East India Docks and Historical Development of Organized Dock Works in India

and Exhaustive Legal Provision to Safeguard the Dock Workers

In fulfillment of the internal component

Labour Law

Submitted by
Suman

1
 Table of Contents

Chapter-I
1. Introduction............................................................................................................5
Chapter-II
2. East India Dock.....................................................................................................6
3. Historical Development of Dock Works in India............................................7-9
3.1 The Construction of the Docks, 1803–1806......................................................9-11
3.2 The Opening of the East India Docks...................................................................11
3.3 The East India Docks in the Nineteenth Century.............................................11-14
3.4 The Docks during the Twentieth Century.............................................................14
3.5 The Closure of the Docks................................................................................14-15
Chapter-III
4. Exhaustive legal provision to safeguard the dock workers.........................15-17
5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................17
6. Bibliography.........................................................................................................18

2
 Chapter-I

1. Introduction:
The East India Docks was a group of docks in Black wall, east London, north-east of
the Isle of Dogs. Today only the entrance basin and listed perimeter wall remain
visible. An Act of Parliament in 1803 set up the East India Dock Company. The docks
were located to the north east of the West India Docks. They were based on the
existing Brunswick Dock. The Company was rapidly profitable, with commodities
such as tea, spices, indigo, silk and Persian carpets. The tea trade alone was worth
£30m a year. In 1838 the east and west India companies merged. In 1909 the docks
were take over by the port of London authority. While much smaller than the west
India docks, the east India docks could still handle east Indiamen of 1000 tons and up
to 250 ships at on time. However the advent of steam power and larger ships reduced
the importance of this dock and by the mid 20th century most of the trade had left. The
docks played a key role in the Second World War as a location for constructing the
floating Mulberry harbors used by the Allies to support the D-Day landings in France.
The Dock Workers (safety, health and welfare) Act, 1986 came into force, which lays
down the exhaustive legal provision to safeguard the dockworkers.

Objective:

The objective of this research is to analyze the historical development that, how the
organized dock works in India and what are the legal provisions, which are provided
to safeguard the dockworkers.
Methodology: The project is based on doctrinal research. The reference largely
comes from primary and secondary source.
Sources:
Primary source: legislations
Secondary source: articles

Chapter-II

3
2. East India Dock:
The trade of East India Company founded in 1600 was as important as that of the
West India Company at the Start of Dock Building in London early in the 19th
century, although it was less in volume. It differed from that of the West India
Company In being controlled by a single organization instead of by many individual
merchants. It was a rich, powerful and well-organized body, which owned the largest
ships that used the Port of London. Being so large, these ships never sailed higher
upriver than dept-ford, well east of the city boundaries. The company’s wealth
enabled it to employ a competent staff and to protect its valuable cargoes better than
most other companies. In 1982 it built itself splendid inland ware houses in the city,
including some in Cutler Street which, sold to the St. Katharine’s Dock Company in
1835, were as sound as they had ever been when sold to developers in the 1970’s. The
company therefore had less urgent need to build enclosed docks in London.
Nevertheless it followed that trend and in 1803 obtained an Act for new docks. These
were opened in 1806 on a site at Black wall, which included the old Brunswick Dock.
The joint engineers were John Rennie and Ralph Walker, who had been concerned
with the West India Docks. The scheme followed the same pattern of export and
import docks lying parallel with one another and having a locked basin giving
entrance from the river, the import Dock at 18 acres being by far the larger of the two.
Tea, silks, indigo and spices from India, and tea and porcelain from China were major
imports. In 1883 the East India Company’s docks were amalgamated with those of the
West India Company. In 1943 the import Docks, like the South Dock of Surey
Commercial Docks, was pumped dry and spread with bomb rubble as a base for
building the concrete caissons for D-Day’s Mulberry Harbours. The docks were badly
damaged in the 2nd World War and Brunswick Wharf power station, since
demolished, was built on part of the site. The East India Docks were the first of
London’s inland docks to be closed down, ending their long life in 1967. In the
1990’s the London Docklands Development Corporation created a wildfowl sanctuary
in the entrance basin. East India Station on the Beckton Branch of the Docklands
Light Railway opened in 1994 to serve the new residential and commercial
development nearby.

3. Historical Development of Dock Works in India:

4
The East India Docks, which were constructed between 1803 and 1806, were the third
set of wet docks built on the Thames in the early nineteenth century, after the West
India Docks (1800–6) and the London Docks (1802–5). Although the West India
Docks clearly provided the inspiration, the arrangements for dealing with the East
India trade were not part of the prolonged debate that preceded the building of the
West India Docks. Nor was there a variety of plans for the layout of the East India
Docks, as there had been for the earlier scheme. Indeed, the need for such a dock
system to handle East India trade in the port was much less pressing than for the West
India shipping. By the end of the eighteenth century East Indiamen had been sailing
from Black wall for almost 200 years, the East India Company having shipped
valuable cargoes from the East to the Thames at Black wall before moving them by
barge to the City.
The East India men were the largest merchantmen in the British marine. Because of
their size and draught they had traditionally lightened their loads at Long Reach, near
Gravesend, before sailing along the Thames to deep moorings at Black wall. It was
here, rather than in the severely congested Pool of London, that the goods were
unloaded.
The system was not entirely satisfactory, especially after the opening of the West
India Docks and London Docks robbed the river pirates of their previously easy
pickings in the chaos of the Pool, and they turned their attention to the exotic cargoes
from the East Indies and the Indiamen's ports of call on their homeward voyages: teas,
silks, saltpeter, Madeira, wine and spices, all of which had a ready sale on the black
market. This was evidently a growing problem and was beginning to cause concern.
The East India Company and the merchants and shipbuilders associated with the
eastern trade had not been among the vociferous petitioners for reform of the Port
whose representations resulted in the West India Dock Act of 1799. Unloading on the
river had suited the East India trade because the quasi-military nature of the East India
Company ships protected them from the worst attacks of the river pirates. The
Brunswick Dock of 1789–90 provided excellent facilities for the fitting-out, masting
and minor repair of East Indiamen, while the dry docks in Black wall Yard allowed
for major repair work. An enclosed dock for the East Indies trade was therefore not
regarded as such an urgent requirement as it was for other trades.
Yet soon after the opening of the West India Docks in 1802 a scheme was proposed to
build a dock at Black wall for the East India trade. It was the immediate success of the

5
West India Docks that provided the spur, for those engaged in the eastern trade did
not wish to be left out of any London dock boom. Merchants and ship owners alike
wanted to participate in building an 'advanced' modern dock to take the trade forward
into the nineteenth century, and could not doubt the Advantages that must result to the
East India Company whose valuable cargoes have been very often exposed to the
most serious contingencies.1 The initiative for the creation of the East India Dock
Company and the construction of the docks did not come from the East India
Company itself, but from a group of East India merchants. Even so, as the East India
Company controlled all trade, any proposal to build docks at Black wall could not
succeed without the company's consent to the scheme. That agreement was evidently
secured by May 1803, when John and William Wells, the owners of Brunswick Dock,
thanked the Court of the company for the attention paid to the proposal for wet docks
for East India cargo.2
The administration of the East India Dock Company was vested in 13 directors, who
were required to hold at least 20 shares each; four of them also had to be directors of
the East India Company.3 The East India Dock Company, like the West India Dock
Company and the canal companies on which it was modeled, obtained most of its
finance from those who had direct or related interests in that trade or the shipbuilding
industry. By September 1803, 102 individuals had subscribed £197,000 of initial
capital.4 Those early investors were mainly East India merchants, all but one of the 24
directors of the East India Company, 5 managing owners of East Indiamen, a large
number of shipbuilders, and assorted City interests, including a few bankers and
insurance brokers. The large investments included the £12,000 put in by Henry
Bonham of Broad Street Buildings, managing owner of the Preston East Indiaman;
£6,000 invested by John Perry, the Black wall shipbuilder, and £4,000 advanced by
John Locke, a lead merchant.
Utilizing the technical and financial experience gained in the construction of the West
India Docks and employing personnel who had experience in dock construction most
notably the engineers John Rennie and Ralph Walker - the company proposed to build

1J.Pudney, London's Docks, 1975, p.50.

2 Ibid.
3 Baron F.P.C.Dupin, The Commercial Power of Great Britain, vol.II, 1825, p.62.
4 EIDC 291, List of Subscribers.
5 East India Register & Directory, 1803 edn.

6
the East India Docks around the existing Brunswick Dock constructed by John Perry
in 1789–90. This was the obvious site and as there was no opposition to its use, and
the adjacent land could be acquired, it was the one chosen.
3.1 The Construction of the Docks, 1803–1806:
The key elements of the East India Dock system were the Import Dock, the Export
Dock, and the Entrance Basin linked to the River Thames by an entrance lock. The
water area was 30 acres, about half that impounded at the West India Docks (see page
268). The docks were for the exclusive use of vessels engaged in the East Indies trade.
At any one time only a few ships were at anchorage compared to those on passage,
and so smaller docks were required than those devoted to the West India trade. The
trade of the East Indies was in goods of high value but little bulk; imports from the
West Indies were of less value but of greater size and quantity, and consequently
involved many more ships. The times of sailing were regulated by weather conditions
in the Indian Ocean and helped confine East India shipping in the Thames to
particular times of the year. The first departures of the year to Bombay and China left
the Thames between December and April, other ships went in June, after which there
was a quiet period for three months until mid-September, when the last ships of the
year were dispatched to the Indian Ocean. The returning East Indiamen arrived in
loose convoys, those from India arriving in the Thames at the end of June and those
sailing from China in September.6 This, too, contrasted with the visits of the West
India shipping, which were much more concentrated.
On the other hand there was a risk of building docks that would soon be inadequate.
The East India trade had been increasing steadily since the 1780.7 In 1792 the number
of ships returning to London from the East Indies was 27, in 1793 it was 33, by 1794
it was 42, and in 1795 there were 63. In 1804 Ralph Walker reported that the East
India Company had employed 95 ships that year, 14 of which had been of around
1,500 tons.8 Furthermore, the size of the vessels was increasing. Before 1789 the East
India Company's largest ships had been between 750 and 800 tons, but in that year it
was decided to build five ships of between 1,100 and 1,200 tons. Just four years later,

6 C.Northcote Parkinson, Trade in Eastern Seas, 1937, p.304.

7 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on East India built shipping, p.79.
8 Ibid.

7
in 1793, the Company had 36 vessels of 1,200 tons and 40 of 800 tons, making the
ships trading to the East Indies the largest using the Thames.9
The earliest plan for the docks was prepared by John Rennie and Ralph Walker and
was presented in March 1803 (Walker had been dismissed by the West India Dock
Company in the previous October). It envisaged the provision of just two basins: a
newly excavated Import Dock of 12¾ acres, on the north side of the old road leading
to Orchard House, and a combined Export Dock and entrance basin, formed by
reshaping the old Brunswick Dock. The impracticality of combining an entrance basin
and the Export Dock, with all the shipping passing through that dock, was soon
realized. The problem was solved by acquiring land to the east of the Brunswick Dock
from James Mather and using that for a separate, irregularly shaped, entrance basin.10
The plan of March 1803 was accompanied by an estimate of the costs, which were put
at £198,740. This was evidently acceptable and the planning went ahead, by August,
Rennie and Walker had been confirmed as the company's engineers for the
construction of the docks.11 Excavation of the Import Dock began in September with
Hugh McIntosh as the contractor, but there was a problem in the following month,
when his men were alarmed on account of the Danger of being impressed, a Report
being circulated of a number of Hands being taken from the London Docks. The
company obtained assurances that its construction workers would not be impressed
into the Royal Navy. By January 1804 the work was described as progressing with all
possible dispatch. The construction work posed no great technical problems for the
engineers and the excavation of the dock progressed smoothly. However, by January
1804 the engineers reported to the company that there had been a change of plan,
which would increase the size of the Export Dock from 12¾ acres to 18 acres and so
'give more room for the Indiamen to load, and discharge their cargoes, and thereby
promote safety and dispatch.12 Six months later, further alteration to the layout of the
dock was judged advisable. This involved the construction of the separate entrance
basin, of about 2¾ acres, which could be 'exclusively appropriated to the purpose of

9 E.Keble Chatterton, The Old East Indiamen, 1971, p.164.

10 Ibid
11 Ibid 10.
12 Supra note 8.

8
Transit only, without Interference with the Important Business of loading, or
discharging the vessels which will take place in the Brunswick and new docks.
The total cost to September 1807, just over a year after the opening, was £322,608, far
more than the estimate had allowed. The largest items were the purchase of the land,
the excavation of the Import Dock and Entrance Basin, and the construction of the
quay walls. All of these had cost much more than had been provided for in the
estimate of 1803.13
3.2 The Opening of the East India Docks:
The docks were opened on 4 August 1806. They were described by The Times as a
great work but not of such magnificent dimensions as the West India Docks.14
The opening was a great public occasion, 'The Grand Gate, on the landside, was
opened for the reception of visitors at half-past eleven, and by one; the place was
crowded with genteel company. After a 21-gun salute, the Trinity House Yacht,
adorned with flags of all nations, entered the dock, preceding the East Indiaman the
Admiral Gardner, followed by the City of London, the Lady Castlereagh and then
the Surrey. The whole having entered, the band on the board the Admiral
Gardner immediately struck up in excellent style, "God save the King", which was
chorused by a crowded Orchestra of charming Syrens on board. It was estimated that
15–20,000 people were assembled within the dock walls and as such exhibitions are
always attractive of female curiosity, it is scarcely necessary to add, that the whole
formed a lively coup daily, richly studded with beauty and elegance.15
The quays remained unlevelled and the unloading sheds and saltpeter warehouse had
yet to be constructed. It was not until March 1807 that they could tell the directors
that, these Docks are complete in every respect of the East Indies Trade, adding that a
water pumping-engine and reservoir for supplying ships with water had been built and
the water piped along the south wharf of the Export Dock.16

3.3 The East India Docks in the Nineteenth Century:

13 The Times, 5 Aug 1806, p.3.

14 Ibid.
15 Ibid 14.
16 ICE, Rennie Report, East India Docks, 7 March 1807.

9
In the absence of any large warehouses, the East India Docks were originally quite
plain, their open expanses of water surrounded by unobstructed quaysides are clearly
depicted in Daniell's view of 1808. In that year a description stated, that the Dock is
very spacious, the Quays surrounding 200 feet wide, and no Buildings within the
Walls but 3 low ones to house the Saltpeter. 17 Big quayside warehouses were not
needed, as the valuable goods were transported to the City warehouses by road in
closed caravans (Plate 61a). Mounted on four wheels, the long, deep chests, closed on
every side by planks and padlocked with iron, were drawn by two or four horses, and
were loaded up on the edge of the West Quay of the Import Dock. The goods were
hurried along the Commercial Road to the safety of the East India Company's
warehouses.
Despite the absence of storage within the docks, a variety of workmen were
employed. As well as the Dock master, his Deputy and an Assistant, there were six
officers and another six subordinate to supervise the laborers. There were 30 laborers,
including watchmen, employed on yearly contracts, while another 100 men were
engaged on a casual basis as 'lumpers' to load and unload the ships for eight months of
the year. Other casual labour was hired if needed. 18 The docks were subject to
stringent controls, indeed regulation in the East India Docks was no less strict than in
the West India Docks. Work in the dock did not start until ten o'clock, and at three
o'clock in the afternoon in winter and four o'clock in summer a bell was rung which
announced that the gate was to close. All work then stopped and the laborers, clerks,
horses, wagons and carts as well as all visitors had to leave.
The new dock company received a 21 years monopoly similar in essence to that
granted to the West India Dock Company. All vessels trading to the East Indies and
China were required to use the new docks for unloading their cargoes and for refitting
and loading stores for their subsequent voyages. In addition, all merchandise taken off
the ships had to be housed in the East India Company's warehouses. Throughout the
years of the monopoly, the East India Docks were successful and profitable, and
performed a useful role for the East India Company. The average annual dividend for
the period 1807–27 was 7.4 per cent, with a peak of 10.75 per cent in 1818. The most
profitable years were 1818–21, judging by the level of dividends.

17 BL, Add.MS 38,191, Liverpool Papers, vol. II, ff.147–9.

18 Ibid.

10
When the East India Dock Company's monopoly expired in 1827, the East India
Company entered into an agreement with the dock company, by which the East India
Company agreed to continue trading through the East India Docks for the next six
years. Under this agreement the dock company was paid £28,000 per annum for the
use of its docks and warehouses. The agreement effectively protected the East India
Dock Company from the competition that the ending of its monopoly was intended to
promote.19
In 1833 the Government ended the East India Company's trading function, causing a
crisis for the East India Dock Company. Immediately, the dock company was
deprived of the use of the East India Company's purpose built bonded warehouses in
the City and the shipping trade plummeted. A year before, in 1832, the East India
Dock Company decided to build a steam wharf, which opened in 1834.
It was against these very changed trading conditions that, in February 1838, the West
India Dock Company approached the East India Dock Company with a bid worth
£110 of West India stock for every £100 of East India stock. The offer was taken up
and the two companies were amalgamated and thenceforward the East and West India
Docks were run for the use of all trades.
Once the East India Docks became part of a larger dock system on the Thames, their
role inevitably changed. The larger locks and deeper entrance basin of the East India
Docks were better able to accommodate larger ships than the West India Docks, and
the mid-nineteenth century saw a change in their use, with a growing emphasis and
reliance on the export trade. The export wharf age trade increased in value from
£2,364 in 1849 to £3,104 in the first half of 1853.20 In the 1850s and 1860s the docks
became increasingly busy, with the annual number of ships using them rising from
just 50 in 1851 to 400 by 1866.21 Yet in 1854 the East India Docks were said to be 'in
a poor state overcrowded with floating timber and lighters, poor roadways, rubbish
uncleared, and reform of the docks was urged.22
The East India Docks were popular throughout the nineteenth century, owing to their
convenience, compactness and good management. They were generally preferred to

19 Ibid18.
20 Ibid.
21 Lars Lofgren, Ocean Birds, 1987, pp.220–1.
22 Ibid.

11
the other docks on the Thames; whenever there was room and arrangements could be
made, ships would request to enter.23
3.4 The Docks during the Twentieth Century:
In 1909 the East India Docks passed into the control of the newly created Port of
London Authority (PLA) and were thereafter associated with the West India and Mill
wall Docks for administrative purposes. Soon afterwards, in 1912–16, the PLA
undertook an extensive renovation scheme which included the reconstruction of the
north quay of the Import Dock. The old sheds used to shelter the goods of the East
India Company were removed at that time and three high-quality transit sheds were
constructed on their site. In addition, a large shed was erected on the east quay of the
Import Dock. The passageway between the Import Dock and the Basin was deepened
to allow modern ships into the dock.24
The Second World War had a tremendous impact on the docks. The Import Dock was
drained for the construction of Mulberry floating harbors, the Export Dock suffered
such severe bomb damage that it was not reopened and was sold in 1946. It
subsequently became part of the site of Brunswick Wharf power station.
In the 1950s and 1960s the East India Docks handled short-sea and coastal traffic,
particularly ships involved in the linoleum trade. But the development of new
technology for cargo handling in the 1960s, especially the introduction of containers,
rendered their facilities obsolete.
3.5 The Closure of the Docks:
After three or four years of discussion, the PLA decided in August 1967 to close the
East India Docks. This was part of a larger plan that also involved the closure of other
docks on the Thames. Closure had been delayed while the principal occupiers
removed to other sites. The main user of the dock at that date was Fred Olsen Lines,
for the Canary Island fruit and vegetable trade, which by 1967 had moved to new
facilities at the Mill wall Docks The three Coast Line services operating out of the
dock were due to move to other ports. The principal reason for the closure was the
outdated state of the dock, the fact that it could not handle the bigger ships now being
built for bulk cargo and that much of the cargo carried by the small ships which used

23 Docks in the Port of London: East India Dock', P.L.A. Monthly, Sept 1926, p.370.
24 Ibid.

12
the mile of quays is now carried by road and rail transport. The Import Dock was
gradually filled in between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s.25
In July 1971 the PLA concluded the sale of the East India Dock to the Central
Electricity Generating Board for over £1 million. The site covered 46 acres.
In 1994 the East India Docks have been all but obliterated. All of the original features
have gone, apart from stretches of original walling.

Chapter-III

4. Exhaustive legal provision to safeguard the dock workers:

An Act is to provide the safety, health and welfare of the dockworkers, for matters
connected therewith. The Parliament of India enacted it. Part III of the Regulation,
1990 provides safety for the dockworkers in the working place. Section 114 speaks
about Safety Committee. It is as follows:

(1) At every port there shall be constituted a safety committee, which shall be headed
by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Chairman of the Port. The main functions
of the safety committee shall be to investigate into the causes of accidents and unsafe
practices in dock work and to suggest remedial measures; to stimulate interest, of
employers and workers in safety by organizing safety weeks, safety competitions,
talks and film shows on safety, preparing posters or taking similar other measures; to
go round the dock with a view to check unsafe practices and detect unsafe conditions
and to recommend remedial measures for their rectification; to organize training
programs for the supervisory staff and workers; to look into the health hazards
associated with handling different types of cargoes and to suggest remedial measures
Including use of proper personal protective equipment; and to suggest measures for
improving welfare amenities inside the docks and other miscellaneous aspects of
safety, health and welfare in dock work.26
(2) The safety committee shall be constituted by the Chairman of the port and shall
include besides port officials, representatives of port users, the recognized labour
unions and the Chief Inspector.27

25 Ibid24.
26 Sec. 114 (1) (a-f) of The Dock Workers (Safety, Health, Welfare) Regulation, 1990.
27 Ibid Sub-Sec 2.

13
(3) The safety committee shall meet at regular intervals at least once in every quarter,
and minutes of the meetings shall be circulated to the concerned departments of the
Port, agencies and organizations.28
(4) The decisions and recommendations of the safety committee shall be complied
with by the port authorities, port users and the employers of dock workers.29
Section 115 deals with the occupational health services for dock workers. And it shall
have the following functions:30
a) Provision of first-aid and emergency treatment;
(b) Conducting pre-employment, periodical and special medical examinations of dock
workers;
(c) Periodical training of first-aid personnel;
(d) Surveillance and rendering advice on conditions at work-places and facilities that
can affect the health of dock workers;
(e) Promotion of health education including family welfare among dock workers; and
(f) Co-operation with the competent authority or Inspector in the detection,
measurement and evaluation of chemical, physical or biological factors suspected of
being harmful to the dock workers.
(2) The medical service shall collaborate with the labour department or any other
concerned department or service of the port in matters of treatment, job placement,
accident, prevention and welfare of dock workers.
(4) The medical services shall be located at ground level, be conveniently accessible
from all workplaces of the port or dock, be so designed as to allow stretcher cases to
be handled easily and so far as practicable, shall not be exposed to excessive noise,
dust or other nuisance.
(5) The premises of the medical service shall comprise at least a waiting room, a
consulting room, a treatment room and laboratory, apart from suitable
accommodation for nurses and other personnel.
(6) Rooms for waiting, consultation and treatment shall:
(a) Be spacious, suitably lighted and ventilated and wherever necessary heated or air
cooled; and

28 Ibid Sub-Sec 3
29 Ibid Sub-Sec 5
30 Section 115

14
(b) Have washable walls, floor and fixtures.
(7) The medical service shall be provided with appropriate medical and laboratory
facilities and such documentation as it may require for its work.
(8) The medical service shall keep and maintain records pertaining to medical
examination of dock workers and other activities and shall provide adequate
information on:
(a) The dock workers state of health;

(b) the nature, circumstances and outcome of occupational injuries.
Section 116 speaks about the employer's general obligations in which, the employer
shall take all necessary steps, which, considering the kind of work, working
conditions and the worker's age, sex, professional skill and other qualifications, are
reasonably necessary for protecting the worker from being exposed to risks of
accidents or injury to health at work. The employer shall make sure that the work
place, its approaches and means of access conform to these regulations and are also
otherwise in a safe condition. The employer shall take into account the workers
training skill and experience when workers are set to work. A worker shall not be
assigned a work for which he has not received sufficient instructions regarding
possible dangers and precautions in the work, taking into account his training, skill
and experience. And section 117 deals with the General Safety where, no employer or
dock worker shall negligently or willfully do anything likely to endanger life, safety
and health of dock workers, or negligently or willfully omit to do anything necessary
for the safety and health for the dock worker employed in dock work.

5. Conclusion:
East India Docks and historical development of organized dock works in India has
has been mostly filled in. Only the entrance basin remains, as a wildlife refuge and an
attractive local amenity. The area is predominantly residential with several major
developments either complete or under construction around it. The Leamouth
Peninsula will form the western boundary of the dock and intended to be completed
by 2012. After the enactment of the Act, there are numbers of provisions to safeguard
the dock workers.

15
6. Bibliography:
1. DOCK WORKERS (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE) RULES, 1990
2. http://www.portcities.org.uk/london
3. Bowen, H. V. "Cotton, Joseph". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
(online ed.). Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/6421
4. https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofblac00gree- by- Green, Henry; Wigram,
Robert, 1881
5. London and the Thames Valley - Page 97 - Google Books Result
https://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=0727728768 by- Denis Smith - 2001

16