active in their pursuit of knowledge and excitement away from the leisure provisions of their hometown. Moreover, as excursion agents, a select group of dockyard workers were able to further elevate themselves by becoming leaders in the local leisure provision. Their ability to mobilise, therefore, was critical to their upward mobility in society. As social entrepreneurs they shaped the local consumer market which normalised and legitimised patterns of working-class leisure.
The influence of these dockyard excursion agents ensured that the tone of working-class holiday and excursion making in Portsmouth was shaped by the particular conditions of dockyard artisanal culture. Their activities also highlight the high level of literacy, numeracy, self-sufficiency, and shrewd entrepreneurialism that some sections of the workforce possessed. This behaviour can be traced back to their grounding in the Dockyard School, which trained apprentices for up to seven years upon entry into the dockyard, and an artisan associational culture which prized memberships to self-help organisations such as friendly societies. 20 The tone of proceedings owed much to the Committee's experiences as negotiators through the Admiralty's system of “petitioning” to formally raise workplace grievances. Indeed, artisans of the royal dockyards exploited their positions as the “Humble Servants” of “My Lords”, the parlance of petition address, in order to legitimise their claim for better pay and conditions, including increased freedoms in leisure. The excursion schedule was also based on the income, expectations, tastes, and values of the royal dockyard artisan. 21 These excursions, however, are not wholly comparable to the paternalistic works’ outings provided by industrialist business owners in an attempt to galvanise a company identity or workplace loyalty, or to morally reform their employees. 22 Nor were they strictly conducted under the aegis of a self-improving programme of events by associations such as Mechanics’ Institutes. 23 Rather, these men used their status as respectable members of civic society and the numerical dominance of the dockyard worker in the town as a fulcrum for advancing their access to leisure provisions.
Due to their relative affluence and access to leisure, royal dockyard workers fitted the pattern of working-class excursionists already established in mid-nineteenth century northern and midland England in that they could be characterised as skilled, better-paid artisans from an area with a high level of employment in heavy industry. 24 Royal dockyard workers were also an exceptional group of workers as they were employees of the state and instrumental in the construction and maintenance of the Royal Navy's fleet, earning them a key role in the defence of the British Empire. However, the era was also a tumultuous time as the workforce began to assert more vociferously a desire for better pay and conditions under trade union standards. 25 By the early twentieth century some workers in the mining, shoe, and textile industries in Britain had secured agreement for unpaid leave with their employers. 26 However, the Admiralty had provided workers with paid leave from 1890s and most employees received paid holiday for Christmas Day, Good Friday, the King's Birthday and August Bank Holiday. 27 In 1894 the Admiralty's adoption of the eight-hour day led to a standardisation of working hours and, when the dockyard was electrified in the early 1900s, work patterns were further consolidated. 28 The struggle for better pay and conditions led to an inevitable scrutiny of the royal dockyard worker. As a result, their projection of values such as “respectability” and independence became incredibly important political signifiers through which workers demonstrated they were fit to manage their own leisure time. Moreover, these qualities were also imbued in the practices and interactions of the two dockyard excursion businesses.
The majority of dockyard excursion customers would have been the better-paid, skilled artisanal members of the dockyard workforce. A multi-tiered system of employment and working practices cultivated a hierarchy predicated upon job security, influence and affluence. 29 “Established” workers were continuously employed and superannuated whereas “hired” workers were picked from a pool of available men and were the first to be laid off in times of recession. A skilled artisan was higher in status than a labourer, and rampant sectionalism in the royal dockyards, prompted by the transition from wood to metal shipbuilding, pitted the formerly premier trade of the shipwright against fitters and boilermakers of the new metal trades. 30 In 1905 an established shipwright earned 33s a week, whereas an established unskilled labourer earned 19s. 31 Therefore, extracurricular activities, being “seen”, or being part of the “set” could entail recognition and selection for jobs or promotion within the Dockyard. 32 For the artisans, excursions were relatively reasonably priced but they were less affordable for casual and unskilled workers. However, for long-distance trips such an excursion to Paris in 1883, the Dockyard Holiday League (an early incarnation of the dockyard excursion business venture) set up a subscription fund a year in advance. 33 A similar excursion was advertised by the League in 1899 for an excursion to the Paris International Exhibition in 1900, undoubtedly to provide customers with the opportunity to save up. 34 A specific savings scheme has not been found in connection with other dockyard excursions, although there was a strong tradition within the workforce of thrift and subscription to various beneficial funds. 35 Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that many would have saved up, similar to the Lancastrian “going off” holiday savings clubs found by Walton. 36
Despite the noted southern English tendencies to eschew absenteeism and outward defiance there is strong evidence of regular outings and excursion travel in the culture of skilled artisans of the dockyard worker in Portsmouth dating from the early 1880s. This suggests that travel and holidaymaking was still very much a part of their active pursuit of recreational freedoms. It also indicates that there were subtle ways that employees operated to “work the system”, demonstrating a subtlety to their methods in securing leisure privileges than have hitherto been noted. Their approach could be more accurately described as negotiating “the politics of everyday life”, whereby small victories against authority were made through acts of defiance and subversion, rather than the revolutionary agitation sought by many early social historians. 37 Indeed, instead of taking un-sanctioned leave or striking, the artisans of the royal dockyard opted to assert their rights to leisure freedoms by mobilising their workplace collective security to assert their “respectability”. For example, during the height of the so-called “naval arms race” between Britain and other world superpowers Portsmouth's Evening News expressed surprise in the lack of unsanctioned absence on Easter Monday 1906. They attributed the behaviour to the diligence of workmen, but also noted the threat of being “marked” if absent without leave. 38 This type of absenteeism was not on the same scale as earlier forms of absenteeism in the north and midlands of England, such as the observance of Saint Monday, however, the report demonstrated that there had historically been a desire among the dockyard workers to avail themselves of additional recreation time. 39 The idea of being marked would have been very threatening for those who had less job security and highlights the fragile balance between duty, wage earning, and leisure. This was especially true in the context of widespread dockyard reductions in the autumn of 1905 which resulted in the loss of 8,000 hired workers, or about a third of the workforce. 40 Therefore, though collective absenteeism was low, what was exhibited through the operation of the dockyard excursions can be contextualised as a nuanced negotiation that projected respectability, self-improvement, and a non-agitational means of expanding the legitimacy of workers to increased recreational opportunities.
Due to the dockyard workers’ numerical dominance and their position as key workers of local and national importance the local press regularly documented their exploits which normalised and legitimised their right to leisure. The recognition was further bolstered by sections of the municipal government, who were keen to incorporate the skilled dockyardmen as voters in their vision of the civic ideal. 41 The trips stand as strong examples of a south England working-class independent holiday organisation. As will be demonstrated later, on occasion this led the DEC to clash with the Admiralty and municipal leaders on local leisure provisions. The negotiations that took place between the artisans of the DEC, the railway companies, and the local and Admiralty authorities highlight ways in which sections of the working class creatively used railway transport and mobility to exert their status and respectability and assert their entitlement to create their own leisure patterns.
Respectable” dockyard excursions
Railway excursions provided great opportunities for the working classes to broaden their horizons and avail themselves of the recreational pleasures available within the structures of commercial leisure. They were also important tools with which to define their notions of status, citizenship and respectability. The DEC's programme of events traversed the gamut of what could be considered “rational recreation” (defined by Peter Bailey as middle class-approved activities incorporating “abstinence and edification”) such as going to one of London's “Great” exhibitions or watching a temperance choral festival, and popular leisure, such as attending football matches, or watching Barnum's Circus. 42 Indeed, the practice of indulging in so-called “respectable” and “unrespectable” leisure activities were not mutually exclusive for working-class males, and activities such as visiting the pub and music hall, gambling, professional football, and excursion opportunities, were integral in the creation of a “distinctive leisure culture at the heart of the ‘traditional’ working class way of life.” 43
The DEC was established on 1 January 1886 and in their first year carried 6,708 people. A decade later this figure stood at 30,604 passengers, peaking in 1908 at conveying 38,478 excursionists to a range of destinations around the United Kingdom and further afield. 44 By 1913 the Committee had carried over 640,000 passengers and had paid a sum of over £125,000 in sales to the railway companies. 45 In a similar fashion to other working-class excursion agents, the Committee marketed themselves on the notion that they were a friend to the masses. 46 However, unlike Henry Marcus, who was a businessman selling excursions to the masses; the DEC originated from, and remained embedded in, their customer base.
The professional conduct of the dockyardmen can be witnessed by an examination of the minute books of the DEC. 47 In addition to painstaking planning and analysis of their operations, the committee also debated how personal matters reflected upon them. On 1 June 1893 the Secretary read out a letter from the wife of executive committee member Mr Manning “reflecting on the character of her husband”. Manning subsequently resigned, which was unanimously accepted by the board. 48 Financial independence and self-sufficiency were also important components to the DEC's public reputation. The conservative-leaning Portsmouth Times praised the committee for their financial independence which legitimised their operations.
There are two fundamental causes of the committee's prosperity. The trains travel at an express speed, and the fares are absurdly low. Nor do they pretend to be a charitable society. The profits are the property of the committee, and so are the risks. If they lose a trip they pay - which is seldom - if they gain they share the profits among themselves. To use a modern vulgarism there is no ‘spoof’ in their modus operandi, and as their fares are infinitely lower than those imposed by companies running excursions, the committee are certainly entitled to whatever can be got out of the transaction. 49
Their reputation was bolstered by early displays of social entrepreneurship which combined the organisation of thousands of people and negotiations with railway companies and the Admiralty with a real opportunity to expand the leisure time experiences of their colleagues. Organisers of the first Portsmouth Dockyard rail excursion to the International Fisheries Exhibition in Kensington on Saturday 22 September 1883 tapped into the idea of rational recreation by emulating the earlier efforts of Mechanics’ Institutes in the north of England which had arranged for their members to visit London's great exhibitions. 50 William Madge, Leading Man of Millwrights, arranged the excursion following a successful petition to keep the dockyard closed after the Admiralty cancelled its planned inspection. Had the Admiralty opened the dockyard, the employees would have lost the day as a paid holiday and be required to work. It seems that the excursion presented the perfect opportunity to retain the holiday under the auspices of self-improvement and edification as Madge argued that keeping the dockyard shut would allow the workforce to visit the exhibition before it closed. 51 This concession from the Lords of the Admiralty suggested their approval of such recreations and offered a neat solution to quell any insubordination which may have arisen from a workforce made to return to work at short notice.
Madge and colleagues arranged the excursion with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company (LB&SCR) at the value of 3s 6d, a reduction from 6s 3d for a third class ticket, and offered tickets to the exhibition at one third of the normal price. 52 An estimated 5000 excursionists packed onto eight trains and returned from Victoria late that night or at 6.00 p.m. the following day. 53 After the success of the first trip the organising committee established the Dockyard Holiday League; proof that the artisan organisers saw great potential in their scheme. 54
Although Madge was a key figure in establishing the first of Portsmouth's Dockyard excursions an undisclosed disagreement between him and other committee members led to his departure. However, he continued to organise excursions independently until the turn of the twentieth century, leading to a healthy rivalry in Portsmouth's dockyard excursion provision. 55 The companies used rival operators in order to maximise their coverage. The DEC operated through London and South Western Railway (LSWR) and terminated their London excursions at Waterloo Station whereas Madge's “Dockyard Employés” excursions terminated at LB&SCR's headquarters at Victoria Station. Other journeys were also mirrored, for example, Madge arranged an excursion lasting between four and 14 days to Scotland via the London and North Western Railway on 25 June 1886 for 35s. 56 On 9 July, the DEC ran a similar excursion for a maximum of ten days via South Western and Midland Railways for the same price. 57
However, the DEC did not attempt to vie with Madge on excursions to Paris. 58 Madge's excursions to the French capital pre-dated the first dockyard excursion to London, the first of which was a trip to the Exposition Universelle in 1878. Such was the novelty of the event that the local press commented, “we are pleased to think that such excursions will tend to cement more closely a good feeling between these two great nations.” 59 Those lofty hopes were perhaps too ambitious, however, a happy customer from a similar excursion in 1884 commented that his holiday to Paris under the “protection” of Madge was the “most pleasant and economical holiday that [he] ever spent.” 60 Unfortunately Madge cancelled the 1885 excursion after the Western of France Railway Company refused to budge on the pre-agreed minimum 60 full-fare quota. 61 Priced between 33s 6d to 27s 6d, including accommodation and port duties, these experiences were only attainable for the highest paid artisans or the most thrifty savers. 62 Holidays abroad also created suspicion about what to expect. Comment in the Evening News in 1886 highlighted concerns about the cost and reputability of the offering. “One Who Would Like To Go” was concerned about the standard of accommodation on offer for the trip's “remarkably low fares”, and argued that “there are hotels and hotels.” 63 In response Madge explained the savings made under the quota system and assured the correspondent that the hotel was run by an English-born lady in Paris. It was, he stated, “in every way an English home”, close to the sights, and where excursionists would be informed in English on the best places to go and how much to expect to pay. He argued that it would spare excursionists “both time and expense in the end.” 64 The final advert for the 1900 Paris Exhibition appeared in 1899, after which Madge retired from the business of excursion travel. 65
It would be naive to suggest that the members of either the DEC or Madge's enterprises operated merely out of a desire to expand the opportunities of their fellow workers. They certainly created a business that men in their own position wanted to patronise. However, a motivating factor for the members of the DEC would certainly have been the benefits to their financial and social status. It is of note that the representatives of the dockyard excursion business ventures did not leave their day jobs to pursue careers as full-time railway excursion agents. The committee members fitted into the model John Benson identified as “penny capitalist” which was part of a search, mainly by middle-aged skilled artisans, for freedom from the restraints of factory and other work disciplines. 66 Indeed, they used their dual positions as state employees, and as excursion agents with access thousands of repeat customers, to their advantage.
The DEC's executive committee comprised 20 members who represented each department of the dockyard. This meant that they could access every element of the workforce to secure ticket sales. 67 As Major identified, agents like Henry Marcus named their companies after themselves in order to engender a paternalistic ethos of being personally responsible for the comfort, quality, and wellbeing of their customers. 68 We can see this echoed in the DEC's name which prioritised the affiliation that it had with the dockyard and its workforce. The way the DEC operated their business displayed their numeracy, intelligence, powers of bargaining and liaison honed during the intensive apprenticeship training required to become a Dockyard artisan and the necessity to collectively petition the Admiralty on matters of workplace concessions. 69 The business model was organised on a bulk-buying basis, whereby a minimum number of excursionists had to be guaranteed to make the excursion financially viable. 70 In 1886 the DEC agreed a deal with both LB&SCR and L&SWR for a minimum of 300 adult fares at a rate of five per cent of the commission on sales. 71 For example, profits from an excursion to Birmingham in May 1884 netted the executive committee a dividend of 4s each, and members of the general committee payments of 2s 6d. 72 The DEC operated more like a travel company than a group of skilled artisans by advertising select attractions close to their destinations and on some excursions provided printed tourist material. 73 The outings were flexible and tickets to exhibitions were sold separately rather than as part of a package, making it easier to stage multiple trips to London in order to fill the train companies’ minimum traveller quotas. Such was their success that the Hampshire Telegraph concluded in 1891 that the excursions were “suited to all classes, at fares ranging from one shilling to thirty.” 74 The trains also made many stops along the line to enable excursionists to alight at their desired destination, rather than dropping everyone at a central point. Passengers travelled third class and the appeal of such excursions may have also lain in their strong sense of group identity and collectivist nature, which was distinct from other forms of excursion that catered for wealthier, middle-class passengers who shunned communal facilities in favour of family or individual options. 75
Workers often used the excursions to go on outings with their work gangs or factory department, but they would also use them to take their families away or socialise within other groups. These excursions were socially inclusive and open to those the Committee termed as their “friends” and had the dual effect of widening their customer base and asserting their influence throughout the wider community. Many excursionists journeyed to other dockyards and places not noted as holiday destinations. This would have partially been due to the transfer of skilled workers between the royal dockyards, and there is a strong possibility that there would have been a significant number travelling to see relatives in their hometowns. These trips also served as good exercises in bonding with their colleagues in other royal dockyards, which can be evidenced by a visit of Plymouth's branch of the Royal Dockyard Ex-Apprentices’ Association through the West Country version of the DEC. 76 It is also interesting to note that city or rural destinations were most featured within the excursion programme. This was probably due to the location of Portsmouth's seaside resort of Southsea, which enabled residents the experience of a seaside holiday at home. However, the DEC's most frequent and popular excursions were based around events such as great exhibitions and football matches.
Interestingly, local events which underlined the pride in the work of the royal dockyard workers, such as ship launches and fleet reviews, were sometimes avoided. For example, on the day super-dreadnought HMS Iron Duke was launched in 1912, a DEC excursion to London attracted over 600 customers. 77 As we will now see, however, it was their central role as “loyal employees” of the royal dockyard and their skills as artisans that ensured the DEC's success.
Mobility influencers
The profitability of the dockyard excursions elevated the status of the committee members to into a position of prime influence in excursion travel in the town and surrounding area. To achieve such a large number of patrons, and affect their cheap fares and commission percentages, the DEC opened out their excursions to their “friends”. The associational nature of dockyard sociability meant that many organisations would have included dockyard workers within their membership such as the Oddfellows, church groups, temperance societies, county associations, and various local choirs. However, other groups such as the Master Butchers’ Association and the employees of Portsmouth Water Works Company conferred looser connections and they even conveyed Portsmouth Football Club players to their own away games. 78 The breadth and diversity of these local organisations displayed the influence the excursions had on the Portsmouth public which went beyond a simple workplace culture. Instead it was an intricately linked strategic platform which enacted reciprocal relationship between other local influential groups and the dockyard artisan elite. In exchange for increased numbers to secure competitive discounts the artisans provided an inclusive leisure facility that would legitimise their position as respectable citizens and underlined their right to demand access to leisure.
The committee also held sway with the railway companies and the organisers of the great exhibitions in London who were keen to attract, and keep, their business. Correspondence between the local railway companies and DEC Secretary Charles Milne, demonstrated how the committee could use their influence to bargain with local transport monopolies and deftly negotiate competitive rates by playing the companies off of one another. 79 The committee also courted railway company district agents by inviting them to share in their hospitality. Sam Knight, District Agent of the LB&SCR, accompanied the dockyard excursionists on their first trip in September 1883 in the committee's private carriage. This wooing was mutual as the train companies, recognising the influence of the dockyard initiative, attempted to entice the committee to promote excursions for special events. For example, in May 1885 Knight treated the Committee to an outing to London in private saloon carriages to preview the International Inventions Exhibition in order to persuade them to run excursions to it. 80 In addition, the rise of excursion travel in Portsmouth meant that the railway station became progressively busier and platform space was at a premium. As an innovative solution to ensure that the DEC's excursions could go ahead unchallenged by the railway companies Secretary Charles Milne built scale models of Portsmouth's stations so that he could calculate their capacity. 81
The DEC was also courted by the organisers of the 1911 Coronation Exhibition. Letters from Charles Kiralfy to Milne offered discounted ticket deals and strongly urged the DEC to promote the exhibition. Kiralfy advised, “An advertisement such as suggested should result to our mutual advantage.” 82 He also requested an in-person meeting in order to expedite arrangements for the forthcoming Anglo-Latin Exhibition and make the process “less inconvenient” for the dockyardmen. 83 Thus the executive members of the DEC became essential partners in the drive to attract working-class passenger custom.
The Committee also liaised on occasion with local government officials to provide tramcar transport to aid travel to train stations, demonstrating that they were unafraid to appeal to local government in order to provide a prompt and fluid service. 84 The Admiralty petition system ensured that dockyardmen were well-versed in appealing to those in power for considerations. When local politics clashed with the desire for increased leisure time, members of the Committee were able to use their petitioning skills and status as leisure providers to actively champion the rights of the dockyardmen and working people in the town to increased leisure provision. However, on occasion these ideas clashed with the local government and other influential groups in the town, highlighting how the structure of local holiday observation in Portsmouth remained uncertain during the period, and the position of dockyard workers as leaders in leisure rights remained in a contingent and fluid state.
In 1884 the Admiralty scrapped the observance of the Coronation Holiday in the royal dockyards after granting workers the eight-hour day. As a consequence, the August Bank Holiday was observed in its stead. 85 However, for Portsmouth town the Coronation Holiday continued to be observed, leaving the dockyard workers at work when their fellow citizens were out at play. In 1895, the DEC appealed to the Mayor of Portsmouth to challenge the Admiralty's decision. 86 They were unsuccessful though local canvassing and public pressure saved the Coronation Holiday for the rest of the town, leading to an inequity in holiday observation. 87 The issue of the Coronation Holiday was repeatedly challenged by the DEC, and in 1901 Milne presented a petition of nearly 500 tradesmen to the Mayor “as in past years.” 88 He argued that if the Mayor would not act, then the public should take matters into their own hands, adding that the DEC would be happy to arrange cheap excursions for that day if desired. 89 Although the Coronation Holiday ceased to be a paid dockyard holiday, the DEC continued to run trips that year, perhaps signalling an act of defiance to the Admiralty, and certainly capitalising on the trade that the local holiday attracted. 90 The Coronation Holiday was transformed in 1903 to the King's Birthday Holiday. The local newspaper reported the boon in being granted a holiday that no other town observed as it meant it would make visits “all the more interesting” for excursionists. 91 Indeed, Mr C. Evans, DEC Chairman, argued against the national observance of the King's Birthday Holiday in June preferring the re-introduction of the Coronation Holiday exclusively for Portsmouth residents. He asserted that that the dockyardmen were not asking for a new holiday, but the observance of an old one. Most importantly, he argued that the switch would take the pressure off the railway companies to provide a glut of excursions on national bank holidays. 92 This argument worked against the national interest in favour of a special local holiday, highlighting the complex arguments and loyalties at play when bargaining for greater leisure freedoms. Indeed, correspondence to the Mayor in June 1910 asking whether the day would be observed as a holiday for the town suggests that the DEC did not drop the matter for many more years to come, and reports in the newspaper in 1916 suggest it continued to be unresolved during the war. 93
It was during the First World War, however, that the activities DEC were severely curtailed. Due to increased pressure on the rail network by the armed forces the Railway Executive Committee (REC) suspended all cheap rail traffic, making the dockyard excursions impossible to stage. In 1915 only two excursions were permitted, however, the Committee did attempt to conduct a programme of excursions on the weekend of the King's Birthday Holiday in June 1915. 94 On 9 June 1915 Milne wrote a letter to the REC requesting they temporarily lift the restrictions and permit them to run a “portion of the usual Excursions for the recreation of our 15,000 Loyal Employés” over that weekend. 95 Most interesting was the argued need of the workers to experience some form of break during the war. The Secretary highlighted that dockyard workers had not had a holiday since war was declared and a local firm, Restalls, had been allowed to advertise weekly cheap trips across the UK. His parting appeal was on the basis of replenishment for their unwavering industrial patriotic duties and for the REC to alleviate the strains of “our Loyal Dockyard Workers who now much need a change.” 96
Pending a decision from the Lords of the Admiralty on a petition submitted on the issue, Milne continued to try and organise excursions with LB&SCR by proposing trips to London Victoria and various stops along the line. He argued, “I have cut it down considerably on owing to the great delay in getting a settlement it will not be possible for the Mayor to announce a Public Holiday so it will be good employees only.” 97 Unfortunately, the Admiralty did not concur with Milne's petition and cited the “unprecedented requirements for naval and military traffic.” 98 Significantly, however, what this dialogue highlighted was the will of the dockyard artisan elite, even in a time of war and threat to national security, to ensure recreational freedoms. It seems that the balance of duty with the request for entertainment and escapism was not an unreasonable request for “loyal” employees of the crown.
Conclusion
The First World War was a watershed for the DEC and sounded the death knell for excursions of this type. When normal operations were resumed in 1921 the railway companies had caught on to the profitability of such railway excursions and preferred to attach extra coaches to their pre-existing services rather than provide special trains. The DEC continued to organise trips until 1935 when the 49-year initiative ended. 99 Ultimately their extreme influence was precarious and a practice of negotiation which operated within existing structures of power. The DEC's bargaining advantage had dwindled and the balance of power shifted back to those who controlled the means of transport, thus highlighting that articulations of mobility could be short-lived and contingent.
Major has highlighted the critical role that social entrepreneurs played in establishing working-class travel and leisure. However, she conceded that it was difficult to gauge the motivations of independent railway excursion agents regardless of the effect their business had on enhancing social mobility. 100 The example of dockyard excursion agents in Portsmouth has demonstrated how social entrepreneurs desired to influence social mobility. Moreover, their efforts ensured the public of Portsmouth cultivated an appetite for travelling for leisure, and that these activities were accepted as legitimate working-class pastimes. As an industrial town in the south of England, their example is somewhat exceptional. Artisan dockyard workers in Portsmouth occupied a privileged position within their communities. They were the civic model for the working man; well-paid, skilled and educated, embedded in the town through their strong links to its economic lifeblood. The dockyard excursion businesses of the late-Victorian and Edwardian era worked to affect social change for the working classes, and they did so from within. Dockyard workers retained their main jobs; their status as key workers and their position in the dockyard aided the dialogue between their public and the authorities from whom they sought to gain concessions. They lobbied on behalf of the dockyard employees in order to extend their access to public holidays, which sometimes put them at odds with other local economic groupings such as shop owners and Early Closing Associations. However, they also opened up their excursions to their “friends” and operated trips on non-dockyard holidays, which demonstrated their desire to widen participation for both financial and collective security purposes.
The role of workers in shaping leisure patterns in the south of England have hitherto been overlooked due to a perceived lack of agitation. However, instead of employing acts of workplace disobedience, these Royal Dockyard workers asserted their “respectability” as artisans in order to actively shape the leisure patterns of the local area. Indeed, as state-employed industrial bargainers, their deployment of collective security tactics is unsurprising and adds new dimensions to the study of agency in working-class leisure. This overlooked aspect of the history of transport, mobility, and leisure may open up new understandings of particular leisure patterns and business models in areas not dominated by the burgeoning working-class excursion companies found in the northwest and the midlands of England. Unpicking the nuances of social entrepreneurialism in other geographical areas, and within other cultural and social dynamics, promises the capacity to unlock insights into the ways in which a working-class mass culture gained traction and popular forms of leisure and entertainment were legitimised.
Portsmouth Dockyard Excursion Committee, c.1900. Courtesy of Portsmouth Library & Archive Service, Portsmouth City Council, Ref. X/2764A/1/8/1.
DEC advertising bill for the Portsmouth v Everton English Cup first round match, 1903. Courtesy of Portsmouth Library & Archive Service, Portsmouth City Council, Ref. X/2764A/1/5/11.
DEC advertising bill, 30 August 1905 to the Naval Exhibition and Colonial Exhibition, also showing annotated amendments for 1906. Courtesy of Portsmouth Library & Archive Service, Portsmouth City Council, Ref. X/2764A/1/5/17.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Professor Brad Beaven and Dr Mike Esbester of the University of Portsmouth for reviewing a draft of this article. This research was conducted as part of my AHRC-funded doctoral partnership Ph.D at the University of Portsmouth, supervised by Professor Brad Beaven, Dr Karl Bell and Dr Rob James. Thanks to my supervisory team for their expertise, and also to the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust who part-funded the Ph.D. My gratitude also to Dr John Stedman, Deputy Archivist at the Portsmouth History Centre, for facilitating access to the archives of the Portsmouth Dockyard Excursion Committee.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Portsmouth Royal Dockyard Historical Trust.
